Tuesday, November 3, 2020

Iuz's Imprisonment Date

Chronological Connundrums: Iuz's Imprisonment Date(s)?!

From: Chris Anderson <caa@unify.com>

Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:44:05 

In my campaign, I have dated Iuz's imprisonment to 505. Your suggestion is as good as any other as to the differences in the official sources.

As far as your other questions, I have used:

455: Iggwilv discovers Caverns of Tsojcanth

460: lggwilv first summons and binds Graz'zt

461: Birth of luz

473-483: Iggwilv rules Perrenland

475-479: Rise of luz amongst petty bandits

479: Land of luz conquered by Iuz

483: Imprisonment of lggwilv, banishment of Graz'zt from PMP

505: Imprisonment of luz by Zagyg

The key date here is 483 being the banishment of lggwilv. I used that because I wanted Graz'zt to be able to be summoned to the PMP in 584 (101 years of imprisonment). The other key date is the birth of luz in 461. I used that because it allows him to be 14 years old when he begins his rise to power in the land ofluz, and 18 years old when he conquers it.


> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jason Verbitsky [SMTP:N@bc.sympatico.ca]

> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 1998 12:12 PM

> To: GREYTALK@mitvma.mit.edu

> Subject: [GREYTALK] Chronological Connundrums: Iuz's Imprisonment

> Date(s)?!

> -------------------------------------------------------

> Chronological Connundrums: luz's Imprisonment Date(s)?!

> -------------------------------------------------------

> When was Iuz imprisoned?


> Unfortunately, the published 'professional'/official sources are not very  helpful or, for that matter, clear (nice editing and proofreading!;):


> "luz's dissapearance in 503 CY was met with a sigh of relief ... Iuz reappeared some sixty-seven years later," (_Marklands_p.3)  (1993: Carl Sargent, Mark Shipley, Karen S. Boomgarden)

 > "the banishment of Iuz, generally dated to 505 CY. ... Sixty-five years of banishment" (_Iuz the Evil_ p.3) (1993: Carl Sargent, Lisa Stevens)

> "luz disappeared in 505 CY, imprisoned beneath the towers of Castle Greyhawk" (_FtA __ AoF p.5) (1992: Carl Sargent, Anne Brown, Michelle Carter)

> "507 Iuz imprisoned beneath Castle Greyhawk" (_FtA Reference Card # 1) (1992: Carl Sargent, Anne Brown, Michelle Carter, et al.?)


> So what are we to make of this mess that the editors and proofreaders *should* have caught? If canon is what is published by TSR, then we are stuck with it so some creative interpretation is in order (yes, yes, I know we can ignore whatever we want) so that the new Greyhawk can be consistent with the previous published sources but still actually make some sense!


> My, albeit amateur, suggestion is: to have Iuz be last seen in public in Molag in 503CY; but have Iuz actually imprisoned in 505 CY; and have the knowledge of his imprisonment ( or at least the public declaration in his former empire that he was actually missing [if not imprisoned]) occur in 507CY (when it was accepted that he was not merely testing his servants, but rather that he was indeed gone). Well, that's what I'm going with until/unless I hear a better suggestion. Anybody got one?


> One might well ask, why am I'm even bothering with this? Well, as I said before in my "Red Death Plague" message (Dec '97), this period is very important to the historical context of the Rise of the Homed Society in the early 500s CY because they come into a power vacuum created by Iuz's absence so the dating is fairly relevant to my _History of the Homed Society_ project.


> OR, maybe I just missed that errata sheet? If so, would some one be so kind as to forward it to me?


> His Dread and Awful Presence,

> Jason Verbitsky

> N@bc.sympatico.ca

> http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/N/HS.HTM


> P.S. It is passages such as those quoted above which the proper care should be taken to aviod in the Greyhawk revival -- I'm going to trust that the new TSR cares enough about Greyhawk to take the time; everything that I've seen so far points to a change (like Roger actually running several things by GreyTalk. The moral? If they would have done this with the Wars/ Ashes many problems could have easily been avoided ... )

No comments: