Dragon Kings of Dark Sun

[Tvtyrant]

I really like the idea of the Dragon-Sorcerer kings of Dark Sun, where defiling magic slowly turns the user into a dragon (turning the traditional concept of a dragon blooded sorcerer on its head.)

However it feels like all of the art of the none-Dregoth dragon kings make them look more like camel people than dragons. Comparing the art style to draconians or dragonborn, they just have this weird camel look to them. Anyone else find the art a little odd?

[Rhynn]

I really like the idea of the Dragon-Sorcerer kings of Dark Sun, where defiling magic slowly turns the user into a dragon (turning the traditional concept of a dragon blooded sorcerer on its head.)

Kinda but no.

Sorcerer-kings/dragons (not actually always synonymous; the two just coincide in all but one or two known cases) are defiler(wizard)-psionicists who cast specific ritual spells to undergo a gradual metamorphosis, using enchanted obsidian tools to draw life-force, going on periodic rampages as their metamorphosis goes further.

However it feels like all of the art of the none-Dregoth dragon kings make them look more like camel people than dragons. Comparing the art style to draconians or dragonborn, they just have this weird camel look to them. Anyone else find the art a little odd?

Which ones?

This is the classic Athasian dragon, and "the only real one": the Dragon of Tyr. That's classic and awesome. Here is another one (from the original boxed set IIRC). Traditional dragons would just not fit into Dark Sun.

There's something vaguely Nemesis about them, too, which I enjoy.

[Winter_Wolf]

"Dragon" has always been kind of a loose term in Dark Sun. Hamanu was "The Lion Who Walks" or something like that. The Sorcerer-kings adopted forms which suited them and fit their personalities. And as was pointed out, it's not defiling that makes a dragon, it's defiler/psionisists that make dragons. And only humans, at that (because they all had to be dual-classed). That may well have changed since 2E days, but given the setting and what the Sorcerer-Kings were all about (eventually somewhat changing their minds), it's appropriate.

[Tvtyrant]

Kinda but no.

Sorcerer-kings/dragons (not actually always synonymous; the two just coincide in all but one or two known cases) are defiler(wizard)-psionicists who cast specific ritual spells to undergo a gradual metamorphosis, using enchanted obsidian tools to draw life-force, going on periodic rampages as their metamorphosis goes further.



Which ones?

This is the classic Athasian dragon, and "the only real one": the Dragon of Tyr. That's classic and awesome. Here is another one (from the original boxed set IIRC). Traditional dragons would just not fit into Dark Sun.

There's something vaguely Nemesis about them, too, which I enjoy.

Yeah Borys is flipping cool, but I was referring to this guy. Comparing him to a Marlboro camel or a dragonborn, he reminds me more of the camel.

[ngilop]

You have to realize that going from human to full dragon form was like 12 ( i think) stages so the one you linked is one of those stages where it just looks weird


also it 4th ed and I think 4th ed art in general is a bit... odd.

[hamlet]

Minor point of order, none of the pictures posted was Borys of Ebe (aka, the actual Dragon). I don't have a place to post the picture, but an image search for "Borys of Ebe" will find him. He is VERY scary.

The Sorcerer-Kings/Dragon wanna be's are not quite made because of their defiling. The transformation is, in fact, a spell that has to be researched/found and cast 10 separate times, each time becoming more dangerous and difficult involving increasing levels of human sacrifice and trafficing with extraplaner evils, which are very hard to get in touch with from Athas. They are not really "dragons" in the meaning of giant ariel lizards with terminal halitosis that most D&D settings cast them as. They are . . . well . . . ok, they do eventually get to that point, but they aren't really that. They're more eldritch abominations of the HP Lovecraft vein, similar to their counterparts the Avangions. So the fact that they look twisted, strange, and nightmarish is actually intentional. The artist, usually a guy named Bron (I think), did a great job at making it look good.

[Lord Torath]

Keep in mind that most of the art was by Baxa, and you really can't assume that anything he draws even remotely resembles the physical description of the thing he's ostensibly providing an illustration of. (Yes, my bias may be showing a bit here). If you read the physical description of the various stages of dragon metamorphosis, you'll see that they don't really need to look like deformed reptilian camels.

[Rhynn]

Yeah Borys is flipping cool, but I was referring to this guy. Comparing him to a Marlboro camel or a dragonborn, he reminds me more of the camel.

Well, your problem is that all WotC D&D art ever, except for the Mark Smylie pieces, is awful. TSR-era D&D art is the boss.

Minor point of order, none of the pictures posted was Borys of Ebe (aka, the actual Dragon). I don't have a place to post the picture, but an image search for "Borys of Ebe" will find him. He is VERY scary.

That's weird, the B&W I posted is, IIRC, on the same page as The Dragon's stats in the original boxed set books.

The artist, usually a guy named Bron (I think), did a great job at making it look good.

Brom, man. Who knoweth not Gerald Brom!?

[BWR]

To be fair, there is some pretty awesome art even during the WotC period. The Van Richten's Guide compendia, for example, have excellent art, as does "Carnival", by Kevin McCann.

Brom was Dark Sun, just like diTerlizzi was Planescape (though rk post did good stuff too).

[Brookshw]

Minor point of order, none of the pictures posted was Borys of Ebe (aka, the actual Dragon). I don't have a place to post the picture, but an image search for "Borys of Ebe" will find him. He is VERY scary.

Huh? That first one Rhynn linked was very much the original from the boxed set. The wings were added later and the official minature most definitely never had any

[BWR]

I think hamlet is talking about this picture.

[hamlet]

I think hamlet is talking about this picture.

Yes. Borys always had wings as the only fully transformed Dragon in the setting (though Dregoth and, arguably, Kalak came close). The illustrations of dragons except for that one and one or two others, lacked wings and couldn't have been him. Whether the lack was due to artist error (likely or even probably) or something else is just kind of immaterial when there is a fantastic picture of Borys that you have pointed out. It's my favorite Dark Sun image ever.

And not everyone has heard of Brom. Lots, actually, have not, and they play lots of D&D. I pity them, but they exist and are good folk. We must bring the word of Brom to them . . .

[Brookshw]

Yes. Borys always had wings as the only fully transformed Dragon in the setting (though Dregoth and, arguably, Kalak came close). The illustrations of dragons except for that one and one or two others, lacked wings and couldn't have been him. Whether the lack was due to artist error (likely or even probably) or something else is just kind of immaterial when there is a fantastic picture of Borys that you have pointed out. It's my favorite Dark Sun image ever.

It's certainly a cool image but Borys did not originally have wings, here's a link to the original 2e stat block, nothing about wings in the description or the image they originally used (granted while I recognize the image I no longer recall the 2e stats or have the box kicking around so couldn't verify the text). He never had wings in any of the books (though he did spend a lot of time wading through the Sea of Silt). Even on the cover of Dragon Kings , no wings. Dark Sun dragons weren't true dragons (Hamanu's form was a giant bipedal lion iirc) and wings played no part. I'm very confused where this wing thing is coming from now. Is it a 3e thing? Granted he would have looked much cooler with them.

[hamlet]

It's certainly a cool image but Borys did not originally have wings, here's a link to the original 2e stat block, nothing about wings in the description or the image they originally used (granted while I recognize the image I no longer recall the 2e stats or have the box kicking around so couldn't verify the text). He never had wings in any of the books (though he did spend a lot of time wading through the Sea of Silt). Even on the cover of Dragon Kings , no wings. Dark Sun dragons weren't true dragons (Hamanu's form was a giant bipedal lion iirc) and wings played no part. I'm very confused where this wing thing is coming from now. Is it a 3e thing? Granted he would have looked much cooler with them.

Well, the picture on the cover of Dragon Kings isn't, as best I can tell, Borys.

As for the stat block, I always interpreted it as either 1) an example of a straight up error on the part of the Traveller, the guy in whose voice the setting was originally written, or 2) just an example of TSR not quite having sorted out the mythology yet as to who/what The Dragon was.

Frankly, the discussion is academic and moot, so what are we arguing about again?

[Winter_Wolf]

Brom, man. Who knoweth not Gerald Brom!?

Wait, Brom has more than just one name? I am astonished. Seriously, I just assumed legally his name was "Brom". Because he's worthy of that. The Brom, if you will (although I'd prefer not, since that's a little over the top).

[Brookshw]

Oh, sorry if this was coming off as an argument. DS was one of my favorite settings and I'm simply very confused why the assertion about the wings. I actually am interested in the academic side of it, so if you do know when they originated, great , if not oh well. You're probably right that the mythology wasn't sorted out yet. I seem to recall early speculation when the campaign first came out had the Dragon of Tyr pegged as the sole surviving dragon in a world that otherwise was miserably inhospitable.

[Lord Torath]

Dragon Kings does describe the metamorphosing dragon as gaining wings at level 29 (Fly 18C). The Dragon's flying ability was never described as magical, so one just sort of assumes that with a fly speed of 45 A, you have wings of some sort. And the accompanying illustration is by Tom Baxa, so you can't really trust it to be an accurate representation.

[Rhynn]

one just sort of assumes that with a fly speed of 45 A, you have wings of some sort.

To be a horrible nitpicker, Maneuverability Class A is very rarely involved with wings; that's where you can hover indefinitely, stop and start on a dime, etc. It's wisps, atomies (the smallest of faeries; faeries and pixies have B), etc.

Not that I don't agree Borys looks awesome with wings. (It helps that the environment looks like the Valley of Dust and Fire.) But given their ability to pretty much change shape at will (the Man-Lion is just Hamanu's preferred form, not his true form, AFAIK), I don't see why they couldn't just sprout wings at will once they've got them. It's pretty much impossible to say which are correct and incorrect, out of the original boxed set MC entries, the art, and Dragon Kings...

[LibraryOgre]

I would also not put it past several sorcerer-kings to have developed spells or powers that said "Yeah, I may have moved up to 28th level, but I'm gonna go back to looking how I always looked."

[Rhynn]

I would also not put it past several sorcerer-kings to have developed spells or powers that said "Yeah, I may have moved up to 28th level, but I'm gonna go back to looking how I always looked."

That's pretty much canon, isn't it? All of them basically appear as human most of the time: Kalak just looked like an ancient man, Hamanu looks like the most powerful king ever (his lion-form is for combat), etc. Before Troy Denning ruined the setting, no one alive except the Sorcerer-Kings and the Dragon even knew what they are! (A big part of why, for my Dark Sun gonzo science-fantasy setting, I have totally discarded the canon explanations for what the Sorcerer-Kings are.)

[hamlet]

In the canon, it was more or less a combination of advanced magics (illusions and polymorph self spells), psionics, and for the most part none of them having advanced beyond 22nd level (where you could simply pass off as an especially big and imposing human) that they're still able to pass themselves off as essentially human. The one with the real issue is, I think, Dray, and he manages just to stay hidden most of the time and when forced to go out cloaks himself in illusions.

As for the dragon appearance, it implies in the description of the spell that, essentially, your appearance as an advanced being is affected or even dictated within limits by your own personality and preferences. Thus, Hamanu's "man lion" appearance may, in fact, be his true appearance after a fashion.

And as for Bron, well, let's face it, guy's cool as an artist. And he shares his name with an awesome GRRM character. I like to imagine Bron the Sellsword as an artist on the side being revealed late in book 7 of that series.

[Lord Torath]

That's pretty much canon, isn't it? All of them basically appear as human most of the time: Kalak just looked like an ancient man, Hamanu looks like the most powerful king ever (his lion-form is for combat), etc. Before Troy Denning ruined the setting, no one alive except the Sorcerer-Kings and the Dragon even knew what they are! (A big part of why, for my Dark Sun gonzo science-fantasy setting, I have totally discarded the canon explanations for what the Sorcerer-Kings are.)

I thought Hamanu's Man-Lion form only appeared in Denning's books.... And I certainly agree with you about him ruining the setting.

I believe Nibenay generally doesn't bother with illusions to hide his true form. He just hides himself away in his palace. Lalali Puy definitely cloaks herself in illusion whenever she appears to her adoring populace. Abalach Re tries to avoid seeing any of her subjects at all.

[obryn]

And as for Bron, well, let's face it, guy's cool as an artist. And he shares his name with an awesome GRRM character. I like to imagine Bron the Sellsword as an artist on the side being revealed late in book 7 of that series.

I am dying a little inside, because the artist is Brom and the sellsword is Bronn.

Time to turn in your nerd card, man.

Anyway! Dark Sun Dragons look like what you want them to look like. Brom was, I think, mostly interested in drawing awesome pictures; the game's canon was molded to fit his art, not the other way around.

[hamlet]

I am dying a little inside, because the artist is Brom and the sellsword is Bronn.

Time to turn in your nerd card, man.

*runs to grab a copy of his novels and double check*

Oh no!

I know only shame! I must now . . . *sob* . . . restrict myself only to mainstream fantasy.


Seriously, that's kinda shameful. I think I should have to design a tesseract dungeon as penance.

[awa]

"Troy Denning ruined the setting" which parts of the setting did he alter?

[Rhynn]

"Troy Denning ruined the setting" which parts of the setting did he alter?

He killed (in the Prism Pentad novel series, the changes of which were canonized in the revised campaign setting boxed set he authored) the Dragon and several Sorcerer-Kings, and either invented or just set as canon the whole Rajaat business (honestly, there were way too many deep setting secrets in the revised campaign setting; and the previous existence of e.g. pixies made the setting less "Mad Max on Barsoom", to me). IIRC, the original campaign setting was much more sparing on campaign secrets.

My Dark Sun setting is based entirely on the unrevised material, heavily altered into a science-fantasy setting with influences from Barsoom, Planet Algol, Mad Max, The Caves of Qud, and Fallout...

[obryn]

"Troy Denning ruined the setting" which parts of the setting did he alter?

Basically, because everyone else was doing it in the 90's, Dark Sun had a metaplot with big, world-changing events the PCs had nothing to do with. I don't think the Prism Pentad is terrible, but I do think it makes Dark Sun a lot less fun to adventure in. And really, doing this kind of stuff without the PCs is just in poor taste. But - like I said - 90's.

[Rhynn]

I don't think the Prism Pentad is terrible

I think it's some of the worst writing in D&D novels, and that's a field full of hacks to begin with. I have no idea how Denning wrote so many novels. The descriptions of battle are the worst (when I need to reach for an anatomy textbook to figure out what bone was broken, there's something dumb going on). Sadira is also a typical ubersuperwizard Mary Sue (although not an author insert, probably) - Athas's own Elminster.

I do think it makes Dark Sun a lot less fun to adventure in. And really, doing this kind of stuff without the PCs is just in poor taste.

Yes. 4E took the right tack, reversing all of the events.

I feel that the Sorcerer-Kings, and the Dragon, are there for high-level PCs to eventually go up against. It should the PCs who determine which cities are freed or destroyed in your campaign setting.

[TuggyNE]

Yes. 4E took the right tack, reversing all of the events.

That's certainly an unusual thing to hear.

(I know next to nothing about Dark Sun, btw.)

[Rhynn]

That's certainly an unusual thing to hear.

Well, 4E is generally a better game, IMO, than 3.X, although I think both of them make for a lousy D&D... I'm an odd duck, I guess. I would play the crap out of an old-school turn-and-grid-based combat heavy CRPG using 4E rules, but for tabletop D&D, it's retroclones for me.

But yeah, 4E went the right way with the setting, at least in one big way (reversing the Denning changes). The rest of it I can take or leave; dragonborn are a perfectly fine fit as dray (mechanically; they shouldn't look like dragonborn), and tieflings and eladrin might have needed heavier re-flavoring, but whatever. I think the vagueness of setting-specific fluff leaves a lot of room for DMs to define it for themselves. I'm pretty big on that nowadays, when it comes to D&D settings...