Talk:The Six Trials of Larazod

Continuity conflict?

Today's blog provides a lot of information about this play, but seems to contradict some Chelaxian history. The play discusses an effort to bring the worship of Asmodeus to an end in Cheliax. It says the main character, Lazarod Rilsane, was a tiefling member of a minor house whose influence is tattered in the wake of the ascent of House Thrune. However, it says the play was written 200 years ago, which would be well before the death of Aroden and the rise of House Thrune.

OTOH, House Thrune had infernal ties long before the death of Aroden, iirc, and may have been a prominent house in the 4500s AR. --Goblin Witchlord 15:38, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I have posed this question on the Paizo boards. Let's see what clarification we get. -- yoda8myhead 15:51, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

James' reply: "There's not really a contradiction, though: Lokoris wrote the play 200 years ago, and it was suppressed and came back into production about the time that Aroden died and was something that, in those crazy 30 years of civil war, folks did for fun. And remember, the House of Thrune existed before Aroden's death; they just weren't in charge of Cheliax. They were likely a powerful family before Aroden's death, otherwise they would have had a tough time emerging from the civil war as a winner, after all. SO! Lokoris can still write the play before Thrune rules Cheliax and still get in trouble with Thrune. It would have just not necessarily have been a LEGAL imprisonment at the time. And it being an illegal imprisonment is a good reason to suppress the play!" --Cpt kirstov 22:39, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question. That skirts the issue. I want years. Solid, non-wavering years! I understand that they don't want to include set years for when people were born for NPCs in APs and such cause then in 20 years, someone playing the adventure is facing an 80 y/o fighter and that sucks. But this was at least 200 years ago. If that becomes 220 in a decade or two, it doesn't affect anything. So why not just say when he wrote it and when he "disappeared"? -- yoda8myhead 01:50, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

• playing devil's advocate* yes, but most of the records of the births of famous people from 200+ years ago arn't known for sure, especially if 1) they weren't a famous leader and 2) the government wanted to hide them. Think about Shakespeare, we don't know his birth date, but we do think we know his baptism date, and thus they figure Shakespeare's birthday from that, as it was normal for people to be baptized 3 days after birth. What if Shakespeare was baptized at age 10?

And I'm sure the House Thrune doesn't advertize when they illegally took him, and anyone else who knew was to scared that they would be taken too if they told, thus they kept their mouths shut.-- Cpt kirstov 02:43, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Simultaneous edits

I know that GW made some edits to this while I was formatting the information from today's blog. I replaced the shorter text with the longer, copied text from the blog. Since we can legally include direct quotes from the blog I chose that route over writing an overview in my own words. Feel free to change any element of it back to the previous material before I replaced it if you or anyone else feels that it works better as a more succinct overview. -- yoda8myhead 15:55, September 18, 2009 (UTC)