FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > Realms geography / categories

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

Okay, I want feedback... I have been using the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition for creating categories... I have also used the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide for 4e locations... recently, I got a copy of the Player's Guide to Faerûn... so my question is this... I know High admin BadCat does not like the Faerûn categories to be broken up into "Northwest" or "East"... which map would everyone like to use... It cannot be completely based on edition, because the wiki would have to change after every edition... but I feel like as much as I like using the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition, the 3e Player's Guide to Faerûn technically trumps it... so I want ideas :) BUMP
- Darkwynters (talk) 21:28, March 9, 2014 (UTC)


I wouldn't mind keeping the North/South/East/West categories because someone went to a lot of trouble to make the maps used in the Geography portal and I like being able to view a region of the continent rather than just one country at a time. That said, I think the regions specified by the 4e Campaign Guide (starting on page 84) is a good set of categories. Likewise the regions on the 3.5 Player's Guide (on page 7) is also a good set and there are regional feats that go with them. Do we need to start appending (3e) and (4e) to our location categories? If the map doesn't change in 5th edition, then we should probably go with the 4e map (much as I hate to say it). Tough choice.
Moviesign (talk) 01:03, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


I agree with keeping the North/South/East/West categories... well, at least you have demonstrated the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition is trumped by the 3e Player's Guide to Faerûn... I actually have used the 4e Forgotten Realms Player's Guide for areas such as Tymanther... Man, adding the editions might work... "Inhabitants of the High Forest (3e)"... but not all Inhabitants will be there from just 3rd edition... If we used the 4e map... what about areas which do not exist anymore, such as Mulhorand... this is a challenging question... but I think I will used the Player's Guide to Faerûn as my base for 3e geography categories... good-bye Sword Coast North, though I might just make it a child of the Sword Coast categories...
- Darkwynters (talk) 05:20, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


I didn't? I can't remember what was my point was on that. Anyway, we should leave the existing boundaries as they are just to save work.

I don't think we need to change our geographic categories at all. Being divorced from the time-line, nothing really needs to change in this regard. That, say, 4th edition removed much of Unther and replaced it with Tymanther doesn't change the fact that Unther existed previously or that the city of Unthalass was in Unther and was ruined in Tymanther. Unthalass can easily go in both Category:Locations in Unther and Category:Locations in Tymanther. Similarly, Calaunt is a city in the Vast and a city of the nation of Vesperin, but Vesperin does not replace the Vast, only occupies its northern half.

For the most part, geography does not change much with edition. Even the changes in 4th edition are comparable with the changes across ancient history (the change from Netheril to Anauroch and back again, say). All we get are new areas that overlap other areas, and overlapping categories cover this sensibly. Calaunt is, after all, a city in Vesperin, a city in the Vast, and a city in North Faerûn, etc.

In this sense, the North/South/East/West/etc. arrangement is a sensible constant across the editions.

The only things that may need to change are those specifically change names: e.g., Heliogabalus to Helgabal, Silver Marches to Luruar, etc. These can be handled case by case. This keeps us flexible in cases of whether, say, the Silver Marches are a geographic region or Luruar is a political state in the Silver Marches.

— BadCatMan (talk) 09:36, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


Wicked insight, Movie and BadCat... sounds good to me :) I will, though use the regions in the 3e Player's Guide to Faerûn instead of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition!!!
- Darkwynters (talk) 16:05, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


Since the North/South/East/West categories are not official... would anyone disagree with adding Underdark locations to these... as I have been deleting the "Settlement in" categories, I have noticed some of these places are in both the Underdark and in Faerûn, such as Old Shanatar which is below Amn and Calimshan in West Faerûn... or we could just link all the Underdark locations just to Faerûn. Thoughts?
- Darkwynters (talk) 19:18, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


I thought the Underdark had it's own Upper/Middle/Lower/N/S/E/W categories, but I haven't looked yet. I'm fairly certain that Underdark locations will not nicely map to Faerûn regions, but I could be wrong. To avoid confusion (at least to me) I would keep the Underdark cats in their own hierarchy and just link them to Faerûn at the top level. Perhaps we need a page of "Entrances to the Underdark" that would relate the two locations?
Moviesign (talk) 22:10, March 11, 2014 (UTC)


We don't have NSEW etc. divisions for the Underdark, at least not that I know of. The large-scale Underdark regions are also much larger than the given regions of Faerûn, so generally don't match up. As Underdark locations aren't even all easily accessible from the surface, linking them up isn't really necessary.

I think a list of connections wouldn't be too successful. In most cases, a connection to the Underdark is a nameless cave in the mountains, which you'd put on that mountain range's page. You couldn't put a name to it, and giving an article to a cave entrance or tunnel system would likely break the Three-Sentence Rule.

But I suppose there's a benefit in knowing what is under a particular region, without consulting one of the two Underdark maps (neither of which show everything). Say, what's in the Underdark of the Vast, like Multum? Maybe "Category:Locations under the Vast"? :)

— BadCatMan (talk) 12:09, March 14, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.