If Helm really wanted too he could have slain any or all of them if he really wanted too, but of course he was too duty bound to even think of such a thing.
I doubt very much that Ao would have allowed that.
Posted 09 November 2004 - 10:20 AM
Edited by oralpain, 09 November 2004 - 10:23 AM.
Posted 09 November 2004 - 12:54 PM
Posted 09 November 2004 - 02:26 PM
Posted 09 November 2004 - 04:35 PM
Posted 10 November 2004 - 12:24 AM
Posted 10 November 2004 - 02:40 PM
Posted 10 November 2004 - 06:04 PM
Posted 11 November 2004 - 01:32 AM
Posted 11 November 2004 - 05:06 AM
Chauntea could deny any god's worshipers food, thus choking off the source of the god's very existence, right?
The only god who could actually win a fight is Ao, really. If the other gods fought each other one-on-one, he'd step in.
Posted 11 November 2004 - 09:11 AM
Posted 11 November 2004 - 04:25 PM
Chauntea could deny any god's worshipers food, thus choking off the source of the god's very existence, right?
The only god who could actually win a fight is Ao, really. If the other gods fought each other one-on-one, he'd step in.
Technically, yes to starvation, but Ao wouldn't permit it.
Similar to when Mystra denied Cyric access to the Weave in the Avatar series.
Also, in The History Of The Dead Three book in the BG games, Bhaal points out he could destroy Bane by killing all his worshippers or destroy Myrkul by not letting anyone die...
Ao does seem to allow the murder of deities by other - there were numerous killings during the Time of Troubles, and more recently Shar killed Ibrandul, for example. Though, yeh, I think if too many were slain he'd step in and do something.
Edited by discharger12, 11 November 2004 - 04:26 PM.
Posted 13 November 2004 - 01:27 PM
Posted 13 November 2004 - 07:10 PM
Posted 14 November 2004 - 08:29 AM
Posted 11 January 2005 - 01:37 AM
Posted 11 January 2005 - 02:01 AM
I think its simple Cyric bearer of three crowns would win even through his madness
Posted 11 January 2005 - 08:16 AM