| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Blah99 |
Posted - 21 Sep 2007 : 13:06:30
Hey, I'm not clear on how drows can levitate because in R.A Salvatore's novels they inherit the magic but in thr War of the Spider Queen series it's their house insignia. I was wondering which one is it? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zanan |
Posted - 01 Oct 2007 : 09:24:53
AFAIK Liriel was always intended to be that rascal type of chaotic neutral overly-curious character. Her main tutor wasn't exactly downright evil either, even though he managed to create that rod of lichcraft. It is surely true that beings are usually born neutral and society shapes them afterwards.
On the drow and their alignment, Quenthel Baenre had an interesting paragraph in WotSQ I, p. 243:
quote:
The traitor elves of the World Above professed to hate evil. In reality, Quenthel thought, they feared what they didn't understand. Thanks to the tutelage of Lolth, the drow did, and having understood it, they embraced it.
For evil, like chaos, was one of the fundamental forces of Creation, manifest in both the macrocosm of the wide world and the microcosm of the individual soul. As chaos gave rise to possibility and imagination, so evil engendered strength and will. It made sentient beings aspire to wealth and power. It enabled them to subjugate, kill , rob, and deceive. It allowed them to do whatever was required to better themselves with never a crippling flicker of remorse.
Thus, evil was responsible for the existence of civilization and for every great deed any hero had ever performed. Without it, the people of the world would live like animals. It was amazing that so many races, blinded by false religion and philosophies, had lost sight of this self-evident truth. In contrast, the dark elves had based a society on it, and that was one of the points of superiority that served them to exalt them above all other races.
|
| Brynweir |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 14:26:50
Not to beat a dead horse, but I have to side with nurture. I work with children and in pretty much every case where the child has problems it can be traced back to what the parents did or did not do.
I am willing to admit that there is a small percent of the population that may be born psychotic, but a very small percent. Yes, children inherit some of thier personality from their parents, but then their environment determines what happens to those tendancies.
One child's need for perfection leads them to good grades, being good at sports, and volunteering in the community.
While that same drive for perfection leads another to control every aspect of their lives right down to manipulating or harming others to get things the way they want.
They learn from the example set by parents and others they see.
Now as for Liriel, I have to agree that she is an opportunist (aren't all drow), yet her time around humans makes her see the opportunity for more than just strife. I don't think the drow are all born to be evil, I think it is more of a cult mentality where they just become used to certain things being acceptable, even expected. |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 06:40:41
Well... I wouldn't go so far as to say Liriel Baenre was "good" per se, just not evil. She had a very odd childhood, having been raised by her father's family and not her mother's and trained as a wizard rather than a cleric (as would be normal for a noble born female drow).
To me she came off as happy-go-lucky and "Wow this looks interesting and shiny I'm going to go after it!" (at least in her first book) rather than "This society is wrong and I can't stand living here." She seems more of an opprotunistic adventurer that doesn't break ties unless there is an active, pressing need for it. And no I have not read Windwalker and so I have no idea if this assessment is acurate or not but it seemed that human morals were slowly rubbing off on her as a side effect of prolonged interaction with humans and a burning desire to learn things, anything. She's an opprotunistic optimist  |
| Blah99 |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 05:03:03
So Liriel was a bit like Drizzt and thought most of the things the Drow do are immoral? Is it from her mother sheltering her until she was 5? Even Vierna had a tiny bit of sympathy in her eyes when she was about to sacrifice Zaknafein. And when she died Lloth's faith left her and she was back to her good form before she died as Drizzt notes in The Legacy. But the one I'm really curious about is Liriel and what makes her 'good' or 'not evil'? |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 30 Sep 2007 : 01:17:43
quote:
Originally posted by Zanan
Problem here is that we have a monster race first and foremost. They were created to be mean and to be used in such a way. The society for them was created later on, most likely to suit the purpose and give them more background to explore - for the PC. So trying to gather how this all works by placing real world measure on it is bound for dead ends.
True. I am quite guilty of leading the PCs to believe that they might encounter "evil" drow, but have the drow in question be neutral... and not show up on the "detect evil" radar  I found that when dealing with intelligent, sophisticated monster races, like drow, humans fey, merfolk and what not, having some sort of idea on how the society works for the common drow warrior level 4 made the encounter more interesting. On the other hand, I never wrote straight dungeon crawls, never tolerated power gamers and had around three or four planned ways for encounters to turn out, so I'm probably a bit biased in favor of fluff.
quote:
Much of what we know about the drow, i.e. those presented in novels and lore, is about a race dominated by a female clergy of an chaotic evil goddess. Ruthless, cunning, and mean. On a second look, this clergy, their kin and their houses usually only represent the drow nobility, which make up 5 to 10 % of drow society. They wield the power, they lead the fortunes of their race and are behind much that happens. Does that make an average drow foot-soldier equally evil? Whether that soldier is a male or female? Who can tell?
About 80% we get fed is a stereotype that has been there from the first edition.
BTW, the Houses' and matrons'description given in the Menzoberranzan box - regarding personalities and goals - went a long way putting that "utterly chaotic evil" stuff to rest. Only for later authors and designers to pick it up again soon after.
It's a problem with "top down" monster society design. I have more of a "bottom up" mindset. Unfortunently, I've never found a copy of the sourcebooks you mention and so will take your word on it. |
| Zanan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 22:11:41
Problem here is that we have a monster race first and foremost. They were created to be mean and to be used in such a way. The society for them was created later on, most likely to suit the purpose and give them more background to explore - for the PC. So trying to gather how this all works by placing real world measure on it is bound for dead ends.
Much of what we know about the drow, i.e. those presented in novels and lore, is about a race dominated by a female clergy of an chaotic evil goddess. Ruthless, cunning, and mean. On a second look, this clergy, their kin and their houses usually only represent the drow nobility, which make up 5 to 10 % of drow society. They wield the power, they lead the fortunes of their race and are behind much that happens. Does that make an average drow foot-soldier equally evil? Whether that soldier is a male or female? Who can tell?
About 80% we get fed is a stereotype that has been there from the first edition.
BTW, the Houses' and matrons'description given in the Menzoberranzan box - regarding personalities and goals - went a long way putting that "utterly chaotic evil" stuff to rest. Only for later authors and designers to pick it up again soon after. |
| Lady Fellshot |
Posted - 29 Sep 2007 : 19:39:17
quote:
Originally posted by Kheris
I have to admit, I really like the combination of tendency and culture creating evil, or at best, neutral, drow. In fact, there are plenty of real-life human examples of 'nurture' (or the lack thereof) causing aberrant - dare I say, evil - behavior in certain people. Mind you, not everyone who's treated like this snaps, so I'm seeing a combination of nature and nurture here.
I agree with the above statement and would like to add that most of the source material concerning drow childhood centers on the noble houses, leaving out the commoners.
In the fiction, there is a distinct difference in attitude between males of noble houses and males with lower social standing. Ryld Argith, Valas Hune and Zaknafein Do'Urden were all born of commoner parents and showed a tendency towards practicality rather than wanton evil. Someone has something they want and they try to cut a deal rather than take it by overt force. Zak is probably a bad example since there really isn't anything about his early life and he ended up stuck in the house system anyway. As a small side note, most official sources list all of them as some varient of neutral.
By contrast, Pharuan Mizzym, Nimor Imphrazael, Dantrag Baenre and Gomph Baenre have the attitude of "You have something I want and I will do anything it takes to obain it." Kill, torture, scheme, lie, bluff and maybe the occaisional "merciful" act to reach their goal. And they enjoy it to a greater and lesser extent. All of them presumably grew up in an abusive noble House where they learned form thier authority figures that fun equalled someone else getting hurt in some way.
I'm leaving out the females because as far as I've read there aren't any stories about commoner females. If there's one out there, someone enlighten me. All this is probably a bit off topic, but I hope it made sense. |
| Kheris |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 19:49:57
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not as sure... In the real world, it is known that some aspects of a person's personality are determined by inherited traits. While it's uncertain exactly how influential "nature" is, as opposed to "nurture", it's pretty much unanimous that it is a factor.
So, I don't see a problem with at least a general disposition towards self-centered and selfish behavior. Maybe not purely evil babies, but at the least, babies who wouldn't need much encouragement to grow into evil gits.
Besides, having at least a tendency towards a specific alignment at birth better explains how such a society could develop.
Unfortunately I think this is truer to real life. I mean you read about these 4 and 5 year olds(who should still be innocent) torturing and abusing animals and you know they did not learn from parents.
True, but the parents might as well have taught them. They allow their kids to be influenced by cartoons like Beavis and Butthead or South Park. Regardless, the parents are to be blamed. Its their neglect that causes these things to happen. Many parents can deny it, but they would be lying. Lets take this as an example; when Beavis and Butthead was really popular (I was in Portland, Oregon at the time), the house next door to my Aunt and Uncle was set ablaze because the parents' kids set fire to the house after watching Beavis and Butthead.
Are these kids innocent, yes. Do they truly know the concept of right and wrong, not at that age.
I have to admit, I really like the combination of tendency and culture creating evil, or at best, neutral, drow. In fact, there are plenty of real-life human examples of 'nurture' (or the lack thereof) causing aberrant - dare I say, evil - behavior in certain people. Mind you, not everyone who's treated like this snaps, so I'm seeing a combination of nature and nurture here.
Examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer#Psychology_and_development
So we have the drow, a magic-touched race, closely tied to an evil goddess, in an inhospitable environment... With parents that probably do things so abusive that most people who watched them would wretch.
Hey, Match, I want you to meet my friend Powderkeg...  |
| Drakul |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 18:56:44
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not as sure... In the real world, it is known that some aspects of a person's personality are determined by inherited traits. While it's uncertain exactly how influential "nature" is, as opposed to "nurture", it's pretty much unanimous that it is a factor.
So, I don't see a problem with at least a general disposition towards self-centered and selfish behavior. Maybe not purely evil babies, but at the least, babies who wouldn't need much encouragement to grow into evil gits.
Besides, having at least a tendency towards a specific alignment at birth better explains how such a society could develop.
Unfortunately I think this is truer to real life. I mean you read about these 4 and 5 year olds(who should still be innocent) torturing and abusing animals and you know they did not learn from parents.
True, but the parents might as well have taught them. They allow their kids to be influenced by cartoons like Beavis and Butthead or South Park. Regardless, the parents are to be blamed. Its their neglect that causes these things to happen. Many parents can deny it, but they would be lying. Lets take this as an example; when Beavis and Butthead was really popular (I was in Portland, Oregon at the time), the house next door to my Aunt and Uncle was set ablaze because the parents' kids set fire to the house after watching Beavis and Butthead.
Are these kids innocent, yes. Do they truly know the concept of right and wrong, not at that age. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 18:34:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not as sure... In the real world, it is known that some aspects of a person's personality are determined by inherited traits. While it's uncertain exactly how influential "nature" is, as opposed to "nurture", it's pretty much unanimous that it is a factor.
So, I don't see a problem with at least a general disposition towards self-centered and selfish behavior. Maybe not purely evil babies, but at the least, babies who wouldn't need much encouragement to grow into evil gits.
Besides, having at least a tendency towards a specific alignment at birth better explains how such a society could develop.
Unfortunately I think this is truer to real life. I mean you read about these 4 and 5 year olds(who should still be innocent) torturing and abusing animals and you know they did not learn from parents. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 15:55:48
I'm not as sure... In the real world, it is known that some aspects of a person's personality are determined by inherited traits. While it's uncertain exactly how influential "nature" is, as opposed to "nurture", it's pretty much unanimous that it is a factor.
So, I don't see a problem with at least a general disposition towards self-centered and selfish behavior. Maybe not purely evil babies, but at the least, babies who wouldn't need much encouragement to grow into evil gits.
Besides, having at least a tendency towards a specific alignment at birth better explains how such a society could develop. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 14:53:00
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
Are all Drow born innocent?? Well, every child that is born is innocent. They are a sponge and soak up anything and everything they see. They are innocent until they are old enough to either grasp what they are learning or rise above it to become a better person.
I second that. |
| Drakul |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 10:13:27
Are all Drow born innocent?? Well, every child that is born is innocent. They are a sponge and soak up anything and everything they see. They are innocent until they are old enough to either grasp what they are learning or rise above it to become a better person. Liriel was similar to Drizzt, though she was much different from him. She flaunted power and reveled in it, Drizzt just wanted to be himself, regardless of his race. Liriel is an opportunist, just like Jarlaxle, however, she let her emotions get the best of her, emotions that most Drow disregard. She loved.
I would say more, but I would be spoiling too much. I hope this helps. |
| Blah99 |
Posted - 27 Sep 2007 : 09:40:28
Thanks for the answers guys but I have another few more questions. Drizzt asks himself in Homeland if all drow children are born innocent but are turned evil by the society of the drow. Is this true? We know Drizzt wasn't unique because Liriel Baenre wasn't completely evil (or was she? I haven't read any of her novels so if someone could fill me in that would be great). Are drow good because of their 'blood' because Drizzt's father Zaknefein was good as was his sister Vierna before she was corrupted by Lloth's teachings? How did Liriel retain her 'goodness', I remember reading a short story about her where it said that she was sheltered from the evils of the drow society by her mother so does that mean her mother was good as well??? This is all quite confusing for me and I hope some of you can fill my in so I can continue to discuss this matter with you which I find very interesting.
Thanks guys. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 21:38:00
I don't care who is right and who is wrong. Either this debate ends now, or I lock the thread. If you feel obligated to keep it up, take it to PM.  |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 18:21:15
Mithril hall and Settlestone and Arylin's cloak were not written about in 3/3.5e rules/lore. They were written about in 1e or 2e rules/lore, which has been changed.
And just because those three items are drow crafted doesn't mean that ALL dark elven items are drow crafted, which is clearly written in the 3/3.5e Underdark sourcebook.
Now you are just mix and matching your lore and rules to try to "prove" your point.
Sigh.
I'm still waiting for current material that says the dark elven cloaks are ALL drow crafted as well as current rules that says ALL dark elven weapons and armor are drow crafted. I can't find any such material, so if you have it, do supply it. However, there are a few examples of drow crafted items in Underdark but that isn't proof that ALL drow enchanted items have the drowcraft property, unless you want them to.
Furthermore,
Races of Faerun, page 173, "Greater Piwafwi: These dark-colored cloaks have all the abilities of a cloak of elvenkind and also provide the benefit of endure elements (fire), negating 5 points of fire damage per round. (Lesser piwafwi are simply cloaks of elvenkind).
Caster level: 5th. Prereq's: Craft wondrous item, endure elements, invisibility, creator must be dark elven. Market price: 6,100GP. Weight 1 lb."
Of course Races was printed in March 2003, so the drow craft property didn't exist yet, because it came out in Oct 2003, but there is nothing saying that, and WOTC hasn't updated them, as far as I know, that says the cloaks have the drowcraft property.
However, Underdark only says that the drow craft property works on armor and weapons, not other magical items like cloaks, rings, spellbooks, etc.
Now, I really have to boogie cause I'll be late for class. I'll continue this later! |
| Drakul |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 18:13:58
I already acknowledged some of what you have said, which you obviously missed. As far as Cunningham's sudden change, well, she is an excellent author, but she only has 3 books that have to do about the Drow. Salvatore has more and even he had Drowcrafted items remain intact and retains their potency. Look at the battle at Mithril Hall and Settlestone. Every Drow weapon that was used, did not become useless on the surface. The system is broken when it comes to this subject, however, my facts are still facts and not even close to being theories.
Its also funny that you think I have discredited myself, when I gave the perfect example of Piwafwis becoming useless on the surface. In Elfshadow, Arylin used a Piwafwi that she obtained from a Fence and it lost its potency and became useless. Therefore, it is Drowcrafted. Also, nothing much has changed when it comes to Piwafwis. They were Drowcrafted in 2E and since there has been no change to that fact, its remains the same in 3/3.5E. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 18:06:07
Yes, but I'm not debating 2e rules/lore.
And yes, Elaine's novels, as I said, more then once, did say that but, as I said, more then once, a material that came out after her novels changed canon. So, until Underdark came out, the lore in her novels was correct, now it is no longer correct.
For some reason you aren't excepting this when it's a fact.
You aren't showing me where the dark elven capes are drow crafted. Please show me a 3/3.5e source saying that they are. Until you can show me actual material, I don't believe you. You keep saying these events are true but you aren't showing me the evidence.
And you are discrediting yourself actually because you are using a source that is out of date, namely Elaine's novel. |
| Drakul |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 17:55:05
In 2E every item that came from the Underdark, that was crafted and enchanted in the Underdark became useless on the surface. However, yes, the Underdark book states that Drowcraft items become useless on the surface, provided that you roll a save for it. Again, however, that does not change the fact that what I mentioned in my previous posts did happen. The system holds inconsistencies, that much is obvious, but it does not refute the facts.
Wooly, I am not arguing. I am trying to make a point, which people know that these events happened in the books, but deny it anyways. Canon is Canon, regardless of the form its in.
To Kuje:
quote:
Thus, as it's clearly stated in Underdark, which came out in Oct 2003, not ALL dark elven weapons/items are drow crafted. Elaine's novel came out in April 2003.
You discredited yourself by posting a LARGE gap between sources. Piwafwis have been used on the surface and did not become useless, and they are... Drowcrafted. My facts still hold more accuracy. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 17:48:46
Let's stop arguing about this. I grow weary of the debate. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 17:32:08
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
quote:
Do note: The only items that decay are items that are enchanted with faerzress.
Every item that is made in the Underdark is 'tainted' by the Faezress. There is no escaping that point. As for my previous posts, you still miss the point that is being brought across. Every Drow item is enchanted by Drow magic and Drow magic is tied to the Faezress, therefore, they used to become useless when brought to the surface. Since Liriel's successful transition of bringing Drow magic to the surface without the consequences that used to come when usin Drow magic.
If you still can't see that this is not a theory, then, thats on you. The evidence is there and it supports my posts.
Sorry but no, not every item made by dark elves are enchanted with faerzress, otherwise there's no point for a separate property in the Underdark sourcebook. So, no, I don't believe your theory because you aren't supplying me the evidence to believe it while I have enough evidence to say otherwise.
And your not reading my point because as I said, a sourcebook that came out six months after Elaine's last novel changed her novel, that's the problem with a shared world. Yes, you can use her novel as evidence but there is later material that changes what she wrote.
"Drowcraft items were once common but they have falllen out of favor in some drow cities. A drowcraft weapon is energized by local earth nodes and the surrounding area of faerzress. As long as it remains within an earth node or a zone of faerzress, it grants its wielder a +2 luck bonus on attack and damage rolls, in addition to its normal enhancement bonus. Outside a faerzress zone (for example, above ground), the weapon does not grant the luck bonuses, but it otherwise works normally.
A drowcraft weapon exposed to sunlight must make a DC 8 Fort save or dissolve utterly. A new save at the same DC is required for each day of exposure. Sheathed weapons or weapons exposed to indirect light (such as indoors) are still vulnerable to this effect, but a drowcraft weapon can be kept safe indefinitely inside a lead-lined case. A drowcraft weapon treated with darkoil is immune to the effects of sunlight."
Thus, as it's clearly stated in Underdark, which came out in Oct 2003, not ALL dark elven weapons/items are drow crafted. Elaine's novel came out in April 2003. |
| Drakul |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 16:57:35
quote:
Do note: The only items that decay are items that are enchanted with faerzress.
Every item that is made in the Underdark is 'tainted' by the Faezress. There is no escaping that point. As for my previous posts, you still miss the point that is being brought across. Every Drow item is enchanted by Drow magic and Drow magic is tied to the Faezress, therefore, they used to become useless when brought to the surface. Since Liriel's successful transition of bringing Drow magic to the surface without the consequences that used to come when usin Drow magic.
If you still can't see that this is not a theory, then, thats on you. The evidence is there and it supports my posts. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 16:26:05
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
Shakti Hunzrin has all Drow equipment and a skeletal snake whip blessed by Lloth herself. As for the other Drow, lets take Pharaun and Ryld as an example, their items stayed intact on the surface and they had equipment that was of Drow make. However one wants to say it, one can't deny that logic that was written by those authors. So, I say again, Liriel was successful in what she did.
That's all well and good but it still doesn't make it true. So, I'll repeat myself for the third time. Those items probably just weren't infused with the dark elven weapon property. And since I use newer sources over older sources, Underdark came out AFTER Elaine's novel. Item's blessed by Lloth are not the same as items that are drow crafted, so that's a nonissue for this discussion. Items that are made by drow are not the same as dark elven property items, so that's also a nonissue for this discussion.
I have read all three novels and the events didn't affect all dark elven items, especially since a sourcebook shows us that some dark elven items do decay if they have the dark elven property.
Do note: The only items that decay are items that are enchanted with faerzress. If they are not enchanted with faerzress, then it doesn't matter since those items act just like normal items. So, that would include items enchanted by deities or normal dark elven made items that are not enchanted by faerzress.
So, you can continue your argument but I'm not convinced that you are showing me enough proven examples to convince me of your theory.
Edit: Now, looking through my author replies, Elaine did say she wrote a partial explanation for the 3e rule changes, however, that was still before the Underdark sourcebook came out. |
| Rizogue |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 13:52:57
There is an article on Wikipedia that details (briefly) the story of Liriel. Including a referrence that would seem to indicate what Drakul says is true. I will report any other evidence to support or refute the claim as they surface. The link to the article is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liriel_Baenre#Liriel_Baenre
|
| Drakul |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 13:45:46
In the following books, Elfshadow and the Windwalker Legacy (just giving it a name), Drow items lost their luster and soon lost all the magic that was woven into them.
In Elfshadow, when Arylin obtained a piwafwi from that Fence, he told her that it would lose its properties when in contact with the sun.
In Daughter of the Drow, Liriel used the Windwalker to bring and effectively use her Drow magic on the surface. Though, when Nisstyre took the Windwalker from her, she lost access to her magic and spells. She tied her 'spellbook' to the Windwalker.
In Tangled Webs, she learned Rune Crafting and developed a Rune with the aid of Fyodor and carved it into the Tree of Life (can't think of the actual name, but it starts with a Y), and enabled all Drow magic and items to work on the surface.
In Windwalker, Drow magic and items retained their potency and the evidence that supports my claims are obviously written in the novels. Shakti Hunzrin had items blessed by Lloth with her and they did not lose their potency on the surface.
Also, in WotSQ, all the items that were taken from the Underdark to the surface retained their potency. The same thing in The Lady Penitent trilogy. Q'arlynd still has his Drow equipment and they remain intact in potency and luster.
The evidence is all there and it backs up this post and my previous posts. It is no 'theory' when it is a fact. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 13:31:52
The discussion is very interesting, I admit! However, this makes me all the more curious as to what happened in those novels. therefore could someone please be so kind and enlighten me:
quote:
Originally posted by Ergdusch
could someone discribe what exactly happened in those novels that might have had/did have an impact on how magic items of drow react when exposted to sunlight? And what exactly is Liriel's theory? I have not read those books, so I have no idea?!?
(anyone answering might want to consider spoiler warnings.......)
Thanks in advance!  |
| Drakul |
Posted - 26 Sep 2007 : 10:55:19
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
How can it be a 'theory' when she succeeded in doin just that?? Drow items no longer disintergrate on the surface, therefore, it is considered Canon. When she found the Windwalker, she decided to enable her magic to work on the surface as well as within the Underdark, without any dire consequences. However, she did not realize that when she took a piece of the Faezress, that ALL Drow magic and items would retain their luster and magic as they do in the Underdark. She also cured Fyodor's rages. This happened in Tangled Webs. You might want to review the books, you'll find that I am correct.
It's a theory because there's never been a exact comment saying that those events are what caused drow magic to do that and as you can see, the FR Underdark sourcebook does have a canon property that decays drow items on the surface and the Underdark came out after Elaine's novels.
And furthermore the event that Liriel did only affected her drow items, not ALL drow items. So, no we don't need to reread the book because it's clearly written in the book.
Shakti Hunzrin's items stayed intact on the surface, that merc band from Skullport, their items stayed intact, the Drow that traveled to the surface in the WotSQ and Lady Penitent series items stayed intact. Its safe to say that Liriel was successful in what she did.
Or, they just didn't have the dark elven property. So it's not safe to say that. :) One does not equal the other.
Shakti Hunzrin has all Drow equipment and a skeletal snake whip blessed by Lloth herself. As for the other Drow, lets take Pharaun and Ryld as an example, their items stayed intact on the surface and they had equipment that was of Drow make. However one wants to say it, one can't deny that logic that was written by those authors. So, I say again, Liriel was successful in what she did. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 20:59:58
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
How can it be a 'theory' when she succeeded in doin just that?? Drow items no longer disintergrate on the surface, therefore, it is considered Canon. When she found the Windwalker, she decided to enable her magic to work on the surface as well as within the Underdark, without any dire consequences. However, she did not realize that when she took a piece of the Faezress, that ALL Drow magic and items would retain their luster and magic as they do in the Underdark. She also cured Fyodor's rages. This happened in Tangled Webs. You might want to review the books, you'll find that I am correct.
It's a theory because there's never been a exact comment saying that those events are what caused drow magic to do that and as you can see, the FR Underdark sourcebook does have a canon property that decays drow items on the surface and the Underdark came out after Elaine's novels.
And furthermore the event that Liriel did only affected her drow items, not ALL drow items. So, no we don't need to reread the book because it's clearly written in the book.
Shakti Hunzrin's items stayed intact on the surface, that merc band from Skullport, their items stayed intact, the Drow that traveled to the surface in the WotSQ and Lady Penitent series items stayed intact. Its safe to say that Liriel was successful in what she did.
Or, they just didn't have the dark elven property. So it's not safe to say that. :) One does not equal the other. |
| Drakul |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 18:20:25
quote:
Originally posted by Kuje
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
How can it be a 'theory' when she succeeded in doin just that?? Drow items no longer disintergrate on the surface, therefore, it is considered Canon. When she found the Windwalker, she decided to enable her magic to work on the surface as well as within the Underdark, without any dire consequences. However, she did not realize that when she took a piece of the Faezress, that ALL Drow magic and items would retain their luster and magic as they do in the Underdark. She also cured Fyodor's rages. This happened in Tangled Webs. You might want to review the books, you'll find that I am correct.
It's a theory because there's never been a exact comment saying that those events are what caused drow magic to do that and as you can see, the FR Underdark sourcebook does have a canon property that decays drow items on the surface and the Underdark came out after Elaine's novels.
And furthermore the event that Liriel did only affected her drow items, not ALL drow items. So, no we don't need to reread the book because it's clearly written in the book.
Shakti Hunzrin's items stayed intact on the surface, that merc band from Skullport, their items stayed intact, the Drow that traveled to the surface in the WotSQ and Lady Penitent series items stayed intact. Its safe to say that Liriel was successful in what she did. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 25 Sep 2007 : 16:49:58
quote:
Originally posted by Drakul
How can it be a 'theory' when she succeeded in doin just that?? Drow items no longer disintergrate on the surface, therefore, it is considered Canon. When she found the Windwalker, she decided to enable her magic to work on the surface as well as within the Underdark, without any dire consequences. However, she did not realize that when she took a piece of the Faezress, that ALL Drow magic and items would retain their luster and magic as they do in the Underdark. She also cured Fyodor's rages. This happened in Tangled Webs. You might want to review the books, you'll find that I am correct.
It's a theory because there's never been a exact comment saying that those events are what caused drow magic to do that and as you can see, the FR Underdark sourcebook does have a canon property that decays drow items on the surface and the Underdark came out after Elaine's novels.
And furthermore the event that Liriel did only affected her drow items, not ALL drow items. So, no we don't need to reread the book because it's clearly written in the book. |
|
|
