The Lore of EverQuest

[Ama]

<div>Just as the title suggests this thread is about the discussion of the lore of EverQuest.  However mostly people consider EQ1 to be the manual, guide, or gospel of the EQ universe.  I have seen some EQ1 veterans shun the history or lore of EverQuest Online Adventures and I think we really need to get this out in the open.  <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=lore&message.id=1455">Here</a> is a great starter for the lore of EverQuest 1 to get everyone started off. </div><div> </div><div>EverQuest Online Adventures is a console version of the EverQuest series that supposedly takes place 500 years before the main story.  However this has come under scrutiny multiple times as well as the EverQuest Live game.  I think its time that we all sat down say what we feel about EQOA in its relation to EQ1 as well as EQlive's relation to EQ1. </div>

[i3ry]

plz 2 lay off teh blow<div></div>

[Ama]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>i3ry2k wrote:plz 2 lay off teh blow<div></div><hr></blockquote>what?

[Cusashorn]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Amana wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>i3ry2k wrote:plz 2 lay off teh blow<div></div><hr></blockquote>what?<hr></blockquote><p>"I think he said stop taking drugs, because we dont care."</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I'm not sure. I might have been paraphrasing.</p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><p>i3ry2k:</p><p>PLEASE tell me you're not on Antonia Bayle!!</p><p> </p><p>As to the original question, I believe that all the various 'worlds' of EverQuest are legitimate sources for lore.  Granted, there may be contradictions, but there are contradictions even within a single game.  Many themes are common to more than one game, and where one game is silent on certain aspects of lore, another may 'fill-in' some missing pieces.</p><p>If you look at real life, and investigate the 'lore' around King Arthur, for instance, you will find many examples of conflicting and contradictory 'lore'.  In this respect the various spin-offs of EQ Live (EQ OnLine Adventures, EQ2, EQ Table-top RPG,--and, [dare I say it], even some of the more widely circulated and accepted 'fan-fiction'), model reality quite well.</p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:01 AM</span></p>

[Ama]

<div><blockquote><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:<div></div><div></div><p>i3ry2k:</p><p>PLEASE tell me you're not on Antonia Bayle!!</p><p> </p><p>As to the original question, I believe that all the various 'worlds' of EverQuest are legitimate sources for lore.  Granted, there may be contradictions, but there are contradictions even within a single game.  Many themes are common to more than one game, and where one game is silent on certain aspects of lore, another may 'fill-in' some missing pieces.</p><p>If you look at real life, and investigate the 'lore' around King Arthur, for instance, you will find many examples of conflicting and contradictory 'lore'.  In this respect the various spin-offs of EQ Live (EQ OnLine Adventures, EQ2, EQ Table-top RPG,--and, [dare I say it], even some of the more widely circulated and accepted 'fan-fiction'), model reality quite well.</p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:01 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>well besides mr. i3ry2k attitude I thought I would make this because I do believe some people especially the EQ1 veterans look down upon EQOA.  As mary stated all history will have conflicting and contradictory facts and statements within it.  I'm just thinking that if we want to incorporate ideas such as my thought for "The Island of Dread" into EQII we first must establish what we the fans hold true as the lore.  EQOA states it takes place 500 years before EQ1 however that is pretty much it in the lore department that I have seen.  I'm also curious to see what true EQ1 fans think, is EQOA a valid EQ series game or is it more of a spin off and shouldn't be bothered with?</div>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><p>Unfortunately, it will never be that neat.  Finding a consensus on what is 'true' lore, and what is 'heresy', is impossible.</p><p>In the end, it is a personal choice; and if others do not share your view, well that is their right.  It will not prevent others from posting the lore as they see it, (even if it is lore from 'outside' of EQ Live).  That variance adds depth and fexibility to an otherwise rigid and uncompromising, (as well as incomplete), volume of lore derived from only one source.</p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:21 AM</span></p>

[i3ry]

1)  You would be correct Cusa.b)  What does it matter what server I play on?III)  It doesn't matter.  Believe whatever lore you want to believe.  Until Sony comes out and says this lore is correct and this one is wrong it really doesn't matter.  People are going to argue and try to prove their own points from contradicting sources, which is what makes the EQ series lore so interesting.<div></div>

[Pyrrhx]

<div>Here's one way to look at it...</div><div> </div><div><strong><font color="#ccffff">It's all correct; it's just a matter of perspective.</font></strong></div><div><strong><font color="#ccffff"></font></strong> </div><div><font color="#ffffff">On an aside.. most of the <em>"contradictions"</em> can be rationally explained so that both points of view may peacefully co-exist.</font></div>

[teddyboy4]

I was going to create this thread myself last night, but decided to put it off as I was tired. I am glad it was done though b/c I think we do need to have this discussion. I don't think anyone is excpecting this discussion to put to rest the disparities that people have with the various sources of lore and what they choose to believe or not believe. But I do think this thread is a good start and would like to see it used to discuss the various differences between the sources of EQ lore (ie. EQLive, EQoA, Champions, LoEQ, EQ2 etc, etc ) and have a civilized discussion on why these sources are different. I'm not really looking for vindication or an "I told you so", I just hope we as a community can see the differences and embrace ALL of the history as it has been presented instead of writing off various parts of it as if it never happened. After all, it all has come from the same place so really no one piece of lore should be held above another ....That being said, if you have nothing to contribute here, please don't bother posting nonsense or silly drivel.Now, on to the buisness at hand...Personally, my first interaction with the EQ world was with EQ in 2000. I played off and on for a few years and the lore just intrigued me, never had I played a game that had such a rich and developed history. I loved going places and meeting characters and then learning the history behind them and thier world. Then, a few years later I caught wind of a beta test for a console version of EQ called EverQuest Online Adventures that was set 500 years before the opening of EQLive. I was intrigued to say the least, so I signed myself up for the beta and got into the first phase of closed beta. Now, I am a HUGE history buff, I simply love to learn about the history of anything really but getting the chance to actually experience the history of Norrath was too good to refuse. Once I got into the game I noticed that there were, of course, a few discrepancies between what was written as history in EQLive, and what was in EQoA. But I did not just write everything off like some people are so quick to do. In fact, I did the opposite, in all written history things change through the many tellings of the story until you have many different versions of the actual events. That is of course the case here and has been stated many times by the Dev's and lore keepers.Now, on to some of the major differences...One of the big points of contention is the Elven cities of Telethin and Fayspire that appeared in EQoA. At the time of EQoA the Elves were just beginning to explore Faydwer and stake out a home for themselves. There were actually some Elves living on Faydwer at this time, although most were living back on Tunaria (Antonica before it was renamed) awaiting the mass migration to thier new home. I think this is one of the reasons these cities weren't heard of in EQLive is b/c they were really only temporary shelters for the Elves after the abandonment of Takish'hiz by the majority of the Elves. These cities were a staging area for the long trek across the Ocean of Tears by the Elven race. They weren't a permenant residence and were never meant to be.While on the subject of cities I think we should talk about the Dwarven and Gnomish cities on Tunaira in EQoA. I also see alot of people using these cities as another major point to exclude from EQ lore. These cities were NOT meant to be thier main home like Ak'Anon and Kaladim on Faydwer. They were simply residences for the few Dwarves and Gnomes that lived on Tunaria at the time. Kaladim was always the home of the Dwarves, Morhadim was simply another Dwarven city that was eventually abandoned and destroyed in the intermitten time between the two games. As for Klik'Anon, it's pretty much the same story. Except that Klik'Anon was more an outpost for the Gnomish mining parties that were working on breaking through to Lavastorm and mining other various locations around Tunaria. It eventually fell into dissue and was abandoned.Another major point of contention is the whole Lycanthrope and Vampire hunting experiences in EQoA. All I can say about this is that not everything is such a major event that it is passed on. I mean, did everything that happened in EQLive make it into the lore of EQ2? No, of course not b/c some things are better forgotten.There are many more things to discuss, but this should be a good start <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>There seems to be some tacit nods by the developers of EQ2 toward the lore of EQoA.  Nothing deep or definitive, just little references here and there is all (ie: the cat  named Tethelin, etc.)</p><p>In addition to the whole 'Vampire' direction that EQ2 lore is starting to move in.</p><p>This is not to say that there is any collaboration at work here, but rather just a small recognition of the validity, (perhaps), of some of EQoA's lore.</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">01:21 PM</span></p>

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><p>Minor point out:</p><p>Tethelin and Fayspires would not have been found in EQlive for one reason....  The zone didn't exist, even though the geographical area is identifiable on the EQ map. </p><p>They were built on the shores of the Winter's Deep, a lake in northern tunaria (antonica).  My theory... because the lake existed but was never zoned in EQlive the team that set that as the location for Teth/Fay probably thought something along these lines:  the existence of these cities cannot be proved or disproved in EQlive because they will not have the ability to explore the area in which these cities would have historically existed.</p>

[teddyboy4]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pyrrhx wrote:<div></div><p>Minor point out:</p><p>Tethelin and Fayspires would not have been found in EQlive for one reason.... The zone didn't exist, even though the geographical area is identifiable on the EQ map.</p><p>They were built on the shores of the Winter's Deep, a lake in northern tunaria (antonica). My theory... because the lake existed but was never zoned in EQlive the team that set that as the location for Teth/Fay probably thought something along these lines: the existence of these cities cannot be proved or disproved in EQlive because they will not have the ability to explore the area in which these cities would have historically existed.</p><hr></blockquote>Funny you mention this, I was surfing around Ogaming's EQ site a day or two ago and came across <a href="http://eq.ogaming.com/info/Editorials%7E5.php" target="_blank">this </a>editorial on zones represented on the EQLive map, but never made it Live. It's a very interesting read, listed there are the missing zone that was to be put between the exit of Blackburrow and Everfrost, as well as Winters Deep and Lake Nerius.You bring up a very good point though, who is to say that Fayspire and Telethin, or at least thier remains/ruins/abandoned buildings weren't designed and actually started only to eventually be dumped b/c of some issue that developed that just couldn't be fixed. Sort of like the storied Odus zones that were reported to have been started for EQ2 but had to be scrapped b/c of problems in thier design. I mean, obviously the cities and places were in the "master" lore book we have heard about if they even got into an EverQuest game.</span><div></div><p>Message Edited by teddyboy420 on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:39 PM</span></p>

[troodon311]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Well, it looks like it's up to me to be the antagonist.Some bits of EQoA I've got no problem with in any way.  Take for example the Island of Dread you guys are always bringing up in one way or another.  Assuming you're talking about the "island" in the Southwestern part of Antonica then, to me as an EQ1 player, your Island of Dread is nothing more than a spot on the map.  If you guys say that it was some bastion of Cazic-Thule then I'll buy that.  It makes sense; the Feerrott's on that island, why shouldn't Cazic control the bulk of the island (if one can really call it an island, it's more of a peninsula separated by a river)?  I take the same sort of stance with regards to the concept of Telethin and Fayspire.  Sure, there could have been a few elves that were hesitant to leave Tunaria, and they could have built some small settlements before eventually giving in and heading to greener pastures (or in this case forests).  That's reasonable (even those city names get on my nerves for some reason)</p><p>But there are other facets of EQoA that I do have problems with, the largest being the timeline.  The idea that all of these things (the destruction of Takish'Hiz largely, to a lesser extent the subsequent rise and fall of the Combine Empire) happened with such temporal proximity to EQ1 is absolutely ridiculous.  For the example I used in the other thread that evidently I've been derailing is the fact that no Elven NPCs in EQ1 recall Takish'Hiz.  The only NPCs that I remember in that entire game talking about Takish'Hiz were LDoN lore NPCs that talked about things they'd found while exploring the underground ruins.  They had to find these things out by exploring the ruins, presumably, because no is alive to tell them of their first-hand experience with the destruction of the city.  Heck, they don't even seem to have 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge of the fall of the city, as one might expect from the children or grandchildren of these Takish'Hiz refugees.</p><p>"But troodon311, you're attempting to falsify a theory but pointing to a lack of evidence.  Theories are falsified by finding evidence that contradicts the predictions made by a hypothesis; you cannot falsify a hypothesis by pointing to a lack of supporting evidence."</p><p>I understand this, and I agree that the mere fact that no one bothered to put in an "I remember Takish'Hiz" NPC in old EQ1 is not conclusive evidence against EQoA occuring 500 years ago.  Then again, as reasonable people we must have some equally reasonable threshold of "evidence lack" before we place a theory in disfavor.   I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster, not because there's evidence that directly contradicts his possible existence, but because there's such a huge lack of evidence for his existence.  Same thing with Mokele Mbembe, the Yeti, Sasquatch, ghosts, aliens in flying saucers, etc.</p><p>I think that the evidence at hand does ultimately lead to the conclusion that EQoA's placement in the greater EverQuest timeline is flawed.  Take the Creation Story which used to be on the EQ1 website and was in the old Instruction Manuals (readable here: <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=lore&message.id=1350">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=lore&message.id=1350</a> ).  If you read the parts pertaining to the Elddar and Combine Empires you'll notice that it's written like the material is ancient history, not the recent history that EQoA tries to pawn it off as.  If there are Elves that were alive during the Elddar Empire why do "knowledgable historians" have to "surmise" what happens next?  Why is the next period in history "the least known" for many of the races?  If the Elves were kickin' it on Tunaria wouldn't they be able to fill in a few gaps?   </p><p>The timeline that I've been quoted by EQoA players regarding the separation between the fall of Takish'Hiz and the end of the Combine is also sort of weak.  Humans were created after the fall of the Takish'Hiz (during the Lost Age).  According to EQoA lore, if I'm getting this right, humans were created and populated the earth to a sufficient degree to create an empire that spanned much of Norrath in about 150 years?  C'mon, tell me you guys see something wrong with that scenario.</p><p>Also in the Creation Story is a little sentence that I really enjoy.  "Explorers and adventurers returned from afar with tales of elves, dwarves, and other strange creatures".  This sentence describes events during the Lost Age, which is immediately before the Age of Enlightenment.  If there were Elves living a few hundred miles (at the most) from Freeport, and Dwarves and Elves were running around being EQoA heroes, I don't think that humans would be too awed by stories of these races.  Just a cute little nit-pick.</p><p>As another example I'll use the "Combine" spires of EQ1.  According to the Velious lore (<a target="_blank" href="http://home1.gte.net/vze7s2vf/Al-Kabor.htm">http://home1.gte.net/vze7s2vf/Al-Kabor.htm</a>) these spires were <em>not</em> built by the Combine Empire, even though everyone at the time (including the famed Wizard Al'Kabor) had thought they were,  If living Elves were alive during the Combine Empire wouldn't one of them, at some point in his life, have taken <em>somebody</em> aside and said "Hey, those spire things. Yeah, they were around a long time before the Combine"?</p><p>I used to use Rile's attempted invasion of Faydwer as a falsification of EQoA, but I don't think there's any legit lore stating that Rile was heading for Faydwer when he was attacked, plus it seems as if the Gnomes and Dwarves were living on Faydwer in addition to Tunaria during the EQoA timeline.</p><p>That's all I'll post for now.  I have an Igneous Petrology midterm to study for :smileyhappy:</p><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">02-27-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:15 PM</span></p>

[IlionSturmli]

<div>Just want to mention the lore from Lords of Everquest....</div><div> </div><div>*runs for his life*</div><div> </div><div>YOU WILL NEVER GET ME!!!</div>

[Ama]

<div></div>Well I created this thread so that we can finally have this debate upon EQOA, EQ live and especially EQ1 lore leading to EQII lore and where each one can fit.  I can understand some people looking upon EQOA lore as if it was slapped around a bit because of certain details like th Takish'Hiz and all.  I do think EQOA has some great lore that can be adapted for EQ2 as well as EQ live but we must sort out what some people will accept and what some thing is pure crap.

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>You make some valid points.  I agree that the real 'fly in the ointment' is the 'locking' of EQoA to 500 years before EQLive, (whereas  a sepration of six times that span might be more appropriate).  But let's face it, the designers of the game(s) were more concerned with designing a game than they were about the consistency of what all, (but we here), would consider to be unimportant esoteric trivia.</p><p>As to the issue of memory.  if you leave aside the issue of racial longevity, (hard to do, since it is one of the <strong><em>main</em></strong> reasons that the time scale does not fit as it should), a span of 500 years is more than adequate to allow for the memory of previous events to fade into obscurity.</p><p>Take as an example real history.  Between the fall of Troy to the Mycenaens, and Homer's Illiad, is a mere 500 years, and yet by the time of Homer, those events were reduced to legends.  Likewise, from the time that Rome withdrew from Britain in 410, until the Battle of Hastings in 1066, was a mere 656 years, by which time intimate knowledge of Rome had all but disappeared.</p><p>As an illistration of how memories can fade and become obscured. </p><p>In the Middle Ages, in England, there was a children's nursery rhyme that told the fanciful tale of a magical kingdom ruled by a giant onion.  In one of the scores of successor kingdoms established by the Britons after the Romans left, and before the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons had taken over, there was a small kingdom in north central Britain, Caer Celemion, (near modern Silchester--the ex-Roman Calleva Atrebatum), ruled by one <strong>Einion Mawr</strong>.  Over the intervening centuries <strong>'Einion'</strong> gradually became corrupted into <strong>'Onion'</strong>.  <strong>'Mawr'</strong> means <strong>'The Great'</strong>.  <strong>'Great'</strong> is synnonomous with <strong>'Large'</strong>, which in turn can also be taken to mean <strong>'Giant'</strong>.  Thus does the ruler, <strong>'Einion the Great'</strong>, over 500 years, become transformed into <strong>'A Giant Onion'</strong>.  True story. </p><p>It is quite acceptable to believe that in a simple, illiterate, and agrarian society, (such as exists in a fantasy setting), that only the most learned of Sages would have any detailed knowledge; and such knowledge that they did posess would be incomplete and only partially understood.</p><p>But now enter longevity, (and perhaps a racial characteristic of an affinity for 'racial memory'?).</p><p>By most (accepted) accounts, Elves live six and a half times longer than humans, (roughly).  For memories to fade in Elvish society, (as they apparently have between EQoA, and EQ Live), the 500 year examples I used from real history, (above), would have to be more on the order of 3,000 - 4,000 years.</p><p>It is an inconsistency that the designers never considered I am sure, and one I doubt they are too upset about.  We lorists, (we're crazy anyhow), will either have to live with it, or to find some other way to rationalize it. </p><p>I suspect the latter. </p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-28-2006</span><span class="time_text">08:12 AM</span></p>

[Ama]

<div>Well hopefully mary we the players or as you call us the "Loreists" can rationalize this lore and hopefully well get a set timeline in place.  This way if the devs bring something from EQOA or EQlive the regular players *probably accept it* and the "Loreists" will accept it.</div>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>I agree.  However any attempt to reconcile inconsistencies between the various worlds of Norrath, is likely to smack of <strong>Deus ex Machina</strong>, and I would be very surprised if anything like concensus on lore can be achieved.</p><p>As to the time issue:  There are two 'quick fixes'</p><p>1.  Elves in EQ Live are aware of the cities of Kethelin and Fayspire, it's just that no-one has asked them about it, or that they 'assume' that since it is common knowledge in Elvish society, then they take it for granted that it is also that way in Human society as well.</p><p>2.  The standard of measurement for 'years' in EQ has not always been standardized, and that '500 years' may be a relative, rather than an absolute measurement. (akin somewhat to the 'Julian' as opposed to the Gregorian' calenders, or I suppose more aptly, the Mayan calender as opposed to the Western' calender.)  This makes some sort of sense, as Elves, with their longer life spans, would most probably measure the passage of time in different ways than Humans.  Although the time it takes for Norrath to go around it's sun is fixed, the significance of this unit of time to an Elf may be somewhat different than what it means to a Human.</p><p>Neither of these is supported by lore though, and it is a 'slippery slope' that you embark on when players start adding lore 'fixes' on their own.</p><p>Personally, I am content to live with both sets of lore as they exist, and to overlook the inconsistencies, rather than try to have players fix in on their own.  If there could, indeed, be a wide-spread acceptance of a lore 'fixes' on the part of players, I might be inclined to hop on board that band wagon.  I just don't feel confident that can actually happen.</p><p>Now, if we could get the developers of <strong>all</strong> the various EQ 'spin-offs' together down at Clancey's Pub  for a round of drinks and lore stories, perhaps it might be possible to have everyone on the same page!  Barring that, I think we will be forced to muddle through as best we can.</p><p>This is not <em>entirely</em> a bad thing, though as it leaves we the players some 'wiggle room' around which to weave our own fan fiction.</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">02-28-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:21 AM</span></p>

[teddyboy4]

<div></div>The passage of time in EQ and the placement of the different games along the timeline is is highly suspect I agree. The major problem is that we really have no sense of time in Norrath, if we go by the in-game passage of time on Norrath than EQLive has already spanned something like 5,000 years. And yet, EQoA was set 500 years before, and EQ2 comes along 500 years after. But that is something else entirely, the sscale I use when I think of the larger history and timeline of Norrath is similar to that of Earth's, just a bit longer. So 500 years on Norrath might be similar to 500-750 years here on Earth.While we're on the subject of the timeline, I don't think EQoA is set right after the fall of Takish'Hiz. In fact, Takish'Hiz exists in EQoA as a couple of ruined spires from presumably the tallest buildings in the city barely breaking the sand. It has already been consumed by the sands of Ro. Another thing that must be taken into consideration is the massive amount of time it would take almost an entire race to move to a new home across a vast ocean. Again, athough we do see the cities of Fayspire and Telethin, they aren't alll that densely populated, certainly not the thriving racial centers that Kelethin and Felwithe were. They were more temporary homes for a race of refugees with thier eyes across the Ocean of Tears.Another thing to note while on the fall of Takish'Hiz is that Humans were most certainly around during the times of Takish'Hiz. The Humans as we know them know we still in the Northlands when Takish'Hiz was founded, but during the course of the cities' life they came South and recieved the blessings of the Marr Twins. The first gatherings of traders in what would someday become Freeport also occured at this time. The lifespan of Takish'Hiz also saw the rise of the Combine empire I beleive. The timeline I most recentely saw, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_timeline" target="_blank">here </a>showed that the Combine was founed about 200 years before,.and Tsaph Katta was murdered roughly 20 years after Takish'Hiz was abandoned.The timeline of EQoA can generally be equated with the founding of Arcadin, or Erudin as it would come to be called. This was roughly 300 years before the release of EQLive, which makes sense as the beginning of EQoA was said to be around 500 years prior to EQLive.<div></div><p>Message Edited by teddyboy420 on <span class="date_text">02-28-2006</span><span class="time_text">02:27 PM</span></p>

[Ama]

<div>This maybe indeed a slipery slope situation however there is also another alternative that can be put forth.  I would love for their to be a lore that could link EQOA, EQ live, EQ1, EQ2 and other various EQ games.  However like you say mary this is a slippery slope situation when players such as ourselves apply a lore fix that we may believe in.  But you did mention the magic word that binds the EQ game series together and that is developer.  The developers in EQII can set forth a logical series of events that can be portrayed in this time span saying if said item from said series could exist here.  There are common circumstances that can be said while others become more complicated within the game realm.  To give specific examples of what i'm talking about i'll refer to what each game contains *atleast to my knowledge*.</div><div> </div><div>EQOA, EQlive, EQ1 and EQII</div><div> </div><div>Each contain the cities Qeynos and Freeport in some form or another. </div><div> </div><div>Ways it might differ in each game.</div><div>In EQOA Qeynos was on the other side of the map in a lush green area where freeport was in a desert type region much like SS. </div><div> </div><div>But like I say above devs can be the true authority for EQII lore saying what can and what cannot exist.  </div><div> </div><div> </div>

[troodon311]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>teddyboy420 wrote:<div></div>Another thing to note while on the fall of Takish'Hiz is that Humans were most certainly around during the times of Takish'Hiz. The Humans as we know them know we still in the Northlands when Takish'Hiz was founded, but during the course of the cities' life they came South and recieved the blessings of the Marr Twins. The first gatherings of traders in what would someday become Freeport also occured at this time. The lifespan of Takish'Hiz also saw the rise of the Combine empire I beleive. The timeline I most recentely saw, <a target="_blank" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_timeline">here </a>showed that the Combine was founed about 200 years before,.and Tsaph Katta was murdered roughly 20 years after Takish'Hiz was abandoned.<hr></blockquote><p>You see, this is the reason why I don't even bother trying to reconcile EQoA with EQ1, you end up nonchalantly throwing out very specific lore.  EQ1 lore cannot be clearer when it says that:</p><p>1) Takish'Hiz was destroyed during the Age of Blood. 2) Its destruction and the flight of the Elves brought about the Lost Age3) Humans were created during the Lost Age4) The Combine Empire came and went during the Lost Age</p><p>It's all well and good that you have a cute, authoritative-looking timeline there (which calls the leader of the Erudites "Erudin" :smileysurprised: ), but it just focuses on the greater EverQuest lore that it wants to and ignores other sources.  What's the point of throwing out lore from the game <em>I</em> played in order to placate other people and their games?</p><p>With regards to some of the other comments made: yes, EQoA would be a lot more coherent in the Greater EverQuest Timeline (GEQT (tm) :smileywink: ) if it took place longer ago.  Long enough so that a few generations of Elves could have come and gone, giving enough time for ancestors to die, for people to forget, and for tomes to be lost.  Of course, at the same time, you still have internal timeline problems in EQoA (as far as EQ1 lore is concerned) that I outlined above, so that alone, or saying that a Norrathian year is longer than an Earth one, doesn't finish the job.</p><p>There really, genuinely, is no possible full reconciliation between EQ1 and EQoA (let alone all the other games).  You can choose to overlook them and try to reconcile the parts that <em>are</em> possible (and there are plenty), that's cool with me.  Personally, I just don't give the problem any thought.  If EQ1 tells me that Elves used to live on Tunaria, and EQoA agrees, then I agree with EQoA.  If EQ1 tells me that humans were created after the fall of Takish'Hiz, and EQoA disagrees, then I'll ignore EQoA.  If EQoA has some lore that's not in EQ1 then I'll look at those pieces individually; if I like it then I'll buy it, if I don't then I won't. </p><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">02-28-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:43 PM</span></p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><p>Honestly, there is more that the various EQ worlds share than there are differences in lore.  In point of fact, much of the lore of , say EQoA, or EQ Table-Top RPG, deal with portions of Norrath that are not specifically dealt with by the other games, nor are likely to be.</p><p>Examples include Kethelin and Fayspires from EQoA, which are totally missing from EQ Live or EQ2, and the Loping Plains from EQ Table Top RPG. </p><p>In the absence of any information about such locations from the other games, then such lore that does exist may be taken as valid.</p><p>Future expansions may change that, but at the moment, something is better than nothing, and I see no need to reject lore from another game simply because it has not been specifically addressed in EQ Live, or EQ2.</p><p>If, and when it is addresses (if ever), then perhaps a reassessment may be needed.  Hopefully, such future expansions will build on what has proceeded it, rather than radically rewriting it.</p><p>Minor variances are to be expected, and are actually a good model of the way real-life works.</p>

[Ama]

<div></div>Though you do have to wonder mary what about Kingdom of Sky since to the EQ1 people maybe the Plane of Sky.  Does it fit in nicely to the time line of EQ1, EQ2 split off with the shattering/rending and all? 

[troodon311]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:<div></div><p>In the absence of any information about such locations from the other games, then such lore that does exist may be taken as valid.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't see why this should be a prefered position.  The examples I've shown clearly demonstrate how much thought EQoA developers put into the lore of their game.  If I know more about the lore of EQ1 (or at the very least care more about it) than they do then why should I encorporate some other guys' lore just because they happened to score a job for SOE?  If EQoA's place in time contradicts EQ1 lore, and its internal storyline contradicts EQ1 lore, I might as well be adopting stories from Middle Earth if I try and encorporate this stuff into my personal vision of Norrath (that sounds a little more dramatic than I mean it.  I'm not a freak about this stuff, just picky :smileyhappy: ).</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr><p>Minor variances are to be expected, and are actually a good model of the way real-life works.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm tired of this cop-out.  You can't dismiss all of this stuff by saying "that's how history works."  Knowledgable aristocrats during the 16th century could tell you whether or not Alexander the Great came before Julius Caesar.  Why the hell wouldn't Norrath's greatest historians (some of which are hundreds of years old, mind you) be able to figure out that the Combine Empire came after the the destruction of the Elddar Empire?  Or that Humans didn't even exist prior to the inception of the Lost Age?</p><p>You can play the "history is murky" card all day long when it comes to details, but it just doesn't cut it for huge, important historical facts.  What I'm talking about here are not "minor variances".  Minor variances would be EQoA saying someone other than Antonius I founded Qeynos and then Antonius took over for him; saying the Combine Empire collapsed 20(!) years after the destruction of Takish'Hiz when EQ1 says that Humans didn't even exist at that time is not a minor detail and is something <em>I </em>am unwilling to shrug off.  You might as well say Dragons were created by Cazic-Thule or Ogres used to be peaceful and never invaded the Plane of Earth; those sorts of details are about as small as the ones you're suggesting be written off as some historical gray area.</p><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">02-28-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:59 PM</span></p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>As always, you, as an individual player, are free to accept or to reject whatever you choose; as am I. </p><p>I am by no means trying to <em>force</em> you to accept the lore of EQoA as valid lore if you do not wish to do so, any more than the lore of EQ2 or EQ Table-Top RPG, or anything else.  Although it would seem as if you were trying to make the case that <em>only</em> lore from EQ Live can be considered 'true'.</p><p>So be it.  Consider me to have fallen from your one true faith.</p><p>In truth, the lore from EQ Live is still an ongoing process, and was hardly laid out in a consistent fashion on a story board by the designers from start to finish before the game was released.  They too have had their own internal inconsistencies and contradictions.  Their lore is sancrosanct <em>only</em> from your point of view.  If you wish to play the role of orthodox lorist and those who do not hold your views as heretical, then be my guest.</p><p>I choose to accept lore from other EQ games as valid when it makes sense to me, as is my right.</p><p>I'm sorry if you do not feel comfortable with uncertainty, murkiness, and contradiction, but that IS the way the real world works (and not soley for the 'little things' as you suggest).</p><p>I would say that names in Western Civilization such as Agammemnon, Jesus Christ, and King Arthur, could be considered 'bigger things', and yet the questions concerning <em>who</em> they were, and <em>when</em> they were, and <em>what</em> they were, continue to this day, even in our technological information society.  How much more so in a simple, agrarian and illiterate society. Indeed, I would be most surprised if a peasant farmer in China today, would have heard of any of them at all!  Ask 30 people on the subway in New York City if they know who Grover Cleveland was, or even, for that matter, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] Cheney, and see how many know (or care).  You see my point I am sure.</p><p>'Cop-out'?  Hardly, this is the way the real world works.</p><p>I suppose, in the end, we must agree to disagree, and let it go at that.</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:43 AM</span></p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p><span class="time_text">Umm, not to put too fine a point on it MODs, but your profanity filter may be just a wee bit too literal.</span></p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:45 AM</span></p>

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>"You see, this is the reason why I don't even bother trying to reconcile EQoA with EQ1, you end up nonchalantly throwing out very specific lore.  EQ1 lore cannot be clearer when it says that:</p><p>1) Takish'Hiz was destroyed during the Age of Blood. 2) Its destruction and the flight of the Elves brought about the Lost Age3) Humans were created during the Lost Age4) The Combine Empire came and went during the Lost Age"</p><p> </p><p>A few things.</p><p>In regards to the timeline:  I don't know who made it, but yes the primary error is at the point in which the fall of Takish hiz is placed.  It should fall between the Marr Twins enlightening and the birth of the combine empire, as quoted:  </p><p><em>This small minority of Barbarians saw an opportunity to triumph where the others had failed. Perhaps this was a seed of wisdom planted by the Marr Twins, or perhaps it was only by chance, but as the Barbarians spread out across the lands, warring with both each other and any other race encountered, this tiny movement continued to grow. So it was that even amidst desolation and war, there was hope. Thus began the Age of Blood.</em></p><p>We could look at this small movement as referencing the enlightening by the Marr Twins.. which would mean that the first Humans <strong>did</strong> arise at somepoint during the Age of Blood.. or we could look at this as being the catalyst that would eventually result in some barbarians becoming human in the following Age.</p><p>Now, here's my timeline of relative game history</p><ul><li>Age of Blood: </li><ul><li>Age begins with the creation of the Barbarians</li><li>Somepoint during the Age; A minority of Barbarians are enlightened</li><li>Takish Hiz begins to suffer from Ro's Curse  </li><li>Takish Hiz is eventually destroyed as the eldaar forest is overtaken by the desert</li><li>The elves of Takish Hiz flee to Faydwer.</li><ul><li>EQ1 history attests to more Elven tree cities and Cities of Marble:  <em> "Cities and villages built high into the trees housed thousands of Wood Elves and the marble cities of the High Elves were built in the forest's clearings and meadows." </em></li><li>No mention is ever made of their destruction or the elves fleeing these cities and outposts</li></ul><li>The fleeing Elves bring about the end of the Age of Blood</li></ul><li>The Lost Age:</li><ul><li>The combine empire is known to exist, decline, and disappear during this age.</li><li>According to EQ1- Humans come about during this Age.</li><ul><li>Contradicted by EQ2- Barb History- which has humans roughly coming from the Enlightening of a minority of Barbarians, which occured during the Age of Blood.</li><li>Theoretically, the Combine Empire could have been a missing link so to speak between Barb~Human, which also could theoretically have the Combine empire start during the Age of Blood as well.</li><ul><li><strong><em>At Question is the possibility that an entire Empire could rise from an agrarian society to the magics more advanced than what would follow in less then 1 Historical Age.</em> </strong></li><li><em><strong>If the Combine were in fact a missing link, this would uphold that "Human" humans were born in the Lost Age.</strong></em></li></ul></ul><li>Humans begin to band together in communities</li><li>Thus ends the lost Age</li></ul><li>The Age of Enlightenment:</li><ul><li>Permanent settlemtents are created</li><li>Erudites rise from humankind</li><li>Humans begin to explore and reclaim lost knowledge and artifacts</li><ul><li><em>"Explorers and adventurers returned from afar with tales of Elves, dwarves and other strange creatures, as well as descriptions of ancient abandoned cities."</em></li><ul><li>Afar referring to the corners of Tunaria (Antonica)... not Faydwer. </li></ul><li>Ruins of the elves are discovered</li><li>Ruins of the combine are discovered</li><li>Odus is discovered; The erudites make the trek accross the ocean led by Erud to found their new home</li><li>Kerran's are discovered and sadly.. half of their population laid to waste <strong>(EQOA live event & EQ2 in-game story from Kerran in Stonestair Byway) </strong>by plague and Erudite magics.</li></ul><li>Other events of the period</li><ul><li>Pick-claw goblins invade Runneyeye.</li><li>The Deathfist Orcs, in conjunction with Wiktaan's Rujarkian Orcs lay siege to Freeport. </li><li>The Tae-Ew excavate the Temple of Fear</li><li>The Halflings begin Building an incarnation of "The Wall" (EQ2 book reference).</li><li>One room of a mysterious temple is under excavation in the Desert of Ro down river from the Oasis of Marr.</li></ul><li>Early~mid period the last of the elder races withdraw (or disappear) from the face of the newly named Antonica.</li><ul><li>Speculation:</li><ul><li><em>The elves go home (or are lost forever) via the teleportation spires they built in Winter's Deep near Fayspires to send them to Faydwer (<strong>EQ2 High Elf references search for this lost city</strong>)</em></li><ul><li><em>Why leave if they'd been here an age?  Given up on reviving a new eldaar forest, or tired of the fleeting memories of their past glory, or realizing that the humans had finallly entered a stage where they might directly compete with the elves...</em></li><li><em>Access to this area from the south is entirely cut-off by the Hatebone orcs (sealing the Thedruk mine tunnel).</em></li></ul><li><em>The gnomes of the mining Settlement of Klick'anon discover entry to Lavastorm, and establish a mining base there before Klick'anon is destroyed by tectonic activity (the depths of Klick revealed that it seemed to have been built into a volcano... silly gnomes)</em></li><ul><li><em>Access to the area of klick and beyond is cut off: the tectonic activity cuts off access to the elven cities from the east.</em></li></ul><li><em>The dwarves of Moradhim are all eradicated as they are overcome by the Snowfist Orcs, the Hatebone Orcs, the Trolls of Baga, and the Frosteye Goblins.  **the Settlement was founded by a sect of Dwarven paladins called the Doomseekers:  They would have not chosen to retreat.</em></li></ul></ul><li>This is the Age of EQOA ( very end of lost/ very beginning of enlightenment)</li></ul><li>The Age of Turmoil:</li><ul><li>"Lost of art of Necromancy is discovered"</li><ul><li>contradiction between EQOA and EQ1, EQOA had it discovered earlier.</li><ul><li>I would side more so with EQOA on the time of discovery of Necromancy as the Erudites were more than intelligent enough to discover the Lost Art through their spies/explorers/adventurers in the previous age considering that it was entirely plausible that they would have had a run in with a Tier'dal Necro.</li><li>I would then state that in EQ1 it was actually:  "The erudites discovered that a minority of mages had been practicing the forbidden/lost art of Necromancy"</li></ul></ul><li>The war between the Heretics and the Erudites begins.</li><li>The hole is created flinging a small village of Kerran to Luclin</li><li>Much conflict and death...</li></ul><li>The Age of Wonder:</li><ul><li><em>"The Elder Races reclaim their former Glory"</em></li><ul><li>Idk about this one... seems they would have had at least 2 ages to reclaim their glory even by both EQ1 and EQOA timeline. </li></ul><li>An economy is thriving from Odus-Antonica-Faydwer</li><ul><li>Contact amongst races therefor must exist prior</li></ul><li>This is the Age of EQ1</li></ul></ul><p> </p><p>Ok, so to address this:</p><p><em>yes, EQoA would be a lot more coherent in the Greater EverQuest Timeline (GEQT (tm) <img width="16" border="0" src="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif" height="16"> ) if it took place longer ago.  Long enough so that a few generations of Elves could have come and gone, giving enough time for ancestors to die, for people to forget, and for tomes to be lost.  Of course, at the same time, you still have internal timeline problems in EQoA</em></p><p>What would the Elves have needed to forget?  The time of EQOA coincides with the time that the Humans are known to discover the other races and the ruins of said other races. If you're talking about elven generations forgetting about Takish Hiz, correct me if I'm wrong.. but for the elves to have forgotten about Takish 'Hiz, <strong>1)</strong> they would have forgotten about how they came to be on Faydwer, and <strong>2)</strong> there would be no one in EQ1 telling tales of how Sol Ro spited the elves and turned their forest and once great capital into a desert ruin.</p><p>Also in relation to Takish'Hiz... just because the ruin existed and was visitable in EQOA, there seems to be some assumption that it's demise was during the period in which EQOA takes place, placing it within a guestimated 500 or so years of EQ1... which is uncomfortably close for you, as it is for me...  However, the assumption is incorrect, and simply by looking at the timeline (which uses the EQ1 history as the standard form, assigning an age to EQOA based on it's ingame events) we can see that the fall of Takish' Hiz was 4 Ages prior to the time of EQ1, and 2 ages prior to the time of EQOA </p><ul><li>Age of Blood--Tak hiz falls</li><li>The Lost Age-- Combine falls</li><li>Age of Enlightenment-- EQOA age (explorers discover ruins/make contact with other races/erudites emerge)</li><li>Age of Turmoil-- ..erudite..magic..the hole..</li><li>Age of Wonder-- EQ1 Age</li></ul><p>My assumption?  the Ages are not equal in length, so the Ages are longer the less we know about them and the further back we go.. here's how I view it in relation to EQ1. </p><ul><li>Age of Blood-- (-2000~2500)</li><li>The Lost Age-- (-1500~2000)</li><li>Age of Enlightenment-- (-500 yrs)</li><li>Age of Turmoil-- (-100 yrs)</li><li>Age of Wonder-- (year 0)</li></ul><p>So, again... EQOA would not need to be further back as it coincides with the EQ1 history perfectly for it's associated Age, and for your other point of contention the fall of Takish'hiz would not have occured during the EQOA time period, not placing it at a close time period.  Again, as to the generations... perhaps the oldest of the EQ1 elves could have been there ( Elf older than 2100~2200 would have been 100-maybe 200 years old at the time the Elves of Takish'hiz <u>fled</u> to Faydwer.. the city itself would have been deteriorating at least 500-600 years before that, suggesting that any Elf living in EQ1's age would have to be 2500-2600 years old to have been alive during the waning period of Takish Hiz. </p><p>So..  any young elf from takish hiz that lived to be greater than 2 centuries, by avoiding untimely death from the hazards of the travel, or at the hands of the crushbone, could be alive... the mature elves of Takish Hiz would likely be 3-5 centuries old.</p><p>There's my thought process... now hopefully this will make it through  </p><p>**<strong>A minor Editorial note:  Taking this info from the thread of Elven Lifespan (from EQRPG)</strong></p><ul><li><strong>High Elf </strong></li><ul><li><strong>Adult Age- 120 </strong></li><li><strong>Mature Age-175 </strong></li><li><strong>Old Age-190 </strong></li><li><strong>Venerable Age- 350 </strong></li><li><strong>Max Age- 370 (350+4d5... that's 350 +4~+20)</strong></li></ul></ul><p><strong>**It would seem that from the EQRPG age listings... Takish 'Hiz fell 5-8 generations before EQ1. </strong></p><p>Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:59 AM</span></p><p>Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:07 AM</span></p>

[Ama]

<div>Very interesting, I had not delved that deeply into EQ1 lore nor into EQOA lore but from what i'm seeing it is possible for EQOA to exist within a cohernt timeline of EQ1 lore.  This however is disputable I believe because of EQOA stateing it takes place 500 years before EQ1.   The biggest obstacle in this path is the destruction of the Takish'Hiz area during these ages.  But I am curious what our resident dev guru's have to say about this.</div>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><p><font size="3">Great post!  </font></p><p><font size="3">It is just the type of thing that the OP was trying to get at, and I think you summarized it very well.  I suppose that constructing a coherent time-line between the various EQ worlds is as good a place to start as anywhere.</font></p><p><font size="3">One minor point:</font></p><p><font size="3">According to the EQ RPG tables, I came up with the following numbers for life expectancy for the Koada 'Dal (and the Teir 'Dal for that matter):</font></p><b><font size="1"><p><font size="2" color="#ffff00">Koada 'Dal:</font></p></font></b><font size="2" color="#ffff00">1-100  101-200  201-300  301-400  401-500  501-600  601-700  701-800</font><p align="left"><font size="3">If High Elves live 6.66% longer than Humans, and a period of 500 (Human) years is sufficient time for Humans to forget or loose knowledge of Human events; then for Elves, the period required for events to fade into obscurity would be more like 3,333 years, which is not too far out of line with the figure of 2,500 - 2,600 years which you calculated.</font></p>

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><p>Thanks. </p><p>First, Amana:  the destruction of Takish Hiz takes place 2 ages prior to the Age of Eqoa, and Eqoa takes place 2 ages prior to the Age of EQ1.  The destruction of Takish Hiz, being 4 ages past from EQ1, is far enough back that it does not prove to be an obstacle.</p><p>Second, Mary:  I guess that info on High Elf average Lifespans i pulled from the other thread was a little short.  But to hazard a guess... I'm guessing the progression you have listed is to some kind of effect:</p><ul><li>Juvenile:                1-100</li><li>Young Adult:      101-200</li><li>Adult:                 201-300</li><li>Mature:              301-400</li><li>Old:                   401-500</li><li>Elderly:              501-600</li><li>Venerable:         601-700</li><li>Ancient:             701-800</li></ul><p>To which I would ask:  On average how long would an elf truly live?  How many really make it past mature? Old? Elderly?  At what age do Elves bear and rear children?  Average generational lengths would do more to set a standard for passage of generations than would relying on max age.  By max age standard, (assuming child-birth halfway thru), that's the passage of 6 generations <em>(begining of 7th) </em>according to my time scale {-2400...-2000...-<u>1600</u>...-<strike>1200</strike>...-<u>800</u>...-<strike>400</strike>...<u>0</u>} </p><ul><li>the <u>Underlined</u> and <strike>Strikeout</strike> years prior to EQ1 show when one generation to max age would have died. </li><li>I would assume now that there would be roughly twice as many generations if we were to base this on an average age..</li><ul><li>Elves reproducing at the 200/300yr mark.. one Generation coinciding with every 200/300 yrs...not that a singular elf would have children every 200 years..that'd be icky..</li></ul></ul><p> As for period events fading into obscurity...  I'm not necessarily sure they would have to.  It is clear to me that even in EQ1, some recollection of the past greatness and fall of Takish'Hiz are clearly known.  As I said, if the events of that period (Tak'hiz) were to have all faded into obscurity, where would we get the notion that Solusek Ro burned the Eldaar forest?  I think where many are getting de-railed is with the question:  Has enough time passed that the elves have forgotten much of their knowledge of Takish'Hiz?   I would say.. wrong question!  Time is only half at issue.  The loss of knoweldge of the magics and grandeur of Takish'Hiz probably has more to do with the Elves abandoning centuries worth of research and tomes in order to flee unburdened, then the passage of time... although time would surely take it's toll on the memories of the older elves attempting to re-iterate the lost scrolls and tomes through recitation.</p><p>So to..uh.. clear that mess up:  Obscurity has less to do with the passage of time than it does with the loss of countless tomes/manifests/documents/artworks/scrolls/incantations that were left behind in favor of supplies that would aid their survival on their trek across south-eastern Tunaria and later the Sea of tears.</p><p>Right-o!</p>

[troodon311]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Although it would seem as if you were trying to make the case that <em>only</em> lore from EQ Live can be considered 'true'.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I think I've been very clear that this is not my point.  The OP asks what is the relation between EQoA and EQ1, my only point has been that in large parts they are mutually exclusive.  You can deal with that however you please and I couldn't care less. </p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>Their lore is sancrosanct <em>only</em> from your point of view.  If you wish to play the role of orthodox lorist and those who do not hold your views as heretical, then be my guest.<hr></blockquote><p>Don't put this trivial crap in religious terms.  We're talking about a video game here, there's no need to use the overthetop language.  I'm not calling anyone heritical, or even criticizing how other people interpret this information, so quit acting like I'm some villain persecuting EQoA players. </p><p>I'm not under some sort of obligation to even consider EQoA or to ponder it's place in Norrath; no more than you are to try and place Champions of Norrath or Lords of EverQuest (I'd love to see someone try and put <em>that</em> game in this timeline! :smileyhappy: ).  You have to face it, SOE didn't give a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] about coherent lore when they made some, possibly all, of their games.</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>I'm sorry if you do not feel comfortable with uncertainty, murkiness, and contradiction, but that IS the way the real world works (and not soley for the 'little things' as you suggest).<hr></blockquote><p>Let me get this straight.  You expect me, as a person who played EQ1 and now plays EQ2, to adopt lore from <em>your</em> game, even though it contradicts the lore from my game in many ways, just because it has an EverQuest logo on it?</p><p>Ok, fine.  Is it your opinion that I should think that Humans were created before the Lost Age, right?  Ok, cool that EQ1 lore is gone.  Now the Combine Empire was created during the Age of Blood, correct?  Ok, that EQ1 lore is gone.</p><p>You see what I'm getting at?  You're telling me that I should abandon the lore from my game just to conform to your game and your view of Norrath. </p><p>Tell me, do you try and adopt Lords of EverQuest lore in your view of Norrath?  Did Erudites exist in force prior to the destruction of Takish'Hiz, or do you choose to ignore <em>that </em>game?</p><blockquote><p></p><hr>I would say that names in Western Civilization such as Agammemnon, Jesus Christ, and King Arthur, could be considered 'bigger things', and yet the questions concerning <em>who</em> they were, and <em>when</em> they were, and <em>what</em> they were, continue to this day, even in our technological information society.  How much more so in a simple, agrarian and illiterate society.<hr></blockquote><p>What year did the Normans invade England?  I'm a geologist and I know that date off the top of my head even though it was 940 years ago.  That information was passed down somehow through "simple, agrarian and illiterate" societies (for almost double the number of years we're talking about in EverQuest) to this technological information society we live in.  People knew William the Conquerer and exactly when the Battle of Hastings was, we didn't simply find that information with a computer.</p><p>Now, your other examples are first off (of course) much older examples than the ones we're talking about in EverQuest.   Specific information about individuals is not the same as knowing whether or not humans existed and were running around complete with an empire before the fall of Takish'Hiz; you can't compare those.  Like I said in my previous post, you might as well say "history is vague" and ogres didn't actually launch the First Rallosian War, or "history is vague" and Erudites used to be Trollish aristocrats who were exiled and then sailed to Odus; these are the sorts of details that are as minor as you're suggesting be written off.</p><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Indeed, I would be most surprised if a peasant farmer in China today, would have heard of any of them at all!  Ask 30 people on the subway in New York City if they know who Grover Cleveland was, or even, for that matter, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] Cheney, and see how many know (or care).  You see my point I am sure.</p><hr></blockquote><p>These are both strawmen.  I'm not talking about Norrathians knowing the history of Taelosia (which your first argument parallels), nor unknowledgable people knowing what Antonius Bayle III did (which your second argument parallels).  I'm talking about historians who are trying to piece together the story of Norrath.</p><p>You don't even seem to see how you're continuing to use this as some vague cop-out. </p><p>Player 1 presents a Problem A to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem A disappears.Player 1 presents a Problem B to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem B disappears.Player 1 presents a Problem C to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem C disappears.</p><p>It doesn't even matter that, yes, that is a good argument in certain cases; but you're using it to explain everything and it's silly.</p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><p>General knowledge in a largely illiterate society would be based on an oral tradition, embodied in folk tales and Bardic Sagas.</p><p>For the 'educated' few, the loss of written material over the course of time, and <em>especially</em> during times of upheaval, (such has been the almost continual history of Norrath), would definately be a defining factor. </p><p>Generally, a literate society retains knowledge far longer than a non-literate society; (there are, after all,  only so many Sagas an individual is capable of memorizing)</p><p>Folklore is capable of sustaining the knowledge of a culture through times of cataclysm, but only a few of the very most important themes,  most other knowledge will have been lost; (or very much diminished).</p><p>So:</p><p>The period of time necessary for knowledge of say, [the fall of Takish 'Hiz, or the Elvish Exodus from Tunaria], to fade from <em><strong>most</strong></em>, (though not necessarily <strong><em>all</em></strong>), segments of Elvish society is variable; but can generally be taken to be a period of some thousands of years.</p>

[teddyboy4]

<span><blockquote><hr>troodon311 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Although it would seem as if you were trying to make the case that <em>only</em> lore from EQ Live can be considered 'true'.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I think I've been very clear that this is not my point.  The OP asks what is the relation between EQoA and EQ1, my only point has been that in large parts they are mutually exclusive.  You can deal with that however you please and I couldn't care less. </p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>Their lore is sancrosanct <em>only</em> from your point of view.  If you wish to play the role of orthodox lorist and those who do not hold your views as heretical, then be my guest.<hr></blockquote><p>Don't put this trivial crap in religious terms.  We're talking about a video game here, there's no need to use the overthetop language.  I'm not calling anyone heritical, or even criticizing how other people interpret this information, so quit acting like I'm some villain persecuting EQoA players. </p><p>I'm not under some sort of obligation to even consider EQoA or to ponder it's place in Norrath; no more than you are to try and place Champions of Norrath or Lords of EverQuest (I'd love to see someone try and put <em>that</em> game in this timeline! :smileyhappy: ).  You have to face it, SOE didn't give a [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] about coherent lore when they made some, possibly all, of their games.</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>I'm sorry if you do not feel comfortable with uncertainty, murkiness, and contradiction, but that IS the way the real world works (and not soley for the 'little things' as you suggest).<hr></blockquote><p>Let me get this straight.  You expect me, as a person who played EQ1 and now plays EQ2, to adopt lore from <em>your</em> game, even though it contradicts the lore from my game in many ways, just because it has an EverQuest logo on it?</p><p>Ok, fine.  Is it your opinion that I should think that Humans were created before the Lost Age, right?  Ok, cool that EQ1 lore is gone.  Now the Combine Empire was created during the Age of Blood, correct?  Ok, that EQ1 lore is gone.</p><p>You see what I'm getting at?  You're telling me that I should abandon the lore from my game just to conform to your game and your view of Norrath. </p><p>Tell me, do you try and adopt Lords of EverQuest lore in your view of Norrath?  Did Erudites exist in force prior to the destruction of Takish'Hiz, or do you choose to ignore <em>that </em>game?</p><blockquote><p></p><hr>I would say that names in Western Civilization such as Agammemnon, Jesus Christ, and King Arthur, could be considered 'bigger things', and yet the questions concerning <em>who</em> they were, and <em>when</em> they were, and <em>what</em> they were, continue to this day, even in our technological information society.  How much more so in a simple, agrarian and illiterate society.<hr></blockquote><p>What year did the Normans invade England?  I'm a geologist and I know that date off the top of my head even though it was 940 years ago.  That information was passed down somehow through "simple, agrarian and illiterate" societies (for almost double the number of years we're talking about in EverQuest) to this technological information society we live in.  People knew William the Conquerer and exactly when the Battle of Hastings was, we didn't simply find that information with a computer.</p><p>Now, your other examples are first off (of course) much older examples than the ones we're talking about in EverQuest.   Specific information about individuals is not the same as knowing whether or not humans existed and were running around complete with an empire before the fall of Takish'Hiz; you can't compare those.  Like I said in my previous post, you might as well say "history is vague" and ogres didn't actually launch the First Rallosian War, or "history is vague" and Erudites used to be Trollish aristocrats who were exiled and then sailed to Odus; these are the sorts of details that are as minor as you're suggesting be written off.</p><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Indeed, I would be most surprised if a peasant farmer in China today, would have heard of any of them at all!  Ask 30 people on the subway in New York City if they know who Grover Cleveland was, or even, for that matter, [expletive haxx0red by Raijinn] Cheney, and see how many know (or care).  You see my point I am sure.</p><hr></blockquote><p>These are both strawmen.  I'm not talking about Norrathians knowing the history of Taelosia (which your first argument parallels), nor unknowledgable people knowing what Antonius Bayle III did (which your second argument parallels).  I'm talking about historians who are trying to piece together the story of Norrath.</p><p>You don't even seem to see how you're continuing to use this as some vague cop-out. </p><p>Player 1 presents a Problem A to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem A disappears.Player 1 presents a Problem B to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem B disappears.Player 1 presents a Problem C to Player 2.  Player 2 draws the magical "history is vague" card, Problem C disappears.</p><p>It doesn't even matter that, yes, that is a good argument in certain cases; but you're using it to explain everything and it's silly.</p><hr></blockquote>This stance of "I played EQ, and the lore I am using to argue yours is taken from in-game EQ so is therefore superior to yours"....(that is just paraphrased of course an might not convey exactly your point), but you know what? Many people in this thread are also using lore from EQLive, mixing it with the lore we have from EQoA and EQ2 and trying to make sense out of everything. Also, I personally don't see where this information you have presented is coming from. Some of the things you have stated are actually argued against in lore I have seen from EQ.Yes, the wiki-timeline may have been off a bit here and there with some things, but it is taken froma  point of view much like ALL of Norrath's lore, it is interpreted and pieced together.  I, personally am taking lore from the EQ MMo's as a WHOLE and putting things together. I just can't understand why the WHOLE of Norrath's lore isn't taken as canon except what appeared in EQ. I mean, it has beens stated many times that the lore we encounter in game is not always 100% accurate as it is told through us as seen by who is conveying it. So I think we need to take all the lore we have from the 3 EQ MMO's and try to get a larger idea of what's going on. I don't think just one source should be used as things contridict each other everywhere.The timeline that was put togther in this thread is very well done and I commend it's author for taking the time to do so. I should have done something similiar, but I just don't have the time. It is a great start to what I think we need to do, and that is to put together all the knowledge we have from the various games and try to reconcile some of this contradicting lore</span><div></div>

[Ama]

<div></div><blockquote><hr>troodon311 wrote:<div></div><blockquote><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Although it would seem as if you were trying to make the case that <em>only</em> lore from EQ Live can be considered 'true'.</p><hr></blockquote><p>I think I've been very clear that this is not my point.  The OP asks what is the relation between EQoA and EQ1, my only point has been that in large parts they are mutually exclusive.  You can deal with that however you please and I couldn't care less. </p><hr></blockquote>Well not only that but i'm also trying to see if we can develop a timeline in which we agree with where EQ games fit into.  I do agree with what the person said about the destruction of takish'hiz taking place x generations ago and EQOA taking place X generation before EQ1 lore/history wise. 

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><div></div><div>Troodon:  Guess you skipped over my long winded posts so here:</div><div> </div><div>"You expect me, as a person who played EQ1 and now plays EQ2, to adopt lore from <em>your</em> game, even though it contradicts the lore from my game in many ways, just because it has an EverQuest logo on it?"</div><div> </div><div>I have yet to see the "Contradicts in many ways," except in the some miscommunications, and in-valid assumptions.</div><div> </div><div>"Is it your opinion that I should think that Humans were created before the Lost Age, right?  Ok, cool that EQ1 lore is gone.  Now the Combine Empire was created during the Age of Blood, correct?"</div><div> </div><div>I don't think that's what Mary was getting at.. but.. compare these two statements:</div><div> </div><div><strong>This small minority of Barbarians saw an opportunity to triumph where the others had failed. Perhaps this was a seed of wisdom planted by the Marr Twins</strong><em> </em><strong>or perhaps it was only by chance, but as the Barbarians spread out across the lands, warring with both each other and any other race encountered, this tiny movement continued to grow. So it was that even amidst desolation and war, there was hope. Thus began the Age of Blood.</strong></div><div><strong></strong> </div><div><strong>And then, one night the Marr Twins came to Halas and walked around our fire. They kissed the foreheads of twelve sturdy lads and twelve hearty maidens, then sent them southwards with their blessing. From them came our cousins, the humans. </strong></div><div><strong></strong> </div><div>One is from the EQ history, the other is from the EQ2  Barbarian History book.  The first occurs with the dawning of the age of blood (as told from EQ), while the second occurs at some point in the Age of Blood (from EQ2). </div><div> </div><div>The view from EQ contradicts itself.  1) The age of blood dawns with Barbarians already existing while some barbarians began thinking differently?  I thought EQ's stance was that they were born in the Age of blood.  This excerpt implies that barbarians were around before the beginning of the Age of Blood, as well as already on the road to humanity.  2)  If the minority references the enlightening... then it further implies that humans were born during the age of blood as well, which EQ history ties to the lost age.</div><div> </div><div>As for the Combine Empire starting in the Age of Blood?  The only statements known from the EQ history regarding the Combine is that it a) Spread and b) Disappeared, during the Lost Age.  There are no statements attesting to when it the Combine Empire exactly began.  So to believe that it is possible for the Combine empire to have began during the waning period of the Age of Blood is entirely plausible and <u>not in violation of EQ lore or history. </u>  From the standpoint that a minority of Barbarians already went off from the barbarian tribes during the Age of Blood (EQ lore!) after either having an epiphany or being enlightened by the Marr Twins, one must assume that the minority, early as it does arise in the Age of Blood do undergo some transformation into the first humans.  Additionally, how plausible is it that humans begin to exist in the Lost Age, go on to develop magics that have not entirely been replicated, visit every corner of the world, and then just die off... leaving humans with no knowledge?</div><div> </div><div>Hopefully that helps. </div><div>Please also point out any contradictions so that we can determine whether or not such contradictions are real or interpreted fallacy.</div><div><u></u> </div><div><u></u> </div><p>Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">10:24 AM</span></p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><p>troodon311:</p><p>I think you are taking this entirely too personally.  If I have come across as being critical of your point of view, then I apologize, for it was not my intent.</p><p>My references to orthodoxy vs. heresy were meant as analogies, not as literal definitions. I feel that the arguments concerning the 'validity' of lore are analogous to the arguments over liturgy, and was merely making the comparison in that context.</p><p>I stated before, and I will re-state again, I do <strong>not</strong> expect you to accept my point of view or anyone else's point of view.  You are free to believe whatever you want as far as lore is concerned; as am I.</p><p>I am <strong>not</strong> trying to convince you of anything what-so-ever.  I am trying to work with the Original Poster in an attempt to reconcile the differences in lore in some coherent and acceptable fashion.  That is all.</p><p>As a point of reference these are not <em>my</em> games.  I have never played EverQuest OnLine Adventures, or Lords of EverQuest, although I have looked at some of the lore from the former.</p><p>I have taught history for 30 years.  I am aware of when, and how historical events happen.  I am quite capable of fitting events into an historical context. </p><p>I will re-iterate my point: </p><p>I am not "copping-out" on anything.  I am giving reasoned, educated, and knowledgeable information on how historical events are remembered and retained as my training and experience have shown them to me over the length of my career.  If you choose to characterize it differently, you are welcome to do so.</p><p>I am not sure, exactly, what point you are trying to make, or exacly what the bone of contention seems to be between us.  I mean you no disresect, and I apologize again if it seemed otherwise.</p><p>You are completely free to accept, or reject lore in EQ in whatever manner you feel is appropriate.  I will do the same. </p>

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><p>I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember lore somewhere that stated that the group of Barbarians 'enlightened' by the Marr Twins was led by Gynok Moltor.  Upon their leaving Halas, they encountered the, (then), non-hostile BLackburrow Gnoll Tribe.</p><p>Gynok cut off the Gnoll Shamaness Oppala's paw, (thus cursing himself and the Bone Bladed Claymore he used to do it), and earning the emnity of the Gnolls from that time forward.</p><p>The band then continued South, and assissted Antonious Bayle establish Qeynos.</p><p>I could, possibly be mixing up two lore stories here though.  If not, it would help cross-reference the 'enlightening' of the Barbarians.</p><p>Anyone want to expand on that?</p>

[Pyrrhx]

<div>"The band then continued South, and assissted Antonious Bayle establish Qeynos."</div><div> </div><div>Herein lies a contradiction.  If this lore you provide is the "enlightening" then how can they <em>assist </em>Antonius Bayle?</div><div> </div><div>Perhaps this is due to my overuse of the word enlightened.  What I'm suggesting when I use enlighten, is that certain Barbarians went on to become the parents(grand-parents/ancestors) of the human race, and according to both lore sources the barbarians who did so were enlightened (planted seed of wisdom.. chosen...) and a minority. </div><div> </div><div>Now.. In order for Moltar to be one of the founding fathers of Humanity, he could not possibly help found Qeynos by assisting Antonius Bayle.  Reason being Antonius is a human, and thus the Barbarians chosen to eventually bear humanity had already done so, eliminating Moltar has a contributor to the birth of Humans.  Additionally, Qeynos was established at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, further distancing Moltar from the "enlightened" of which I speak... As to him helping establish Qeynos, I trust ya, but that eliminates him from living in the Age of Blood during which the "enlightening" occured.</div>

[Ama]

<div></div>hmm Gynok Moltar now there is a name that rings a bell.  I swear I think we need to dub mary there and Pyrrhx with the title's "EQ lore gurus" for forum purposes so people don't argue with them :smileywink: .

[Mary the Prophetess]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><p>Pyrrhx, that's a pretty good point, and hard to argue against. </p><p>Like I say, it could very well be that I am mixing two different lore tales together.  I'll see if I can't untangle it a bit, and post back if I find something.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>OK, Updated:</p><p>I checked back through my files, and the story of Gynok does not link him to the first enlightened after all, so I stand corrected.</p><p>This is what I have, please feel free to make any corrections to the story if they are needed. </p><p>__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _______</p><p> </p><p><b><u>Sword of Thunder</u></b></p><p>Berik, The Sword of Thunder, is a Holy Blade forged by the Knights of Thunder and blessed by Karana. However, as Stormhold fell under the curse of the Bone Bladed Claymore, Berik, (forged to destroy evil and smite the undead), found himself possesed by that which he hated the most, namely the undead! (the sword does talk to you). Over the years Berik became frustrated and angry, wanting revenge. When found by an adventurer capable of wielding him, he strikes a deal:  if you accomplish the tasks he asks of you, then he will serve you faithfully. Berik's initially calm demenor breaks quickly as his revenge is acted out, eliciting an almost fiendish joy at the sight of your destruction. After all whom he holds accountable are slain, he swears his allegiance to your service, and you get the complete Berik, The Sword of Thunder.</p><b><u><font size="2" face="Arial"></font><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><p>Bone Bladed Claymore:</p></font></u></b><p>The Bone Bladed Claymore first appeared in history as the weapon of a Barbarian Cheiftain named <b>Gynok</b> Moltor (see Vin Moltor of the "Opalla's Paw" Quest in EQ Live). Once, long ago, Barbarian tribes roamed throughout the Northlands, often warring with each other over territory. In time the majority of the clans were united, and founded Halas, the city of the Northmen. However, one of the larger tribes was not content to live in Halas.   They did not wish to war with the other tribes, yet they wanted land of their own. This tribe set off from Halas and moved south through the mountains, into lands no tribesman had ever seen before. The ground was jagged and mighty mountains rose up on all sides, the snow and ice gave way to barren rock. The frequent blizzards changed to rain and fog. The tribe moved through small passes, fending off the beasts of the land as they went, until one day they found a wide tunnel carved into a mountainside. They ventured into the tunnel and discovered a species of strange creatures, part man part dog. These were the Gnolls.  <b>Gynok's</b> tribe had stumbled onto Blackburrow.</p><p>The Gnolls were a peaceful people, having never encountered hostile races before, or any humanoid race at all outside of their own. They were hunters, gatherers, and miners (a trait common in the creations of Brell). The Gnolls surrounded the intruders, curious about the strange creatures. They barked yipped, and howled, trying to speak to the outsiders, but sounding like nothing more than wild dogs to the Northmen. The Barbarians were uneasy at such a strange sight, but stood tall and proud as they always had. The Gnoll Elder finally emerged from the crowd; a Shamaness named Opalla. She was the spiritual leader of her people. She stepped close to Moltor, the cheiftain of the Barbarian tribe, and extended a paw to him; a sign of goodwill among the Gnolls. With a single motion, Moltor drew his sword, the Bone Bladed Claymore, and cut off the Gnoll's paw.</p><p>The Gnolls were shocked and outraged at such an unthinkable act. The Barbarians fled through the tunnels of Blackburrow, fighting the angry Gnolls as they went, and finally emerging into the light of what would become Qeynos Hills. The tribe moved quickly, though safely now that they had lost the Gnolls. As they travelled through the warm green hills, the Northmen felt as  though they had found paradise. When they reached the coast, they set up camp and soon decided this was the place to make their home. Thus, the foundations of Qeynos were laid. Those tribesmen would be the direct ancestors of the Humans.  However, both <b>Gynok</b> Moltor, and the sword he carried, had been cursed for all time by Opalla for their treachery.</p><p>At this point, the lore becomes a little 'fuzzy'.  Apparently, <b>Gynok</b> was found a number of years later, mad as a hatter, wandering the CommonLands by a member of the Knights of Truth from Ardathium.  He was babblling something about a Gnoll curse, and was brought to Ardathium in a gesture of kindness; his sword, the Bone Bladed Claymore, apparently coming with him.  Thus both the cursed individual, and the cursed sword were brought unsuspectingly into the fortress. </p><p>One version of the tale has <b>Gynok</b> at some time slaughtering the entire garrison (supposedly single-handedly), thereby cursing Ardathium which then became Befallen. </p><p>More believably, Ardathium fell to the Trollish Armies as has been recounted, while both the, ( by this time), undead <b>Gynok</b>, (who had surely died at some time prior to the fall of the fortress), and the Bone Bladed Claymore were in residence.  The sword at that point may, or may not, have been in <b>Gynok's</b> actual possession, but most likely had been transferred to Grenic Drere at <b>Gynok's</b> death.  Upon Grenic's death, Mitharius, his successor,  took possession of the blade, as the curse slowly began to take hold of Ardathium.  The sword was passed down for several generations to the Lords of Ardathium, but the fortress' days were numbered.  A short time later, when the fortress fell, the curse of the sword then probably, transferred to Kzurott, the Troll Shadowknight who led the final assault.  At any rate after the fall of the fortress the ruins of Ardathium became a cursed place.  Ardathium had become Befallen, due to the curse of the sword.</p><p><span class="time_text"></span> </p><p>Message Edited by Mary the Prophetess on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">03:18 PM</span></p>

[Ama]

<div>Hmm would be interesting to see the curse be lifted by a live event and have the gnolls and the humans forge an alliance but I don't see that happening.  Only in the rare case of this was the splitpaw gnolls who needed adventurers to slay the mutual enemy of the splitpaw and qeynos/freeport.</div>

[troodon311]

<div></div><div></div><div></div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>teddyboy420 wrote:</div></blockquote><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>This stance of "I played EQ, and the lore I am using to argue yours is taken from in-game EQ so is therefore superior to yours"....(that is just paraphrased of course an might not convey exactly your point),</p><hr></blockquote><p>I don't believed I've used the word "superior" or any of its synonyms anywhere in this entire thread.</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>Also, I personally don't see where this information you have presented is coming from.<hr></blockquote><p>I linked to it earlier: <a target="_blank" href="http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=lore&message.id=1350">http://eqiiforums.station.sony.com/eq2/board/message?board.id=lore&message.id=1350</a></p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr> I just can't understand why the WHOLE of Norrath's lore isn't taken as canon except what appeared in EQ.<hr></blockquote><p>Why am I obligated to try and synthesize all of these games?  Personally, I couldn't care less what some EQoA player thinks about EQ1 and its lore.  If he wants to trash or ignore it as much as possible while playing EQ2 I'd respect his decision because I can relate to it.  He played a game, and this game had certain stories to it, and if some other game contradicts those stories then it's his business if he ignores the other game; not <em>mine.</em> </p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>So I think we need to take all the lore we have from the 3 EQ MMO's and try to get a larger idea of what's going on.<hr></blockquote><p>Why do you draw the line at MMOs?  LoE too tough to work in there? :smileywink:</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>The timeline that was put togther in this thread is very well done and I commend it's author for taking the time to do so.<hr></blockquote><p>It's arbitrary, and it assigns dates citing sources that have no information about the any dates.</p><blockquote dir="ltr"><p></p><hr>Pyrrhx wrote:<div>Troodon:  Guess you skipped over my long winded posts so here:<hr></div></blockquote><div>I didn't skip anything, I replied solely to a post that preceeded yours.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr> have yet to see the "Contradicts in many ways," except in the some miscommunications, and in-valid assumptions.<hr></div></blockquote><div>My first post in this thread outlines the illogical situations EQoA presents.  Ok?  I wouldn't be posting here if the games didn't contradict each other.</div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr><div>One is from the EQ history, the other is from the EQ2  Barbarian History book.  The first occurs with the dawning of the age of blood (as told from EQ), while the second occurs at some point in the Age of Blood (from EQ2). <hr></div></div></blockquote><div>The second can only occur in the Age of Blood if you choose to ignore that bit of lore you quoted in your earlier post.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>1) The age of blood dawns with Barbarians already existing while some barbarians began thinking differently?  I thought EQ's stance was that they were born in the Age of blood.  This excerpt implies that barbarians were around before the beginning of the Age of Blood, as well as already on the road to humanity.<hr></div></blockquote><div>Barbarians were created during the Age of Monuments.  Their radiation outward from the old giant lands defines the beginning of the Age of Blood; that's why it's called the Age of Blood.  There were some among these Barbarians who weren't too keen on the whole warring thing, they were slightly more peaceful than their more warlike Barbarian brothers.</div><div> </div><div>You also can't call this movement, as a whole, the beginnings of humanity.  Humanity started out as a very small group (according to your Barbarian lore 24 people).  This movement did not turn into humans, it simply stemmed from the same "seed of wisdom" that brought about the more peaceful people among them.  It's not like that movement disappeared; Barbarians aren't terribly war-like in EQ1 (can't speak for EQoA).</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>If the minority references the enlightening... then it further implies that humans were born during the age of blood as well, which EQ history ties to the lost age.<hr></div></blockquote><div>If the minority references the enlightening then why, 2 paragraphs later, would it say "a small group of Barbarians were suddenly transformed both physically and intellectually".  Firstly, a small movement developing over the course of an entire age is not a "sudden transformation".  Secondly, the text is quite clear that this occurs during the Lost Age. "Thus began the Lost Age.... It is surmised by the more knowledgeable historians that.... a small group of Barbarians were suddenly transformed both physically and intellectually."  Honestly, you can't make it any clearer than that.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>As for the Combine Empire starting in the Age of Blood?  The only statements known from the EQ history regarding the Combine is that it a) Spread and b) Disappeared, during the Lost Age.  There are no statements attesting to when it the Combine Empire exactly began.<hr></div></blockquote><div>Ok, you need to reread that passage. :</div><div> </div><div>"Thus began the Lost Age.</div><div> </div><div>This next period of Norrathean history as it relates to many of the races is the least known. It is surmised by the more knowledgeable historians that while the elder races regrouped and reestablished themselves, a small group of Barbarians were suddenly transformed both physically and intellectually. Most believe this to be the last major and direct act of divine intervention, and perhaps the reason so little is known about this period is that the gods wish it to be so, deciding afterwards that they would have less to do with their creations. In any case, this small and enlightened group were the fathers of the Human race, and they rapidly gained a foothold throughout the lands, studying the lost art of geomancy. The Combine Empire, as this lost race of Humans is called, spread throughout the known world, but then died even more quickly than it grew, and for reasons still unknown. And while they are the ancestors of every Human on Norrath and their relics and ruins still litter the lands from Odus to Faydwer, little history of this period remains."</div><div> </div><div>The Barbarians became humans during the Lost Age.  These humans created the Combine Empire.  You can't write that any more clearly.  When you want to communicate that something happens before the start of an age you write about it before you say "thus began the soandso age".  They do that several times, like with the peaceful Barbarians and with Erud prior to the founding of Erudin.  Humans were created, and the Combine Empire was founded, during the Lost Age.  That is why they are written about after it says "thus began the Lost Age".  Really, it's pretty simple.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>Additionally, how plausible is it that humans begin to exist in the Lost Age, go on to develop magics that have not entirely been replicated, visit every corner of the world, and then just die off... leaving humans with no knowledge?<hr></div></blockquote><div>I don't really understand this question.  Why don't humans remember what knowledge?  Geomancy?  Hell if I know, stuff gets forgotten when empires disappear and a power vacuum is created (that's why the "dark ages" followed the fall of the Roman Empire).  What does it matter? </div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>Mary the Prophetess wrote:</div><div> </div><div> I feel that the arguments concerning the 'validity' of lore are analogous to the arguments over liturgy, and was merely making the comparison in that context.<hr></div></blockquote><div>Where do you get this idea that I'm saying EQoA is not "valid" lore.  If one were trying to construct an all-encompassing history of Norrath then yes, or course it would be "valid" lore.  I just choose not to do that because I think it's a fool's errand.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr> I am giving reasoned, educated, and knowledgeable information on how historical events are remembered and retained as my training and experience have shown them to me over the length of my career.<hr></div></blockquote><div>If you're willing to overlook these sorts of things then what's the point in looking at this lore at all?  If we can't ever know whether or not one of the greatest empires in Norrath's history preceeded the single most important event in Elvish history, after the passage of only 500 years, when the two things happened near to each other on the same continent, and when the Elves would have been in on the empire, then what's the point of studying this stuff at all?</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr>I am not sure, exactly, what point you are trying to make<hr></div></blockquote><div>My only point is that EQoA and EQ1 are irreconcilable on some points.</div><div> </div><blockquote dir="ltr"><div><hr><div>Pyrrhx wrote:</div><div> </div><div>Herein lies a contradiction.  If this lore you provide is the "enlightening" then how can they <em>assist </em>Antonius Bayle?</div><div> </div><div>Perhaps this is due to my overuse of the word enlightened.  What I'm suggesting when I use enlighten, is that certain Barbarians went on to become the parents(grand-parents/ancestors) of the human race, and according to both lore sources the barbarians who did so were enlightened (planted seed of wisdom.. chosen...) and a minority. </div><div> </div><div>Now.. In order for Moltar to be one of the founding fathers of Humanity, he could not possibly help found Qeynos by assisting Antonius Bayle.  Reason being Antonius is a human, and thus the Barbarians chosen to eventually bear humanity had already done so, eliminating Moltar has a contributor to the birth of Humans.  Additionally, Qeynos was established at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, further distancing Moltar from the "enlightened" of which I speak... As to him helping establish Qeynos, I trust ya, but that eliminates him from living in the Age of Blood during which the "enlightening" occured.<hr></div></div></blockquote><div>Qeynos was founded after the collapse of the Combine Empire, so none of the original humans could have assisted in its construction.  There's nothing that I've read that suggests that Gynok helped found Qeynos, and I don't know where Mary gets her BBC lore from the post above this one so I can't comment on it.  I think it's reasonable to think that Gynok is one of the original humans, since his descendant in EQ1 is a human.</div><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:09 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:09 PM</span></p><p>Message Edited by troodon311 on <span class="date_text">03-01-2006</span><span class="time_text">04:24 PM</span></p>

[Duhulk]

<div><hr></div><div>Lost of art of Necromancy is discovered"</div><ul><li>contradiction between EQOA and EQ1, EQOA had it discovered earlier<hr></li></ul><p>How is that a contradiction? If it's a lost art it must have been known before =p.</p>

[Ama]

<div>hmm I can already smell the scent of a territorial ****ing match getting ready to start.  Just hope we can keep this debate civil and not resort to petty bickering over one tiny winy detail such as a person being 1 inch here or 1 inch there.</div>

[Rezikai]

<div></div><div><blockquote><hr>Duhulk wrote:<div><hr></div><div>Lost of art of Necromancy is discovered"</div><ul><li>contradiction between EQOA and EQ1, EQOA had it discovered earlier<hr></li></ul><p>How is that a contradiction? If it's a lost art it must have been known before =p.</p><hr></blockquote>lol this is pretty much my take on it...lol..</div><div> </div><div>as for EQoA... I stand firm in it's Lore while some of it does contradict sketchy timelines it does have some nice info in it, such as the mention <em><font color="#ffffcc">TaK Hiz</font></em>... In EQoA Tak Hiz has been destroyed roughly 500-1k years depending on how well my coffe and soda laced memory serves me... many of the "older" Elves in <font color="#ccccff"><em><font color="#999933">Tethlin</font> and Fayspire</em> </font>remember it happening... </div><div> </div><div>Almost any player starting in <font color="#999933"><em><strong>T</strong>ethlin </em></font><font color="#ffffff">would learn of "<font color="#ff6633"><em>The Great Burning</em></font>" which was the destruction of Tak Hiz and the forests... also if memory serves when an epic finishes in Tak Hiz the <em><font color="#cc99ff">Archmagus</font></em> talks of the cities' destuction being soon after the fall of <em><font color="#ffff33">Al Farak</font></em>(sp) ( there is a Zone named after him where the ruins still exist ).. although i dont remember much of Al Farak.. meh... .. oh and is <font color="#99cc00"><strong>Korigant's</strong></font>(sp) remains still in the desert in EQ1? ( the giant Treant who defended Tak Hiz during the evacuation )  ... I miss seeing his half burried bidy the size of 3 semi trucks back to back sticking out of the sand... lol</font></div><div><font color="#ffffff"></font> </div><div><font color="#ffffff">As for the "age of blood" and such of the barbarians spreading and Humans coming into being .. I suppose its possible for human civiliszation to be established in 500-1k years after the fall of Tak Hiz..... </font><font color="#ffffff">so i'd say its safe to say an "age" isnt a set amount of time,.. much like the bronze,iron ages in human history... this is where the word "roughly" is more potent... </font></div><div><font color="#ffffff"></font><hr></div><div><font color="#ffffff">but more to my point of this post <font color="#ffff33">......................................</font> <font color="#999933">OASIS</font><font color="#ffff33">............................................. </font>I've found it in EQ2 similar to that of EQ1.. with the statue and such... basically my question is.... what happened to the <strong><em><font color="#cc3366">RoseThorn</font></em></strong> Spire... it was of strange architechture... and the Elves of EqoA had said they don't claim it as they're own.. </font></div><div><font color="#ffffff"></font> </div>

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><div></div><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>"Lost of art of Necromancy is discovered"</p></blockquote><ul><li>contradiction between EQOA and EQ1, EQOA had it discovered earlier<hr></li></ul><p>How is that a contradiction? If it's a lost art it must have been known before =p"</p><p> </p><p>I considered it a contradiction between the 2 games simply due to the timeline.  EQ has the art of Necromancy discovered either at the beginning or immediatly before the age of turmoil.  EQOA has the art of necromancy practiced before the Erudites even make the trip to Odus. </p><p>Troodon: </p><p>I understand your points, and I am fully willing to concede that the Humans were born of the Lost age.  I was only putting out conjecture that it could have been possible that Humankind did not arise from spontaneous metamorphosis, and that the birth of humankind came out of an aggressive evolutionary change. </p><p>On a side note, they must have re-written the history of Norrath with the Everquest Evolution manual =(....  According to the History presented therein from the retold stories of Vanusk: </p><p><strong>Birth of Humankind-  Age of Blood</strong></p><p><em>"As the dust settled, the last of the gods came to Norrath.  These were twin deities Mithaniel Marr, God of Valor, and his sister Erollisi, Goddess of Love.  Their Creatures, the Barbarians proved a hardy race and settled the cold and rugged northlands near the ruins of the Giants' empire.  As the Barbarians spread out across the lands - in dispute with each other and any other race encountered - a tiny movement toward enlightened thinking was ssparked by the Twins Marr and began sloly to grow.  And so, even amidst desolation and war, there was hope.</em></p><p><em>This enlightened order of Barbarians became the fathers and mothers of the Human race.  Their Combine Empire spread throughout the known world, but then died even more quickly than it grew.  While they are the ancestors of every human on Norrath, and their relics and ruins still litter lands from Odus to Faydwer, little history of their great empire remains."</em></p><p>Ok, so If i were to use this bit of EQ lore...</p><ul><li>Barbarians were created in the age of blood ( found no mention of the barbarians in the Age of Monuments)</li><li>The movement leading to the emergence of humans began in the age of blood</li><li>The first settlements of the Combine empire were those Barbarian settlements that started seeing humans first</li><ul><li>**conjecture**</li><li>This could explain the rapid rise of the Combine Empire, as the barbarian tribes during the Age of Blood had already spread and made war.</li><li>I would say that the Lost Age is not tied specifically to the emergence of Humans, but to the emergence of the Combine Empire</li></ul></ul><p>As to the "suddenly both physically and intellectually"-</p><ul><li>Simplest explanation for a happening that was never documented</li><li>Adds myth to the foundation of the Human race</li><li>Un-reliable narrator</li></ul><p>"The second can only occur in the Age of Blood if you choose to ignore that bit of lore you quoted in your earlier post."</p><p>If i choose to ignore one and accept the Other I will be either:</p><ul><li>Ignoring EQ1 lore and accepting EQ2</li><li>Ignoring EQ2 lore and accepting EQ1</li></ul><p>I however choose to not ignore either and reconcile the difference:</p><ul><li>The "kissing on the forehead" in the EQ2 source could definitely correspond to a "planted seed of wisdom" despite the chronological flaw.</li><ul><li>The flaw can be rectified if we tie the ages less to the birth of races and more to the events that transpire within.</li><li>i.e.  Rather than going by "The Barbarians were born in.. The humans were born in..."; we use "The barbarians spread across Tunaria ...The combine empire spread....Qeynos was founded... The Erudites arose..."</li><li>That just seems to make more sense to me.</li></ul></ul><p>As to the timeline I created being arbitrary...</p><ul><li>I can respect that assessment, because.. it is.  Here's why:</li><ul><li>In a game where actual dates have not been assigned to past events one must rely solely on the Period association.</li><li>i.e.  Events that were known to transpire within a specific age are assigned to that age</li><li>i.e.  Events that are believed to have transpired within a specific age are temporarily assigned to that age</li><li>i.e.  With absolutely no dates to work with, one must hypothesize the duration of the "age" based on factors</li><ul><li>NPC memory of Specific events</li><li>Lore regarding what was known/forgotten</li><li>Any known age lengths as a precedent~basis for extrapolation.</li><ul><li>Age of Enlightenment to Age of Wonder (EQOA -500 from EQ)</li><li>Age of Turmoil to Age of Wonder(guestimated in the 100 year range)</li><li>Estimated length of the Age of Enlightenment (~400 years)</li><li>Ages prior to the Enlightenment estimated at spanning the same of longer periods of time</li></ul></ul><li>Hence; I simply use Ages to record known and believed events</li><ul><li>Easier to do so</li><li>While general, it is safer to refer to X age, rather than X years B.EQ.</li></ul></ul></ul><p>I can respect your position Troodon, after-all most of what I'm offering is just my conjecture based on my interpretations of the various lore sources.</p><p>Now, as to the contradictions/illogical situations, I believe I have addressed:</p><ul><li><strong>Takish Hiz</strong>- (albeit it is based upon Ages in which the events are believed to have transpired)</li><li><strong>Combine Empire</strong>- (there actually is no situation here, in that EQOA's stance was that the Combine was in the past and had fallen; never making reference or alluding to it's existence prior or during Takish Hiz... that came from player conjecture a la EQRPG)</li><li><strong>Birth of Humanity</strong>- (this is also a non-point; EQOA exists in the Age of Enlightenment-hence humans already exist- and no mention in game alludes to anything human coming before Takish Hiz.. this was also a la EQRPG)</li><li><strong>Temporal proximity of the events of Takish Hiz/Combine</strong>- (the fall of Takish Hiz was 4 ages prior to EQ, EQOA does not bring that any closer to EQ..after all Takish Hiz was entirely ruins by EQOA's time period.  The point in time that the combine rise's/falls is unknown... even in EQOA, only minor knowledge of the Combine is known, alluding to a large passage of time...or a brain wipe by Druzzil..)</li><li><strong>The Timeline with the 150 year statement-</strong>  Ok, i'll admit it... that was my fault.. that was a completely inaccurate statment made before I started examining the events in relation to their corresponding Ages.</li><li><strong>The excerpt from the creation story</strong>-  The continent of Tunaria (antonica) is fleshed out much more in EQOA as it includes many areas identified but never zoned in EQ:  Winter's deep, hatchlands, serpent mountains, nerius lake, the northlands, the unkempt...  That's besides the point- The events that transpire in EQOA occur after human explorers would have run across ancient ruins as well as the dwarves, elves, and other strange creatures.  As for Awe factor; <strong>during the</strong> <strong>lost age</strong>, humans (after the fall of the combine) were not living in large settlements; and the other races were more likely doing their own thing:  Elves trying to secure some remnant of the eldaar and make it home; dwarves searching for new mineral deposits; gnomes tinkering with gnomish things; halfling baking pies; tier dal plotting; trolls living far enough away to not be noticed; ogres existing stupefied on the other side of the rathe.. and erudites did not exist yet.</li><li><strong>Spires</strong>-  As for the living elves... unlikely... the fall of Takish Hiz has been guestimated to have occured at least 2~2.5 centuries before EQ1.  Using that.. there would have been between 5-8 generations of elves.. so none would have lived unless they were Immortal... and therefor not passed on the knowledge of the spires construction. </li></ul><p>Again, I am merely trying to develop a relative timeline.. so any additional information that you can provide to contribute is warmly welcomed!</p><p>Porkchop:  There weren't actually elves in Teth and Fay that remembered being there.  They did have knowledge of the loss, and were likely to still be burdened as a race by the loss of Takish'hiz.  Where some of the lore may separate is that EQOA alludes to Tier'dal encroachment during the time of the "Great Burning" which could likely be behind the loss of some ancient knowledge as the elves left for faydwer without all of their tomes.</p><p>     </p><p>Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-02-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:01 AM</span></p>

[DeviousPande]

<span><blockquote><hr>Pyrrhx wrote:<div></div><div></div><blockquote dir="ltr"><p>"Lost of art of Necromancy is discovered"</p></blockquote><ul><li>contradiction between EQOA and EQ1, EQOA had it discovered earlier<hr></li></ul><p>How is that a contradiction? If it's a lost art it must have been known before =p"</p><p> </p><p>I considered it a contradiction between the 2 games simply due to the timeline.  EQ has the art of Necromancy discovered either at the beginning or immediatly before the age of turmoil.  EQOA has the art of necromancy practiced before the Erudites even make the trip to Odus. </p><p>Troodon: </p><p>I understand your points, and I am fully willing to concede that the Humans were born of the Lost age.  I was only putting out conjecture that it could have been possible that Humankind did not arise from spontaneous metamorphosis, and that the birth of humankind came out of an aggressive evolutionary change. </p><p>On a side note, they must have re-written the history of Norrath with the Everquest Evolution manual =(....  According to the History presented therein from the retold stories of Vanusk: </p><p><strong>Birth of Humankind-  Age of Blood</strong></p><p><em>"As the dust settled, the last of the gods came to Norrath.  These were twin deities Mithaniel Marr, God of Valor, and his sister Erollisi, Goddess of Love.  Their Creatures, the Barbarians proved a hardy race and settled the cold and rugged northlands near the ruins of the Giants' empire.  As the Barbarians spread out across the lands - in dispute with each other and any other race encountered - a tiny movement toward enlightened thinking was ssparked by the Twins Marr and began sloly to grow.  And so, even amidst desolation and war, there was hope.</em></p><p><em>This enlightened order of Barbarians became the fathers and mothers of the Human race.  Their Combine Empire spread throughout the known world, but then died even more quickly than it grew.  While they are the ancestors of every human on Norrath, and their relics and ruins still litter lands from Odus to Faydwer, little history of their great empire remains."</em></p><p>Ok, so If i were to use this bit of EQ lore...</p><ul><li>Barbarians were created in the age of blood ( found no mention of the barbarians in the Age of Monuments)</li><li>The movement leading to the emergence of humans began in the age of blood</li><li>The first settlements of the Combine empire were those Barbarian settlements that started seeing humans first</li><ul><li>**conjecture**</li><li>This could explain the rapid rise of the Combine Empire, as the barbarian tribes during the Age of Blood had already spread and made war.</li><li>I would say that the Lost Age is not tied specifically to the emergence of Humans, but to the emergence of the Combine Empire</li></ul></ul><p>As to the "suddenly both physically and intellectually"-</p><ul><li>Simplest explanation for a happening that was never documented</li><li>Adds myth to the foundation of the Human race</li><li>Un-reliable narrator</li></ul><p>"The second can only occur in the Age of Blood if you choose to ignore that bit of lore you quoted in your earlier post."</p><p>If i choose to ignore one and accept the Other I will be either:</p><ul><li>Ignoring EQ1 lore and accepting EQ2</li><li>Ignoring EQ2 lore and accepting EQ1</li></ul><p>I however choose to not ignore either and reconcile the difference:</p><ul><li>The "kissing on the forehead" in the EQ2 source could definitely correspond to a "planted seed of wisdom" despite the chronological flaw.</li><ul><li>The flaw can be rectified if we tie the ages less to the birth of races and more to the events that transpire within.</li><li>i.e.  Rather than going by "The Barbarians were born in.. The humans were born in..."; we use "The barbarians spread across Tunaria ...The combine empire spread....Qeynos was founded... The Erudites arose..."</li><li>That just seems to make more sense to me.</li></ul></ul><p>As to the timeline I created being arbitrary...</p><ul><li>I can respect that assessment, because.. it is.  Here's why:</li><ul><li>In a game where actual dates have not been assigned to past events one must rely solely on the Period association.</li><li>i.e.  Events that were known to transpire within a specific age are assigned to that age</li><li>i.e.  Events that are believed to have transpired within a specific age are temporarily assigned to that age</li><li>i.e.  With absolutely no dates to work with, one must hypothesize the duration of the "age" based on factors</li><ul><li>NPC memory of Specific events</li><li>Lore regarding what was known/forgotten</li><li>Any known age lengths as a precedent~basis for extrapolation.</li><ul><li>Age of Enlightenment to Age of Wonder (EQOA -500 from EQ)</li><li>Age of Turmoil to Age of Wonder(guestimated in the 100 year range)</li><li>Estimated length of the Age of Enlightenment (~400 years)</li><li>Ages prior to the Enlightenment estimated at spanning the same of longer periods of time</li></ul></ul><li>Hence; I simply use Ages to record known and believed events</li><ul><li>Easier to do so</li><li>While general, it is safer to refer to X age, rather than X years B.EQ.</li></ul></ul></ul><p>I can respect your position Troodon, after-all most of what I'm offering is just my conjecture based on my interpretations of the various lore sources.</p><p>Now, as to the contradictions/illogical situations, I believe I have addressed:</p><ul><li><strong>Takish Hiz</strong>- (albeit it is based upon Ages in which the events are believed to have transpired)</li><li><strong>Combine Empire</strong>- (there actually is no situation here, in that EQOA's stance was that the Combine was in the past and had fallen; never making reference or alluding to it's existence prior or during Takish Hiz... that came from player conjecture a la EQRPG)</li><li><strong>Birth of Humanity</strong>- (this is also a non-point; EQOA exists in the Age of Enlightenment-hence humans already exist- and no mention in game alludes to anything human coming before Takish Hiz.. this was also a la EQRPG)</li><li><strong>Temporal proximity of the events of Takish Hiz/Combine</strong>- (the fall of Takish Hiz was 4 ages prior to EQ, EQOA does not bring that any closer to EQ..after all Takish Hiz was entirely ruins by EQOA's time period.  The point in time that the combine rise's/falls is unknown... even in EQOA, only minor knowledge of the Combine is known, alluding to a large passage of time...or a brain wipe by Druzzil..)</li><li><strong>The Timeline with the 150 year statement-</strong>  Ok, i'll admit it... that was my fault.. that was a completely inaccurate statment made before I started examining the events in relation to their corresponding Ages.</li><li><strong>The excerpt from the creation story</strong>-  The continent of Tunaria (antonica) is fleshed out much more in EQOA as it includes many areas identified but never zoned in EQ:  Winter's deep, hatchlands, serpent mountains, nerius lake, the northlands, the unkempt...  That's besides the point- The events that transpire in EQOA occur after human explorers would have run across ancient ruins as well as the dwarves, elves, and other strange creatures.  As for Awe factor; <strong>during the</strong> <strong>lost age</strong>, humans (after the fall of the combine) were not living in large settlements; and the other races were more likely doing their own thing:  Elves trying to secure some remnant of the eldaar and make it home; dwarves searching for new mineral deposits; gnomes tinkering with gnomish things; halfling baking pies; tier dal plotting; trolls living far enough away to not be noticed; ogres existing stupefied on the other side of the rathe.. and erudites did not exist yet.</li><li><strong>Spires</strong>-  As for the living elves... unlikely... the fall of Takish Hiz has been guestimated to have occured at least 2~2.5 centuries before EQ1.  Using that.. there would have been between 5-8 generations of elves.. so none would have lived unless they were Immortal... and therefor not passed on the knowledge of the spires construction. </li></ul><p>Again, I am merely trying to develop a relative timeline.. so any additional information that you can provide to contribute is warmly welcomed!</p><p>Porkchop:  There weren't actually elves in Teth and Fay that remembered being there.  They did have knowledge of the loss, and were likely to still be burdened as a race by the loss of Takish'hiz.  Where some of the lore may separate is that EQOA alludes to Tier'dal encroachment during the time of the "Great Burning" which could likely be behind the loss of some ancient knowledge as the elves left for faydwer without all of their tomes.</p><p>     </p><p>Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-02-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:01 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote>I love you..Sorry I have nothing to post thats contributing because its almost 6am..But..This post is cool..<3 <span>:smileyindifferent:</span></span><div></div>

[Rezikai]

<div></div><blockquote><p></p><hr><p>Pyrrhx wrote:</p><p>Porkchop:  There weren't actually elves in Teth and Fay that remembered being there.  They did have knowledge of the loss, and were likely to still be burdened as a race by the loss of Takish'hiz.  Where some of the lore may separate is that EQOA alludes to Tier'dal encroachment during the time of the "Great Burning" which could likely be behind the loss of some ancient knowledge as the elves left for faydwer without all of their tomes.</p><p>     Message Edited by Pyrrhx on <span class="date_text">03-02-2006</span><span class="time_text">05:01 AM</span></p><hr></blockquote><p>eh,... well I guess we'll agree to disagree then,...</p><p>as EQoA goes i remember multiple NPC's talking about being evac'd from Tak Hiz.. (one example, Fayspire lvl 17 quest) this does however cut a nice whole in my memory/theory about Tak falling 500+ years before EQoA current timeline,.........bah i say... bah... but considering the devs making that quest and a few other NPC's may or may not have understood the timline of Tak Hiz's fall and the timeline emplications by making these NPC's be living during its fall making for a "opps" on there part...lol..., it's possible these "oops" slipped through the cracks and give us headaches today...lol...,.. but I'm not really hung up on it.. I don't really care for those snobby elves...lol</p><p>I'm more interested in the RoseThorn Spire,.. and Korigant's remains... I didn't play EQ1 enough to get to see either (if they existed), but EQ2's Oasis.. is... different.. bah... but seeing as the Spires are so radically different, I guess we chalk it up to the artist's rendition.. meh.. still though..</p><p>As a LoRe hound it makes me pull my hair out... </p><p>Oh and Py good work on the age of blood info.. you are correct the Combine empire was gone in EQoA they recently started bringing more Lore into the Combine empire demise.. I forget where on the EQOA boards its posted.. but it is an enteresting read.</p><p>I'm kind of interested in learning info on Al Farak and the very scarce info of "The Last Home".</p>

[Pyrrhx]

<div></div><p>Pretty sure that the Fay lvl 17 was more about reclaiming relics lost during the evacuation from Takish'hiz, and did not per'say involve that npc in living in that period.. I don't wholly remember either lol.. but I'm fairly certain that remarks about Takish'hiz were not of recent/living memory... I've got an old lvl 13 elf.. may have to fire up those last 4 levels to double check.</p><p> </p>

[lillin]

<div></div><p>Saw this thread and i am an eq1 vet.  Never played EQOA but would like to see a link to a website that might have some EQOA lore.</p><p>As most who have played eq1 know very well that the easy lore to obtain gave summaries of what happened here and there but adventuring and talking to npc's would give more detials.  Would like to find an honest attempt at this kind of lore compilation for EQOA to see what all the chit chat is about. Thanx in advance =)</p>

[Ama]

<div></div><div><a target="_blank" href="http://everquestonlineadventures.station.sony.com/content.vm?page=Lore">Here</a> is the lore from the EQOA website itself however it is very small. </div><div> </div><div>This however this lore is from answer.com website and seems to be about the best we can get:</div><div><p><i>EverQuest Online Adventures</i> is set in Norrath 500 years prior to the original EQ in the "Age of Adventure". The world features many places familiar to fans of the original and most of the differences were explained in the lore of <i>EverQuest</i>.</p><p>The gameplay is similar to <i>EverQuest</i> in its focus on character development, player versus environment combat, quests, exploration, grouping, and socializing.</p><p>There are fifteen playable classes, and eleven races.</p><p>I think all lore is really centered in the game and I will have to delv through all of the lore everyone has stated to get a firm grasp on it.  It is a time when naggy is in his cave and Vox is still alive and rules the ice palace in permafrost. </p><p>*update*</p><p>I actually started thinking about what marry wrote and from what they say EQOA could be put a 100 years or so after Gynok passes through the splitpaw gnolls killing opalla.  I remember back in EQOA days there was a huge huge cave system where we would go to grind xp.  However I could be wrong about this and this could really really kill EQOA lore in the EQ time stream because I think I remember an NPC in there called Opalla who was a very powerful gnoll shaman.  There is a saving grace however where it could be a weakend opalla or a different gnoll who took Opalla's name in honor.  I'll get some screenshots of the cave I am talking about. </p><p>Another way this fits into what everyone is talking about is one mission for Qeynos that you do for an armor quest is run to Erudin and must deliver diplomatic Documentation to the Erudite high concilor person. </p><p>When I go back into the darkness of low bit graphics i'll see what lore I can dig up for ya.</p></div><p>Message Edited by Amana on <span class="date_text">03-02-2006</span><span class="time_text">06:17 PM</span></p>