Template talk:Dragon navbox
Deletion of categories from Pathfinder #4
I've taken out the categories of dragons that are only mentioned on pp. 70-71 of Fortress of the Stone Giants. It's the only place they appear in the canon and they may have been excised. This is a pretty good guess since we've already had two Campaign Setting books (Dragons Revisited and Dragons Unleashed) and they have yet to be mentioned. If they are put back in, we can remove the comment tags from the navbox. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- I like this Brandingopportunity - and thanks for not deleting the work! It was a good spot by Filby but a rather weighty addition to the template of little used creatures and your solution means we can easily add them in again later if needed. They are all mentioned on the Dragon page so I'll add a comment of explanation there as to the discrepancy between text and template. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like we've got an official confirmation here.
“We first mentioned abomination dragons and the others back in Pathfinder #4, yes... back in the day when we were still scrambling to build up a world at the same time we were placing adventures in it. It was a crazy time, and there was a lot of "Let's throw things at the wall and see what sticks!" When we did the Pathfinder version of the campaign setting... and then again with the definitive "Inner Sea World Guide," we had the luxury of taking more time and abandoning ideas we ended up not liking.
One of those ideas was those dragon categories. They're no longer canon. They were, like the Oliphaunt of Jandelay and the village of Brastlewark and the Mordant Spire things we tried out because we just had a "proper noun shortage" since we couldn't use D&D content anymore. Some of those early creations ended up being good stuff we kept (such as the three I just listed). Others, like the abomination dragons and other dragons did not make the cull.
”
The aforementioned D&D 3.5e article introduces the five element-embodying dragons of the celestial host "of Tian Xia, these dragons only live on that continent"; it seems like Paizo had not yet thought up the name "imperial dragons" at that time. Assuming that the name "dragons of the celestial host" has never appeared in another Paizo product, I would like to remove the name from the dragon navbox. The questionably canon name is recorded for completeness within the text of the Imperial dragon article, but I don't want the dragon navbox to seemingly lend outsized credence to this one-off apocrypha. --Descriptivist (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Ice and lightning drake
Where are the sources for these particular types of drakes? I can't find them anywhere in the SRD, and they do sound awfully similar to the frost and thunder drake. - HTD (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fortress of the Stone Giants 71 is one source but there may be others. However, yes, it's that same article discussed above, so may now be suspect but the full text is:
“Drakes: The five common drakes correspond to the magical energies: caustic drakes to acid, flame drakes to fire, ice drakes to cold, lightning drakes to electricity, and the powerful thunder drakes to sonic. Drakes live in almost every environment, spreading destruction and mayhem. True dragons see these creatures as blasphemously formed vermin and actively seek their extinction.
”
- Two of those drakes are still canon, so we can't just assume they are in the same position as the non-canon septs. I deleted caustic drake here: https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Template:Dragon_navbox&diff=prev&oldid=139954 as from https://pathfinderwiki.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Forest_drake&diff=prev&oldid=139965 caustic drakes became an alternative name for forest drakes and caustic drake is just a redirect page now.
- Ice drakes are also in The Tome of Horrors Complete, I notice, so may have been used by Paizo from there. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)