Frogloks of Kunark?

[troodon]

<p>On the new ship quest we got in Freeport you get attacked by Froglok slaves as well as Iksar.  </p><p><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/troodon/EQ2_000103.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="585" border="0" /></p><p>Assuming these Frogloks come from Kunark (which may not be the case), it is out of place for them to be using the Guktan Froglok model.  I'm hoping that they simply don't have the Kunark Frog model finished yet, or that they have some Aviak-like lore explanation for their change in appearance.  It would suck if they made them look Guktan simply because it was easier.  I always prefered the old Froglok model <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Cusashorn]

I'm betting they simply took the easy way out, and really don't care about the lore in this particular instance. If the Frogloks on Kunark end up using the Guktan model, then it really won't matter to me.

[Ama]

Hard to say about the Frogloks of Kunark since we only got lore pertaining to the Iksar.  Have a feeling there were remenants of Froglok groups on Kunark and the iksar rounded them up.  The only weird thing was when I played my Good aligned warden it said the iksar and the frogloks viewed me as an ally.  When I played my evil toons they viewed me threateningly.

[Eriol]

I'm with the OP.  If they want to stay RELATIVELY consistent, there should be a different model.  Heck, pull the OLD eq1 model for froglocks in there and drop it in looking crappy and all, but do NOT make them the same as Guktans.

[Zabjade]

<cite>Eriol wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm with the OP.  If they want to stay RELATIVELY consistent, there should be a different model.  Heck, pull the OLD eq1 model for froglocks in there and drop it in looking crappy and all, but do NOT make them the same as Guktans.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Actually it is within the realm of possibility, Froglocks have a diffrent method of reproduction then mammals and Iksar. </span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Froglock females probably lay a froglokspawn (Similar to a conventional frogspawn) fertalization happens outside of the body, meaninging you can have opportunistic fertalization.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">BUT if they do go with a diffrent model how about a toadish model instead? I also have no preference oneway or the other other then the preguktan models looks odd.</span></p>

[Nocturnal Aby]

My guess is that it is simply easier to go with th guktan look, and not have to make two different froglok models.  I mean, look how long it took them to complete the first froglok model, now you're expecting them to make another one?

[troodon]

<cite>Nocturnal Abyss wrote:</cite><blockquote>My guess is that it is simply easier to go with th guktan look, and not have to make two different froglok models.  I mean, look how long it took them to complete the first froglok model, now you're expecting them to make another one?</blockquote>Well, that's because it's a character model.  They had to give it combat moves and emotes and make armor fit to it and all that kind of stuff.  NPC models are much simpler for them to make.

[Eriol]

<cite>Nocturnal Abyss wrote:</cite><blockquote>My guess is that it is simply easier to go with th guktan look, and not have to make two different froglok models.  I mean, look how long it took them to complete the first froglok model, now you're expecting them to make another one?</blockquote>Not the same issue, as player models are much different than monster models.

[Josgar]

We have two high elf models... and this stupid "New Tunarian" idiots. I would have been ticked if New Tunarians looked like me >.>(However I wouldn't mind getting their hair and armor haha)its feasible that they could make another froggy model.

[teddyboy4]

The OP brings up a REALLY good point IMHO, one that I certainly didn't think of while I was doing that quest. But the OP is correct, the Kunark Frogloks DEFINITELY should have a different model then the Guktan Frogloks seeing as the Guktan Frogloks bodies were changed when Mithaniel Marr enlightened them. As far as I know, the Frogloks still living on Kunark, or anywhere else for that matter, at that time were NOT enlightened by Mith-Marr so therefore should be of the unevolved variety which definitely looked different from the Guktans.Now, that being said, I would not be surprised what-so-ever if SOE took the easy way out and gave the Kunark Frogloks the same model as the Guktan Frogs. Hell, look what they did with Befallen b/c the Commonlands already had dungeons for each lvl range that the zone supported. They picked up the entire zone and moved it into Antonica and named it Stormhold. I will give them some credit though, as it seems the Dev team cares a lot more about such things now after they saw how much the player base enjoyed EoF b/c of the EQlive nostalgia factor. So, hopefully they will do the right thing.

[Daine]

Hmm.  I wasn't around then but wouldn't it make more sense for Fallen Gate to be the new Befallen?  Or was Fallen Gate a separate entity in EQ1?  How do you know they're not the same?  We know that Fallen Gate was supposedly a part of Neriak, but Neriak is still alive and good a decent deal away through the forest and plains. 

[Dreyco]

Slight of game mechanics.  They didn't want to have to invent a brand new model for a live event, which takes a while.  So they used what they had.

[teddyboy4]

<cite>Daine@Everfrost wrote:</cite><blockquote>Hmm.  I wasn't around then but wouldn't it make more sense for Fallen Gate to be the new Befallen?  Or was Fallen Gate a separate entity in EQ1?  How do you know they're not the same?  We know that Fallen Gate was supposedly a part of Neriak, but Neriak is still alive and good a decent deal away through the forest and plains.  </blockquote>This discussion has been had many time on the old forums, and I don't want to derail this thread any further, but.....Fallen Gate and Befallen were definitely two separate places. Fallen Gate is the old Foreign Quarter of Neriak that was destroyed when Queen Cristanos ordered a relic of immense power be used to repel and destroy the invading force of Halflings. Befallen, on the other hand, is a very ancient place and has served a couple different purposes over the course of it's history, at least according to the lore that I've seen on it. I don't believe anyone knows what it's original purpose was, but I have personally read a few different stories. Some say that it was once home to an order of Monks, others say it was a gate to the ancient Elven city of Takish'Hiz, some say it was an outpost of the Knights of Marr that was corrupted by a latent, sentient force in a certain sword. Whatever the case, Befallen was a beloved place in EQlive with it's own history and the disregard shown by the devs in just up and moving it across the world and changing the name shows how very different the direction for the game was back then. We can all be most thankful that they have learned and are giving us a Norrath that was torn-apart and rent asunder, but is still the same Norrath we knew and loved.Ok, now back to the Frogloks. Lets hope that the different races of Froglok are represented as such graphically. I was kinda disappointed when I saw all the Aviaks looking alike, but maybe we'll see some different looking Aviaks someday as well.

[Sphiriah]

I agree. Unless the Kunarkian frogloks suddenly started worshipping Mithaniel Marr, they need a different model.

[zerfall]

<cite>Eandiil@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Ok, now back to the Frogloks. Lets hope that the different races of Froglok are represented as such graphically. I was kinda disappointed when I saw all the Aviaks looking alike, but maybe we'll see some different looking Aviaks someday as well.</blockquote>I can't for the life of me find the link to the E3 video that happens to show some of the Aviaks in the Timorous Deep (or was it the official RoK trailer, I can't remember), but from what I remember the Aviaks I saw in that video look more parrot-ish/macaw-ish than the eagle/hawk Aviaks from Butcherblock.  I too hope that they make separate non-Guktan models for the Kunark Frogloks, but I won't be completely crushed if they don't. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[Cusashorn]

Yeah the Parrot aviaks that lived in Timorous Deep have returned, but they're still the same physical model as all other aviaks. Just different head and pallet.

[Cocytus]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah the Parrot aviaks that lived in Timorous Deep have returned, but they're still the same physical model as all other aviaks. Just different head and pallet.</blockquote><p>The original footage I saw showed them as the same color aviaks you see all over KOS, which was a definate mistake, because the aviaks in Timorous Deep are supposed to be <b><u>spirocs.</u></b></p><p>However, I have seen more recent footage, and as you noted, they changed the pallet and corrected this. So I'm happy <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

[PassingStranger]

It's entirely possible that there is only one kind of froglok now. It's been a long time since EQ1, it's entirely possible that they interbred to the point that the two races are indistinguishable now. After all, that's what they did with the kerra. If you recall, the actual "kerra" in EQ1 were a lot shorter, closer to the height of wood elves/dark elves (of course they varied in size based on the whole scheme of powerful NPCs being larger that they seem to love doing), as opposed to their height now, being more in line with humans. They're actually a crossbreed between the norrathian kerra and vah shir from what I understand.

[Cusashorn]

<cite>PassingStranger wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's entirely possible that there is only one kind of froglok now. It's been a long time since EQ1, it's entirely possible that they interbred to the point that the two races are indistinguishable now. After all, that's what they did with the kerra. If you recall, the actual "kerra" in EQ1 were a lot shorter, closer to the height of wood elves/dark elves (of course they varied in size based on the whole scheme of powerful NPCs being larger that they seem to love doing), as opposed to their height now, being more in line with humans. They're actually a crossbreed between the norrathian kerra and vah shir from what I understand.</blockquote>Possible, though not very likely since the Guk, Kugup, and Kor froglok tribes all had different views, and the Kor were excluded entirely to Kunark, which made travel an issue. (I think they're called the Kor. I can't reference it right now.)

[troodon]

Any interbreeding would have had to occur very quickly, after the Guktans were formed but before the Rallosians almost exterminated them.  I don't think that's a likely explanation

[Cele]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eriol wrote:</cite><blockquote><span style="color: #00cc00;">Actually it is within the realm of possibility, Froglocks have a diffrent method of reproduction then mammals and Iksar. </span></blockquote></blockquote><p>Didn't someone, Vhalen maybe, once post something in this forum about froglock reproduction? I searched but cme up empty.</p><p>It seems out of place for this model to be used</p>

[SisterTheresa]

<p>Hm ...</p><p>Trying to think back to my EQ1 days.</p><p>Didn't the models of the Kunark froglok slaves look similar to the frogloks one found in Guk which was in that .. uhm .. swamp area by where the Trolls lived?</p><p>The models don't really matter to me.  I was just suprised to see them, yet not so much when I remembered those frogloks that came out and attacked that guy you needed for the Warrior weapon quest for Iksar.  Pains in the rump they were.</p>

[troodon]

<p>Um, I made a joke post once about Iksar reproduction.  Maybe <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=186673�" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this</a> is what you're remembering</p><p><cite>SisterTheresa wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Didn't the models of the Kunark froglok slaves look similar to the frogloks one found in Guk which was in that .. uhm .. swamp area by where the Trolls lived?</p></blockquote><p>Exactly, as opposed to the playable Guktan Frogloks</p>

[SisterTheresa]

<cite>troodon wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Um, I made a joke post once about Iksar reproduction.  Maybe <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=0&topic_id=186673�" target="_blank">this</a> is what you're remembering</p><p><cite>SisterTheresa wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Didn't the models of the Kunark froglok slaves look similar to the frogloks one found in Guk which was in that .. uhm .. swamp area by where the Trolls lived?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #cccc00;">Exactly, as opposed to the playable Guktan Frogloks</span></p></blockquote>So .. couldn't that mean they grabbed these frogloks from say ... the areas of Norrath we know about?  I mean if the models of the frogloks from Guk match those of Kunark slaves ... why couldn't these raiding Iksar have grabbed on boats they found out in the ocean or in raids to villages near the waters?

[troodon]

<cite>SisterTheresa wrote:</cite><blockquote>So .. couldn't that mean they grabbed these frogloks from say ... the areas of Norrath we know about?  I mean if the models of the frogloks from Guk match those of Kunark slaves ... why couldn't these raiding Iksar have grabbed on boats they found out in the ocean or in raids to villages near the waters?</blockquote>That's a possibility, which is why I prefaced the OP under the condition that these Frogloks were from Kunark.

[SisterTheresa]

<p>I'm not saying that.  What I am saying is why couldn't the Iksar in EQ2 that are raiding boats, not come across EQ2 modeled frogloks and taken them as slaves as they had when in Kunark?  I'm sure frogloks live in villages near water, the raiding Iksar could have attacked and taken slaves.</p><p>Just thinking out of the box here.  Sorry I don't know what each of the specific names are for them.  I know what i am trying to say but having toruble saying it</p>

[troodon]

<cite>SisterTheresa wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I'm not saying that.  What I am saying is why couldn't the Iksar in EQ2 that are raiding boats, not come across EQ2 modeled frogloks and taken them as slaves as they had when in Kunark?  I'm sure frogloks live in villages near water, the raiding Iksar could have attacked and taken slaves.</p><p>Just thinking out of the box here.  Sorry I don't know what each of the specific names are for them.  I know what i am trying to say but having toruble saying it</p></blockquote>Yeah, that's what I said.  It's possible that these Frogloks on the boat were not originally from Kunark, or at least their ancestors weren't.  That's fine, they can run with that if they want.  What I'm worried about is that your story <i>isn't</i> the case, and all Kunark frogs are just going to be Guktans.  I find such an idea to be lame.

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00;">I'm thinking the froglocks on that ship might have been conscripts or former Droag slaves (ala SoS), I think that the Froglocks of Kurnark seem to have gained a few fishlike quallities with scales fishhead with frog chin-bladder (whatever they are called) and catfish-like wiskers on the head.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Either that or these pics are of something completely diffrent but you know how Mutations seem to run in this game. </span></p><p><img src="http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/785/785855/everquest-ii-rise-of-kunark-announced-20070504040659951.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="678" height="593" /></p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">I'm thinking the froglocks on that ship might have been conscripts or former Droag slaves (ala SoS), I think that the Froglocks of Kurnark seem to have gained a few fishlike quallities with scales fishhead with frog chin-bladder (whatever they are called) and catfish-like wiskers on the head.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Either that or these pics are of something completely diffrent but you know how Mutations seem to run in this game. </span></p><p><img src="http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/785/785855/everquest-ii-rise-of-kunark-announced-20070504040659951.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="678" height="593" /></p></blockquote>You should study biology more. Frogs dont have scales or teeth. :p In fact, not having scales is the sole reason that seperates amphibians from fish and reptiles.

[troodon]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>You should study biology more. Frogs dont have scales or teeth. :p In fact, not having scales is the sole reason that seperates amphibians from fish and reptiles.</blockquote><p>Actually the primary difference between amphibians and reptiles is the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">amniotic egg</a>.</p><p>And toothlessness is only a derived feature in some amphibians, their ancestors and other amphibians do have teeth.  Personally, I don't think it wouldn't be too crazy to put some scales on Frogloks... fish have scales too, though chemically different than those in reptiles and birds.  I don't personally know the biology of frogs but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they have scale-like structures on some part of their body.</p><p>Anyways, it's just a concept sketch.  It doesn't have to be totally accurate.</p>

[Cusashorn]

<cite>troodon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote>You should study biology more. Frogs dont have scales or teeth. :p In fact, not having scales is the sole reason that seperates amphibians from fish and reptiles.</blockquote><p>Actually the primary difference between amphibians and reptiles is the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote" target="_blank">amniotic egg</a>.</p><p>And toothlessness is only a derived feature in some amphibians, their ancestors and other amphibians do have teeth.  Personally, I don't think it wouldn't be too crazy to put some scales on Frogloks... fish have scales too, though chemically different than those in reptiles and birds.  I don't personally know the biology of frogs but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they have scale-like structures on some part of their body.</p><p>Anyways, it's just a concept sketch.  It doesn't have to be totally accurate.</p></blockquote><p>Wait, what kind of Amphibian has scales?</p><p>At any rate, frogs don't have teeth... or at least I've never heard of a frog out there in the world that has a nice set of choppers.</p>

[troodon]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Wait, what kind of Amphibian has scales?</p><p>At any rate, frogs don't have teeth... or at least I've never heard of a frog out there in the world that has a nice set of choppers.</p></blockquote><p>I don't know of any amphibians with reptile-like scales, though I don't know what the structure of amphibian skin is, so as far as I know it does have some sort of scale-like-structure.  I don't know the evolutionary history of scales (pre-avian, anyways), but fish (amphibian ancestors) have scales and reptiles (amphibian descendants) have scales; there could be a connection there.  Look at <a href="http://www.myfourthirds.com/files/0044/Frog.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this frog</a>:</p><p>I don't know if that skin is made of or has in it tiny scales but it certainly doesn't look too different from the skin in the concept art.</p><p>And frogs <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog_zoology" target="_blank">do</a> actually have teeth, evidently.  Shows what I know.</p>

[Cusashorn]

<p>*reads the article*</p><p>...huh. Learn something new everyday.</p>

[Zabjade]

<p><span style="color: #00cc00;">If fact even humans have scales, take a good look at the back og your hand they are small and shallow but they are there.  the junction of the scales are where the hair sprouts. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Back on Topic however, I did mention the fact that Mutations are likely to have occured to the Kunark Frogloks, especially if they have a dark godling as a patron. </span></p>

[Nocturnal Aby]

<p>Of course, there always seems to be an exception, so I won't say, "all" but most amphibians do NOT have scales, in part, because many breathe through their skin.  Not necessarily primarily, but frogs in particular do, which is why they require moisture on their skin, to aid in the respiration process (need it to transfer O<span style="font-size: xx-small;">2</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />" width="15" height="15" />.  Yay! I learned something from my biology classes in college!  It's also the reason frog skin is so thin, and why more than a few frogs don't even have nasal passages.  More than a few toads, however, don't have this limitation.  Things like salamanders do, mudpuppies actually have gils, I believe.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">Also remember that we're dealing with a race who MADE the Sarnak and the Sokokar..perhaps this is some other froglok-iksar, froglok-sarnak, froglok-other sort of hybrid we're dealing with.  Maybe it's a version of the froglok cultivated by Trakanon!  Maybe these are beings that have devoloped out of the ruins of Veksar, with all the heightened magical properties of the place, who knows what affect it might have on the local fauna.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">It will be fun to find out!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small;">PS, the hair folicles found in mammals, and the surrounding anatomy is a far cry from scales.  In fact, most reptiles have a type of skin that develops very similar to the way human skin develops, only it's under their scales.  The development of skin is quite an amazing process, and consists of cells that are actually made for the soul purpose of dying.  On average, the skin you see on yourself right now is completely replaced in two days, I believe.  New cells pushing up, getting filled with chemicals until it dies and hardens, and all the while getting pushed up by new cells getting created below...very interesting process.</span></p>

[troodon]

<p>A screenshot of the creature in question, courtesy of Allakhazam:</p><p><img src="http://eq2.allakhazam.com/images/Random%20Images/Marketing-Oct-07/Kunark_mob1.jpg" alt="" width="1600" height="1181" border="0" /></p><p>I'm calling it a Froglok, it looks like something that just crawled out of a swamp and it has the huge, round head.</p>

[Amphibia]

Ugh, that thing doesn't even look like a frog... it actually looks very much like a fish. And an ugly one at that. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[zerfall]

Looks a little bit like a cross between a Froglok and a Kedge.I won't be disappointed if those are the Froglok models for Kunark though.  It's definitely more "primitive" than the current Guktan model.

[teddyboy4]

<cite>Zabjade wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">I'm thinking the froglocks on that ship might have been conscripts or former Droag slaves (ala SoS), I think that the Froglocks of Kurnark seem to have gained a few fishlike quallities with scales fishhead with frog chin-bladder (whatever they are called) and catfish-like wiskers on the head.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00cc00;">Either that or these pics are of something completely diffrent but you know how Mutations seem to run in this game. </span></p><p><img src="http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/785/785855/everquest-ii-rise-of-kunark-announced-20070504040659951.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="678" height="593" /></p></blockquote>I don't think those are Frogloks. They look more like some type of bipedal fish-type....thing. In fact, the only feature that fish-thing shares w/ a Froglok are the webbed feet, and placement of the eyes, but other then that they look nothing like a Froglok. They could be some new hybrid that the Iksar created in the same vein as the Sarnak or the half-dragon/half-froglok things they made to be their flying mounts, the Sokokar. Maybe these things are a hybrid of Froglok and some type of catfish w/ piranha teeth? History has shown that the Iksar are most definitely not afraid of genetic engineering, so maybe with Venril's latest rise to power he brought some long lost books and techniques w/ him from Karnors, or maybe they found some other long-lost knowledge of the Shissar. Basically there's a treasure trove of ancient arcane lore laying around on Kunark just waiting to be found, so maybe this creature is the result.

[troodon]

<cite>Eandiil@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I don't think those are Frogloks. They look more like some type of bipedal fish-type....thing. In fact, the only feature that fish-thing shares w/ a Froglok are the webbed feet, and placement of the eyes, but other then that they look nothing like a Froglok. </p><p>They could be some new hybrid that the Iksar created </p></blockquote><p>Why would the Devs go to the trouble of adding a new fish-frog hybrid creature to Kunark?... Kunark has enough crazy races</p>

[Cakassis]

<p>Actually it looks like an updated slarghilug from Plane of Nightmare.</p>

[Rainmare]

maybe it's an evolved Aqua Goblin. those were present in the sunken city in the lake of ill omen. and of all the Rallosian races, the goblins haven't resurfaced yet. just Orcs, Giants, and Ogres.

[Cakassis]

<p>No, it's a slarghilug.  I found a picture of them from EQ1.</p><p><a href="http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/search.shtml?id=10394" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/s....shtml?id=10394</a></p>

[Rainmare]

but we have no way to explain a slarghilug. there is no access at all to the Plane they are from...unless they are going to spout something like they escaped from Nightmare and found themselves in Kunark.

[troodon]

<cite>Rainy wrote:</cite><blockquote>but we have no way to explain a slarghilug. there is no access at all to the Plane they are from...unless they are going to spout something like they escaped from Nightmare and found themselves in Kunark.</blockquote>Exactly, why would something from the Plane of Nightmare be on Kunark?  That doesn't even begin to make sense.

[Cusashorn]

There's still quite a significant difference in physical design between slarhilugs and what we see there.

[Cakassis]

<p>Amaglydan (sp?) were stranded in our plane when the Plane of Fear closed.  Maybe some slarghilug were left stranded on Kunark somewhere.  The Plane of Nightmare's goddess was Terris Thule, and she was Cazic's daughter.  It's not impossible that some of her creatures were on the continent of which her father was a primary divine influence.</p><p>Regardless of the "how" or "why" of it, that is a slarghilug.</p>

[Nocturnal Aby]

Heh, I personally still need convincing it "is" a slarghilug, never mind the "how" or "why."

[Laithi]

To Plane of Fear with the froggies.....I want to know why my Iksar is unable to do the boat quest?  None of my Iksar are able to.....

[teddyboy4]

<cite>Rainy wrote:</cite><blockquote>maybe it's an evolved Aqua Goblin. those were present in the sunken city in the lake of ill omen. and of all the Rallosian races, the goblins haven't resurfaced yet. just Orcs, Giants, and Ogres.</blockquote>There are plenty of goblins spread all over the parts of Norrath that we have re-discovered, for example, there are goblins on the Queens Colony, there are Aqua Goblins in the bay of the Butcherblok Mountains. <cite>Cakassis wrote:</cite><span class="postbody"><p>No, it's a slarghilug.  I found a picture of them from EQ1.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/search.shtml?id=10394" target="_blank">http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/s....shtml?id=10394</a></p></span>In my opinion, that picture of a Slarghilug most certainly does resemble the creature in question, quite a bit actually. As to how a creature from the Plane of Nightmares ended up on Kunark? Who knows, but pretty much anything is possible, especially since we've seen part of the Plane of Sky break off and bleed through into Norrath. Maybe part of the PoN has bled through into Kunark

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Eandiil@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Rainy wrote:</cite><blockquote>maybe it's an evolved Aqua Goblin. those were present in the sunken city in the lake of ill omen. and of all the Rallosian races, the goblins haven't resurfaced yet. just Orcs, Giants, and Ogres.</blockquote>There are plenty of goblins spread all over the parts of Norrath that we have re-discovered, for example, there are goblins on the Queens Colony, there are Aqua Goblins in the bay of the Butcherblok Mountains. <cite>Cakassis wrote:</cite><span class="postbody"><p>No, it's a slarghilug.  I found a picture of them from EQ1.</p><p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/search.shtml?id=10394" target="_blank">http://eqbeastiary.allakhazam.com/s....shtml?id=10394</a></p></span>In my opinion, that picture of a Slarghilug most certainly does resemble the creature in question, quite a bit actually. As to how a creature from the Plane of Nightmares ended up on Kunark? Who knows, but pretty much anything is possible, especially since we've seen part of the Plane of Sky break off and bleed through into Norrath. Maybe part of the PoN has bled through into Kunark</blockquote>We've already covered that angle in this thread. Slarghilugs still look pretty radically different from whatever that is.

[zerfall]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>We've already covered that angle in this thread. Slarghilugs still look pretty radically different from whatever that is.</blockquote>I disagree... minus the "bobble" thing hanging off the Slarghilug in the EQ1 screenshot, they look very similar.  You obviously need to use a small amount of imagination in order to translate from the EQ1 graphics engine to the EQ2 engine, but the head, body, limbs, hands, legs... quite similar.

[teddyboy4]

<cite>Zerfall@Permafrost wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>We've already covered that angle in this thread. Slarghilugs still look pretty radically different from whatever that is.</blockquote>I disagree... minus the "bobble" thing hanging off the Slarghilug in the EQ1 screenshot, they look very similar.  You obviously need to use a small amount of imagination in order to translate from the EQ1 graphics engine to the EQ2 engine, but the head, body, limbs, hands, legs... quite similar.</blockquote>Yeah, I don't think the possibility that the creature in question may be a Slarghilug has been totally dispelled or disproved at all. I mean, the two pictures  don't look EXACTLY like each other, but I think there is enough similarity between the two that the differences can be attributed to the different rendering capabilities of the two game engines or possibly even just different artistic interpretations.

[troodon]

<cite>Eandiil@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, I don't think the possibility that the creature in question may be a Slarghilug has been totally dispelled or disproved at all. I mean, the two pictures  don't look EXACTLY like each other, but I think there is enough similarity between the two that the differences can be attributed to the different rendering capabilities of the two game engines or possibly even just different artistic interpretations.</blockquote><p>The exact same argument could be said for it being a Froglok <b><i>except</i></b> it makes a heck of a lot more sense for their to be different looking Frogloks on Kunark than it does for their to be monsters from the Plane of Nightmare there.</p><p>Edit: it should also be pointed out that it doesn't even look that much like a Slarghilug.  It doesn't have the lantern fish thing on its head, it doesn't have a dorsal neck frill, it doesn't appear to have a tail, and the head is dramatically rounder. </p>

[Cusashorn]

<p>just FYI, the Turmoil Toads in Shard of Fear are guktan models.</p>

[troodon]

<cite>Cusashorn wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>just FYI, the Turmoil Toads in Shard of Fear are guktan models.</p></blockquote><p>Yep... yep... <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[teddyboy4]

<cite>troodon wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Eandiil@Lucan DLere wrote:</cite><blockquote>Yeah, I don't think the possibility that the creature in question may be a Slarghilug has been totally dispelled or disproved at all. I mean, the two pictures  don't look EXACTLY like each other, but I think there is enough similarity between the two that the differences can be attributed to the different rendering capabilities of the two game engines or possibly even just different artistic interpretations.</blockquote><p>The exact same argument could be said for it being a Froglok <b><i>except</i></b> it makes a heck of a lot more sense for their to be different looking Frogloks on Kunark than it does for their to be monsters from the Plane of Nightmare there.</p><p>Edit: it should also be pointed out that it doesn't even look that much like a Slarghilug.  It doesn't have the lantern fish thing on its head, it doesn't have a dorsal neck frill, it doesn't appear to have a tail, and the head is dramatically rounder. </p></blockquote>Yeah but IMO it looks much more like a Slarghilug then a Froglok. And if you take the current situation regarding the state of the Planes, it actually isn't all that far-fetched for there to be creatures from a Plane being found in odd locations on Norrath.And as for the Turmoil Toads in the Shard of Fear being Guktan models....it's REALLY disappointing, but not that much of a surprise

[Cercs]

<a href="http://everquest2.com/screenshots/rok/large/7.jpg" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://everquest2.com/screenshots/rok/large/7.jpg</a>Could this be it? It looks a lot like a Guktan Froglok, but a tad different.

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Cercsij wrote:</cite><blockquote><a rel="nofollow" href="http://everquest2.com/screenshots/rok/large/7.jpg" target="_blank">http://everquest2.com/screenshots/rok/large/7.jpg</a>Could this be it? It looks a lot like a Guktan Froglok, but a tad different.</blockquote><p>That's a Goblin. the Goblins on Kunark looked pretty different from the rest of the world. Much sharper teeth for one.</p><p>*Takes a closer look*</p><p>Yeah those are deffinitly goblins. Look at the ones in teh background. They all have the same "About to Hike the ball" posture with one hand on the ground.</p>

[TheKons]

And the signature long tongue sticking out that Kunark goblins had. (Spent alot of time in Droga)

[Cercs]

Ah, OK. Spiffy; at least we're getting a new goblin model! <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[troodon]

<p>Well, it appears as though I was wrong.</p><p><a href="http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/previews/2543-EverQuest-II-Rise-of-Kunark-Preview.2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"One entirely new dungeon is Chelsith, an epic alien dungeon in the Kunzar Jungle. It contains a race of fish-men who worship a Behemoth"</a></p><p>I guess we're stuck with Guktan Frogloks on Kunark.  <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/c30b4198e0907b23b8246bdd52aa1c3c.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Nocturnal Aby]

Chelsith...wow..why does that name sound so familiar?  Charsooth was the vampire iksar..Charasis was the Temple-tomb set up for his dead wife..why do I know the name Chelsith?

[Mirander_1]

<cite>Nocturnal Abyss wrote:</cite><blockquote>Chelsith...wow..why does that name sound so familiar?  Charsooth was the vampire iksar..Charasis was the Temple-tomb set up for his dead wife..why do I know the name Chelsith?</blockquote>Chelsith is the old Shissar city on Kunark.  There's a Legends of Norrath cloak named for it, and it's supposed to be the place where the Stone of the Shissar was found.

[Cusashorn]

<cite>Nocturnal Abyss wrote:</cite><blockquote>Chelsith...wow..why does that name sound so familiar?  Charsooth was the vampire iksar..Charasis was the Temple-tomb set up for his dead wife..why do I know the name Chelsith?</blockquote>Charsooth? Who the **** is Charsooth? The only vampire I ever heard of existing on Kunark was Xalgoz, the sarnak.

[Gukkor2]

Chosooth, an Iksar vampire who oversaw Kurn's Tower at one point, iirc.  I don't believe he ever actually appeared in-game. As for Chelsith, just to clarify, was that the large ruined city in the center of the Dreadlands wizard spires in EQ1? As for the fishmen, I'll just refer to them as Kuo-Toa until their actual species name is revealed.  I don't really think they're Slarghilugs, but they <i>could</i> be Hraquis, natives of the Plane of Water.  In EQ1, Hraquis used the same model as Slarghilugs, but that needn't necessarily be the case in EQ2.

[Senliten]

<cite>Gukkor2 wrote:</cite><blockquote>Chosooth, an Iksar vampire who oversaw Kurn's Tower at one point, iirc.  I don't believe he ever actually appeared in-game. As for Chelsith, just to clarify, was that the large ruined city in the center of the Dreadlands wizard spires in EQ1? As for the fishmen, I'll just refer to them as Kuo-Toa until their actual species name is revealed.  I don't really think they're Slarghilugs, but they <i>could</i> be Hraquis, natives of the Plane of Water.  In EQ1, Hraquis used the same model as Slarghilugs, but that needn't necessarily be the case in EQ2.</blockquote>Id be surpised if its those one slug slargs or whatnot from plane of nightmare and decided to kcik the habbit from nightmare cause it became to much of an nightmare and move on to someplace more ..... content to he adaptabilities.. =P

[Nocturnal Aby]

<p>I recognize Chelsith from EQ, and I am pretty sure that it was not the Combine outpost in the Dreadlands (where the spires were).  From the EQ manual that came with the original RoK expansion, it gave a condensed version of Iksar history, under the <i>Rule of Rile</i>, we read:</p><p><i>Rile assumed the throne; however, little changed in the kingdom.  THe son of Sathir seized more valuable land and his ruthless reputation increased under the terrors of his warlords: Kurn Machta and Karatukus <b>and the vampire, Charsooth.</b>  By the time these warlords finished, most of the continent definately belonged to Sebilis...all but a few pockets of Giants and Dragons.</i></p><p>Kurn oversaw Kurn's Tower <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> But Charsooth was a contemporary.  I also found Chelsith in the same document under the subtitle <i>Shissir Kingdom</i>:</p><p><i>While the dragons took centuries to grow and organize, a race of intelligent snake men - the Shissir - assumed the forefront.  The Shisser were a brutal race who enslaves the Iksar, using Vanusk's [the iksar telling the adventurers the history of his land] ancestors for worker and food.  <b>From their capital of Chelsith in what is now the Overthere</b>, they explored dark rites and forgotten evils which would lay the foundation for much of Iksar knowledge and philosophy.</i></p><p>So there we go!  Chelsith was the capital city of the Shissir!  I seem to recall some believing that the canyons that end up leading to the cliff city of Charasis was formed by the Shissir evacuation to Luclin.  To my knowledge, this is purely speculation.  Part of the reasons for this hypothesizing, however, is the fact that confirmed Shissir ruins were never believed to have been found in the Overthere.  It will be interesting to see where they put it.</p>

[Vyrance]

i always thought the giant ruins in the Overthere (the ones where the evil outpost is setup upon arriving by boat) were where Chelsith resided.