According SKR's "Lost Temple of Demogrogon" in Dungeon #120, an ancient troglodyte race ruled Oerth "aeons ago." Most of the demon-worshipping creatures "were struck mad" by their Abyssal overlords and "descended into barbarism." However, "a few isolated pockets lingered on for a thousand more years." One such group of Demogorgon-worshiping trogs lived in the Iron Hills near Irongate, & with the aid of an artifact known as the Dread Forge, they forced a "large human tribe" of Flan to pay them tribute.
These Flan put up with the trogs "for nearly a hundred years until the rise of" Ahlissa to the north. Fearing confrontation, the trogs went into hiding & placed themselves in a sort of stasis.
As Ahlissa was founded "some 17 centuries ago" (1E DMG, 160; other sources), the kingdom would have risen roughly c. -1100 CY (I place it between c.-1125 & c. -1109). This means the trogs would have subjagated the Flan of the Iron Hills c. -1200 CY. Given the "thousand more years" reference in Dungeon #120, the trog hegemony would have ended c. -2200 CY.
However, not only does this seem a bit too recent to be considered "aeons ago," but the (presumably) human kingdom of Caerdiralor existed some 2000 years before that, c. -4358 to c. -4217, in modern-day Onnwal.
Though it's tempting to blame the trogs for the fall of the Tiamat-worshiping Caerdiralorians, Creighton Broadhurst clearly states (in "Dominions of the Flannae": http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgmp/20080429a ) that the kingdom fell in the midst of a battle to wipe out the dwarves & gnomes of the region.
It's also interesting to speculate that Caerdiralor was a trog kingdom. However, Broadhurst states that the survivors of the kingdom fled across the sea & settled in the future Bright Desert, where they made contact with the tribes of the region, eventually finding allies in Sulm, and spreading their dark teaching among the Sulmites. Compare this with Mona's statement (in "Reflections in Silica") that "Sulm willingly allied itself with powerful Ur-Flan necromancers" and it is almost certain that Broadhurst intended Caerdiralor to be an Ur-Flan (human) kingdom.
The best way I can see through this is to assume that SKR meant "thousands of years," rather than "a thousand more years."
I'd make the troglodytes a precursor of Caerdiralor, bringing the primitive Flan to civilization and introducing the worship of Tiamat.
I don't think we actually know how long ago Ahlissa was founded. The 17 centuries date is when the Nightingale was created. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer said Queen Ehlissa founded the kingdom, but the Book of Artifacts said she was "last in a line of benevolent rulers," which suggests there was some sort of domain that Queen Ehlissa's ancestors ruled, if it wasn't Ahlissa itself. There could well have been some sort of precursor state that could be counted as the "Ahlissa" that rose at the end of the troglodyte dominion.
It's possible that Ehlissa's ancestors ruled elsewhere, or they might have ruled a state in the same area - it just might not have been considered a kingdom until Ehlissa's day. My conclusion is that Ehlissa is the descendant of a lost kingdom who led her followers to conquer a new (or the same) territory, and this former kingdom was the Ahlissa that rose before Caerdiralor, or Ahlissa was a collection of petty states that Queen Ehlissa knit into a kingdom, and the petty states were the Ahlissa that rose as the trogs fell, or both.
I haven't finished with my Caerdiralor stories and I had always envisioned those Flan as having come from "someplace else," preferably from "across the sea."
I like the thought of a preexisting troglodyte kingdom. And your comment "this former kingdom was the Ahlissa that rose before Caerdiralor," gives me the thought that the founders of Caerdiralor could have been exiles from this previous Kingdom of Ahlissa.
I don't think we actually know how long ago Ahlissa was founded. The 17 centuries date is when the Nightingale was created. The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer said Queen Ehlissa founded the kingdom, but the Book of Artifacts said she was "last in a line of benevolent rulers," which suggests there was some sort of domain that Queen Ehlissa's ancestors ruled, if it wasn't Ahlissa itself. There could well have been some sort of precursor state that could be counted as the "Ahlissa" that rose at the end of the troglodyte dominion.
Yeah, I tend to discount the description of Ehlissa in the BoA as either propaganda or a romantic bardic tale. It's obvious Cook had a completely different vision of Ehlissa & the Nightingale than Gygax. Whereas Cook paints Ehlissa as "benevolent," Gygax claims that she "bent all to her will" with the Nightingale over a "reign of several centuries" (1E DMG.160; EW.45), which sounds less than benevolent. Creating a theoretical "Elder Ahlissa" in order to make these differing accounts mesh just seems like a tough sell.
As for exactly when she lived, the best source seems to be the LG Onnwal gazetteer, The Free State of Onnwal, which states that she "reputedly lived 17 centuries ago when she ruled a Flannish kingdom in the vicinity of the present-day Kingdom of Ahlissa from which the Oeridian kingdom gets its name.”
Yeah, I tend to discount the description of Ehlissa in the BoA as either propaganda or a romantic bardic tale. It's obvious Cook had a completely different vision of Ehlissa & the Nightingale than Gygax. Whereas Cook paints Ehlissa as "benevolent," Gygax claims that she "bent all to her will" with the Nightingale over a "reign of several centuries" (1E DMG.160; EW.45), which sounds less than benevolent. Creating a theoretical "Elder Ahlissa" in order to make these differing accounts mesh just seems like a tough sell.
Maybe Cook's version is based on an "officially approved" (as in, approved by Ehlissa herself) biography of Ehlissa, while Gygax's came from the "unauthorized" biography, written by independent sources.
If you were running a campaign with PCs seeking the Nightingale, you might even have them find these varying accounts of her benevolence (or lack thereof).
Yeah, I tend to discount the description of Ehlissa in the BoA as either propaganda or a romantic bardic tale. It's obvious Cook had a completely different vision of Ehlissa & the Nightingale than Gygax. Whereas Cook paints Ehlissa as "benevolent," Gygax claims that she "bent all to her will" with the Nightingale over a "reign of several centuries" (1E DMG.160; EW.45), which sounds less than benevolent. Creating a theoretical "Elder Ahlissa" in order to make these differing accounts mesh just seems like a tough sell.
Well, yeah, it is obvious that Cook approached the Book of Artifacts with the idea that the legends he concocted for it would be new, in many cases world-independent stories at deliberate variance with previous versions of the artifacts. So his Teeth of Dahlver-nar were a dragon's teeth rather than a human saint's teeth (I did my best to square that circle here), and his Quill of Kuroth rewrote reality instead of just being really good at writing and treasure-finding, and even the veracity of his own Vecna Lives! was questioned when he placed the Yaheetes in the Great Kingdom rather than the Dreadwood. Roger E. Moore ignored the Book of Artifacts entirely when he designed a Greyhawk-specific version of the Orbs of Dragonkind (and the BoA gave three contradictory origin myths itself). So it clearly wasn't "Zeb" Cook's intent to establish inviolable canon, only to suggest possible myths and legends the PCs could hear (in the same way that Vecna Lives! gave a variety of contradictory stories about Vecna that the PCs might learn in their researches).
That said, in some cases the stories in the Book of Artifacts aren't irreconcilable with those found elsewhere, and I think the story of Queen Ehlissa is one of them. A woman who begins as "last in a line of benevolent rulers" may well end up "bending all to her will" as the power of her artifact corrupts her.
An "Elder Ahlissa" doesn't seem unlikely to me. It's certainly not without precedent. Before there was a Great Kingdom of Aerdy, there was a Kingdom of Aerdy; before then, there were various Aerdi principalities, which in turn were named after the Aerdi tribe. Before there were a Duchy and County of Urnst, there was a mildly despotic Suloise kingdom of Urnst, which was in turn named for an ancient Suloise house. Nations are seldom forged ex nihilo, after all, as any number of examples from our own world will attest.
That said, in some cases the stories in the Book of Artifacts aren't irreconcilable with those found elsewhere, and I think the story of Queen Ehlissa is one of them. A woman who begins as "last in a line of benevolent rulers" may well end up "bending all to her will" as the power of her artifact corrupts her.
The two aren't at all incompatible even without figuring in artifacts. I just finished reading a biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine - depending on who you talked to, and what period of her life she was in, she was a God-fearing pious woman, a manipulative and grasping golddigger, ruthless, merciful, of exceedingly "loose morals", and an exceptional ruler. All are more or less true.
Yeah, I tend to discount the description of Ehlissa in the BoA as either propaganda or a romantic bardic tale. It's obvious Cook had a completely different vision of Ehlissa & the Nightingale than Gygax. Whereas Cook paints Ehlissa as "benevolent," Gygax claims that she "bent all to her will" with the Nightingale over a "reign of several centuries" (1E DMG.160; EW.45), which sounds less than benevolent. Creating a theoretical "Elder Ahlissa" in order to make these differing accounts mesh just seems like a tough sell.
Maybe Cook's version is based on an "officially approved" (as in, approved by Ehlissa herself) biography of Ehlissa, while Gygax's came from the "unauthorized" biography, written by independent sources.
If you were running a campaign with PCs seeking the Nightingale, you might even have them find these varying accounts of her benevolence (or lack thereof).
Similarly, it is very possible that she was seen as a beneficient ruler by those goodly people who's lives she improved by defeating the evil in the land, while at the same time being seen as a despot "bending all to her will" by those evil brigands, despotic lords, and manipulative courtesans whom she imprisoned, deposed, or exiled.
All depends upon the point of view of the individual offering the opinion.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
