|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a copy and paste of a post I made on Reddit just so maybe people who only use this forum can help answer my question, thanks!
According to LO: World Guide, Highhelm was the first and greatest Sky Citadel. But in LO: Legends it says that Koldukar was the first Sky Citadel and it was where Taargick saw the sky for the first time.
Look:
LO: Legends "The first Sky Citadel to be designed was Koldukar, built at one of the sites where the dwarves emerged onto the surface of Golarion. Taargick himself surfaced and saw the sky for the first time at this location, and he intended to make it the center of the kingdom of Tar Taargadth. It was from here Taargick ruled over the nation that bore his name during the height of its success." (p. 103)
LO: World Guide "Thus they built Highhelm, the first and greatest of their Sky Citadels, finding safety and familiarity in its stone halls and clever fortifications. From here, the kingdom of Tar Taargadth spread across the surface of Avistan, growing powerful and fruitful during the Age of Anguish." (p. 125)
Which of the books should I consider as the true origin of the dwarves?
Update!
This was taken from the timeline of the Eye of Dread and Shining Kingdoms regions respectively: (Source LO: World Guide)
–3708 ar The orc warlord Belkzen conquers the Sky Citadel of Koldukar and renames it Urgir.
–318 ar The dwarves of Tar Taargadth establish Highhelm, the first Sky Citadel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the -318 AR founding of Highhelm is an old error from the early days of Golarion, before the Quest for Sky was properly established. I think we can safely ignore it. The Quest for Sky was supposed to have come to fruition in -4987, so any source which suggests that the 'first' Sky Citadel is over 4500 years younger seems to be in error. Likely a copying error crept in compiling old timelines for the World Guide.
However, in establishing which of the Sky Citadels came first, I would say it doesn't seem to matter very much, but I would err on the side of Legends. That seems to be the source most corroborated by details (the place where Taargick first saw sky, etc.) and doesn't have the spectre of old canon errors hanging over it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clearly, this is an in-setting patriotic argument. The proud folk of Highhelm want to be important and refuse to believe orcs could steal the first prize of their Quest for Sky, so revisionist history saves the day :p
Sibelius does seem to have the right of it. The only thing of any substance I have to add is that the first Sky Citadel of Tar Taargadth might not be the first dwarven Sky Citadel built, given that Cloudspire doesn't seem to be affiliated from anything we currently know and that Arcadia has dwarves of its own. While it doesn't directly apply here, I wouldn't be certain that Taargick's breakthrough was the first.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, all sky citadels were made after -4987 AR. There was a total of 10 built and only 6 survive to the modern age.
We’re actually up to 8 now; Cloudspire in the Mwangi Expanse (home to the Mbe’ke, never lost but only introduced in 2e) and Jormurdun in the Sarkoris Scar (found, cleared, and retaken by the Pathfinder Society about eight years ago).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder if Paizo is going to stick to the "there were only ever ten (10) Sky Citadels" or if they'll quietly drop in favor of giving themselves (and by extension, the playerbase) a bit more flexibility - it's near certain there's at least one Sky Citadel in Arcadia (we know there's dwarves there, likely sharing the place with orcs that the Arcadian dwarves are on good terms with), and that basically leaves one wildcard left, which is slightly awkward, especially since so many of the citadels are clustered around the Inner Sea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder if Paizo is going to stick to the "there were only ever ten (10) Sky Citadels" or if they'll quietly drop in favor of giving themselves (and by extension, the playerbase) a bit more flexibility - it's near certain there's at least one Sky Citadel in Arcadia (we know there's dwarves there, likely sharing the place with orcs that the Arcadian dwarves are on good terms with), and that basically leaves one wildcard left, which is slightly awkward, especially since so many of the citadels are clustered around the Inner Sea.
I'd sooner they commit to it, presumably tossing a final Sky Citadel into Casmaron somewhere. It's fun to imagine that dwarves are primarily local to Avistan and Garund.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like authorial statements like "there are only x [foo]" generally. It's better to phrase things like "Dwarven Historians believe there were only 10 Sky Citadels" since it's not like Dwarves have the ability to know what Dwarves on other continents are getting up to any more than Humans have the ability to know what Humans on other continents are getting up to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, for all we know, Sky Citadels might just not be a thing outside of Avistan and northern Garund. What we know about dwarves in Arcadia already implies a different history there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really like authorial statements like "there are only x [foo]" generally. It's better to phrase things like "Dwarven Historians believe there were only 10 Sky Citadels" since it's not like Dwarves have the ability to know what Dwarves on other continents are getting up to any more than Humans have the ability to know what Humans on other continents are getting up to.
That's where I'm leaning. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that there are no Sky Citadels outside the Inner Sea. I also wouldn't be surprised about Sky Citadels existing outside the Inner Sea (whether explicitly called that or not*), but those would be cases of parallel evolution. I wouldn't count them as part of the Inner Sea 10.
*-- Just because they would exist doesn't mean that they'd be called that. For example: the hypothetical Arcadian Sky Citadels could have been named by orcs instead. Personally, I hope that the Arcadian SC's have dwarves and orcs coexisting just to drive home the differences in historical development.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I now want Arcadia to have a Drow surface settlement. The bigger, the better.
I’m sold.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I now want Arcadia to have a Drow surface settlement. The bigger, the better.
Perhaps located in the shade of some tremendous mushroom which shelters their twilight city from the harsh sunlight that they've learned to tolerate but don't yet love. Soft bioluminescence abounds.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I now want Arcadia to have a Drow surface settlement. The bigger, the better.Perhaps located in the shade of some tremendous mushroom which shelters their twilight city from the harsh sunlight that they've learned to tolerate but don't yet love. Soft bioluminescence abounds.
And the beautiful night markets that unfurl out to the horizon after sundown...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see some underground people living under the overhangs of cliffs, like the Anasazi in the Southwest. Basically every non-magical way of "avoiding the sun" works about the same way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, drow's whole thing of being underground elves would feel as weird as duergar or deep gnome surface settlement.
How about more of real life underground cities sort of dealio where city is still built underground but not in darklands?
The American Southwest has some awesome caves that could be riffed on for this. I went to Carlsbad Caverns as a kid and it blew my mind. There's also those cool ancient Pueblo houses carved into cliff faces!
But for what it's worth, I don't think "being underground" is a core part of the Drow identity. Eberron has had the Vulkoori drow in surface jungles since forever and the world didn't end.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is any value in making Drows *not* "people who want to avoid the sun". You can do that, but you could also make Halflings that are 8 feet tall and live on the moon.
You can change any one thing into something else, but there's not always a good reason to do that.
If we need people to live in neat caves somewhere, I would prefer "some sort of person that we've never heard of before" (like the Shisk or the Goloma) to a type of person we've seen and already know what they're about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is any value in making Drows *not* "people who want to avoid the sun". You can do that, but you could also make Halflings that are 8 feet tall and live on the moon.
You can change any one thing into something else, but there's not always a good reason to do that.
If we need people to live in neat caves somewhere, I would prefer "some sort of person that we've never heard of before" (like the Shisk or the Goloma) to a type of person we've seen and already know what they're about.
You can avoid the sun without living underground, was the point I was trying to make. Drow who deal with that curse by means other than living in the Darklands is a novel narrative space, and at this point I am dying for Drow to feel novel again.
A good mix of the completely new (Wyrwoods, Klinkois, Syrinx) and the recontextualized familiar (Dwarves and Orcs being pals, these hypothetical 'surface Drow') helps give each continent an identity that still fits into wider Golarion. Tian Xia still has Jinin and Kaoling, y'know?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, drow's whole thing of being underground elves would feel as weird as duergar or deep gnome surface settlement.
Arguably, the same could once have been said of dwarves. Dwarves, they live underground, known for mining and loving gold. And yet Golarion has had surface-dwelling dwarves for a long time now. I see no reason why there can't be drow who settle part of the surface. The orcs did it after the Quest For Sky.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what needs to happen is that we need to drill down to what actually defines the Drow, since apparently the "Cavern Elf" heritage is different from "being a Drow." A group of of Elves who lived underground for a while and who now live above ground is all well and good, but why do we need to make them Drow instead of another kind of Elf? Like the Jinin are not Drow, or are they?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what needs to happen is that we need to drill down to what actually defines the Drow, since apparently the "Cavern Elf" heritage is different from "being a Drow." A group of of Elves who lived underground for a while and who now live above ground is all well and good, but why do we need to make them Drow instead of another kind of Elf? Like the Jinin are not Drow, or are they?
I can't claim to be up to date on all things drow, but my perception is that the thing which defines drow compared to, say, cavern-adapted elves, is the shared heritage of being exposed to Rovagug's awakening when the Starstone struck. As I understand, elf physiology slightly adapts to their environment over decades and this interacted with Rovagug's psychic impulse to produce the drow as we know them. Now, turning to demon worship is one response to this legacy embraced by the Sub-Avestani drow, but in another place perhaps the drow responded to the trauma in other ways, perhaps even with demon hunting traditions like the Garundi orcs and Kyonin elves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw Jinning are indeed not drow. The Jinning went wide to find the mithral tree, but the drow went deep and got warped by the darklands as a whole. This is the same as dwarfs who went for the surface and tended to live near the top of the darklands, compared to druegar who were deeper.
Its always the same thing: The deeper into the darklands the more evil creatures tend to be. There might be some exceptions, but that's what they are exceptions.
*********************
And before anyone starts any BS because people love to do that, no it has nothing to do with skin color. Druegar (evil dwarfs) are ashen gray and Morlocks (inbred darkland humans) are pale white.
Jinin's (one N in the middle, no G) folk did not "go wide," they literally popped out on the opposite side of Golarion - IIRC, traveling from the Mierani Forest in Avistan to where their nation is today in Tian Xia.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about depth = evil. There's already precedent for non-Evil Drow and non-Evil Darklands ancestries.
Nobody's talking about skin tone here but you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Btw Jinning are indeed not drow. The Jinning went wide to find the mithral tree, but the drow went deep and got warped by the darklands as a whole. This is the same as dwarfs who went for the surface and tended to live near the top of the darklands, compared to druegar who were deeper.
Its always the same thing: The deeper into the darklands the more evil creatures tend to be. There might be some exceptions, but that's what they are exceptions.
*********************
And before anyone starts any BS because people love to do that, no it has nothing to do with skin color. Druegar (evil dwarfs) are ashen gray and Morlocks (inbred darkland humans) are pale white.
Indeed, it would be strange to talk about skin colour since drow were a delightful shade of lavender last I saw. Regardless, there's no reason that a society if drow living in or near the surface in Arcadia should have the same leaning toward evil as those who still live in the Darklands. Whether a given Darklands faction being good or evil is an exception to the rule strikes me as more or less irrelevant since these drow would not necessarily still be a part if the same milieu that fosters and encourages such hostility in the Darklands. After all, all humanoid creatures are equally capable of choosing good or evil, law or chaos, so a surface society if lawful good drow in Arcadia is an equally possible incarnation as any other which we can discover narrative justification for.
Earthfall was 10,000 years ago. Acting like no group of Drow could've ever poked their heads up in that time is a little silly. When we've already seen multiple individuals and groups of Drow leave behind their "traditional" demonic ways on/below the Inner Sea, I don't think another batch finding a new home in distant Arcadia is too far-fetched.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't know what you get by having the Drow in Arcadia instead of a different kind of elf that we don't know much about yet. To me it seems like the latter is just much more interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't know what you get by having the Drow in Arcadia instead of a different kind of elf that we don't know much about yet. To me it seems like the latter is just much more interesting.
I mean, we've never seen surface Drow anywhere before. Why would new Elves be more interesting than new Drow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because ordinary Elves are more interesting than Drow?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because ordinary Elves are more interesting than Drow?
Ordinary Elves are more interesting than Drow because Elves have been allowed to have variety. Let there be more to them than just "the crazy demon cultists who live underground" and I'm sure they won't be so boring anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels like the old Paladin arguments. Doesn't "Drow" mean "an elf who was underground during Earthfall that was corrupted by Rovagug's awakening?"
I just don't understand why there is so much interest in "putting the Drow in places that are not where we know they are and making them different than we know they are" when there is not similar interest in doing the same with like the Duergar or the Svirfneblin?
I like Dwarves much more than Elves and I would prefer to see "another, heretofore unseen kind of Dwarf" than "surface Duergar who are unlike their Darklands kin."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This feels like the old Paladin arguments. Doesn't "Drow" mean "an elf who was underground during Earthfall that was corrupted by Rovagug's awakening?"
That's the Drow's origin ten millennia before the current day, yes - doesn't Dwarf mean "little bearded miners from the Darklands?" And yet, we have the Taralu being surface nomad-diplomats who revere cloud dragons. I don't understand this firm resistance to an Ancestry being anything other than the narrowest definition of itself.
I just don't understand why there is so much interest in "putting the Drow in places that are not where we know they are and making them different than we know they are" when there is not similar interest in doing the same with like the Duergar or the Svirfneblin?
I like Dwarves much more than Elves and I would prefer to see "another, heretofore unseen kind of Dwarf" than "surface Duergar who are unlike their Darklands kin."
Probably because there's decades of media selling how cool the Drow are to folks, but pretty much nothing trying to make the Duergar or Svirfneblin feel similarly shiny. You might not care much for Elves or Drow, but you can't deny their popularity with lots of other fantasy nerds.
The Pahmet are wildly distinct from the Kulenett, neither of whom would be mistaken for the Mbe'ke or the Dongun. Why not afford Drow the same variety?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A surface drow society sounds like trying to change drow into something they are not. Their entire physiology is built for being underground as is the case with most things that have light sensitivity by default.
Light sensitivity automatically equates to living underground? It could simply be the mark of a nocturnal species that prefers to sleep during daylight hours. Earth has plenty of those.
Vampires are utterly destroyed by sunlight, does that automatically make them cave-dwellers?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't want to see Drow at all until we get a book on the Darklands.
It doesn't really make sense to do an entry on an ancestry that's not:
- An ancestry you find in a lot of different places.
- In a book about a place where the overwhelming majority of them live.
Like if they do an Ancestry Guide 2 then you can put the Drow in there sure, but the first place we see them in a setting book shouldn't be a "heretofore unknown group in this place."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drow discussion probably deserves its own thread at this point, as none of us are talking about the Quest for Sky now.