| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dennis |
Posted - 07 Sep 2011 : 15:31:42
Why is Larloch known in the Sword Coast as The Shadow King? Most iconic characters have sobriquets or aliases that are self-explanatory: Elminster the Old Mage; Cyric the Mad; Baerauble the Wise, etc... What's the explanation for Larloch's alias? The other known Shadowking is Telamont Tanthul, which makes sense, given his legendary command of shadow magic. But Larloch? Do people think he also dabbles in shadow magic, perhaps as much as Telamont does? Do they think Larloch was partly responsible for the transformation of the Guardian to the King of Shadows who was the reason for Illefarn's destruction? Or is it because of the simple fact that he prefers to work behind the scenes, pulling the strings of his puppet-servitors? Though I must say that's very debatable, given that most high profile villains in the Realms prefer the same [and thus should have been called the same]. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 23 Sep 2011 : 13:41:29
Does Larloch have dracolich servants? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 21 Sep 2011 : 12:34:56
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
... and Larloch's Lucid Lenses of Bifocular Reading. Although most people are unaware Szass possesses this most powerful artifact because he's very self-conscious about using them in public. It's a little embarassing to admit your eyesight isn't as good as it was 400 years ago.
Does he really need it? I thought spells that enhance vision are mere cantrips to high level wizards. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 12 Sep 2011 : 01:18:31
... and Larloch's Lucid Lenses of Bifocular Reading. Although most people are unaware Szass possesses this most powerful artifact because he's very self-conscious about using them in public. It's a little embarassing to admit your eyesight isn't as good as it was 400 years ago. |
| Firestorm |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 20:00:25
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
That's Thakorsil's Seat, which Tam used to imprison Yaphyll. Though ironically, he fell victim to it as well.
Also, the death moon orb. Which of course, blew up in his face |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 13:54:25
That's Thakorsil's Seat, which Tam used to imprison Yaphyll. Though ironically, he fell victim to it as well. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 13:48:31
One of the 4e realms guides mentions that Larloch let Tam borrow a powerful artifact, some kind of throne if memory serves. Iseem to recall some suggestion that Tam was serving or at least doing favors for Larloch. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 13:42:06
As there's no clear explanation as to the cause of the "trembling," I guess we could see it either way: fear or excitement. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 13:00:52
I can just imagine Szass's DM now: "You failed your save, eh? Well, you can't tell which spell he cast on you, likely some kind of minor enchantment. But this is terrifying, you know you should flee because you've got no chance opposing his magic, he's evidently as powerful as Larloch."
The only canon reference I know of which mentions any interaction between Szass and Larloch is in Netheril. The impression I gained from rereading the passages suggests that Szass was certainly apprehensive (he knew very well, at the time, that he was in the presence of a being of superior power), but he really seemed more excited than fearful, almost as if he were trembling with anxiety because he was on the verge of discovering lost troves of magical lore to add to his own power. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 12:56:31
He fears Larloch, possibly the only being in the multiverse he would never ever dare mess with. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 12:51:19
Note that Szass Tam also dedicated himself to several decades of extensive mental preparation; he retrained himself to think and view the world with utter disdain, contempt, disgust, disregard, dismissal. He focussed on the task with a lich's superhumanly singleminded determination, since it was after all a key element in correctly executing a complicated magic ritual. I might even be said that he ultimately failed to achieve his idealized mental state; although it could of course easily be argued that his penultimate failure stemmed from external factors rather than his mental incapacity. But compare this to Malark, a living individual (albeit a remarkable one) who managed to achieve a similar state of emotion in substantially less time, possibly because such emotions are just a natural part of being alive.
Can liches be affected by the fear and emotion spells? |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 02:35:25
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
I guess what we can take from this is that generic skeletons & zombies do indeed have emotions, but not the clear thought or means to communicate them clearly, save for a spellcaster employing a "Speak with Dead" spell. Their expressions are further limited by a spellcaster creating or summoning them, taking control of their will & mental faculties to order them about; 'deadening' them further, if you will.
Indeed. It is true not only in FR fiction, but in other settings as well, like Diablo [wraiths and ghosts summoned by necromancers in that world are more "cooperative" (thus the summoner enjoys less exertion of will) when their task is something they approve of]. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 02:32:52
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
On the other hand, skeletons, Zombies, and perhaps even liches, might not have physical feelings or strong emotions as their flesh continues to decay, and they might become colder and more purely logical as their memories of living fade with the passage of time.
Szass Tam could "feel" pain. He nearly crumbled when he tried to see the world in nine dimensions, and he felt pain like no other when his skull cracked as Bane bestowed him power. So if he's capable of feeling pain, then he must be capable of wrath as well. Why he chooses not to show it must be, again, due to his prolonged existence which taught him that such unhealthy manifestation of strong emotion would be self-destructive and totally unproductive. |
| Chosen of Asmodeus |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 00:37:57
It's something of a pet peeve of mine that villain and antagonist are not the same thing; a villain can very well be the protagonist of a story(I've played as one multiple times), and personally I feel that when done well, they make for better protagonists than heroes do. But that's just me.
As for Larloch's title of The Shadow King, I had always figured it was an artifact from an earlier point in his unlife when the prospect of ruling held more appeal to him than it does now, and it just stuck. Either that or it was just something bestowed on him; an epithet used to describe a being who's plans are shrouded and who holds great power. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 11 Sep 2011 : 00:34:57
Shadows are fueled by fear and hatred of the living, wraiths by vengeful rage against the living, ghasts by hunger for living flesh. Ghosts are sometimes explained as being echoes of consciousness who can be driven by whatever powerful emotions were imprinted upon them at the moment of their death. These are all generally classified as "mindless" undead, and it's true that their intellectual or cognitive capacities seem diminished or entirely absent, yet they are still capable (endlessly driven) by some partial facet of the emotional array they possessed in life. Not to mention that whatever irrelevant remnants of humanity they retain were burned away by their twisted contact with negative energy or shadowstuff or lower planar vileness.
Vampires are sentient and can be emotionally complex (at least when well fed), although they are in essence an entirely different species, a predatory one, and they are also in some ways comparable to victims of curses.
All living things instinctively recognize and revile things undead, unliving, unnatural. Many humans are blind to their intuition and senses (and become food for undeads, unless they trust their guard dogs and spooked horses), some humans are able to overcome these instincts or are even sickly fascinated by them (and become Necromancers), a rare few are motivated to extremes and actively hunt the undead. I suspect that thinking undead, who were after all once living, are similarly compelled by their own instincts ... I doubt there'd be as many vampires around if these instincts could be easily suppressed.
If you think about it, even a lowly zombie is an individual who died, then had his soul forcibly shackled under the will of some Necromancer sort as the animating force for the shambling rotting corpse that was once his body. Does his soul suffer some sort of spiritual lobotomy, having identity and memory and essential self mystically butchered away, rendering all that he was into nothing more than a semi-mindless husk barely able to feed itself? Or does the soul retain what he once was, subjugated and forced to witness the horrible existence and deeds he is powerlessly compelled to obey? Surely there must be some emotional content there?
Liches seem (to me) to focus only on magic and power, it is what sustains them, they probably experience some sort of thrill or joy when they're able to obtain it, they probably experience some sort of frustration or anger when they are denied. I assume they're as variable in unlife as they were in life; some might eschew all emotion and focus on pure cold intellect, others might work their magical craft through expressing their passions. Yet I doubt that liches think and feel the same way they did when alive, the liching process probably alters their minds as much as their bodies, the traumas of death and of soul transfer must have some impact (see above comment about the living being repulsed by the undead), they were deliberately reshaped into vessels of pure eldritch power, in human terms they might be judged entirely insane.
To top it off, Larloch is actually described as being absolutely insane, even by lich standards. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 22:54:06
Re: "In undeath, do the emotions that one had in life become fixed? Slower to change? In shedding one's mortality, would emotions go cold as the undead would no longer be shackled to the baser experiences of the flesh?"
I don't think so, Therise. In the 1e sourcebook Lords of Darkness, in the introduction written by Ed Greenwood, he confirmed my suspicions that in the Realms, intelligent undead are capable of all the emotions & alignments that the living have. I'm sure this is especially true for liches, who have all the mental faculties & emotions and control to go with them. This unlike vampires & ghouls/ghasts, who must fight the urge to be evil bred in their flesh (akin to the fight within a Bhaalspawn's soul) in order to have the same type of control.
I recently learned that in BG1, the skeleton warriors have something to say when you click on them (and it's not comedic either, like when you click on bears & chickens). This denotes intelligence as per other intelligent undead, and unlike generic undead skeletons & zombies. And upon reading the 2e Monstrous Manual entry on them, they indeed do have intelligence; in the 15-16 range. That's exceptional; they're smarter than most people you'd meet, albeit enspelled & controlled beyond their will.
Also in Planescape: Torment, a game seemingly written as much by Ed as it was Chris Avellone (Ed has gone uncredited for much published 2e Planescape lore), within Sigil there's an undead community shared by ghouls, zombies & skeletons. The ghouls are as they are in the Realms, but the skeletons can speak too, and have a clear intelligence. The zombies on the other hand can't speak clearly, but they do display an intelligence, and are more focused on feeling emotions.
I guess what we can take from this is that generic skeletons & zombies do indeed have emotions, but not the clear thought or means to communicate them clearly, save for a spellcaster employing a "Speak with Dead" spell. Their expressions are further limited by a spellcaster creating or summoning them, taking control of their will & mental faculties to order them about; 'deadening' them further, if you will. |
| Therise |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 19:08:26
Emotions are always fascinating when it comes to undead. Usually, most emotions are defined and colored by one's current biological experiences. In undeath, do the emotions that one had in life become fixed? Slower to change? In shedding one's mortality, would emotions go cold as the undead would no longer be shackled to the baser experiences of the flesh?
Vampires, of course, have almost always been written in passionate ways. But they are also closer to life than most other undead, and their sensory experience is often heightened (particularly with respect to sex/love/passion, even if they can't engage in sex like Anne Rice vamps).
On the other hand, skeletons, Zombies, and perhaps even liches, might not have physical feelings or strong emotions as their flesh continues to decay, and they might become colder and more purely logical as their memories of living fade with the passage of time.
|
| Dennis |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 10:07:31
Perhaps centuries of existence taught him that nothing "productive" could result from manifesting rage. [Or maybe he does yoga regularly, having Larloch as the instructor. Now that's something worth seeing.]
Speaking of losing it, I do like the following scene from Undead. 'Tis one of the reasons I love Lallara.
quote:
The circle of abjurers recited the final line of their incantation, and power whined through the air. Some of the shrouds attached to the foremast snapped. But the cloud-thing across the water continued devouring every sentient being it could seize, exactly the same as before.
Aoth was disappointed, but not surprised. Lallara and her subordinates had tried thrice before with the same lack of success.
The zulkir pivoted and lashed the back of her hand across a female Red Wizard's mouth. Her rings cut, and the younger woman flinched back with bloody lips.
"Useless imbeciles!" Lallara snarled. Then she looked at Aoth, and, to his amazement, gave him a fleeting hint of a smile. It was the first such moment in all his years of service. "There. That made me feel a trifle better, but it didn't help our situation, did it?"
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 08:54:26
He may be incapable of rage. Many people have difficulty expressing their emotions, how much worse for a lich who (in theory) cannot grow through further experience? Assuming the liching process itself didn't kill such vestiges of humanity. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 10 Sep 2011 : 04:48:37
I want to see Szass Tam really mad, like totally losing it. During his fight with Malark, right before he was tricked into Thakorsil's Seat, I thought he'd really be mad and blast everything to cinders. Or during that convocation when the zulkirs denied him of regency.
But come to think of it, most villains rarely showed that they lost temper, except the Roach of course. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 20:36:54
Szass Tam, like all good characters, has grown and developed since Ed first wrote about him in 1967 or so. He was changing from story to story in Ed's hands before he first saw print with TSR, and has continued to; he develops throughout RLB's trilogy (which Ed enjoyed very much, BTW), and will probably continue to grow and change. He's certainly gained a layer of subtlety and patience over his ruthlessness, as time has unfolded.
The first time one of my characters fought him (Ed as DM, of course; the play session was 1982 or so), he was a grinning tyrant with a love for swift, wanton destruction. As he gained more power within and then over Thay, he started taking better care of it. 
love,
THO |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 16:48:41
Szass, and his evil, has been around much longer than just RLB's Haunted Lands trilogy. I sort of view the trilogy as being somewhat like the recent Lord of the Rings movie adaption; superb in many ways, a new way of looking at the canon preceding it, yet also not quite entirely true to that canon. My first impression of Szass Tam was formed in late 1E from what was written in FR6: Dreams of the Red Wizards, where he is described as murderously villainous in no uncertain terms. Although, yes, I do agree that my above tirade describes him most poorly. |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 11:40:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Contrasted to Szass Tam, who might collect the volumes he needs then cheerfully loiter around attracting defenders to converge upon him, simply so he could politely assert his domination and slaughter all those who don't grovel before him with a single efficient blasting spell. His whimsy might as easily lead him to engage in pleasant (if somewhat arrogant, sarcastic, and deprecating) conversation as it might lead him to impulsively hunt and murder every occupant of the building in a methodical manner. In short, Szass actually delights from exercising evil and will escalate the exercise as necessary to keep the evil at an engaging level (to himself, yet perhaps also to his victims in different ways).
Although its clear what you wanna say thats no accurate picture of Szass Tam. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 10:47:35
Being passively evil is still evil. Though you have the right of it: Larloch cares less about good or evil, only his goals matter to him. And I don't think he revels in imposing dominion over anyone, or in killing anybody. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 10:09:27
I was thinking more in the context of Larloch being passively evil. As opposed to Szass Tam's very actively evil behaviours. Although yes, Larloch is evil. But that doesn't necessarily mean he plays the role of villain.
Larloch's endless obsession with magic might easily lead him to intrude within a fortified monastery-library dedicated to Oghma, and although he would unhesitantly slay anyone who obstructs his path he would otherwise generally ignore anything and anybody else beyond the tomes he came to collect. He wouldn't bother to plan a more stealthy intrusion simply because it prevents killing, although he might opt to use stealth if the effort would save time otherwise wasted on blasting inconsequential cleric, he might even opt for stealth if he considered the clerics worth keeping alive to stock and maintain the library for a few decades before he returns to collect more volumes. In fact, he might even be likely to simply announce himself at the gate, since the Holy Head Honcho Librarian might be able to assist him in more quickly locating the materials he needs, he might even present a gratuity to ensure more efficient service. Good and evil do not concern him, wasted time which could instead be dedicated towards mastering magic concerns him immensely.
Contrasted to Szass Tam, who might collect the volumes he needs then cheerfully loiter around attracting defenders to converge upon him, simply so he could politely assert his domination and slaughter all those who don't grovel before him with a single efficient blasting spell. His whimsy might as easily lead him to engage in pleasant (if somewhat arrogant, sarcastic, and deprecating) conversation as it might lead him to impulsively hunt and murder every occupant of the building in a methodical manner. In short, Szass actually delights from exercising evil and will escalate the exercise as necessary to keep the evil at an engaging level (to himself, yet perhaps also to his victims in different ways).
Both liches are clearly evil. Larloch is not always a villain, Szass is never not a villain. Especially if the defending clerics happen to be, say, a party of PCs. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 09:26:10
Pursuing personal goals with blatant disregard to other people's welfare is...evil. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 09:08:31
Shadow Ring does seem very much like a (double) typo, the consequence of hastily issued yet precisely wrong directives to mindless infernal scribing machines. Although I must say that Shadow Ring is an oddly poetic semi-mystical sounding title. I suggest it could refer not specifically to Larloch but instead to his circled assembly of liches, or even to an actual shadow ring (or bracer, medallion, torc, circlet, or other ring-shaped object or symbol) he is always known to wear. I don't believe his arcane sigil has ever been described; it might easily incorporate a ring-based design.
This article ( http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Castle/2566/ed-larloch.htm ) which must be fed into the Wayback Machine, offers some musings about Larloch, attributed to Ed himself, circa 2001. Of course it's not at all pure canon, and a lot of things have changed in the Realms since 2001, and Larloch has undoubtedly been refined, and much of Ed's ebullience has (he says) been contrabanded under NDA lockdowns. I think it's probably more representative of Ed's original conception of Larloch than the scant few subsequent Wizbro-branded references which have since appeared in print.
In this article Larloch is certainly assigned an evil alignment, he is after all a lich. Although the word "evil" does not occur anywhere else outside the tiny stat block; nor are words like "villain", "enemy", "antagonist" written anywhere; however "munchkin" is mentioned. The general descriptions of Larloch's activities and interests suggests that he is almost entirely disinterested in being a villain - he is obsessed with procuring magical knowledge and power, plus a few goals of epic or unfathomable scope. He's a perfectionist but a busy guy with no interest in wasting his time ruling over anything, although he also won't hesitate to bodily (and mentally) seize magic from all who might be foolish enough to fall under his control. It basically seems like Larloch has evil disregard for anyone else, but he won't bother to actually put the effort into being any sort of villain ... he's more like a wild animal who will probably ignore you unless you make the mistake of invading his territory, challenging him, or become annoying enough to distract him from more important tasks; his goals might even happen to align with those of good in specific instances.
The article also briefly notes that none of Larloch's lich servitors were Netherese arcanists, saying that he's already destroyed the only one he knew of, contrary to my musings in Light's Mages of Netheril scroll. |
| _Jarlaxle_ |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 08:58:39
@bladeinAmn
I like this approuch |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 07:33:31
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
@ Dennis the OP
On pg 63 of Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, Larloch is referred to twice as 'the Shadow Ring.' I note twice, so to show that it doesn't look like a misprint. Given the lack of lore on him, I reckon this is designed for DM's & general Realms fans to fit that into their campaign, however they see fit.
I think that's just a misprint. If the 'Shadow King' sobriquet sounds a bit puzzling, 'Shadow Ring' doesn't make sense at all.
quote:
Originally posted by bladeinAmn
That's not to say Larloch's a villain, as there's no hard canonical evidence that attests to villainy being a part of his character. [snip]
Hmm. Ed said Larloch is undoubtedly a villain, a being of evil alignment. He just couldn't divulge much due to NDA. Just because Larloch sometimes foils the schemes of other villains in the Realms doesn't mean he's sowing seeds of good across the world. |
| bladeinAmn |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 07:18:52
@ Dennis the OP
On pg 63 of Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, Larloch is referred to twice as 'the Shadow Ring.' I note twice, so to show that it doesn't look like a misprint. Given the lack of lore on him, I reckon this is designed for DM's & general Realms fans to fit that into their campaign, however they see fit.
@ BRJ
Given Warlock's Crypt proximity to the High Moor, and the artifact Verraketh found there transforming him into the Shadowking which thus constrained him to assimilate a Netherese realm into his kingdom of Ebenfar, perhaps there's a hidden correllation between Larloch & Verraketh. Or more specifically, Larloch and the Shadowstar (and in the same vein, perhaps that year, 34 DR, was named the Year of the Purloied Power, perhaps in prophetic reference to Verraketh becoming the Shadowking - though to be fair, it's most likely in reference to the other kingdom shaking event you listed in the original CK Grand History of the Realms of that year).
That's not to say Larloch's a villain, as there's no hard canonical evidence that attests to villainy being a part of his character as I said in another thread some time ago: the Shadowking ended up doing a big service for then-present and later Realms generations in defeating Terpanzi.
@ Salacar
On pg 64 of VGttSC, it states "Some minstrels have wrongly dubbed the rule of the Crypt "the Warlock" or "the Warlock King," but be warned that those who compose ballads using such terminology are likely to be kidnapped by night things and spirited away to face torment and undead at Larloch's hands."
Obviously, this is Volo writing it (not a renowned sage; nevertheless Volo is awsome!), so you can take that with a grain of salt. Volo goes on to say it's not a good idea to sing that song when travelling a 3 days distance to the Troll Hills. This leads me to believe that Volo's entry is based on tavern tales, regarding Warlock's Crypt. It's also of note that Volo, smartly, gives no indication that he's been there like he has juss about every other place he's been in the sourcebook - which are mostly cities & villages dominated by humans & demihumans, of course. All the info he gave is gleaned from 2nd-hand info; that
of folk he met in the cities & villages etc. He also says "This is not a place I recommend travelers even venture within sight of."
@ _Jarlaxle_
I suppose when Warlock's Crypt was first discovered in 1351 DR - by the same guy who brought the plague to Baldur's Gate that year (which I DO NOT attribute to Larloch; it doesn't seem his way of doing things, especially since he'd been in the region seemingly since the fall of Netheril, all things considered) - it must've initially been a strong topic of conversation.
However, given that most people - commoners, farmers, tradesmen & women, etc. - are primarily concerned with their loved ones health, the economy & their freedom, I think that as the years continued to go by without attack from Warlock's Crypt, the wonderous talk of its discovery must've died down. Of course, there's the fact that it was discovered at the same time as the plague, thus it's most likely remembered as a coincidence; there's no further canon anywhere
about that plague, and in all the times I've played BG1, I don't recall even one NPC talking about the plague, even though it happend juss 17yrs ago in the game (and since the iron shortage in the game is surely the most negative thing to happen in the region since the plague of '51, it surely should've been talked about, if it was as big as reported in the 2e & 3e FRCS; this leads me to believe that Ed didn't author the plague, like how I believe he's the full author of the BG game series storylines as I wrote recently in the 'founding of Baldur's Gate' thread http://forum.candlekeep.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=11953).
Thus I'm in agreement with you; in my homebrew, only a few people know of him. I toyed with the idea that 'legend' of him grew from 1351 to present-day 1376 via spooky stories regarding him & his crypt, but I quickly did away with that due to remembering Ed's lore on CK here, stating the numerous hag coveys throughout the same region as Larloch's abode in the Troll Hills & Trollbark Forest. So that's to say that in my homebrew, when most folk of the BG region talk of the hauntings within the Troll Hills & Trollbark Forest, they either think of the monsters that are seen crossing the Trade Way from time to time, the monsters seen from sailors eyeing that part of the Sword Coast when crossing it, or less popularly, the rumors of hag coveys throughout those lands; tales that stem from those who live closest to those lands, in the villages Lathtarl's Lantern along the Coast, Kheldrivver along the Coast Way, and a Flaming Fist Hold I have north of that village, where the Coast Way & Trade Way meet.
Now, the people who DO know of him in my homebrew are: the Dukes of Baldur's Gate, who know of him due to a story I read of Larloch 8yrs ago (that I can't find anymore! Damn!) of him giving like 4 Bags of Holding worth of stuff to them, IIRC; a handful of very few advanced spellcasters who have an advanced variation of the spell Wizard's Eye in thier employ wherein they've seen that far into the Troll Hills without stepping into it; a handful of fewer spellcasters who know how to fly for extended periods of time (either by advanced spellcasting or a flying creature under thier control) that flew over the Troll Hills and saw it (without being noticed by the perytons that Ed once said are in the region - or even worse, the undead flying steeds at Larloch's!); the underworld powers within Baldur's Gate who have dealings with the orcs in the Troll Hills & bugbears in the plains between those hills & the BG region; those in Larloch's employ, who obviously at Larloch's discretion, don't tell anyone that they are; those who choose to believe the tavern tales about Warlock's Crypt, such as Volothamp Geddarm & folk with similar interests of travel & intrigue; and finally, planewalkers.
Now, how many of them in my homebrew have direct dealings w/Larloch or those who live in Warlock's Crypt? Absolutely none. Even those in his employ don't know how to reach him; he'll simply reach them, if a need or want impels him to do so. |
| Dennis |
Posted - 09 Sep 2011 : 06:43:33
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
Hehe, you expected Ed to just volunteer big secrets like Larloch? 
There's no harm in trying to squeeze some answers. Though come to think of it, I should have expected that reply, given [I've heard] his hints about Larloch's undertakings in Bury Elminster Deep. He must have plans for him in his current Elminster series. |
|
|
