NEXT MONTH IN DRAGON #339
DRAGON KINGS
by Chris Flipse and Jon Sederqvist
Defile the land and raise your own empire as one of DARK SUN's godlike dragon kings. The first in DRAGON's new Year of Dragons anniversary series.
I'll close this thread when the magazine hits my mailbox,
How would we ask questions after it comes out,
How would we ask questions after it comes out,
That was what I was wondering too (without starting yet another thread). Flip?
That was what I was wondering too (without starting yet another thread). Flip?
By starting anothe thread.
One that starts with our answers to questions already asked ...Fun with stickie juggling. ;)
Q: Why didn't the article use stats for the Dragon Kings 300 years in the future, as per Dungeon Magazine #110?
Q: Why didn't the article include avangions or clerical elementals? Wouldn't PCs be more likely to aspire to these epic prestige classes?
Q: How does one jump all ten levels of the prestige class, like Kalak attempted to do? Gaining enough experience to advance more than one level still requires a character to play a session as the level which would be skipped. I want my character to duplicate Kalak's ritual.
Q: Does anyone still play Dark Sun?
Q: I have all of the Dragon and Dungeon Magazine articles for 3.5 Dark Sun. Where can I get more material to run a decent campaign?
Q: I want to use Dragon Kings in my home campaign, but I don't use psionics. Is there a substitution I could make?
Q: Can a lich continue to gain Dragon King levels?
Q: Who would win, the Great Dragon of Tyr or Tiamat?
Q: What are Rajaat's stats?
Q: When is the Living Athas campaign coming to the RPGA? Those Dragon Kings don't look so tough.
Q: What are the stats for the dead and/or exiled Dragon Kings? I'm starting my campaign where the original campaign began.
Q: How come I've never heard of Athas.org before now?
Q: OK, I've heard of Dark Sun before. Other than these Dragon Kings, what's it all about?
OK, I'll roleplay along that I've read a Dragon Kings article in Dragon Magazine. Here are some possible questions different readers might have:
Q: Why didn't the article use stats for the Dragon Kings 300 years in the future, as per Dungeon Magazine #110?
Not certain if they actually statted out the SK's in the article at all.
Q: Why didn't the article include avangions or clerical elementals? Wouldn't PCs be more likely to aspire to these epic prestige classes?
Because Paizo wanted Dragons. They didn't want the other Advanced Beings.
Q: How does one jump all ten levels of the prestige class, like Kalak attempted to do? Gaining enough experience to advance more than one level still requires a character to play a session as the level which would be skipped. I want my character to duplicate Kalak's ritual.
Sometimes you can't duplicate what you read in a novel.
Q: Does anyone still play Dark Sun?
You're on the Dark Sun community forum, are you not? Check the archives, see how active it is.
Q: I have all of the Dragon and Dungeon Magazine articles for 3.5 Dark Sun. Where can I get more material to run a decent campaign?
... http://www.athas.org this also has a differeent, but still equally official verion of Dark Sun, that may be more to your liking if you feel that the magazines are missing "something". Still, it may be a good idea to check out athas.org's materials and see if there's anything you could use for your campaign.
Q: How come I've never heard of Athas.org before now?
Because you didn't bother to look for it?
Q: OK, I've heard of Dark Sun before. Other than these Dragon Kings, what's it all about?
I'd suggest checking the forum archives for those answers.
Heh, he said he would roleplay and play along...
Thanks for noticing Jon. The funny thing is that he quoted that part of my post....
Xlorepdarkhelm, thank you. It was a sweet gesture to attempt to answer those questions for a perceived newbie.
Not certain if they actually statted out the SK's in the article at all.
I can't guarantee that all of those questions I proposed would be valid, not having a copy of the article.
Thanks for noticing Jon. The funny thing is that he quoted that part of my post....
Aye.
Xlorepdarkhelm, thank you. It was a sweet gesture to attempt to answer those questions for a perceived newbie.
Was just providing answers to questions I was as certain as you were that they'd be asked.
I can't guarantee that all of those questions I proposed would be valid, not having a copy of the article.
hehe
Also, Xlor, which part of "Will be answered after the article's release" was it you didn't get? :P
I was roleplaying that it had already been released. :P
Why aren't there stats for the existing sorcerer-kings?
Why is there no mention of using obsidian orbs?
Was it a conscious decision to have the Dragon Magic power be different than the previously-published articles on defiling? Also, why have it defer epic backlash damage instead of just inflicting damage?
Why was there no mention of how one could also gain the power to grant divine spells to templars?
Why have the psionic requirement for the PrC be only 6th-level psionic powers? I recognize the nod to psychic warriors, but it seems unnecessary; you still need 9th-level arcane spells, so that's too bad for bards.
It's pretty much bland in scope, but that's pretty much what Paizo wants I think, that and you guys had no time whatsoever to really work on it.
I really don't like the fact that you cast one spell to get into the PrC and mutate from there, just seems too simple. Ah well.
Also Metamixture seems kinda worthless, but maybe I'm not understanding the benefits.
The one thing I did like was the breath weapon. Half fire and half piercing damage seems pretty realistic, and should probably be considered to change athas.org's version to that as well.
I just hope not much was change from the original.
Good job.
Okay, a few questions now that I have the article.
Why aren't there stats for the existing sorcerer-kings?
Space.
That, and the existing Sorcerer-kings are more than just Dragons. There are at least two other templates/PrCs that they have.
Why is there no mention of using obsidian orbs?
We'll get to this later.
Was it a conscious decision to have the Dragon Magic power be different than the previously-published articles on defiling? Also, why have it defer epic backlash damage instead of just inflicting damage?
Yes, it was a concious decision. Partially, to make Dragons a little more portable by not so specifically depending on a particular implemenation of Defiling. The choice to have it mitigate backlash rather than to deal damage was both to have it do something "different" and signifigant. Also, to justify things like Bory's levy, which required an enormous number of slaves every year. He used a spell with a high backlash mitigating factor, and distributed the damage to his levy. Keeps the DCs lower.
Why was there no mention of how one could also gain the power to grant divine spells to templars?
Because by Athasian lore, that ability is only tangentally related to the dragon-ness of the character, and because cannonically, no-one else can gain that ability anymore. The means to aquire the ability (so-called Living Vorticies) are extinct.
Why have the psionic requirement for the PrC be only 6th-level psionic powers? I recognize the nod to psychic warriors, but it seems unnecessary; you still need 9th-level arcane spells, so that's too bad for bards.
Athasian bards don't cast spells. The reduced psionics requirements are to keep the level requirements a bit lower, and because psionic ability is supplemental to arcane ability. It's always been the spellcasting class that determine's what type of AB you can become. More on this later.
I really don't like the fact that you cast one spell to get into the PrC and mutate from there, just seems too simple. Ah well.
Specific requirement.
Also Metamixture seems kinda worthless, but maybe I'm not understanding the benefits.
I'll have to see it post editing before I comment on that.
The one thing I did like was the breath weapon. Half fire and half piercing damage seems pretty realistic, and should probably be considered to change athas.org's version to that as well.
Thanks.
Because by Athasian lore, that ability is only tangentally related to the dragon-ness of the character, and because cannonically, no-one else can gain that ability anymore. The means to aquire the ability (so-called Living Vorticies) are extinct.
My understanding was that Defilers & Preservers: The Wizards of Athas retconned the entire Living Vortex idea, and ruled that the sorcerer-kings' ability to grant divine spells was because of a connection to the Dark Lens (namely, that it was part of the catalyst when they began to transform). In which case, it is possible (though extremely difficult) that new dragons could gain that ability. Just look at Atzetuk (I know everyone hates that, but it is out there).
Also, and this is just a pet peeve here, it's "canon" not "cannon"!
My understanding was that Defilers & Preservers: The Wizards of Athas retconned the entire Living Vortex idea, and ruled that the sorcerer-kings' ability to grant divine spells was because of a connection to the Dark Lens (namely, that it was part of the catalyst when they began to transform). In which case, it is possible (though extremely difficult) that new dragons could gain that ability. Just look at Atzetuk (I know everyone hates that, but it is out there).
You are confusing that supplement with Rise and Fall of a Dragon King, a novel.
Also, and this is just a pet peeve here, it's "canon" not "cannon"!
Here I'll suppose you are a newbie to WotC's boards and thus will now inform you of a very important fact: Besides a few english speakers who can't spell or who make rare spelling errors, an enormous amount of people who play WotC's games are non-english speakers, and thus have a good chance not to know there is even a difference between canon and cannon.
Consider this next time you see a word that is misspelled.
You are confusing that supplement with Rise and Fall of a Dragon King, a novel.
I'm not.
Here I'll suppose you are a newbie to WotC's boards and thus will now inform you of a very important fact: Besides a few english speakers who can't spell or who make rare spelling errors, an enormous amount of people who play WotC's games are non-english speakers, and thus have a good chance not to know there is even a difference between canon and cannon.
Consider this next time you see a word that is misspelled.
Here I'll suppose you're a newbie to forums in general, and will now inform you that just pointing out a word is misspelled, or that it's a peeve, doesn't mean I'm attacking someone.
Consider this next time you see a correction.
With the aid of a magical artifact called the Dark Lens, Borys tied the sorcerer-kings together by connecting them to all the elemental planes. They became magical conduits through with elemental priestly magic could be accessed.
This seems to re-enforce Alzrius' point of view. Ah, the contradictions of "canon"...
Ah, the contradictions of "canon"...
Well, if the authors didn't write contradictory passages, then what would us fans fight over? ;)
Here I'll suppose you're a newbie to forums in general, and will now inform you that just pointing out a word is misspelled, or that it's a peeve, doesn't mean I'm attacking someone.
Consider this next time you see a correction.
Bha, I didn't think you were making an attack, only that others might see it that way and explode.
The newbie reference was genuine, although i did not then nor do I now believe now that you are one: I've only seen newbies pointing out spelling mistakes, or people who get real tired or annoyed of another person's inability to type, spell, or whatever, and those turn in ugly flame fests. If others like me have had the same experience vis à vis who makes such comments then maybe the person you made the comment to would have reacted badly.
Is the intend of my comment in that earlier post a bit less ambiguous? I hope so :D
My understanding was that Defilers & Preservers: The Wizards of Athas retconned the entire Living Vortex idea, and ruled that the sorcerer-kings' ability to grant divine spells was because of a connection to the Dark Lens (namely, that it was part of the catalyst when they began to transform). In which case, it is possible (though extremely difficult) that new dragons could gain that ability. Just look at Atzetuk (I know everyone hates that, but it is out there).
Also, and this is just a pet peeve here, it's "canon" not "cannon"!
Hi Alzrius. Good to see you here - I always enjoy your posts over at Enworld
Personally, I never saw the description in Defilers & Preservers as a retcon - just a slightly less detailed description of the SKs' connection to the elemental vortices. Borys still performs the ceremony at the Pristine Tower - it is just clarified that he uses the Dark Lens to power it (something which wasn't part of the setting back when the elemental vortices were mention in Dragon Kings). But yeah, as you say, it's open to plenty plenty interpretation and argumentation by us fans... ;)
(Edit: Aha, found the reference I was looking for that clarifies both versions...)
The Dark Sun timeline that was put together by the TSR team towards the end of the original product run unifies the Dragon Kings and Defilers & Preservers versions:
"Through the use of the Dark Lens, Borys rewards the remaining Champions by beginning their transformations into sorcerer-kings. This process links each of them to living vortices, which allows them to grant their followers clerical spells."
I thought I had seen something like that somewhere...
My understanding was that Defilers & Preservers: The Wizards of Athas retconned the entire Living Vortex idea, and ruled that the sorcerer-kings' ability to grant divine spells was because of a connection to the Dark Lens (namely, that it was part of the catalyst when they began to transform). In which case, it is possible (though extremely difficult) that new dragons could gain that ability. Just look at Atzetuk (I know everyone hates that, but it is out there).
Dark Sun is pretty well plauged with inconsistancies.
Fortunately, a lot of those inconsisancies are introduced "in character" ... and characters make mistakes, make assumptions and are sometimes just flat out lying.
So, for the Living Vorticies -- they were attracted during the transformation process using the Dark Lense. The Sorcerer-Kings are ... unaware of the specific mechanism that allows them to grant spells. They think it's tied to the Dark Lense, but they don't know how or why.
We have an authoritative voice telling us how and why they gained the ability.
Even if you discard the living vortices, however, and treat the spell-granting as tied to their use of the Dark Lense ... it's not a trait of dragon's, but a trait of some particular characters who also happen to be dragons.
There are examples of Dragons who do not have the ability to grant spells.
Also, and this is just a pet peeve here, it's "canon" not "cannon"!
I'll try to remember that, but my spelling has never been great. Though I *am* a fully native speaker of english...
Hi Alzrius. Good to see you here - I always enjoy your posts over at Enworld
Wow, I was unaware that anyway even took note of me over at EN World, much less enjoyed my posts. Thanks! :D
Personally, I never saw the description in Defilers & Preservers as a retcon - just a slightly less detailed description of the SKs' connection to the elemental vortices. Borys still performs the ceremony at the Pristine Tower - it is just clarified that he uses the Dark Lens to power it (something which wasn't part of the setting back when the elemental vortices were mention in Dragon Kings). But yeah, as you say, it's open to plenty plenty interpretation and argumentation by us fans... ;)
Yeah...I know that there's room to reconcile the two with a minor stretch (a lot of the DS inconsistencies are like this). However, I'm personally of the opinion that a retcon (or at least a minor revision to the part about living vortices being extinct) is more preferable to tie everything in together. Dragon Kings pretty much made it clear that no one could ever gain the power to grant spells to templars again, but Dungeon #110 made it clear Atzetuk now could (I know people hate that, but it's there), so something has to give in that regard. Having it be just the Dark Lens works nicely there.
(Edit: Aha, found the reference I was looking for that clarifies both versions...)
The Dark Sun timeline that was put together by the TSR team towards the end of the original product run unifies the Dragon Kings and Defilers & Preservers versions:
"Through the use of the Dark Lens, Borys rewards the remaining Champions by beginning their transformations into sorcerer-kings. This process links each of them to living vortices, which allows them to grant their followers clerical spells."
I thought I had seen something like that somewhere...
Hm, I know I've read that, but remind me what product that timeline was again?
Even if you discard the living vortices, however, and treat the spell-granting as tied to their use of the Dark Lense ... it's not a trait of dragon's, but a trait of some particular characters who also happen to be dragons.
Yeah...I guess I just wanted the article to give us stats for everything related to the sorcerer-kings.
There are examples of Dragons who do not have the ability to grant spells.
My memory is failing me here...can you remind me of some of those dragons?
My memory is failing me here...can you remind me of some of those dragons?
If I may?
Aside from any dragon a PC would make using the 3E rules, there is the 2E dragon Farcluun.
If I may?
Aside from any dragon a PC would make using the 3E rules, there is the 2E dragon Farcluun.
References man, I need references. What product and what page number?
This explains the great amount of sacrifice and why the templars can cast spells. It also meshes well with the little blurb about druids at the end of the "Beliefs" section on Draj.
It doesn't explain how Atzetuk could access this kind of magic, though maybe he managed to become an epic wizard in 300 years.
References man, I need references. What product and what page number?
Black Flames, page 15 of the book "Service", according to my PDF. The title is "Farcluun, The Dragon".
Sorry, but there's more evidence showing that only the Sorcerer-Kings have the ability to grant Templar spells, rather than all Dragons. So, if you want to play the game of hunt-through-the-books, on a subject that's been beaten to death and then kicked even more on this forum, be prepared to have a number of people jump in against you on this one, because the weight of the evidence is more in favor of the Templars being strictly for the Sorcerer Kings. Note, that many of us also feel that as some of the Champions never became Sorcerer-Kings (like Sacha & Wyan) they don't have Templars either.
And for the record, I really don't give a flying ____ what Dim Sun says about Azetuk. Those magazine articles, as far as I'm concerned, cannot be used as any form of "canonical" materials. What Paizo did with those articles is just.... revolting. I still say the only good out of it was the Defiler rules, and even they needed some adjustments to remove the silly T'liz idea from them.
Black Flames, page 15 of the book "Service", according to my PDF. The title is "Farcluun, The Dragon".
Thanks, I'll look into that.
Sorry, but there's more evidence showing that only the Sorcerer-Kings have the ability to grant Templar spells, rather than all Dragons.
Yeah, I never once said all dragons could/should have the ability to grant divine spells. I just wished there'd been some sort of mechanic for having that ability in the article, along with stats for the existing sorcerer-kings, etc.
So, if you want to play the game of hunt-through-the-books, on a subject that's been beaten to death and then kicked even more on this forum,
Regurgitating and redigesting old material is part and parcel for followers of a discontinued campaign world.
be prepared to have a number of people jump in against you on this one,
Actually, so far that's just you, and for something I never said, no less.
Note, that many of us also feel that as some of the Champions never became Sorcerer-Kings (like Sacha & Wyan) they don't have Templars either.
Yeah, no kidding. Maybe they did before during the Cleansing Wars, but they obviously don't now. Why are you bringing this up? It's not in dispute.
And for the record, I really don't give a flying ____ what Dim Sun says about Azetuk.
More power to you. ;)
Those magazine articles, as far as I'm concerned, cannot be used as any form of "canonical" materials.
I respect your opinion, but canonity transcends opinion...hence why it's canon. That material is on the books, and it is official. All that's left is to deal with it.
Note, that many of us also feel that as some of the Champions never became Sorcerer-Kings (like Sacha & Wyan) they don't have Templars either.
Which is - you'll agree perhaps - hilariously funny considering RaFoaDK says that Sacha & Wyan are the ones providing the spells for Tyr's templars because Kalak is the one that never became a champion! :P Oh the headache, oh the contradictions!
/End of good-hearted rent :D
I respect your opinion, but canonity transcends opinion...hence why it's canon. That material is on the books, and it is official. All that's left is to deal with it.
I never looked at the definition of canon per say, but this sounds about right. If in fact true, you could nonetheless be amazed by how many people discount the events of Dark Sun's Tribe of One trilogy of novels because of all the sideline crap - plus some major crapy elements too - that was in there. That's another hot zone there. ;)
Paizo's version of Dark Sun trully is a version, I'll remind you. Theirs and TSR's are two different editions of the same setting. The difference is not in the 300 years time differential but in all that was removed, added, and changed. It might have been easier for people to notice its a different version of the setting had Paizo affirmed Athas only has one moon...but they did not make that change. But other, subtler but nonetheless as important, changes speak for themselves: Paizo's DS is, for better or worse, a parallel reality of Athas, not the actual 2E setting converted to 3E.
Hm, I know I've read that, but remind me what product that timeline was again?
I don't think that it was ever in a product released under 2e. I seem to recall that it was posted online (by Kevin Melka) after/around the time that DS was cancelled. It's been floating about the net for a while - that's probably where you came across it. WotC have it on their site here. And it was also part of the material that TSR handed over to athas.org, iirc. I have a recollection that TSR were originally planning to publish it as part of Dregoth Ascending but my memory kinda fails me a bit here...
I don't think that it was ever in a product released under 2e. I seem to recall that it was posted online (by Kevin Melka) after/around the time that DS was cancelled. It's been floating about the net for a while - that's probably where you came across it. WotC have it on their site here. And it was also part of the material that TSR handed over to athas.org, iirc. I have a recollection that TSR were originally planning to publish it as part of Dregoth Ascending but my memory kinda fails me a bit here...
The only product manuscript it has appeared in is Dregoth Ascending, which I found to be a bit surprising. My initial reaction was "What's this doing in here? This should have been in campaign book, not an adventure". Since it's alsoavailable from wizards.com, it is doubtful the timeline will make it into DA part 3, but we might put a copy on athas.org.
I never looked at the definition of canon per say, but this sounds about right. If in fact true, you could nonetheless be amazed by how many people discount the events of Dark Sun's Tribe of One trilogy of novels because of all the sideline crap - plus some major crapy elements too - that was in there. That's another hot zone there. ;)
Canonity is source-based, but it still has to answer to itself. While inconsistencies that can be reconciled don't tend to force a ruling one way or another, when canon products irreconcilably contradict each other, one or the other becomes non-canon (to some degree).
A blanket rule for TSR/WotC's RPG products is that newer versions supercede older ones. That aside, all of the Dark Sun novels aside from the Prism Pentad present irreconcilable issues of canonity, and thus get themselves rendered non-canon as a result. This holds true even over the "new trumps old" rule because even later products (such as the Paizo material) tend to trump that, and because those novels being correct would invalidate a large amount of the previous DS line.
Paizo's version of Dark Sun trully is a version, I'll remind you. Theirs and TSR's are two different editions of the same setting. The difference is not in the 300 years time differential but in all that was removed, added, and changed. It might have been easier for people to notice its a different version of the setting had Paizo affirmed Athas only has one moon...but they did not make that change. But other, subtler but nonetheless as important, changes speak for themselves: Paizo's DS is, for better or worse, a parallel reality of Athas, not the actual 2E setting converted to 3E.
I disagree.
There's no cause to posit that this isn't the 2E Athas converted to 3.5E. The differences, such as they are, are largely mechanical in nature, and don't reflect actual setting changes; it's no different than the flip-flopping in 2E about when defiling occurs when casting/memorizing a spell. Mechanical differences are inevitable, and are not held against the setting; that is, they do not make it less official.
Likewise, the fact that it appeared in Paizo's magazine is immaterial. The intellectual property is still owned by WotC, and furthermore, all of Paizo's material (literally) has to be approved of by WotC to see print, including the DS material. Paizo's article that describes Athas three hundred years in the future is as official as any previous DS product.
Likewise, the fact that it appeared in Paizo's magazine is immaterial. The intellectual property is still owned by WotC, and furthermore, all of Paizo's material (literally) has to be approved of by WotC to see print, including the DS material. Paizo's article that describes Athas three hundred years in the future is as official as any previous DS product.
We all know that man, I know it.
Now that that's said, its not because something is official that its gonna be used. ToO is in the trash for a lot of people, so is lifeshaping, so is the Last Sea, so...the list goes on, all materials that are considered more and more official by more and more fans, yet are still dismissed by a sizable core of fans who do not use it at home.Athas.org, as far as I've been able to piece together, considers these "levels" of officiality, of canon, when inserting information in their products, or when deciding to create a wholy new product. For example, there is no supplement for the Jagged Cliffs and their lifeshaping halflings in the works, nor do I think there ever will be.
Will you use Paizo's setting info in your game, as is? I can answer that I won't, that I will change it enough so it matches the realities that I've gathered from the 2E setting. Each fan will have a different answer to this question, no matter how official the material is.
Dark Sun is a big ognion with the core rules and setting info outside, and fans can peel off layers to access more new and seemingly ever more weirder setting info, until they reach something they do not like and then stop. I would put Athas.org's fingers firmly aroud the top layers, ensuring that all fans get something they want.
/these look more and more like random thoughts, must go to sleep, its 02:45 here
We all know that man, I know it.
Natch. No one is coming into the homes of various gamers and making sure they play the "right" way.
ToO is in the trash for a lot of people, so is lifeshaping, so is the Last Sea, so...the list goes on, all materials that are considered more and more official by more and more fans, yet are still dismissed by a sizable core of fans who do not use it at home.
ToO has, as mentioned, irreconcilable problems with the rest of the product line, and therefore has rendered itself non-canon. The rest of the aforementioned things have not. That's the distinction.
I admit that to the fans who don't use those at home, none of this is worth anything. That's fine. People should game how they want to game. But there is a strong interest in canonity, that there is an official game world out there, and it's because of that that these sorts of conversations arise.
Athas.org, as far as I've been able to piece together, considers these "levels" of officiality, of canon, when inserting information in their products, or when deciding to create a wholy new product.
The idea of "levels of canon" seems contradictory to me; either something is official, or it isn't, though it is possible to have books that may only be canon is some aspect (e.g. page x has materials that are non-canon, but the rest of it is fine).
That said, I suppose there's room for debate on the issue, at least to a degree (though I'll probably always come down against the idea of multiple levels of canonity). "Official fansites" is an oxymoron that has a lot of meaning behind it these days.
For example, there is no supplement for the Jagged Cliffs and their lifeshaping halflings in the works, nor do I think there ever will be.
Fair enough, but that's not an issue of canon.
...And somehow the "canon" issue managed to overrun yet another thread. Flip, Jon, you guys gotten your comp copies yet so we can see some expanded answers?
Canonity is source-based, but it still has to answer to itself. While inconsistencies that can be reconciled don't tend to force a ruling one way or another, when canon products irreconcilably contradict each other, one or the other becomes non-canon (to some degree).
A blanket rule for TSR/WotC's RPG products is that newer versions supercede older ones. That aside, all of the Dark Sun novels aside from the Prism Pentad present irreconcilable issues of canonity, and thus get themselves rendered non-canon as a result. This holds true even over the "new trumps old" rule because even later products (such as the Paizo material) tend to trump that, and because those novels being correct would invalidate a large amount of the previous DS line.
Athas.org has the official stance that we do not resolve inconsistencies. However, we do tend to give priority to that which is stated by authors over that which is stated by characters.
Flip, Jon, you guys gotten your comp copies yet so we can see some expanded answers?
No. I figure Paizo didn't bother to send it with express delivery to Norway. I suppose I'll pick one up at my local gaming store once it arrives there.
For example, there is no supplement for the Jagged Cliffs and their lifeshaping halflings in the works, nor do I think there ever will be.
Actually, there is one in the planning phase in the Monster Bureau, but I wouldn't expect to see anything on this anytime soon.
Canonity is source-based, but it still has to answer to itself. While inconsistencies that can be reconciled don't tend to force a ruling one way or another, when canon products irreconcilably contradict each other, one or the other becomes non-canon (to some degree).
Well, that's just it. The mechanics, the setting material, just about everything that is in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines in question, contradicts, in a major way with the rest of the setting. Paizo made a version of Dark Sun that would be applealing to the widest possible group. There already was an official 2E -> 3.5E conversion of Dark Sun out there, which Paizo more or less disregarded, save for Noonian's original decision to "bump" it 300 years into the future, to give those of us at Athas.org room to breathe. Honestly, the setting they presented was so watered down, which is why I use the term "Dim Sun" rather than "Dark Sun" for it, that it has lost large components of what makes Dark Sun, well, Dark Sun.
And no, I'm not going to spell out exactly which differences I mean. For that, I suggest you dig through the forums, find the biggest thread in here, which is about the Dragon & Dungeon articles. The only worthwhile elements from thoise magazines was the Defiler rules, and even they were twisted a little out of order, and need some modification to make sense to the setting.
A blanket rule for TSR/WotC's RPG products is that newer versions supercede older ones. That aside, all of the Dark Sun novels aside from the Prism Pentad present irreconcilable issues of canonity, and thus get themselves rendered non-canon as a result. This holds true even over the "new trumps old" rule because even later products (such as the Paizo material) tend to trump that, and because those novels being correct would invalidate a large amount of the previous DS line.
Well, that can be problematic, in the extreme with Dark Sun, because if you just blatantly say Paizo's version supercedes, then bam, Dark Sun is forever and rreconcilably changed. That version destroyed much of Dark Sun, and you'll find that those who do like it, don't tend to speak up here, because it is a very inflammatory subject on these forums (still), and many of the old-time fans of Dark Sun felt it was a betrayal.
That said, I have tried to garner some ideas from it. From the magazines, I decided to come up with more realistic Dark Sun versions of the classes that were presented. The fluff information from it is just.... well.... horrid. I personally will never use it.
I disagree.
There's no cause to posit that this isn't the 2E Athas converted to 3.5E. The differences, such as they are, are largely mechanical in nature, and don't reflect actual setting changes; it's no different than the flip-flopping in 2E about when defiling occurs when casting/memorizing a spell. Mechanical differences are inevitable, and are not held against the setting; that is, they do not make it less official.
Likewise, the fact that it appeared in Paizo's magazine is immaterial. The intellectual property is still owned by WotC, and furthermore, all of Paizo's material (literally) has to be approved of by WotC to see print, including the DS material. Paizo's article that describes Athas three hundred years in the future is as official as any previous DS product.
It does reflect actual setting changes. Alzetuk becoming a Sorcerer-King complete with being a Dragon and having Templars? That's loony. Dwarves worshiping the Sorcerer-Kings? There's no way that could make sense. But I'm not going to go into a full explanation about the horrors there are from those magazines, they were covered elsewhere. Look for the Dragon & Dungeon Magazine articles thread, it only has zome 60+ pages I think to it, easily the biggest thread here. Lots and lots of information showing just how screwed up and contradictory it is to the rest of the setting. Dark Sun materials have a history of being contradictory, but those articles are more contradictory than any previously published works. And it isn'y because of Noonian -- but rather it's the Editors at Paizo who significantly altered his article in an attempt to make it more "mainstream" -- horribly watering down the setting (and I'm not talking about the mechanics here), as well as throwing in mechanical elements that have no reason to be there.
Athas.org has the official stance that we do not resolve inconsistencies. However, we do tend to give priority to that which is stated by authors over that which is stated by characters.
Exactly.
The idea of "levels of canon" seems contradictory to me; either something is official, or it isn't, though it is possible to have books that may only be canon is some aspect (e.g. page x has materials that are non-canon, but the rest of it is fine).
That said, I suppose there's room for debate on the issue, at least to a degree (though I'll probably always come down against the idea of multiple levels of canonity). "Official fansites" is an oxymoron that has a lot of meaning behind it these days.
There is an idea of "more official" that we work with. The worldbooks top that list -- Wanderer's Journal and Wanderer's Chronicle take a high precidence. Other setting books fall in line, and contradictions between the two are dealt with in a couple of ways.
Firstly, if the supplemental book is clearly overruling the core material -- than the setting book wins. However, if it's a side mention -- something just tossed out there, and not really germane to the core focus of the setting book, than chances are good it's just another example of TSR's lack of support for their authors. Core setting wins. It can be a subjective process.
And, there's another axis we use -- Source. Not the book that something can be found in, but the source of the statement within the book. A lot of Athas' history is laid down and presented by characters, rather than by the omnicient narrator. There's a huge difference between Hamanu telling a story, and the omnicient narrator telling the story. Hamanu forgets. Hamanu makes mistakes. Hamanu misunderstands, and doesn't know the entire situation. Hamanu lies.
It must be considered that everything said by a character is not necessarily truth, but a particular version of the truth, filtered through the character's perceptions, biases and agenda. And, in a high psionic world, it's even possible that what a character thinks is true has been planted in his mind ...
What Jon says is true -- we don't resolve contradictions. We don't stand from a perch on high and say "This book is right, that book is wrong" ... it's just a little dictatorial for a fan site. However, we do deal with them on a regular basis, and every so often, have to decide between them.
I have to mirror NytCrawlr's comments. I felt the article was bland and really did little to add anything to setting. Additionally I felt that it didn't really capture the feeling of raw power that (I think) Athasian dragons should have.
My biggest beef wasn't in the article, however. It was in the page layout. It hurt my eyes trying to read some of the print. Reddish print on a tan background? Somebody at Paizo needs to be stabbed in the eye.
Well, that's just it. The mechanics, the setting material, just about everything that is in the Dragon and Dungeon magazines in question, contradicts, in a major way with the rest of the setting.
Actually no, it doesn't. But we'll go over each of your points below.
[i]Paizo made a version of Dark Sun that would be applealing to the widest possible group. There already was an official 2E -> 3.5E conversion of Dark Sun out there, which Paizo more or less disregarded,
Which is largely an irrelevant issue. Even if one holds to the "levels of canonity" paradigm, then it's still clear that something published through Paizo with the oversight of WotC for the actual material is thus still far more canon than anything produced by a fansite.
save for Noonian's original decision to "bump" it 300 years into the future, to give those of us at Athas.org room to breathe. Honestly, the setting they presented was so watered down, which is why I use the term "Dim Sun" rather than "Dark Sun" for it, that it has lost large components of what makes Dark Sun, well, Dark Sun.
You use terms like "watered down" but you're not providing how there's actually irreconcilable setting contradictions.
And no, I'm not going to spell out exactly which differences I mean.
Then you're debating without facts.
For that, I suggest you dig through the forums, find the biggest thread in here, which is about the Dragon & Dungeon articles.
I don't need to take this to another thread; I've backed my points with sources, and besides, you're the one who showed up here to begin debating my points, not the other way around.
The only worthwhile elements from thoise magazines was the Defiler rules, and even they were twisted a little out of order, and need some modification to make sense to the setting.
What is and is not worthwhile is a matter of opinion.
Well, that can be problematic, in the extreme with Dark Sun, because if you just blatantly say Paizo's version supercedes, then bam, Dark Sun is forever and rreconcilably changed.
Every new product changes a setting to some degree. It happens.
That version destroyed much of Dark Sun, and you'll find that those who do like it, don't tend to speak up here, because it is a very inflammatory subject on these forums (still), and many of the old-time fans of Dark Sun felt it was a betrayal.
That said, I have tried to garner some ideas from it. From the magazines, I decided to come up with more realistic Dark Sun versions of the classes that were presented. The fluff information from it is just.... well.... horrid. I personally will never use it.
Irrelevant. This is just more opinion.
It does reflect actual setting changes.
Again, the mechanical changes do not reflect in-setting changes. Having the setting change the mechanics of being a fighter doesn't affect the setting unto itself.
Alzetuk becoming a Sorcerer-King complete with being a Dragon and having Templars? That's loony. Dwarves worshiping the Sorcerer-Kings? There's no way that could make sense.
More opinions, utterly irrelevant to the topic of canonity. There's nothing inherently contradictory of impossible in the setting itself for any of the above "problems."
But I'm not going to go into a full explanation about the horrors there are from those magazines, they were covered elsewhere.
And yet you continue to bring it up here.
Look for the Dragon & Dungeon Magazine articles thread, it only has zome 60+ pages I think to it, easily the biggest thread here. Lots and lots of information showing just how screwed up and contradictory it is to the rest of the setting. Dark Sun materials have a history of being contradictory, but those articles are more contradictory than any previously published works. And it isn'y because of Noonian -- but rather it's the Editors at Paizo who significantly altered his article in an attempt to make it more "mainstream" -- horribly watering down the setting (and I'm not talking about the mechanics here), as well as throwing in mechanical elements that have no reason to be there.
Again, I find nothing that is an irreconcilable change to the setting itself, and would thus make the article non-canon. Likewise, I didn't go looking to debate that; I mentioned the magazine article in context, and responded to what others have said. If you don't like the idea of having this debate here, then don't get involved.
The relatively recent publications of Dragonlance and Ravenloft 3E can only be a success if A) the rules are ok and B) the relevant fluff is maintained intact across the conversion (there's always a few casulaties, but most people accept that). Note that i have no idea if those two publication lines are indeed successes, just that those are the elements required for success in conversions.
For once I suggest that Xlorep collect all of his thoughts on the Paizo version of DS, write his own article about it and post it on his website, then copy/pasting its content on this board. If he takes the time to put the link in his browser favorites he can later provide said link at a moment's notice to any person who wants to know in what way Paizo's version is lacking in Xlorep's opinion.
Alzrius is right in saying the Paizo version is canon
Based on his/her comment about WotC looking at everything and saying yeah or neah before it gets published?
If that is the case then athas.org's material is just as much canon as Paizo's since they have to submit everything to a contact at WotC for approval. At least they did back in the day when I was helping more on the core rules. I'm not part of that process now, nor am I aware if it still works that way now that I am just in the Monster Bureau.
The relatively recent publications of Dragonlance and Ravenloft 3E can only be a success if A) the rules are ok and B) the relevant fluff is maintained intact across the conversion (there's always a few casulaties, but most people accept that). Note that i have no idea if those two publication lines are indeed successes, just that those are the elements required for success in conversions.
Not sure about Dragonlance, was never a huge fan, just want to run it sometime, therefore I don't keep track of it as much as I like.
However, I know for a fact that Ravenloft is pretty darn successful these days. Of course being bought by a subsidary company that created one of the better known systems of the time Worlds of Darkness (also known as Vampire the Apocalypse, Mage: The Ascension, etc. before getting a name change for the new versions).
However, I no for a fact that Ravenloft is pretty darn successful these days.
Hmm. Actually, the Ravenloft line is now defunct as WW reverted the license back to WotC a couple of months back. Dragonlance seems to be doing well however, despite having gone through more setting, canon and rules changes than any other D&D gameline that I am aware of.
Which is largely an irrelevant issue. Even if one holds to the "levels of canonity" paradigm, then it's still clear that something published through Paizo with the oversight of WotC for the actual material is thus still far more canon than anything produced by a fansite.
Get off your high horse.
From the FAQ from athas.org (link for Alzrius http://www.athas.org/faq/):
Q: I thought there were official Dark Sun 3rd edition rules in Dungeon/ Dragon magazines. Which conversion is “more” official – the athas.org one or the Dragon/Dungeon one?
A: Both are equally official. Athas.org has a mandate from Wizards of the Coast to produce new Dark Sun material, including a Dark Sun 3rd edition conversion. Seeing content in Dungeon and Dragon magazines are considered official, we have two official conversions. In other words, the fans have more options and can pick and mix elements from the two conversions if they please.
You did not even seem to bother to check out the athas.org site, instead going the "You guys are not official, because you are just fans"-way.
I can of course accept if someone likes Paizo's version better, one should use what fits his taste most. But I do not understand why the material we put so much effort and thought in should be inherently inferior just because one is published in a magazine (which is, by the way, not done by Wizards of the Coast anymore) and one is on a website. We do take great pains to not force any personal preferences to "become official" just because we are the athas.org team. On the contrary, most of us use different rules for our home campaigns. But because we cannot justify our personal changes to the campaign setting with the canon, we of course do not introduce them in the athas.org rules.
We are no Fanboys bent on a crusade to make our personal opinion official. We have the privilege to be able release official Dark Sun 3.5 supplements, thanks to Wizards of the Coast. We do not abuse this privilege. We try very, very hard to keep up the high standard of Dark Sun, not dilute it.
:D
Now that I've stepped back, I can see that arguing about the canonity of the Dim Sun articles is a moot point in this context. If Alzrius wants to defend them, fine. More power to him -- just he should understand that the Athas.org version of the rules is equally official as Elonarc has stated, and there are a number of people here who tend to prefer the Athas.org one, as the Dim Sun version tends to be more geared to those who aren't avid Dark Sun fans. However, many tend to intermix the two, attempting to find the best of both worlds -- even I do that, albeit I use mainly Athas.org's version, and then from DIm Sun only really use the Defiler rules, and then it helped spawn some ides I had for Paladins and Sorcerers in Dark Sun. The Dim Sun magazines also had the Erudite (not actually part of the Dim Sun articles themselves), which I have since integrated into my own campaigns.
Alzrius, if you want to focus on the Dim Sun articles, like them, and consider them the holy grail of Dark Sun conversions, more power to you. The great thing about what Jon and Flip sent to Paizo is that it is easily integrateable into that system, or into the Athas.org system, or even into games that may not be Dark Sun at all.
Get off your high horse.
Make me. ;)
You did not even seem to bother to check out the athas.org site, instead going the "You guys are not official, because you are just fans"-way.
Ah, but that FAQ wasn't run by the people at WotC, so it itself is non-canon. :D Slightly more seriously, notice that I said "even if" one holds to the levels of canonity paradigm. I'm not enforcing that view, just pointing it out.
But I do not understand why the material we put so much effort and thought in should be inherently inferior just because one is published in a magazine
See, this is where most of this misplaced negativity comes from. No one is saying that what is canon is anymore superior/inferior to what's not; it's just more official. That's not a value judgment.
We try very, very hard to keep up the high standard of Dark Sun, not dilute it.
And no one is suggesting otherwise.
To add to the "canonity" discussion, David Noonan himself has confessed that the editors of Dragon Magazine made radical changes to his article and that choices were made that he was unaware of and disagrees with. When the author himself makes a public statement diluting the integrity of his article due to poor editing, that speaks by and large for itself. This is my personal opinion, not an athas.org statement.
I couldn't agree more here.
The article is what it is, things Alzrius is nitpicking about tends to be detracting from the thread itself.
A slightly odd statement coming after your vehement posts earlier, but I suppose this does fall in line with what I mentioned earlier about wanting to get back to what this thread is supposed to be about.
More power to him -- just he should understand that the Athas.org version of the rules is equally official as Elonarc has stated
Ah, but are they equally official? There's the rub. "All works are official, but some are more official than others" to take a quote out of context. :P
Alzrius, if you want to focus on the Dim Sun articles, like them, and consider them the holy grail of Dark Sun conversions, more power to you.
Is anyone else hungry for some dim sum now? :D
Ah, but are they equally official? There's the rub. "All works are official, but some are more official than others" to take a quote out of context. :P
Athas.og is sanctioned by WotC, similar to the way several other fansites are for the so-called dead settings (like Birthright and Planescape are and Ravenloft and Dragonlance were). If athas.org was not sanctioned and official WotC would have shut them down years ago, since they are freely using a bunch of copyrighted information about the DS setting, as well as publishing actual D&D material (as opposed to D20 stuff under the OGL). If Wizards didn't shut them down it could be seen as them giving up their intellectual property rights to the setting, something they seem very unwilling to do.
Athas.og is sanctioned by WotC, similar to the way several other fansites are for the so-called dead settings (like Birthright and Planescape are and Ravenloft and Dragonlance were). If athas.org was not sanctioned and official WotC would have shut them down years ago, since they are freely using a bunch of copyrighted information about the DS setting, as well as publishing actual D&D material (as opposed to D20 stuff under the OGL). If Wizards didn't shut them down it could be seen as them giving up their intellectual property rights to the setting, something they seem very unwilling to do.
I'm aware. The quoted passage is in jest, as I'd hoped the smiley would indicate.
No one is questioning that athas.org can produce official material. That said, the majority of it is purely mechanical, which isn't part of the question of the canonity of the setting (e.g. Dragon or athas.org having different rules on bards on Athas has nothing to do with questions of the setting 300 years in the future); WotC was smart enough to avoid that problem by making part of athas.org's charter as an official fansite state that they cannot make any substantive changes to the setting itself.
No one is questioning that athas.org can produce official material. That said, the majority of it is purely mechanical, which isn't part of the question of the canonity of the setting (e.g. Dragon or athas.org having different rules on bards on Athas has nothing to do with questions of the setting 300 years in the future); WotC was smart enough to avoid that problem by making part of athas.org's charter as an official fansite state that they cannot make any substantive changes to the setting itself.
Incorrect, Athas.org *can* make substantive changes to the setting. However we are attempting to first convert the rules. We are restruicted from using any of the flavor/fluff materials from 2E, to include the pictures, and much of the text, resulting in the mechanical aspects, like you stated. However besides the rules, any new or previously unpublished material for Dark Sun can be released by Athas.org. New as in never-before-seen. New as in can have, well new elements, things that can change the setting.
Mind you, that's not what Athas.org is looking for right now.
You're doing a great job at ticking the regulars off here, done even more so by constantly wanting to shift the focus of this thread to something else. Let's just leave these side trails and stop the whole derailing process, k?
Incorrect, Athas.org *can* make substantive changes to the setting.
Changes to mechanics don't constitute changes to the setting itself; e.g., you're not allowed to kill any major existing characters.
However we are attempting to first convert the rules. We are restruicted from using any of the flavor/fluff materials from 2E, to include the pictures, and much of the text, resulting in the mechanical aspects, like you stated. However besides the rules, any new or previously unpublished material for Dark Sun can be released by Athas.org. New as in never-before-seen. New as in can have, well new elements, things that can change the setting.
Just not to the point where it's substantive; you can introduce new elements, sure, but nothing that'd radically alter things.
You're doing a great job at ticking the regulars off here,
Because all of the regulars have, of course, confided in you about how upset they are, and you're giving voice to their inarticulate rage. ;)
done even more so by constantly wanting to shift the focus of this thread to something else.
What can I say? This isn't supposed to be a thread on canonity; I'd just like to see it get back to what it's supposed to be about: Flip and Jon's article.
Let's just leave these side trails and stop the whole derailing process, k?
I'll stop replying when you do.
Changes to mechanics don't constitute changes to the setting itself; e.g., you're not allowed to kill any major existing characters.
Yes, we're not allowed to kill off major characters. That doesn't mean that we're forbidden from moving the timeline forward. And the definition of 'Major Character' is pretty much reserved for Sorcerer-Kings, and the Heros of Tyr (half of whome are already dead anyway).
However, we can advance the timeline, and are doing so -- through things like Dregoth Ascending, which does effect a major setting change, and have plans for future events including the coming Kreen invasion.
However, Given that this thread is stickied, it'd be really nice if it was kept on topic: Questions and Answers about the article in Dragon Magazine #339. If you and xlor desire to continue your debate, by all means do so, but please dedicate a new thread to it.
However, Given that this thread is stickied, it'd be really nice if it was kept on topic: Questions and Answers about the article in Dragon Magazine #339.
What I've been saying for quite a while now.
Sorry to come back once more. I just wanted to say that my previous post was of course not just concerning the mechanics, as Alzrius dismissed it to do. I was talking about Dark Sun as a whole, rules and flavour and setting alike. Sorry, I thought I made my statement as reasonable as possible. Sadly, Alzrius just had to dismiss it.
You mean this previous post?
can of course accept if someone likes Paizo's version better, one should use what fits his taste most. But I do not understand why the material we put so much effort and thought in should be inherently inferior just because one is published in a magazine (which is, by the way, not done by Wizards of the Coast anymore) and one is on a website. We do take great pains to not force any personal preferences to "become official" just because we are the athas.org team. On the contrary, most of us use different rules for our home campaigns. But because we cannot justify our personal changes to the campaign setting with the canon, we of course do not introduce them in the athas.org rules.
We are no Fanboys bent on a crusade to make our personal opinion official. We have the privilege to be able release official Dark Sun 3.5 supplements, thanks to Wizards of the Coast. We do not abuse this privilege. We try very, very hard to keep up the high standard of Dark Sun, not dilute it.
Because I didn't say you were just talking about mechanics...so I think we can just dismiss the idea that I was. :P
Ah, but are they equally official? There's the rub. "All works are official, but some are more official than others" to take a quote out of context.
Some animals are more equal than others? ;)
I fail to see how your views of "hierarchical canonity" are arbitrary compared to the views of other posters on this forum. Personally, I fail to see the need for determining a hierarchical order of officiality to be imposed upon the setting - one which every individual DM that disagreed with would alter in any case. What would be the criteria for determining a product or part of a product's rank in the hierarchy? Publication date? Company? Author? Character vs. author statement? Acknowledgement by WotC? Acknowledgement by fans, number of followers of a given rules set? Why can't you just accept the fact that there is no officialliy established hierarchy, either by Wizards of the Coast, Paizo or athas.org?
No one is questioning that athas.org can produce official material. That said, the majority of it is purely mechanical, which isn't part of the question of the canonity of the setting (e.g. Dragon or athas.org having different rules on bards on Athas has nothing to do with questions of the setting 300 years in the future); WotC was smart enough to avoid that problem by making part of athas.org's charter as an official fansite state that they cannot make any substantive changes to the setting itself.
City-State of Draj is hardly mechanical, neither are Lost Cities or Secrets of the Deadlands (the latter which we received in an unfinished manuscript form from Wizards of the Coast). Considering WotC also gave us a requirement to use D&D 3.0 and then D&D 3.5 as a basis, it has been necessary to give priority to rules and mechanics.
City-State of Draj is hardly mechanical, neither are Lost Cities or Secrets of the Deadlands (the latter which we received in an unfinished manuscript form from Wizards of the Coast). Considering WotC also gave us a requirement to use D&D 3.0 and then D&D 3.5 as a basis, it has been necessary to give priority to rules and mechanics.
Hence why I said majority and not totality. And while both of those products are great, they aren't making changes to anything existing; they're just fleshing out gaps from earlier products.
Hence why I said majority and not totality. And while both of those products are great, they aren't making changes to anything existing; they're just fleshing out gaps from earlier products.
Based on your previous posts, are you saying that products that are based on previous canon material is invalidated as new canon material? Am I to interpret that only completely new, world-shaking events and campaign expansions dealing with new regions are to be considered canon by you?
Hmm. Actually, the Ravenloft line is now defunct as WW reverted the license back to WotC a couple of months back.
Shows you how much in the loop I am, heh.
Damn that sucks. That probably spells out no chance for us ever getting picked up by someone then, which is a good thing IMO.
Dragonlance seems to be doing well however, despite having gone through more setting, canon and rules changes than any other D&D gameline that I am aware of.
Good. I'm glad they are at least making it. One of these days I will have to run or play in a DL campaign.
Well congrats on getting published
I think the artical will get the most use from those whom really follow the paizo version of DS- I am sure that old timers like myself are glad to have an alternate version from athas.org to work with though.
I did like the picture in it- kind of a Borys wanna be from the loks of it- no one will beat Brom's art for the DS setting IMO ;)
I did like the picture in it- kind of a Borys wanna be from the loks of it- no one will beat Brom's art for the DS setting IMO ;)
That was another thing about the article I liked.
The artwork actually made sense! Instead of having centaurs and such in plate mail parading down a street.
Instead of having centaurs and such in plate mail parading down a street.
Now that's canon! (at least according to Alzrius, if I have correctly interpreted his criterion of chronology and the fact that it is a completely new element - rather than based on existing material). :P
Hey Jon and flip-
Well congrats on getting published
I think the artical will get the most use from those whom really follow the paizo version of DS- I am sure that old timers like myself are glad to have an alternate version from athas.org to work with though
.
Hey, does this mean I can say what dragon rules are canon and what's not? Since I bi-authored both, I mean. :P
Now that's canon! (at least according to Alzrius, if I have correctly interpreted his criterion of chronology and the fact that it is a completely new element - rather than based on existing material). :P
Gotta love the newbies that are mostly Enworld folks sometimes, heh.
Gotta love the newbies that are mostly Enworld folks sometimes, heh.
Well, Alzrius isn't a newbie on Enworld. He provides some rather nice summaries of the contents of new issues of Dragon. Judging from the smiley in one of his posts, I'm confident he can take a joke as well as the rest of us. Right, Al? ;)
Well, Alzrius isn't a newbie on Enworld.
I meant here.
Damn poor sentence structure...
Judging from the smiley in one of his posts, I'm confident he can take a joke as well as the rest of us. Right, Al? ;)
I like to think so.
For the record, I'm also amused that just because people don't see me here a lot, they assume I'm a newbie. I've been haunting these forums for years. I just don't post here often because I prefer EN World.
Based on your previous posts, are you saying that products that are based on previous canon material is invalidated as new canon material? Am I to interpret that only completely new, world-shaking events and campaign expansions dealing with new regions are to be considered canon by you?
The idea of being considered "canon by me" is paradoxical. The whole point of having a canonity is that it transcends opinion; and simply is (as empowered by its source).
In regards to the quote of mine you're referencing, I was simply saying that your fluff products don't act in violation of the clause not to cause any substantive changes in the setting, simply because in order to "change" something, there needs to have already been something there that you're altering. Products like Lost Cities are providing new fluff material, and not acting to alter any existing material.
For the record, I'm also amused that just because people don't see me here a lot, they assume I'm a newbie. I've been haunting these forums for years. I just don't post here often because I prefer EN World.
My bad, though it was more in reference to the DS boards than the Wizo boards in general.
You have been here for quite some time, as well as posted quite a few times.
In regards to the quote of mine you're referencing, I was simply saying that your fluff products don't act in violation of the clause not to cause any substantive changes in the setting, simply because in order to "change" something, there needs to have already been something there that you're altering. Products like Lost Cities are providing new fluff material, and not acting to alter any existing material.
True, but these products still establish new canon, and frankly - Athas has had enough adventures and novels that changed the world drastically or had the potential to do so (Merchant House of Amketch, Dragon's Crown, Black Flames, Black Spine etc). Many fans have actually asked us to be moderate and produce material they can use without fear of destroying their campaign worlds
I'll have to say though, Dregoth Ascending, which will be released Dec 24 if everything goes as planned, is another adventure that could have dire outcomes, i.e. make substantial changes to Athas.I'll have to say though, Dregoth Ascending, which will be released Dec 24 if everything goes as planned, is another adventure that could have dire outcomes, i.e. make substantial changes to Athas.
Mwuahahahahaha! I can't wait.
You guys were still pretty lenient though compared to the original manuscript. ;)
True, but these products still establish new canon, and frankly - Athas has had enough adventures and novels that changed the world drastically or had the potential to do so (Merchant House of Amketch, Dragon's Crown, Black Flames, Black Spine etc). Many fans have actually asked us to be moderate and produce material they can use without fear of destroying their campaign worlds
The point is largely one that's moot. Having new canon produced by adventures such as The Tyrian Conspiracy hs results that are too small to ever appear in any later product or supplement, and likewise don't ever get called into questions of canonity; it flies "under the radar" so to speak. I'm not saying they're bad products, just that the canon laid down there doesn't affect much and so is never called into question by any earlier or later products.
Likewise, adventures that have multiple endings also fall into the grey area. Having regoth Ascending list possible outcomes should the PCs fail in which Dregoth does alter Athas's planar nature and become a god isn't the same thing as saying that definately happens.
Damn that's pretty crappy, wish I had a scanner now so I could scan it for you guys.
They should have overnighted it to you guys or something.
So I assume that neither Flip nor Jon have a copy of this thing yet?
Damn that's pretty crappy, wish I had a scanner now so I could scan it for you guys.
They should have overnighted it to you guys or something.
Nope, no copy yet. Don't think it's actually for sale at newsstands/bookstores yet either ....
The point is largely one that's moot. Having new canon produced by adventures such as The Tyrian Conspiracy hs results that are too small to ever appear in any later product or supplement, and likewise don't ever get called into questions of canonity; it flies "under the radar" so to speak. I'm not saying they're bad products, just that the canon laid down there doesn't affect much and so is never called into question by any earlier or later products.
I'd say the primary reason for not being questioned is that our adventures don't contain inconsistencies with regards to previous material.
Likewise, adventures that have multiple endings also fall into the grey area. Having regoth Ascending list possible outcomes should the PCs fail in which Dregoth does alter Athas's planar nature and become a god isn't the same thing as saying that definately happens.
There is always an official outcome of an adventure for timeline purposes.
Nope, no copy yet. Don't think it's actually for sale at newsstands/bookstores yet either ....
My local gaming store is run by a bunch of kanks who can't take a preorder, so I won't get a copy until some time during Christmas - and only if I call in to check when the magazine has arrived, so I can go down a pick up a copy. So, a scanned article would be appreciated.
Nope, no copy yet. Don't think it's actually for sale at newsstands/bookstores yet either ....
I'm actually kinda waiting for it to hit the newsstands myself, because I just might get myself a copy.
I got mine, and I absoluely loved the article. Great usage of existing 3.5 mechanics to represent a 2e concept!
Tease! Die, die!
I got mine, and I absoluely loved the article. Great usage of existing 3.5 mechanics to represent a 2e concept!
I wouldn't use the word "great", but it was a *basic* usage of existing 3.5 mechanics to represent a 2e concept, heh.
Basically for what it, and Paizo was trying to accomplish, they succeeded.
Doesn't mean I like it, nor will I use it short of the breath weapon change.
And how dare you use my avatar! I've been around longer, so you should have to change.
:D
:heehee
I will scan and e-mail tonight- I have Jon's e-mail but I need the others for those whom want it.
Kal, part of the way that they judge what sort of articles to do in the future is how well the magazine sells (to those who don't have a subscription) ... the reason there's a second Campaign Classics issue is because the first sold very, very well ...
Kal, you probably shouldn't send it to anyone besides me and Flip (authors), and perhaps those who have a subscription.
O - I know that!
I did not plan on scanning it and just putting it out there for everyone- I paid for my subscription and would feel ripped off if someone could just get all of the content for free. Looking at my post I can see that it looks as though I was offering it free to everyone, but that was never my intention.
Anywho- I just wanted to clear up that misconception
I was curious why there is a difference between the dragon magic abilities in the Paizo version and the newly released rules for athas.org? I know that Dragon (the magazine) caters to a group that doesn't necessarily use the athas.org defiling rules for spellcasting, so I guess my real question is why the athas.org rules are different.
Back in 2e dragon magic only drained life when the dragon cast a 10th level spell. Since these are now epic spells it sort of stands to reason that dragon life draining should only happen with epic spells. Plus the Dragon rules effectively give a way for dragons to cast more powerful epic spells since they can take more backlash through defiling.
I was curious why there is a difference between the dragon magic abilities in the Paizo version and the newly released rules for athas.org? I know that Dragon (the magazine) caters to a group that doesn't necessarily use the athas.org defiling rules for spellcasting, so I guess my real question is why the athas.org rules are different.
There are basic differences in Noonan's approach to defiling and athas.org's. We wanted to make the integration of dragons in Dragon magazine seamless with Noonan's previous work, thus we chose to create a new variant of dragon magic. Athas.org's version of dragon magic is more in line with athas.org's DS 3.5 Core Rules. As author of both, I say use whichever fits your game best.
I was curious why there is a difference between the dragon magic abilities in the Paizo version and the newly released rules for athas.org? I know that Dragon (the magazine) caters to a group that doesn't necessarily use the athas.org defiling rules for spellcasting, so I guess my real question is why the athas.org rules are different.
The Athas.org rules have been here longer than the Paizo ones, I think the correct phrasing is "why are the Paizo rules different" -- and it has to do with the type of people Paizo caters to vs. the type of people that Athas.org tends to cater to. Athas.org's rules are developed by fans of Dark Sun, for Dark Sun fans, in an effort to try to bring the spirit, if not the mechanics from 2E AD&D into 3.5E D&D. Paizo caters to people who generally are looking for something to throw into their existing campaigns, or with as little of a learning curve as they can -- so Paizo's rules don't hold to the flavor of a particular setting, as much as they tend to favor the idea of having the core 3.5E D&D mechanics as close as possible, and then sort of color in a taste of what the setting was like -- hence the articles done by Noonian, which to Dark Sun fans are generally "watered down", while there are people who prefer them for one reason or another. The Dragon rules in Paizo's magazine were developed with the mindset that they were not for die-hard Dark Sun fans, while the Athas.org Dragon rules are for the Dark Sun fans. That's where the difference comes in (that, and Paizo seriously limited what the article can contain).
Back in 2e dragon magic only drained life when the dragon cast a 10th level spell. Since these are now epic spells it sort of stands to reason that dragon life draining should only happen with epic spells. Plus the Dragon rules effectively give a way for dragons to cast more powerful epic spells since they can take more backlash through defiling.
Mildly slippery slope. Following that line of reasoning, you could easily make the claim that since 10th level spells in 2nd Edition were only castable by Dragons and other Advanced Beings, then only Advanced Beings can cast Epic Spells in 3.5E. The problem with that is that the 3/3.5E mechanics permit anyone to reach Epic Levels, and we're not looking to completely rewrite the existing mechanics and limit Dark Sun in that fashion. Since any Wizard can eventually attain Epic Spellcasting, this means the Dragons needing to use animal life-energy for their Epic Spells doesn't make sense (if nobody else needs it). The direction I was trying to go with it would be that the Dragon gets some sort of a bonus for using Animal Life energy when casting a spell -- any spell. I had developed, at one point, an entire line of Dragon Magic Metamagic Feats that could be combined with regular metamagic feats, or even metapsionic feats (because of my view that "Psionic Enchantments" should be the blending of Magic and Psionics together, the "blurring of the lines" so to speak between the two energies -- and the "Psionic Enchantments" should reflect that mixture -- things like using Power Points to augment Spells, and using Metamagic to boost Powers, and the like). A lot of that had been discarded in the development process, but I'll probably still make it available on my own website (well, when I get it back on my website).
Great article, btw.
Like Xlore said- it is very basic, and some would say simplistic, in order to allow those with little or no original DS experience to pick it up and use.
This is of course my opinion and personal view- I am not a member of Athas.org, and therefore do not claim to speak for them- this is just my take on the situation.
Here is another reason for the two versions- The material created by Athas.org cannot be sold, therefore it cannot be adopted by Paizo.
Actually, they could sell it with our permission, but they have a policy not to use material available on the web - which pretty much excludes anything we've created except material in development. However, as anyone can see, the dragon rules in Dragon #339 share many similar traits with athas.org's dragon rules - the most prominent difference being the absence of epic spells for the metamorphosis. A "pure" prestige class without epic spell involvement was a design requirement from Paizo.
Why Burrow? Is that from somewhere else?
Great article, btw.
Borrow because umm..... it's a desert dragon. It seemed to make sense for the Athasian Dragons to have this movement type, so we put it in.
Borrow because umm..... it's a desert dragon. It seemed to make sense for the Athasian Dragons to have this movement type, so we put it in.
Actually, I think the DK entries had a burrow listing.
Actually, I think the DK entries had a burrow listing.
Are you sure? DK p.39 shows that standard movement becomes 15 (either bipedal or quadrapedal) at 24th-level, they gain jump movement 5 at 26th-level, they gain fly movement 18(C) at 29th-level, and fly movement becomes 45(A) at 30th-level. I couldn't find a burrow movment anywhere in the book.
Borrow because umm..... it's a desert dragon. It seemed to make sense for the Athasian Dragons to have this movement type, so we put it in.
I agree, it does make sense. Thank you.
Are you sure? DK p.39 shows that standard movement becomes 15 (either bipedal or quadrapedal) at 24th-level, they gain jump movement 5 at 26th-level, they gain fly movement 18(C) at 29th-level, and fly movement becomes 45(A) at 30th-level. I couldn't find a burrow movment anywhere in the book.
Since I don't have immediate access to the book(s) I was making an educated guess. I do seem to recall a burrow entry somewhere within a DS product. Either in the MC entry for dragons in DK or the original Dragon of Tyr MC entry in the original boxed set.
And it isn'y because of Noonian -- but rather it's the Editors at Paizo who significantly altered his article in an attempt to make it more "mainstream" -- horribly watering down the setting (and I'm not talking about the mechanics here), as well as throwing in mechanical elements that have no reason to be there.
In the interest of setting the record straight, absolutely nothing of significance to the background of the revised Dark Sun setting in Dungeon magazine was changed from Dave's turnover. I understand that the Dragon staff (of which I was not at the time a part) made some significant changes to the mechanics, but extremely little editorial tinkering was done to the background Dave presented.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
--Erik
In the interest of setting the record straight, absolutely nothing of significance to the background of the revised Dark Sun setting in Dungeon magazine was changed from Dave's turnover. I understand that the Dragon staff (of which I was not at the time a part) made some significant changes to the mechanics, but extremely little editorial tinkering was done to the background Dave presented.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon & Dungeon
Ahh. Well, the mechanics changes were a big concern of mine; I guess then for the flavor/setting material... What was Noonian thinking when it came to Dwarves worshiping SK's? :P And I've never liked the idea that someone could become a new SK, without the help of Rajaat or the Dark Lens (for the advancement to Dragon).
Ahh. Well, the mechanics changes were a big concern of mine; I guess then for the flavor/setting material... What was Noonian thinking when it came to Dwarves worshiping SK's? :P And I've never liked the idea that someone could become a new SK, without the help of Rajaat or the Dark Lens (for the advancement to Dragon).
Well, if you read Erik's post and interpret it correctly, these are things that still could have been added/changed and not seen as something as significant.
Some of us DS fans find those two things very significant, but we seem to be in the minority, judging from past posts about this.
I agree though, SK worshipping dwarves are right out along with people that can become SKs (though I have a plan for someone to replace an SK if they play again and play like they said they were going to, but just this one instance).
Also, our offices are closed until the 2nd. The holidays conspired to slow down contributor copies of this issue, but they are coming.
Heh, and I just went out and bought two copies yesterday. :P
Since I don't have immediate access to the book(s) I was making an educated guess. I do seem to recall a burrow entry somewhere within a DS product. Either in the MC entry for dragons in DK or the original Dragon of Tyr MC entry in the original boxed set.
Yeah, I looked up both of those entries when I saw your original comment. Trust me, it isn't there. But it probably should have been, hense why you thought it was and why it was added now. :D
Yeah, I looked up both of those entries when I saw your original comment. Trust me, it isn't there. But it probably should have been, hense why you thought it was and why it was added now. :D
So it was a mind over matter thing?
Does this mean I have telepathic influence on the great DS webmasters? :D 
:evillaugh :88E:Hey Jon and flip-
Well congrats on getting published
I think the artical will get the most use from those whom really follow the paizo version of DS- I am sure that old timers like myself are glad to have an alternate version from athas.org to work with though.
I did like the picture in it- kind of a Borys wanna be from the loks of it- no one will beat Brom's art for the DS setting IMO ;)
Yeah finally!
I was quite happy to find a DarkSun article in Dragon magazine! Und cool that its about the most hotly discussed topic and awaited content - Dragons of Athas *jumps happily around*Congratulations from me too for Jon and flip- !!! I did like it. And that it is watered down from the more extensive athas.org version is clear (especially probably because of space requirements).
I quite liked the idea of mitigating epic backlash damage and do agree with Nyt in respect to Metamixture. I would more like to see epic metamagic feats instead (but you already know of this wishful thinking of mine from previous posts). The only thing that would have been nice would be to include the epic spell/spells for the metamorphosis steps - but I do guess that was a space problem. *sigh*
Any chance we might be getting them written for this Dragon magazine version for the Athasian Dragon? *looks around hopefully*
The only thing that would have been nice would be to include the epic spell/spells for the metamorphosis steps - but I do guess that was a space problem. *sigh*
It was a wish from Paizo that we did not include epic spells in the dragon metamorphosis process for the magazine. Thus we made as you put it a watered down version of the athas.org full dragon metamorphosis, without using epic spells.
In the athas.org full version, epic spells cover the physical aspects of dragonhood, while the prestige class deals with the mental aspects of Dragonhood. Since the physical effects of the spells were to some extent incorporated into the prestige class for Paizo, it doesn't make sense for me to write epic spells for the magazine version.
If I may?
Aside from any dragon a PC would make using the 3E rules, there is the 2E dragon Farcluun.
Heh, I know of 2 encounters with that Dragon, in campaigns I've heard about. In one instance, a vorpal axe killed him, and in another the DM doubled his hitpoints and they still killed him. I don't have the black flames module, but doesn't it say something about him being in a weakened state?
Plus, well, perhaps the DM should step in, but sometimes it doesn't matter how powerful a character is and can still be taken down instantly (eg- critical hits, if allowed, a failed save vs poison) as was the case with the vorpal axe and a successful ego whip, which would render him incapable of casting spells above 3rd level.
It's also interesting to speculate how he got so far as a defiler/psion, the sk's have had 2 thousand years, and he, I assume was born in the post green age sometime, but must have been around a long time (there's also the life extension spell in Dragon Kings)
Heh, I know of 2 encounters with that Dragon, in campaigns I've heard about. In one instance, a vorpal axe killed him, and in another the DM doubled his hitpoints and they still killed him. I don't have the black flames module, but doesn't it say something about him being in a weakened state?
A vorpal axe? What kind of DM hands out a vorpal axe in Dark Sun?
A vorpal axe? What kind of DM hands out a vorpal axe in Dark Sun?
My DM ;) a vorpal greataxe +5 actually :D
That was another thing about the article I liked.
The artwork actually made sense! Instead of having centaurs and such in plate mail parading down a street.
Before I respond to this, I'd just like to say that in reading through the posts, I look forward to getting my hands on the article so I can use it for my mostly Paizo version DS campaign I'm prepping for, though I fear reprisal from xlore's very own Cleansing War on all things Paizo. ;) Thanks, Jon and Flip, for the new material.
On to topic... I'm sure quite a few people have probably figured this out, but since I didn't see anything in response to this, I figured I'd point it out. In that opening two page spread, I believe that's supposed to be a wemic in armor leading the parade, as mentioned in the Urik section, that Hamanu would take the guise of a half-man, half-lion dressed in golden armor to lead the parades through his city.
Just my two cents.
On to topic... I'm sure quite a few people have probably figured this out, but since I didn't see anything in response to this, I figured I'd point it out. In that opening two page spread, I believe that's supposed to be a wemic in armor leading the parade, as mentioned in the Urik section, that Hamanu would take the guise of a half-man, half-lion dressed in golden armor to lead the parades through his city.
Just my two cents.
It was confirmed by one of the Paizo guys (in one of the monster threads on the previous Dragon/Dungeon crossover) that it was indeed supposed to be Hamanu. There was some miscommunication with the artist, however, who took a different approach to "half man, half lion" than was intended.