D&D General The Purple Dragon Knights are tied to an Amethyst Dragon (confirmed)

I'd be happy to help on that, I know lots about them and can offer the original lore if your friend's not interested in the new lore.

They're a great faction because their entire ideology is based on a mistranslated prophecy their leader refused to admit he got wrong. He didn't even make that big a mistake, but moving the period one word over changed the entire meaning of it.

The Cult's had lots of schisms and internal power struggles and oftentimes deceives new members, so it's easy to justify even a Good PC having been a member before the start of the campaign.

Sammaster's faction of the Cult of the Dragon & Tiamat's Faction are not the only Factions.

Ashardalon has his own faction of the cult of the Dragon in the new Fallbacks novel [Spoiler/]
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'd be happy to help on that, I know lots about them and can offer the original lore if your friend's not interested in the new lore.

They're a great faction because their entire ideology is based on a mistranslated prophecy their leader refused to admit he got wrong. He didn't even make that big a mistake, but moving the period one word over changed the entire meaning of it.

The Cult's had lots of schisms and internal power struggles and oftentimes deceives new members, so it's easy to justify even a Good PC having been a member before the start of the campaign.
Thank you so much!! We will definitely keep your advice in mind!! The Cult is such a neat concept!!
😁
 

But this particualr case just strikes me as ... lazy? Shallow? Like the original PDK subclass which got so widely panned, it smacks of the work of someone who only bothered to vaguely browse the FR lore before finding an interesting phrase and riffing off it in the most perfunctory and uninspired direction as possible. Using the shape of the lore without caring or learning what it is.
Can you tell usnanything else from the preview copy that you clearly seem to have read...?
 


Of course, the same lore body that establishes Drizzt is NOT a serial killer also establishes that the Purple Dragons already have a dragon in their history (a black so old it’s scales had turned purple, as extensively documented by Troy Denning in the Cormyr: a Novel/Death of the Dragon books in which Azoun died).

So why is there the sudden desperate urge to shoehorn an amethyst dragon in there? And how did an order that was basically the Cormyrite in-house knighthood suddenly become multiversal?

Now, I know that modern WotC doesn’t feel itself bound in the least by lore from previous editions, and indeed when it uses such lore it really only makes token Easter eggs of it without engaging in what made the lore interesting in the first place. Lord Soth’s ‘generic bad guy’ role in SotDQ which plastered Ol’ Buckethead all over every piece of art and promotion for the product then failed to have a plot in which Soth’s history or personality were in the least relevant is the classic example of course. And I'm not even against new lore or the evolution of old lore, plus being entirely aware than in my age bracket, I'm not WotCs target audience any more and they don't care what I think.

But this particualr case just strikes me as ... lazy? Shallow? Like the original PDK subclass which got so widely panned, it smacks of the work of someone who only bothered to vaguely browse the FR lore before finding an interesting phrase and riffing off it in the most perfunctory and uninspired direction as possible. Using the shape of the lore without caring or learning what it is.

Edit: not sure where this post started @Scribe , but it probably veered way off from being a response to yours into an unfocused stream-of-consciousness ramble. Sorry about that...

I can’t speak to how Soth or his history was portrayed in SotDQ, but the Cormyr books, Azoun, and the black/purple dragon are 25+ years old at this point, and none of these characters ever reached the same heights of popularity as Drizzt or Soth. It’s like Strahd in Ravenloft. WotC has come back to the character over and over again because he’s recognizable and key to the setting. Dominic D’Honaire isn’t, and while changing that character may bother loremongers, it’s hardly a major change. (And if one doesn’t remember D’Honaire’s character…that’s kind of the point).

According to the FR wiki, Azoun died in 1371. The current year for FR in 5e is 1492 (I believe). 121 years is a lot of time for lore to change.
 

I can’t speak to how Soth or his history was portrayed in SotDQ, but the Cormyr books, Azoun, and the black/purple dragon are 25+ years old at this point, and none of these characters ever reached the same heights of popularity as Drizzt or Soth. It’s like Strahd in Ravenloft. WotC has come back to the character over and over again because he’s recognizable and key to the setting. Dominic D’Honaire isn’t, and while changing that character may bother loremongers, it’s hardly a major change. (And if one doesn’t remember D’Honaire’s character…that’s kind of the point).

According to the FR wiki, Azoun died in 1371. The current year for FR in 5e is 1492 (I believe). 121 years is a lot of time for lore to change.
1501 per the new book. Azoun died 130 years ago. That's a half-dozen human generations ago.
 

1501 per the new book. Azoun died 130 years ago. That's a half-dozen human generations ago.
That’s time for even an already ancient great wyrm to conceivably die and for a whole country to move on (again, I don’t know the whole story of Cormyr from those books).
 

MY game, MY Realms. Or do you believe that only the one in the WotC book is One True Realms and no one should deviate from it?

You can do whatever you want, but that doesnt mean that an official Character factually is whatever you choose to anyone but yourself.

Its a shared setting, to a very large number of people that is part of the appeal. Elminister is an old wizard dude, hes not a teenage halfling girl.
 



Remove ads

Top