Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 08:04:40 EDT
From: "Gary L. Holian"
Reply-To: The GREYtalk Discussion List
>On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Gary R Welsh wrote:
>> I tend to agree that a blunder was made with regards to Iuz and the date of his rise....though it was an easy one to make since it didn't appear to contradict any other historical facts. Clearly
>> the year 479 CY was meant to be the date in which he expanded his empire, not the year he came onto the scene in the first place.
>Yep. That's what I thought too. And of your scenarios for the dating of Iuz' realm, I think only (1) is possible. According to S4, Iggwilv began her campaign of conquest "nearly a century ago," and subjugated the Marches of Perrenland for a decade (S4, p. 2). That would mean she
>disappeared at 486 at the absolute earliest -- probably later -- in any case after 479. That rules out scenario (2).
Ah, well that depends on numerous assumptions which are not clear cut:
1) The dating of the module S4
2) The dating of the WoG Guide (83)
3) The vagaries of history, and terms such as "nearly a century".
A common misconception about the booklets of the 83 boxed set is that their contents are generally dated to the year 576 CY, the year they were completed by the Savant-Sage in the Free City of Greyhawk. However, its apparent that they are only current to the year 573 CY...and while the sage completed the seven volume set 3 years later, the material is not current to that date, but only to the year of the disappearance of the Prince of Furyondy and the emergence of the Scarlet Brotherhood.
This is not uncommon in histories, where there is a lag between what is current and when it is published.
S4 could have been set anytime in the 570's, realistically speaking, though we know it must have predated the events in Isle of the Ape which are generally dated somewhere between 576-579. Using all of this leeway, its possible to contruct a history whereby Iggwilv's empire fell and Iuz emerged in the north nearly simultaneously. However, I agree that scenario 1) is far more likely since we know that Iggwilv's magic was instrumental in Iuz's rise. It was probably the intention of Iggwilv and Iuz to expand their realm, and with the witch's magic, the cambion emerged from the Howling Hills a force and took Dorakaa. Apparently, they had some falling out and Graz'zt was loosed, forcing Iggwilv into a battle which reduced her powers dramatically, banished the Demon Lord for a century, and ended her
>> I think it is pretty obvious that his name is due in no small part to his decrepit
>> appearance whilst
Of course, people might call him old because he *looks* old. But I think that he really *is* old -- ancient even. I gave the reasons in an earlier post (i.e. the quotes from the Guide and AoE which clearly establish Iuz as "centuries old").
Well, we don't know how old...but we do know that he looks old, ancient even. I sympathize with your desire to restore Iuz to his original depiction, but I think if we're going to be Monatic* about things, we're stuck with the fact that he didn't rule in the north for centuries, whatever his true age...and quotes from the guide notwithstanding (the puffery of an old sage. ;-) Clearly, it was not known why Iuz pulled back in 505 CY and the fact that the land was ruled in his name by a proto-Bonehart is not distinguishable, his evil festered (indeed his Spurned Cult received power and spread across the Flanaess over the intervening decades.) There only appeared to be an ebb in the expansion of his empire, which resumed anew when the master was back in residence. To assert he only ruled 32 years would be a quibble without teeth, since his status wouldn't have been commonly known...roads were still being paved in skulls apace.
*Monaism asserts the primacy of canon and exhorts its practioners to find the most consistent and ingenious method to satisfy all sources. Not to be coonfused with "Hep Monatics", sufferers of a rare jungle disease involving burrowing insects.