Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Realmslore
 Sages of Realmslore
 Waterdeep in 1491 DR *Spoilers*
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
14389 Posts

Posted - 13 Mar 2017 :  16:08:17  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mankyle

I have found one discrepancy between SCAG and SKT.

In their descriptions of Amphail,there is a difference.

SCAG: Says Daunier Ilzimmer, Lord Protector of Amphail, will end up his period of government next year and the government will pass to the Amcathras.
SKT: Lord Tyrandar Roaringhorn is trying to gain support as the neew Lord Protector of Amphail before Lord Ilzimmer's government ends...

There is another mistake in lore in the Heroes Articles in the Wizards Homepage.
http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/heroes/alaeros
It says here the Margaster Family Coat of arms is an Stilized Green Dragon. Thats a mistake. It could either the Ilvastarr or the Hothemer coats of armas, but no the Margaster. The Margaster Coat of Armas is an eagle claw on yellow field.
As to the first - I actually do not see any discrepancy. In fact, the way its worded just makes it more interesting. Amcathras is the selected next Lord Protector, buuuuuuut... Tyrandar Roaringhorn really wants the position, and is 'campaigning' to be chosen over the currently accepted replacement. Perhaps there is some sort of 'vetting' process in the interim, or Tyrandar is trying to make that happen, so he can 'interrupt' whats already in-place (by becoming 'the popular choice').

As to the second, I disagree that they would have changed their coat of Arms. If you've studied heradlry at all, you'd know thats something no-one would ever do (unless they were a 'mad wits'). You don't throw-away centuries of established nobility on a whim. Even 'disgraced' noble houses retain their coat-of-arms. Thus, I would say thats an error in the source.


As for the statues thing, I recall this coming up before, and the 40' statues were decided upon mostly because it seemed a 90' could not walk down a street without causing more damage than the thing was worth (a 40', supposedly, could walk down a Waterdahvian street... barely). Also, from Eric (or someone else 'in the know') - some of the originals may have been destroyed, and were replaced with 'newer models' that were smaller, so both can exist (and The Lords would prefer the newer, more compact models for reasons given above - the others would probably only be activated in the most dire of circumstances, hence their lack-of-mention in the newest sources).

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 13 Mar 2017 16:10:08
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000