|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 2, 2016 13:09:30 GMT -5
Are the Portentous Runes & Glyphs on p. 17 of the Guide (and which appeared with some different versions in the 1980 Folio) supposed to be linked to a paricular culture and/or language? Because the area described is the Flanaess, I've always assumed they might be hieroglyphs from the old Flan language, adopted for common use by explorers, adventurers and spell-casters. Or, maybe they are so old as to predate any known language...
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 2, 2016 13:26:09 GMT -5
Knowing EGG, probably not 'supposed' to be, but you could attach them. I'd go Flann if anything. They way they are used in ToEE makes me say older, pre-dating languages.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 2, 2016 16:01:50 GMT -5
If you divide the 76 there is enough characters to go around for at least three alphabets.
Take
"giant" for "J"
"hail, storm (gold)" for "N"
"sulfur" for "Q"
"win, victory" for "V"
"poison antidote" for "X"
"Life" for "Y"
"death" for "Z"
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 2, 2016 17:40:27 GMT -5
That's a great idea, and I never thought of that. The hieroglyphs could double as words/concepts/visual representations and individual letters in an alphabet... I can see a LORD OF THE RINGS like splash page being designed for the World of Greyhawk, made with the Portentous Runes & Glyphs and using the Darlene map style font...
Something else I wanted to bring up: the glyphs in the DMG. How do they fit in?
I always had the impression EGG wanted to do a lot more with glyphs, runes, symbols, wards and circles of protection: more of a comprehensive system.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Nov 2, 2016 19:59:54 GMT -5
Another good source of Glyphs of Warding, Symbols, Sepia Snake Sigils, Wizard Marks, Explosive Runes, and the like is Larry DiTillio's "Glyphs of Cerilon" article in Dragon #50. (His "Poison: The Toxins Of Cerilon" in Dragon #59 is also quite good!).
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 3, 2016 21:17:20 GMT -5
I'm working on a clear 81 vs 83 comparison right now. I'll post it when its finished.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 4, 2016 16:12:21 GMT -5
|
|
foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Post by foster1941 on Nov 4, 2016 18:17:47 GMT -5
So about half of them are the same (or almost the same), and the other half are significantly different - about a dozen of them pretty radically so. Presumably the 1983 versions represent the current "common" set of runes and the 1980 version are a more ancient, antiquated version. The former version can be given by the DM to all players as common knowledge, but learning the latter version requires special research.
FWIW the inscriptions on the sealed doors in T1-4 (p. 39) are based on the 1980 set of runes - perhaps the forces of good who put them in place deliberately used ancient versions to make them harder to decipher.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Nov 4, 2016 18:57:25 GMT -5
Don't mix up the old AIR with the new FIRE...
"I thought we just had to cover the torches for the WARNING AIR rune...OUCHHHH!!!"
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 8:46:15 GMT -5
So do you all agree with Paul Stormberg's interpretation of the runes set on the TOEE gates?
If you interpret differently, what is your interpretation and why?
It is interesting that there are some slight deviations to the WOG folio runes, or else perhaps some of the runes are different and therefore have different interpretations than what Paul proposed?
Here's an example: the folio "GOOD" rune has eight spokes, while the TOEE gate rune has but six spokes? Maybe this is intended as a rune overlay instead: "AIR" circumscribing "STRENGTH?"
Maybe the fourth line alludes to three insane giant leaders of the G-series modules?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 9:09:46 GMT -5
Paul interprets the triangle rune as "HOUSE" - I'm not sure if instead this should be interpreted as either house lacking a foundation/unstable house or else primordial fire? Maybe it's both, that the volatile primordial fire house or original TOEE was sunk into the unknown depths of the Nyr Dyv?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 29, 2018 9:32:53 GMT -5
As a default, I disagree with all preferences of Paul Stormberg.... Just kidding! Seriously, what are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 9:42:50 GMT -5
As a default, I disagree with all preferences of Paul Stormberg.... Just kidding! Seriously, what are you referring to? Sorry my reference was unclear - Paul's dragonsfoot posting March 6, 2012 post subject "deciphering the entrance runes to temple of elemental evil"
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 29, 2018 10:17:32 GMT -5
I hadn't seen that. I would consider the temple door rune image another burn mark because: 1) TOEE was published at a bad time. 1985 was the year of the hostile takeover but technically the shit storm started with Dragonlance getting the ball rolling in 83 or so. 2) The art is not exactly plug-in juicy like prior D&D material (Tramp, etc.). 3) The overland map looks thrown together. So I look at it like its a another "it is what it is" like the forgotten Elder Elemental God being a tangential feature. Here is a glimpse of me talking to Gary about the art in TOEE: Me: I thought the TOEE art was not as good as Hommlet. Gary: Who was that? Me: Parkinson but mostly Elmore. Gary: Oh, Elmore? He's an alright chap. He did covers for Dang-... Me: ...-erous Journeys... Yeahhh... ((( Horns wail in the distance as Gene cringes. WAH-WAH-WAH-WAAAAHHHHHH.....)) I did specifically ask him about the door and he did say it came up with other people inquiring before but he gave the standard "I wasn't responsible for the art." response.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 10:38:48 GMT -5
I hadn't seen that. I would consider the temple door rune image another burn mark because: 1) TOEE was published at a bad time. 1985 was the year of the hostile takeover but technically the shit storm started with Dragonlance getting the ball rolling in 83 or so. 2) The art is not exactly plug-in juicy like prior D&D material (Tramp, etc.). 3) The overland map looks thrown together. So I look at it like its a another "it is what it is" like the forgotten Elder Elemental God being a tangential feature. Here is a glimpse of me talking to Gary about the art in TOEE: Me: I thought the TOEE art was not as good as Hommlet. Gary: Who was that? Me: Parkinson but mostly Elmore. Gary: Oh, Elmore? He's an alright chap. He did covers for Dang-... Me: ...-erous Journeys... Yeahhh... ((( Horns wail in the distance as Gene cringes. WAH-WAH-WAH-WAAAAHHHHHH.....)) I did specifically ask him about the door and he did say it came up with other people inquiring before but he gave the standard "I wasn't responsible for the art." response. Ok, so I get it that EGG wasn't responsible for the art in TOEE, the question I have is do you think the rune idea on the temple gates was by EGG within the original manuscript or not? Did Frank grab the rune idea from the ms and give to the art department with recommendation to use for module artwork? I cannot make out an artist signature for this piece - is it a possible work of DAT?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 10:42:15 GMT -5
Perhaps EGG was being cagey responding to inquiries regarding the temple gates runes, because he did not want to give away his cryptic secrets...?
Since EGG brought forth these runes within the WOG folio well prior to 1985, and they appear in specific use within TOEE in this artwork, it doesn't seem far fetched that these temple gates runes would have been something found within the original ms...
Otherwise you have artists free-wheeling concocting this into the artwork, or else someone other than EGG created this?
|
|
foster1941
Warlock
Duke of California, Earl of Los Angeles, Knight Bachelor
Posts: 475
|
Post by foster1941 on Mar 29, 2018 11:46:54 GMT -5
I feel almost certain that Gary's manuscript included a drawing of the runes, contemporaneous with the inclusion of the runes in the WOG folio (which, remember, was being developed at the same time - the runes in TOEE being the same ones from the WOG would be another "easter egg" for fans who knew both, just like the references to Zuggtmoy and Thrommel). However, by late 84-early 85 when Frank was completing it the handwritten runes were probably not-quite comprehensible (maybe they'd faded, or had coffee-stains on them, or had been erased and written-over, or just weren't drawn that carefull in the first place) and when Frank gave them to the artist (probably Jeff Easley? definitely not DAT) for rendering, the artist couldn't decipher all of them but instead of going back to compare to the WOG folio* just used his own artistic license.
*it's also possible that the same thing happened with the runes in the folio - that Gary gave the TSR graphics department a set of hand-drawn runes, which were changed in the published product. After all, we know that the runes were changed (sometimes completely) in the 1983 boxed set; why couldn't a similar level of artistic license have been taken in 1980?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 12:07:15 GMT -5
I feel almost certain that Gary's manuscript included a drawing of the runes, contemporaneous with the inclusion of the runes in the WOG folio (which, remember, was being developed at the same time - the runes in TOEE being the same ones from the WOG would be another "easter egg" for fans who knew both, just like the references to Zuggtmoy and Thrommel). However, by late 84-early 85 when Frank was completing it the handwritten runes were probably not-quite comprehensible (maybe they'd faded, or had coffee-stains on them, or had been erased and written-over, or just weren't drawn that carefull in the first place) and when Frank gave them to the artist (probably Jeff Easley? definitely not DAT) for rendering, the artist couldn't decipher all of them but instead of going back to compare to the WOG folio* just used his own artistic license. *it's also possible that the same thing happened with the runes in the folio - that Gary gave the TSR graphics department a set of hand-drawn runes, which were changed in the published product. After all, we know that the runes were changed (sometimes completely) in the 1983 boxed set; why couldn't a similar level of artistic license have been taken in 1980? It was my understanding that EGG had firm control of creative design output when the folio was put together for publication, so I wasn't expecting free-wheeling artistic license found within the 1980 WOG folio?
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Mar 29, 2018 12:15:17 GMT -5
Tritherion uses the pursuit rune and Zagyg uses the insanity rune as their symbols, correct?
What other WOG deities are associated with specific runic symbols found within the 'portentous' list?
Was it intended that there would eventually be a WOG deity associated with each WOG folio rune?
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Mar 29, 2018 12:23:09 GMT -5
My opinion is that it was pencilled on a piece of paper and then thrown in to a pile to be processed without regard for making it be an interactive thing rather it just be used as window dressing.
The concept I believe was probably to a clue but it got lost in the translation.
With all these clowns hoarding and selling off evidence to anybody instead of doing their goddamn jobs and designing shit thats playable I have nothing but contempt for the whole "auctioning" bullshit.
That said, I think there is a slight curse on Greyhawk in some ways:
Like the Drow temple egg being erased from the obvious elemental connection as Q1 got handed away to Sutherland.
or worse
More plainly obvious "Mauve castle" being on the map and all over the text in SAGA OF OLD CITY (1985)as a town even though "Maure" castle being in an adventure WG5 MORDENKAINEN'S FANTASTIC ADVENTURE the year prior (1984) as a dungeon in the same spot with an x-ray showing no sign of a town anywhere in sight.
Or severely worse
The dunce club at latter TSR (Sargent, Moore, Mona, etc) in the 90's doing a post-modern hyper glitch on the race names of humanoids and the Circle of Eight then trying to "fix" it or include all the garbage first then the classic as an afterthought.
|
|