| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| coach |
Posted - 11 Jul 2012 : 23:59:55
found a blurb on the forgottenrealms.wikia.com and was wondering about the canonical validity of the statement:
snipped from the wikia...
"Knellict is of great, but unknown age, generally assumed to be in his second or third century. Before the first Zhengyi driven war between Vaasa and Damara, Knellict was an advisor to the king of Vaasa. The king feared Knellict's power and tried to have him assassinated. After the attempt on his life, Knellect left the service to the king of Vaasa and joined the Citadel of Assassins which quickly came under the sway of Zhengyi. During this time Knellict became the principle advisor to Zhengyi, himself."
Does anyone have a source that has this? or did this non-canon blurb sneak into that site?
I wasn't aware of any Kings of Vaasa |
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| coach |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 20:48:35
well I have H1 and honestly just missed that
now the fun part is whether to expound on it
H1 was retconned INTO FR and thus canonized
another area that was brought up in those mods and expanded on in FR9 was the underdark under the bloodstone lands called Deepearth |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 16 Aug 2012 : 09:41:03
Meh. I was going to have two things to say, after reading the first couple of posts, but it turns out I don't have anything to add to BEAST's last assessment. The other thing was adding that after finding several blatantly plagiarized entries on the FRwiki I got disgusted and just started my own. It grows more slowly since I'm the only one posting entries, but at least I'm sure nothing is stolen. I imagine a lot of scribes are compiling their own collections of lore, even if it's txt files. Anyway, that probably isn't the most appropriate tangent to veer off into, here.
So... yea, the thing about Knellict advising the king of Vaasa came from H1. FR9 used a lot of the npc/place names and paraphrased some of the details but ignored others. |
| combatmedic |
Posted - 16 Aug 2012 : 06:55:00
The 'King of Vaasa' stuff may be a leftover from the original, non-FR versions of the Bloodstone Lands. The first two H series modules were not set in the Forgotten Realms (and came out before the first FR box was published). |
| BEAST |
Posted - 19 Jul 2012 : 20:31:29
quote:
Originally posted by coach
found a blurb on the forgottenrealms.wikia.com and was wondering about the canonical validity of the statement:
snipped from the wikia...
"Knellict is of great, but unknown age, generally assumed to be in his second or third century. Before the first Zhengyi driven war between Vaasa and Damara, Knellict was an advisor to the king of Vaasa. The king feared Knellict's power and tried to have him assassinated. After the attempt on his life, Knellect left the service to the king of Vaasa and joined the Citadel of Assassins which quickly came under the sway of Zhengyi. During this time Knellict became the principle advisor to Zhengyi, himself."
Does anyone have a source that has this? or did this non-canon blurb sneak into that site?
I wasn't aware of any Kings of Vaasa
I actually just stumbled across a source. I was looking up whether the bard Riordan Parnell ever named his musical instruments, and I was surprised to find that H1 Bloodstone Pass actually was the source for Knellict's past as advisor to "the King of Vaasa". It says he performed this service for several decades before the war against Zhengyi.
I still cannot identify who this supposed King of Vaasa was, though.
It seems like a crumb of an abandoned plot point that the editors forgot to snip, to me. |
| coach |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 23:33:05
quote:
Originally posted by Quale
There was a duke of Vaasa (or the), later became the most important man in Planescape.
yeah such a short blurb in Planescape on him
|
| coach |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 23:07:39
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
The fr wiki needs much more information and clarity certainly but they cannot be expected to not remove out of date information, just because 4e is controversial. Canon is canon ,if it has changed then don't blame those who bother to keep fr wiki up to date.
someone needs to look up definition of "canon"
canon never goes "out of date"
and something "up to date" doesn't negate history it includes it
if Star Wars was a wiki i guess episode I,II,III never would have been movies in your world because they'd have been "out of date" |
| Quale |
Posted - 18 Jul 2012 : 08:52:03
There was a duke of Vaasa (or the), later became the most important man in Planescape. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 15:23:01
In places like Cormyr its not that noticeable, but in areas that changed drastically, like Arkanul, there is no info on what used to be there. That info used to be in the Wiki, but it was all removed.
The purposeful removal of knowledge from any medium smacks of Fahrenheit 451, and I find it highly distasteful. I would never dream to remove 4e lore from any entry anywhere, regardless of how I personally felt about it. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 05:06:10
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
The fr wiki needs much more information and clarity certainly but they cannot be expected to not remove out of date information, just because 4e is controversial. Canon is canon ,if it has changed then don't blame those who bother to keep fr wiki up to date.
So no info on Netheril, then, since the original nation fell long before the Realms were published? |
| BEAST |
Posted - 15 Jul 2012 : 02:03:24
quote:
Originally posted by Thauranil
The fr wiki needs much more information and clarity certainly but they cannot be expected to not remove out of date information, just because 4e is controversial. Canon is canon ,if it has changed then don't blame those who bother to keep fr wiki up to date.
"Up to date". Hmm . . .
In my book, that should mean that an article should cite all the relevant info on the subject up to that date.
It shouldn't only list the latest info, and dump all the prior, preexisting info. That's only "at this date"--not "up to" anything, at all. It ignores everything "up to", actually.
For the article to be as useful a resource as possible, it should provide readers with both the old (possibly obsolete) and the new info, and let the reader decide how best to incorporate that information into his/her imagination, game campaigns, meta-understanding of the world, etc. The article poster/editor should not be presuming to do that for the reader, and effectively censoring tons of information. Even with good intentions, censorship is bad! Arm the reader with all the info, then let the reader decide!
I wonder, with the 5E apparently welcoming old lore and aiming to be independent of any particular time period, will the FR wikia follow suit? Will it likewise cease to be so hidebound to 4E and welcome back all that old lore? Otherwise, it might be wise to change the name to 4E FR wikia, or something of the like, instead of implying that it's a library of the Realms in general, because it certainly is not if it dumps so much of the older lore. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 14 Jul 2012 : 19:41:28
That behavior is just malicious and spiteful; Wikipedia stays up to date, WITHOUT deleting all previous lore for that entry.
I only added one FR entry to Wikipedia - I added Serpentes as one of the nations on the list. A week later it was gone (I assume someone with an abysmal knowledge of FR and an exaggerated sense of self-worth felt it was their job to keep only information that they were personally aware of within the Wiki). I never bothered to update any entry again (and that was right around the time 4e came out, but I don't think it was related at all because it was Wikipedia, and NOT the FRwiki).
And thats why Wiki's are good starting points, but you can't trust them at all; anyone can modify the info, and quite a bit of it is subjective (in my case, the remover of my entry probably felt non-human nations didn't count).
*Edited for grammatical issues |
| Thauranil |
Posted - 14 Jul 2012 : 19:18:22
The fr wiki needs much more information and clarity certainly but they cannot be expected to not remove out of date information, just because 4e is controversial. Canon is canon ,if it has changed then don't blame those who bother to keep fr wiki up to date. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 13 Jul 2012 : 22:28:27
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Not "this is how it is now, and if you want to know about the past get lost". This is how I feel when I read the FRwiki these days. The whole things reeks of a massive slap-in-the-face to the 1e/2e/3e fans.
Just IMO, is all. YMMV
Well, it's a slap in the face of the old-school fans.
And it's also a slap in the face of the peeps who contributed all that old-school material to the site, only to now have it all go poof!
That latter aspect is why I dred wiki's. I've had too much of my well-thought-out, painstakingly-researched, slowly-typed stuff deleted on me. It's an insult to me. And if I may be so bold, it's a disservice to the other readers out there for whom my contributions were intended.
What is needed is a wiki with some level of moderation, to tamp down on those with overeager "delete" reflexes. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 13 Jul 2012 : 21:09:34
I wouldn't be so annoyed with it/them, if I didn't know for a fact great swaths of prior info was obliterated and over-written. There used to be MUCH more 1e/2e/3e info - now there is barely any.
With wikipedia, the changes/information is presented in the same format as always - we are given its 1e/2e description, and any changes made are noted below for both 3e & 4e. In some cases (especially with the 'cosmic' entries), we have multiple individual sub-headings dealing with time periods and worlds. THAT is the proper format.
Not "this is how it is now, and if you want to know about the past get lost". This is how I feel when I read the FRwiki these days. The whole things reeks of a massive slap-in-the-face to the 1e/2e/3e fans.
Just IMO, is all. YMMV |
| Dennis |
Posted - 12 Jul 2012 : 02:53:07
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
...but then I realized that the capital changed from Ordulin to Selgaunt in 4e. 
Because Ordulin was ravaged by the Shadowstorm, and Tamlin, Selgaunt's Hulorn-turned-'King,' didn't bother rebuilding that city to its former glory, most likely afraid that the surviving nobles would one day rise to oppose his government, (which is closely being monitored by the Shadovar).
The FR Wiki contributors (most of them, I believe) are not disrespectful of the older lore. They're only keeping up with the current timeline. (Though I must admit some of them do not bother to check on a few very important facts before writing an entry.) |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Jul 2012 : 02:32:19
I find the FR Wiki less then useless.
Most of the info is for the 'modern' period (which no-one cares about), and much of the old info - lore that we need most of the time - is now gone (I think the 4e fans had a field day of site hack'N'slash). It used to be at least semi-helpful, but nowadays its just a dumping ground for 4e fan-fic.
For instance, the other day I needed to double-check the capital of Sembia for a map I was working on, and checked the Wiki. For a few minutes there I thought the older map I was referencing was incorrect... but then I realized that the capital changed from Ordulin to Selgaunt in 4e.
Like I said, less then useless. The five people using the 4e era should be happy, though. |
| coach |
Posted - 12 Jul 2012 : 00:37:21
yeah ive got a massive outline of the bloodstone lands and was gonna be perturbed if i had missed this |
| BEAST |
Posted - 12 Jul 2012 : 00:27:17
All sources indicate that Damara's King Virdin had a treacherous chief advisor named Felix, who betrayed him, and then it was later learned that Felix was a member of the Citadel of Assassins.
RAS's The Bloodstone Lands touched on the mysteriousness of Felix a bit more than the original modules had, questioning whether that was even his true name.
It's possible the wiki poster was conflating the two (Felix and Knellict).
As far as I know, there have only been two kings of Vaasa: Zhengyi, and--ever so briefly--Entreri (Road of the Patriarch).
Last I heard, Knellict was chief advisor not to either king, but rather, to the Grandfather of Assassins.
EDIT: Fixed spelling; clarified a few passages. |
| coach |
Posted - 12 Jul 2012 : 00:00:44
other than Zhengyi of course |
|
|
