Re: Temple of Elemental Evil

Priority: Normal
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 16:22:12 -0400
Reply-To: Keith Horsefield
From: Keith Horsefield
Subject: Re: [GREYTALK] Temple of Elemental Evil
To: GREYTALK@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

Michael Gillis wrote:

>I am currently running a campaign in C.Y 580. As a long-time “resident” of
>Greyhawk, I have yet been able to introduce the Wars into my game.
However, I
>am leading my campaign into the Wars, albeit slowly. I am planning on
sending
>the members of my current group through the Temple of Elemental Evil.
Does
>the timeframe make sense – C.Y 580?
>
>I can find no references that would prohibit the Temple's inclusion in the
>time frame, but I am somewhat of a traditionalist. Help.

This was in the archives, but since I never received any response to [missing text?]
I'll post it again:

All the references are to pg. 5 T1-4.

Starting with the base date of 569 CY for the Battle of Emridy Meadows

Last paragraph 1st column

“For five years afterward, the village and the countryside have become richer and more prosperous than ever before.”

In this paragraph is the mention of the troll and how it was killed by some adventurers. After that adventurers continue to come but find nothing.

1st full paragraph, 2nd column:

“—and Hommlet continued its quiet existence for four years more.”

The beginning of this paragraph states that adventurers have stopped coming to the area.

2nd full paragraph, 2nd column:

“But then, a year ago, the bandits began to ride the roads again….”

From my reading of these 3 paragraphs there are 3 distinct periods after the Battle of Emridy Meadows for the village of Hommlet:

1) 5 years where adventurers continue to visit brought by wanderlust
2) 4 years where the village left in peace
3) 1 year of rising banditry

Therer, T1-4 is supposed to take place in 579 CY.

An alternate reading though might include some of the second time period

[Text missing]

Arguably this module could take place anywhere within the timeline of 575 – 579 CY dependent upon how close or how far the DM wants to be in relation to the Greyhawk Wars.

Now of course FtA mucks this all up cause Thrommel is still missing.

Keith Horsfield
Member Team OS/2
“To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
E-mail: afn0945@afn.org
Home page: http://www.afn.org/~afn09454/
Brought to you by OS/2 Warp & PMMail 1.53

Re: Greyhawk Timeline

From wackford@biology.utah.edu Tue Oct 24 22:27:24 1995
X-Sender: wackford@biology.utah.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Version 1.4.4
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: greytalk@MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: Greyhawk Timeline
Content-Length: 2004
X-Lines: 44
Status: RO

>Okay, here's the problem.
>
>Iuz was imprisoned under Castle Greyhawk from 505 - 570.
>
>The Battle of Emridy Meadows and the fall of the Temple was in 569.
>
>Yet _The Temple of Elemental Evil_ states that Iuz was free and
>active during the fall of the temple. So, we have a contradiction.
>
>In _Iuz the Evil_, we find that Iuz only learns of the fall of the
>Temple after his release. This would imply that TOEE is incorrect,
>and that Iuz was still imprisoned when the Temple fell.
>
>So, for the sake of continuity, you either have to remove Iuz's
>involvement in TOEE, or change the the dates around so that Emridy
>Meadows happens after the release of Iuz.
>
>Anyways, I was curious whether anyone has come up with any other
>solutions.
>
>Greg Bernath gbernath@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu

This thing is beginning to attain the status of Old Cheastnut, but is still troubling if you are hearing about it/ realizing it for the first time.

Although I don't have it with me now, I beleive what TEE says is that Iuz was active in the *construction* of the Temple, not its fall. Thus, his involvement would have to have occurred several years earlier, making it a more difficult problem to fix than just moving the date of a Battle by one year.

I believe TEE was pretty vague on what Iuz's "involvement" was, however, other than lending aid and conspiring with Zugg. That is, I do not think he was necessarily personally, physically, involved. Thus some (Gary?) have resolved that Iuz's support of the Temple did come while he was imprisoned, just as he was supporting many things - through his minions, with whom he had some kind of contact.

For myself, I have moved the dates of Iuz's appearance, capture, and release back by more than a century. I prefer this, as it also gives time for Iuz to ascend to godhood. There is not enough time for this, in my style campaign, in the official time alloted to Iuz. This solution, unfortunately, results in a very Unoffical chronology.

Kirt