| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 04:52:53
Hello all.
I was just wondering if someone more knowledgeable about Greyhawk that had read through or played the Slave Lords series of modules remembers anything about the "Cult of the Dragon Below."
A poster on Paizo's boards made the assertion that the Cult of the Dragon was originally a GH creation, and cited these adventures as his source. Just curious.
Oh, isn't the current, "Cult of the Dragon Below" a reference to Khyber in the Eberron setting? |
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Eremite |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 18:13:54
The cult in the Slave Lord modules was that of the Earth Dragon, not the Dragon Below. It was reasonably well detailed in Slavers, the 2E update of the original A1-4 series by Sean K Reynolds but, as was typical in 1E products, was mentioned more or less in passing in A1-4 (A4 to be specific; I can't recall if it made an appearance in the other three modules).
Anyway, personally I stay away from messageboard arguments. Why waste the time and energy when there are so many more intersting things to be doing? ;) |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 16:33:32
I was just trying to collect ammo, since it seems like the current trend of Paizo's boards is to claim that nothing original came from Forgotten Realms, that everything was pillaged from Greyhawk's corpse. When this specifically came up, I thought pretty much what Wooly did, that it likely wasn't "wearers in purple creating dracoliches because of Sammaster's translation of an ancient prophecy that undead dragons will rule the world entire" kind of a cult of the Dragon, but something more generic.
Between this and the assertion that because Gygax mentioned "Dragotha, the undead dragon" that somehow dracoliches were Gygax's idea, even though that slight reference includes no details, I've been getting a little tired of the whole, "we did it first" attitude of the Greyhawk crowd lately. I give them tons of credit on the stuff they did do first, and I even defend the setting often, but they still look at FR as something that killed their setting as the primary setting for D&D.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 13:04:52
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
So far as I know, any and all "Dragon Below" references refer to Khyber of the Eber-whatsit setting. Since deep dragons are really the only dragons that dwell underground, I can't see "Dragon Below" referring to anything other than Khyber.
That is correct.
The Cult is actually a collection of several groups that worship Khyber and/or work to release the daelkyr.
They are specifically connected to the Eberron setting.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 07:44:39
I have those modules, but I've not read them... If there is a Cult of the Dragon in them, I'm sure it's wholly different from the one Ed came up with. After all, if you assume the existence of dragons in a world, it's not a far stretch to assume someone might worship these beasts. It's pretty much a logical extension.
So far as I know, any and all "Dragon Below" references refer to Khyber of the Eber-whatsit setting. Since deep dragons are really the only dragons that dwell underground, I can't see "Dragon Below" referring to anything other than Khyber. |
|
|
