5
\$\begingroup\$

Our current campaign is Tomb of Annihilation. We are playing it in the Forgotten Realms. As far as I can tell the adventure does not define a year in which it is supposed to play. We are playing it in Marpenoth of the year 1495 DR (about a month after our previous campaign ended, to be consistent with the fact that campaign was not subject to

the death curse, which started 20 days before the start of the adventure and affects everyone in the Forgotten Realms).

The characters have ties to the characters from that earlier campaign, which would make it difficult to set or recon it to be at a different year.

Now, in the adventure, several key events are described as having times relative to the adventure's time. The Spellplague is mentioned a few times, too, and I looked it up; that was supposed to happen from 1385 DR to 1395 DR. Unfortunately, this timeframe collides with some of the past events, and I want to understand if I can have these at that time during the Spellplague, or if I'd have to move them.

In particular, the following key event is affected

* "A little over a century ago, Acererak entered Omu and slew all nine trickster gods. He then enslaved the Omuans and forced them to carve out a tomb for their defeated gods." (p. 92, History of Omu). A little over a century ago would fall squat into the Spellplague timeframe. Acererak as a lich is an arcane spellcaster.

The Forgotten Realms Wiki quotes a fictious source that says

Magic spells faltered, or failed entirely. Countless spellcasters were killed or driven insane

but that it is written in an in-universe perspective which may be subjective. It also says

Despite efforts, with the structure of magic out of balance many spells failed [Richard Lee Byers (March 2008). Undead. (Wizards of the Coast), p. 69. ISBN 978-0-7869-4783-6] or produced unreliable results.[Bruce R. Cordell, Ed Greenwood, Chris Sims (August 2008). Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide. Edited by Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, et al. (Wizards of the Coast), p. 50. ISBN 978-0-7869-4924-3]

From a game perspective, would a powerful arcane spellcaster like a lich have retained enough of their powers and control during the Spellplague to enslave a city?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
5
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Why do you care? It’s your campaign, and you’ve already changed the timeline once. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Honestly this might be one of the times where the context is likely to get you downvoted. This is actually a really interesting lore question and I would hate for people to get too focused on the "DM can do what they want" train. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SeriousBri, Yes I agree, already attracted a downvote. The question what a caster could do during Spellplague is really more general than the specific circumstances that made me ask it. Dale, not sure what you refer to - I haven't changed any timeline so far, the adventure itself doesn't provide a time, so you have to set one if you do not leave it unspecified. I also wouldn't have an issue with doing that, but I still am interested to understand what the Spellplague looked like. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DaleM, I've also been thinking about tying serveral of the events in the past together, e.g. Ubtao abandoned Chult at the same time, plus the volcanoes erupted, driving out the Dwarves from their ancestral mines. It would be nice to have a backstory where A. took adavantage of that chaos to take over, but for that to work, he would have to be able to actually do it at the time. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree with you, I like to have a solid basis on which I can build my personal view of the Forgotten Realms, but sometimes is quite difficult. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
8
\$\begingroup\$

The Spellplague is vague

The Spellplague event is described as a potent agent of change1: its description is largely vague, and the game mechanics tied to it are mainly related to the rules of the 4th edition of DnD.

It did not prevent powerful spellcasters from using magic.

That said, the Spellplague description does not say that magic was completely eliminated, but that Magic was unstable and unreliable. Nonetheless some powerful entities found ways to channel this new form of magic and maintain their power, even if in a different form.

In the main source1, one can read that (emphasis mine)

Many creatures that had been able to cast spells and channel magic through the Weave found themselves powerless in the Spellplague’s wake. Some never regained their abilities. Others attuned themselves to the new magical environment, aided by a diversity of talents, a process that took days for some and years for others. [...]

The emphasized part supports the facts that some individuals found a way to maintain their magical abilities: Acererak, given its knowledge and experience, is one golden example of such individuals.

From the Wiki on FR, we can read (emphasis mine):

Some spell effects became much more difficult to produce such that they could only be achieved with elaborate rituals. Meanwhile, some other spell effects became so trivial to produce that spellcasters could manifest them at will.

The emphasized part supports the idea that some magical effects became even easier to use, and therefore some spellcasters benefitted from this.

Thus Acererak’s actions during the Spellplague are compatible with the established lore.

1 Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, 4th edition, page 50.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
7
\$\begingroup\$

Is Acererak really just another arcane spellcaster?

Tomb of Annihilation, Introduction, "Who is Acererak" describes him as a planes and reality traveler ("ancient texts assert that he comes from a world called Oerth"). It goes on to say:

Not too long ago by human standards, Acererak found an atropal adrift at the edge of the Negative Plane and built the Soulmonger to nourish it to godhood. The lich chose one of his tombs — specifically the Tomb of the Nine Gods on Toril — to serve as the atropal’s nursery.

It's really no further stretch of the imagination to handwave that Acererak's multiversal nature or connection to the Negative Plane is in some way a specific exception to the general spellplague rule of effects on spellcasters.

As Eddymage points out in their answer, established lore suggests some spellcasters managed to avoid the effects of the spellplague, perhaps this or something similar is how Acererak did it.

Reconciling Forgotten Realms lore may not be worth it

My perspective might be skewed, but in my own experience it's just not worth it. I'm running Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, and I've spent too much time looking at things like, oh, Remalia Haventree's history prior to W:DH. Or what's going on contemporaneously in Silverymoon, should my characters go there once W:DH is over. Really, my game has benefited far more by prep time spent closer to the actual adventure.

There isn't going to be a perfect reconciliation

The Forgotten Realms lore is layer on layer on layer of differing narratives written by different people at different times. Attempting to reconcile it may not be worth your time, when that prep time (a limited resource) can be spent on more focused pursuits.

And there's no guarantee there is a reconciliation. Adventures aren't carefully reconciled against all previous lore, at least they don't appear to be. They're written using limited time and money, and they're plopped down and that's it.

Is it possible there's an official reconciliation? Maybe? Although surely if there were it would be mentioned in Tomb of Annihilation.

Especially in this case

The "death curse" itself appears in limited materials, see "Death Curse", in the FR wiki. If there were really a reconciliation, you would see it across 5e materials, and you don't.

For that matter, who has perfect knowledge?

Not your player characters. You don't owe them in-game a perfect explanation for everything. In fact, the game is better off if the PCs have imperfect knowledge, although perhaps that is playstyle.

And do you really want to spend your time reconciling FR lore for your players? I'm guessing, but my experience is D&D players are almost universally willing to just blame WoTC, and move on.

The Spellplague was all shenanigans anyway

By all appearances, the Spellplague itself is a handwave to vaguely justify version changes, see Why did Ed Greenwood and R.A. Salvatore dislike the Spellplague arc?.

So do what you have to do, and move on

I know it can feel not very satisfying, but my own experience is that this sort of reconciliation just isn't worth the time. The players far more care about the adventure here and now, and, really, I do too. So, if there's some narrative discontinuity that really bugs you, come up with a vaguely plausible solution, consistent with the time you have available, and move on.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
  • \$\begingroup\$ Jack, in general I of course agree, and I can change things around, but there is actually a lot of stuff happening "a little over a century ago" in that adventure - the Spellplague happens, Mezro is shifted, the dwarven mines are abandoned due to volcanic eruption, Ubtao decides to abandon Chult for good, the Aldani go into hiding, Artus Cimber gains the Ring of Winter. You'll interact with many of them during the adventure, several of them expereienced it first hand, and it would be really nice to have a consistent backstory. Not my downvote, btw. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin are your players focusing on all those events that it really matters? If they are, then you're probably better off making it the players' job to figure out what happened as some sort of extended skill check at their local library. If it's not a big deal, then you can just dole out one of those relevant pieces of lore and associated time frame when you need to justify something relevant to the players. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NobodytheHobgoblin I've added a bit more specificity, but while it would be nice to have a consistent backstory, imo, there just is one (a "consistent" one). If you want that kind of setting, something like Eberron might be a better fit. The FR just isn't like that, as has been demonstrated across many questions. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Jack, Thank you. I accepted Eddymages in this case, as his seems a more clear cut proof that Acererak could be casting spells according to the lore, by this solving my problem. But as always with your answers, a lot of really valuable, practical wisdom here. \$\endgroup\$ Commented yesterday

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.