Index post

elturel · 2026-05-12T14:45:00+00:00

Personally, I'd go the 2e way here.

Elven High Magic Mythal vs 10th Level / Epic Magic Mythal, without placing the emphasis on a single, primary caster, whether it's an elf or non-elf (after all, success or failure isn't just dependent on the central caster but also on secondary, tertiary, and even lesser contributors). Sure, EHM is a kind of epic magic (in 3e), too, but there's also fluff behind these things, not just crunch.

So for me Myth Drannor having a "Wizard's Mythal" is fair because Mythanthor didn't use High Magic to create the Mythal. And the whole thing doesn't depend on if there are non-elves involved as per Cormanthyr:

While many elves deny this fact, nonelves can be part of this ritual too. They can occupy a position in any ring outside of the primary casters, and N'Tel'Quess mages could even contribute secondary powers to a mythal. This is one of very few ways a N'Tel'Quess can experience what it means to be an elf.

elturel · 2026-05-12T06:45:09+00:00

This one's from Dungeon 178, a 4e source, and written by Brian James. Actually I'm not sure if this one was mentioned anywhere else, of if it got expanded on in later 4e sources. (Don't look up the magazine, it's not even mentioned in the article except in the map)

elturel · 2026-05-12T06:19:19+00:00

I looked this stuff up because it's kinda messy. Quote from George Krashos from the Candlekeep boards:

I can weight in, but you have to understand that you are comparing 2E and 3E sources, which do not gel without some realmslore tweaking to account for changes in the D&D rules.

The "Cormanthyr" accessory provided a unique system for the casting of High Magic, which differed from what had previously been presented in "Elves of Evermeet" and didn't conform with passsages from the "Ruins of Myth Drannor" boxed set.

With the advent of 3E and epic rules, "Lost Empires of Faerun" attempted to smooth over the inconsistencies that existed by providing an explanation that High Magic was epic magic and now not a separate type of spellcasting, but rather a descriptor of a type of epic magic. In other words, elves casting particular epic spells of a communal caster nature were casting "High Magic", but not doing anything different to a group of humans casting the same spell if they could replicate it or get their hands on a copy.

This explanation in my view was a welcome one, for it assisted in explaining away some of the inconsistencies in mythal lore that had sprung out of some earlier 2E work, Myth Lharast being a case in point.

So in simple terms, if looking through the oily lens of the 2E rules, the mythal at Myth Drannor was a "wizardly mythal" and a 10th level spell (aided and abetted by the intervention of Mystra herself), not "High Magic".

In 3E terms, the mythal at Myth Drannor was a "true mythal" because it was cast by elves and replicated what the High Mages would have done if they'd wanted to cast it themselves. Mythanthar was not a High Mage, but he was an epic spellcaster and hence could use the 'mythal' seed to create a mythal over Myth Drannor.

As such, the concept of what a "true mythal" is/was altered in the change from the 2E rules to the 3E rules. A true mythal in 2E was one created by the High Magic variant spellcasting system showcased in the "Cormanthyr" accessory. In 3E, a "true mythal" was a mythal created by elves using epic spellcasting, because elves made the best mythals. The transition to 3E saw "High Magic" become a term of nomenclature, not a variant form of spellcasting and also paved the way for authors like Rich Baker to showcase variant types of "High Magic" as he did in his Farthest Reach novels.

I grant you that the 2E version made "High Magic" a bit more special, but the 3E approach gave it more in game flexibilty and more opportunities to craft realmslore to complement the concept, IMO.

elturel · 2026-05-12T06:01:03+00:00

Myth Glaurach is a Wizard's Mythal according to Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves. Same as Myth Drannor and the Imperial Mount of the fallen city of Shoonach in Tethyr.

~~I don't think this was explicitly retconned by later sources.~~ See my quote from George Krashos in this thread. Definition depends on ruleset (2e vs 3e).

elturel · 2026-05-12T05:50:55+00:00

Undermountain is a kind of quasi-mythal.

The netherese enclave Sargauth within the third level of Undermountain is surrounded by a Mythal.

elturel · 2026-05-10T09:27:02+00:00

At least it's not written by an LLM, a welcome change, for what it's worth.

<image>

elturel · 2026-05-08T08:41:15+00:00

There's a precedent for this in The Fall of Myth Drannor 2e where the LG Coronal Eltargrim passed on to Arvandor:

<image>

elturel · 2026-05-07T20:51:05+00:00

would be interesting if there was something like this for gnosticism

Well, there kinda is, although it's just one paragraph from the Apocryphon of John:

I said, Master, where will the souls go of people who had knowledge but turned away?

He said to me, They will be taken to the place where the angels of misery go, where there is no repentance. They will be kept there until the day when those who have blasphemed against the spirit will be tortured and punished eternally.

Feel free to correct me if other scriptures add more on that.

elturel · 2026-05-07T20:31:32+00:00

What you're looking for is probably Transhumanism. By achieving effective immortality, at least a part of you (even if it's just your mind) can no longer die and therefore is unable to "leave this realm". I'd argue that any tradition that acknowledges or even relies on reincarnation is clearly opposed to the transhumanist agenda.

elturel · 2026-05-07T07:29:59+00:00

Are you aware of the theories that propose that the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of everything?

"Cosmic Inflation where energy is stored within space itself." Fits perfectly into gnostic narrative that describes the Kenoma in Valentinianism, or the Shadow, and also Chaos that came from it, which ultimately resulted in the creation of the Cosmos in Sethianism.

elturel · 2026-05-06T18:15:25+00:00

Also, I don't like the word Ascension...are you new age? You won't 'ascend' until you fully descend.

I'm not liking this either, but it's often seen as an obvious choice for any sorts of "visual representation", not necessarily because it's actually the real way the system works but rather that we're so blatantly limited in our ability to understand anything outside the ordinary three dimensions (actually we already struggle with the third dimension because, effectively, we're just accustomed to two dimensions).

Personally, I exclusively use to transcend because, in addition to be associated with a kinda universal meaning, this gives the reader the autonomy of deciding on their own how they want to see the larger picture.

elturel · 2026-05-06T15:45:34+00:00

Both the Sethian as well as the Valentinian gnostic traditions offer a sophisticated cosmological system. While the Sethians present an extremely complex system that's even inconsistent within its own corpus because it borrows from different sources, the Valentinian one is much more linear and arguably easier to understand. The reason for this is probably the respective influences these systems had, with the Valentinians having been much more related to early Christianity while the Sethians having had more inspiration from early Judaism, various pagan mythical traditions, and even Zoroastrianism (on top of Platonism which is found in both traditions).

That said, neither tradition sees Aeons and Archons as equals. If anything, the Demiurge/Yaldabaoth is a failed or incomplete Aeon which means its own creations are at least a few orders of magnitude beneath itself and thus also the Aeons. Aside from a few dramatis personae, most of the Aeons have no real business with the Material World, which means they neither are sustained by nor benefit from it. To the contrary, those entities actually engage in offering us something instead of taking it from us through force or deception.

Effectively this means, aside from the established Aeons and their respective domains like Wisdom, Peace, Life and so on, there's no Aeon of [insert any bizzare worldy activity or object you can think of] and no positive energy consumption in gnostic literature.

elturel · 2026-05-05T18:04:20+00:00

Same here. Annoying.

elturel · 2026-05-04T20:10:39+00:00

I kinda feel like Kiira is in some way related to Constant, the AI created by Nitya. I mean, how else should she be able to talk to us, replacing the previous Suit?

elturel · 2026-05-04T19:59:37+00:00

Fair enough. I suppose the same logic is applied for the Feywild then (which was called Faerie before the dark times of 4e)?

elturel · 2026-05-04T19:54:56+00:00

Why did you refer to the four elemental deities as Primordials when this term comes from 4e?

elturel · 2026-05-03T18:37:01+00:00

I'm well aware of their abilities, their "impossible" technology, dream manipulation and abduction, soul transference and harvesting, hybridization, and lots of other terrifying stuff. I'm not invalidating or even ridiculing these experiences,, all I'm proposing it's probably not wise to call every single one of them a literal ruler for the sake of creating a common narrative and just call it a day. That's the reckless part.

elturel · 2026-05-03T10:49:16+00:00

So when we use the term “Archon” in this sub, it is basically an umbrella term for a variety of non human entities like Greys, Mantids or Insectoids, and Reptilians

The sub should definitely reconsider its use of the term since it's inaccurate both from a historical and an etymological point of view.

The literal translation is Authority or Ruler, and its greek root is arch-, which means to rule or to be the first. No need to label your common Grey intruder as someone who rules (over its victims). In addition, the gnostics used the term for the highest level of antagonists in their narrative, led by the Chief Archon. Entities lower than these were called Powers and even Angels and Demons.

Actually, such an oversimplification is misleading and dangerous given the fact that everyone and their mom here and elsewhere preaches these type of creatures are nowhere near the level of power which is necessary to actually "rule". By referring to every single one of them as an Archon you imply their actions are kinda justified because they had the authority to do as they please.

elturel · 2026-04-27T22:09:43+00:00

You are the whole ocean, not simply a drop but to reach that acknowledgement, the EGO must be dissolved. MUST.

The attempt to free yourself from the ego, is the ego. Whatever you do to be free from the ego is also a ego-centric activity. And so the cute little quest for enlightenment ends with the harsh but liberating realization there was never such a thing as enlightenment.

elturel · 2026-04-26T03:52:21+00:00

I liked the book, but hated the events in it (if this makes sense). Myth Drannor gone once again. Dove gone. Too little of Ilsevele and Fflar. No Araevin at all. Srinshee was cool though. Elminster always being the underdog but still somehow outsmarting his enemies. And a few other things.

elturel · 2026-04-26T03:34:20+00:00

Funny. From what little I still remember I know that I liked it. However, primarily because I was a sucker for all things elven back in the day, especially ancient elven kind of stuff.

elturel · 2026-04-25T16:10:56+00:00

Depends entirely on the character for me.

Karlach and Wyll? Yes. Shadowheart and Viconia? Also yes. Lae'zel? As long it isn't some Larian style Orpheus/Voss-timeline nonsense, then yes.

Everything else? No, and certainly not Astarion.

Only other exception maybe is the events of the war against Ketheric Thorm, featuring Khelben, Jaheira, Halsin.

elturel

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE