Template talk:Tel-quessir races

Including Eladrin subraces
I'd like to include the Eladrin subraces in order to keep it comprehensive and useful. Though they may technically be "eladrin", they are still referred to as Moon Elves, Star Elves, and Sun Elves. Therefore, one would expect these three races to be in a template or article referring to elves. Furthermore, the "elves" are directly descended from the Eladrin. Thoughts? 03:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps then we should create a single template called elven and eladrin subraces? Or maybe include the "fey races" template I created alongside either of the two templates. I'm open to suggestions but I think that we should make a strong connection between the eladrin and gold elf or sun elf articles that didn't already exist. Niirfa-sa 04:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since 4E FR essentially ignores previous Realms history in terms of the history of the elven races, I think it more prudent to keep the 1-3E and 4E templates separate, so as to avoid confusing new readers. Gabeth 08:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Are drow not also an elven subrace?


 * Actually, 4E FR largely does not retcon previous Realms history. This can be a source of confusion, but overall the Realms history has not changed. Instead, the designers chose to introduce large Realms-shaking events like the Spellplague and Abeir colliding back with Toril as a way to explain and introduce the new material. But the history itself hasn't changed.
 * It can be hard to make a distinction between the game-mechanics and the lore, especially when the 4E content itself isn't always consistent. But to most people, "Sun Elves" and "Wood Elves" are still Elves, and in fact they are correct. Here's how it works: the overall group is called "Elves". Beneath that you have three major groupings: "Elves", "Drow", and "Eladrin". These three groupings are primarily for game-mechanic purposes. For instance, both Moon Elves and Wild Elves speak and write elven, and they both consider themselves "Tel'Quessir" (meaning Of the People). Evermeet is still a home to "elven" people, including wild elves, wood elves, lythari, good elves, etc...
 * The fact that "elves" refers to both the overall group, and also one of the sub-groups is the cause of much confusion. 15:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read the new FRCG, as well as essentially everything in 3E as well as a heavy amount of 2E information. Retcon might have been a bit of a strong word, but lets look back at Forgotten Realms history. Green elves and dark elves first land in the Realms in –27000 DR by way of the world of Fairie (not the Feywild). This is also the time of the legendary dark elf nation of Ilythiiri, who will end up giving the Netherest the legendary Netherscrolls (in a roundabout way). In -25400 DR, the first sun and moon elves (gold and silver, as they called themselves), fled Fairie due to the sheer danger of that place. One would assume the avariel, star, and aquatic elves came along at this time, though I cannot find the exact dates for their particular arrivals. The last was of course the wood elves, which are actually a blend of sun, moon, and green elf ancestors. All of this is in AGHotR, of course.
 * Contrast this with the new realms. On page 5 of the FRCG, the Feywild comes "returns" to existence (when no prior sources suggested it was even in elven myths) after a cosmic rearrangement. As you said, the word "Elf" is commonly used for your "eladrin" as well as "elves," in part because of a cultural decision to refer to themselves (the "superior" moon, sun, and star elves) as part of a greater heritage. The fact that in the past they shared a number of blended cultures, along with a common home (the world of Faerie), means they're far more related than the FRCG suggests. I'd argue that we needlessly add game mechanics to a predominantly 2nd and 3rd-edition wiki focused mainly on history when we decide that cultures that were far more homogenous and blended in the richer past history of the Realms have no place after adding a handful of 4th edition information. I'm not opposed to have 4th edition information in the wiki (since it is still Realmslore), but so long as it is clearly marked for easy understanding. This template seems to leave that unclear, which is my biggest problem with it. If a player from the 2E or 3E era hopped on the website and came upon the template, they'd by scratching their heads because everything they've known up until this year said elves were a number of mortal races belonging to a single species of sentient being and eladrin were beings from a plane distinct from the Material Plane/petitioners to the Elven Gods/etc.
 * I apologize for this being so long-winded, so I'll just reiterate: In the past, the elven races were all distinct but still closely related. In 4E and this 4th Edition template, a gulf was opened between the "greater elves aka eladrin" and the "inferior elves aka 'normal elves'", due to some decision that is vague at best. By using this template, we'll be implying that 4th edition information (as sparse as it is in contrast to 3rd and particularly 2nd edition) is the predominant/sponsored edition for this wiki when in fact this wiki is devoted to every edition. My recommendation would be to expand the template to allow those unfamiliar with 4th edition Realms to have an option to use it without any confusion. We're here to cater to everyone who is interested in the Realms, not just those interested in 4th edition. Gabeth 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from here but the wiki's format is not devoted to all editions. At the moment it is predisposed towards the 3.5 ruleset with characters listed by races and classes that exist in that ruleset and information most relevant to 1372 DR. Both 1E and 2E do have a smaller impact on the wiki's format and it's useless denying it.
 * Furthermore, regardless of whether or not you like it, the 4E information is supposed to be more accurate. This wiki is not meant for showing what's your personal preference, but what is accurate from a lore perspective. Eladrin and elves, as of now, are the proper names for two distinct but related races. Niirfa-sa 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My complaints might be inspired by my own opinion, I'll grant you that. However, your remark does nothing to solve the problem of inconsistancy between editions and reader comprehension of the wiki. If we don't make allowances in certain matters, then we confuse and mislead. Gabeth 19:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Please take a look at the new template, and let me know if it seems acceptable. Not whether you think it's perfect, but whether you think it is acceptable... something that you can live with and that seems to not create confusion for either 3E or 4E readers. I've grouped the elven sub-races by their mechanical sub-types, but the grouping is only implied. 3E readers won't get confused, and 4E readers will understand the grouping. 19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't want to be difficult and create hard feelings. Here is something I had in mind that takes what we both want. Feel free to edit as you wish: Here. Gabeth 19:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think both are good, though I think SkyeNi's works best, mainly because I still don't see a reason to list 3.5 and 4e as "separate." Here's another possible solution, though I'll admit it has a complexity that may be undesirable. Niirfa-sa 00:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've a question to the last template, there you had Dark Elves -> Drow/Ilythiiri. My point is, whats with the Dark Elves created through Lady Penitent series? They are no longer drow and most of them never had been Ilythiiri (in fact they once were Miyeritari)? Is there anything about this "new" race in the 4. Ed Campaign Guide? Or are there still only drow as Dark Elves? Historicus 11:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no information on the dark elf/drow differences in the FRCG. We'll probably find more information in the upcoming Player's Guide. 18:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the sourcebook Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves they are referred to simply as "dark elves". It's only when they are cast out by Corellon does their skin turn ebony and they become Drow. Likewise, there is also a reference to dark elves in the last Khelben Blackstaff novel: some of the transformed elves are actually dark elves (dating back to before the Descent) and at the time would have reverted back to Drow (since the Lady Penitent series hadn't concluded yet). So there are a couple of references to dark elves outside of the Lady Pentitent series. I agree that we shouldn't call them Ilythiiri though (that's a nation, not a race). 21:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, wouldn't "dark elves" be more appropriately eladrin or elves rather than drow? Most of what makes drow unique is their adaptations to the Underdark and affinity for shadow magic. Remove that, any you basically have a recolored elf. Niirfa-sa 07:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope of the wiki with regard to this topic
I thought I'd create a separate section because I want to come back to a point raised earlier about the prominent edition on the wiki. Suppose that World War III broke out last week. Information on it would surely be added to Wikipedia, but in a week, not as much information would be present as the information on World War II. One could summise from this that World War II was more prominent on Wikipedia. One would more accurately summise that since World War III is relatively new, not much information has yet been added.

Now imagine that World War III is over within a month. There would still be far less information on WW3 than on WW2 because it was much shorter. That doesn't mean to say that either is or ever was more prominent on Wikipedia. What I mean to say here is that 4th edition source material is still very new and it is in much shorter supply, so its impact on the wiki is minimal right now and will probably never be major. 2nd and 1st edition impact is probably less than 3rd simply because 3rd is more recent, so people tend to focus on contributing 3rd or 3.5 edition articles.

The wiki owes itself to collect canon Forgotten Realms information on all editions, without showing particular favour to any single edition over any others. There is no 'current' year in the Realms, so to say "Area X is now a barren wasteland" is not useful; it should be phrased as "Area X is a barren wasteland as of year Y". To help me, I try to imagine that I'm way in the future, in 2008 DR! Then, it becomes clear that any event being written about needs a time frame.

The other point about the wiki is that where possible, articles are written from an in-game stance, in direct contrast with Wikipedia's policies on the subject. For example, Wikipedia would write "Elminster is a fictional wizard in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting" whereas this wiki would write "Elminster is a wizard". In context, this means that where possible, I believe we should avoid sentences like, "4th edition D&D introduced the Eldarin" in an article on an in-game topic. I believe this type of statement has a place in the wiki, but perhaps in its own section or article.

The sum of what I am advocating here is that we should focus on the way things are in the most recent source material. With regard to the Eldarin, we have been told that the sun, moon and star elves were always Eldarin all along but we just didn't know about it, because it was conveniently omitted from any pre-4th edition material (or much more likely, added in 4th edition and then later justified, which is not quite the same as a retcon). To create a real-world analogy for a moment, the atom was considered the smallest particle for many years. That doesn't mean that it ever was the smallest particle, it just meant that we considered it so because we didn't know any better. I think we have to take this "Eldarin" thing on the chin and revise the way we think of elves, eldarin and all associated creatures, now that we "know better".

This brings me onto my last point, which is good, because I have gone on for a while now! We should aim to keep our personal feelings aside when editing the wiki, except on forum posts and talk pages, where discussion is encouraged. Personally I don't like the changes to the elven 'racial tree' but I recognise that things have been altered and I am committed to representing the Realms as best I can on the wiki, so I will acknowledge them. Whether you love 4th edition or you hate it, we have arrived at a consensus that it should be included on the wiki, so I must respect that, personal feelings aside! Fw190a8 20:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate and agree with your argument I'm not sure what your point is. Isn't that more or less what we've been doing? Niirfa-sa 02:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we need to keep personal opinions out of the picture. That said, I think it's important that we keep the wiki edition neutral. I had originally argued against an Elven subrace template listing sun, moon, and star elves as Eladrin not because of my own feelings but because of the ability for readers to understand what they're looking at. If you say, "Information from the 4th edition supercedes that of previous editions," then you defeat the purpose of have such a comprehensive and broad-spanning wiki such as this one. It seems that if we don't mark specific points that differ between editions, then we risk confusing and turning away readers and writers. Not everyone has access to or even wants access to 4th Edition Forgotten Realms. Gabeth 04:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A slightly different way of presenting it would be to use the template at the top of the artical(s) that would allow both edition specific information and a reference to what came before and after. You could also add in the history section a start (refering to when things changed) and an end (when things changed again) see my edits on Amaunator and Talk:Amaunator and Netheril (region) and Anauroch for more examples Hurtzbad 10:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Avariel not "true elves"?
I'd like to undo the most recent change, which creates a "true elf" category. I haven't seen this distinction in the Forgotten Realms sourcebooks. In fact, avariels were one of the elven races that came over in the first wave of elven migration to Faerûn from Faerie, and have arguably more right to being an 'elf' than wood elves do. Also, I'd like to undo it on grounds of usability as well -- having 3 rows is bad enough, but creating more really pushes the bounds of a usable template that is just meant to be a list of the elven and eladrin subraces. Please see the previous Talk discussion on why it was initially broken down into 3 unnamed categories -- at that time it was queried whether this was a workable solution, and people seemed to agree. If it becomes a problem, let's just have a flat list instead: for example both wood elves and sun elves are under the greater "elf" nomenclature, even to themselves ("of the People"). 14:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Avariel may be true elves but the fact is they aren't mentioned at all in the FRCG. So I decided to put them as unsorted. We have no idea, frankly, whether they're elves, eladrin, or another fey race. Given the fact that they are radically different physiologically than other elves I would guess they're their own separate race. But 4e has yet to deal with them. I did pay attention to the previous categories. I'm not putting avariel in a separate category - I'm simply recognizing that, as of yet, they haven't officially been categorized. If there is a substantial amount of objection I will move them back to "true elves" (along with lythari, aquatic elves, and dark elves, who I imagine fit the true elf description better than the drow one). Niirfa-sa 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we do that, then we're starting to use 4e-specific categorization. I think we should strive to classify them as something that works for both 3e and 4e -- in other words, let's be edition blind (or "edition agnostic"). Both moon elves (eladrin) and wood elves (elf) consider themselves "elves". The common people of Faerûn also consider them both "elves". This is also evidenced in their subrace names: they're called "moon elves", not "moon eladrin". Therefore, we can say that all of these subraces are part of the greater "elf" genus. Therefore, to avoid future problems and to be edition-blind, let's just list the subraces in this template without categories: a flat list of all the elven subraces. Does this sound like something we can live with? Perhaps not necessarily perfect, but something that is workable? 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I'm afraid not. It may be edition-blind (which is not a bad thing) but it's also inaccurate (which is, since this is an encyclopedia). I understand where you're coming from but eladrin and elves are, canonically different races. Yes, they're all "elves" so far as the people of Faerûn are concerned but it would be inaccurate to label them as though they were all the same race which, it has been revealed, they are not. Like I said, I'd be willing to revise the avariel, lythari, etc. if there are objections. But while moon elves and sun elves use the name "elf" in their name, they are, in fact, eladrin. Niirfa-sa 19:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we get a quick vote going on two issues to see if we can reach a consensus. I'd like to stress that we should not simply count up the votes and take the action that has received the most - this is merely to give an indication of the general opinion of people on the matters at hand. Additionally, your proposal of any particular option is not a vote for the person who proposed it! Firstly, would you prefer to see a flat template (the races are listed in a single list), or a template where the races are split according to eldarin, elf, etc? Secondly, would you like to see this template keep its current name, be renamed "Elven and eldarin subraces", or be renamed "Tel'Quessir races"?

I myself would like to propose FLAT and TEL'QUESSIR RACES. Fw190a8 20:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, I vote Flat and Tel'Quessir. I'm not sure that your average wiki reader will know what "Tel'Quessir" means, but I think it's a good compromise :) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, when you take a vote on something do ONE thing at a time. It took me forever to figure out what I am voting for. (FLAT and TEL'QUESSIR RACES)
 * Flat and Tel'Quessir sounds fine to me, since Tel'Quessir is not as specific as "elf" and includes all three races. I'd still prefer eladrin and true elf labelling but if it must be left out, so be it. In that case should an article titled "Tel'Quessir" be made to discuss all three races together? It might be better than crowding the elven article with details on all three. I suppose that's another matter though. Niirfa-sa 23:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to point out in response to SkyeNiTessine that the name of this template won't be displayed to the user when reading articles that contain it, so it shouldn't matter if a user doesn't know what Tel'Quessir means! I think what Niirfa-sa is proposing makes sense, but I am still not quite clear. Tel'Quessir would exclude the drow, at least by most elf/eldarin reckoning, wouldn't it? I'm not even sure whether the drow consider themselves Tel'Quessir. Also, sorry for creating two points at once upon which to vote. Fw190a8 21:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at how this template is displayed (and most templates of this nature) there's a "title bar" at the top of the box. That would have to say Tel'Quessir as well, and would be visible to the reader. Not a big deal to me though.


 * It's true that drow might not be Tel'Quessir, though dark elf would be (ssri-tel-quessir). Which is why I'm all in favor of bundling them all together (elf, eladrin, drow)... they're all Elves, and our readers also consider them Elves. For instance, we mention drow on the general Elf page, and not gnomes (even though gnomes are fey), and I fully believe we should continue to do that! There's a very clear understanding that drow are part of the overall Elf group and gnomes aren't. Even in 4e, the authors mention Elf as the parent group all the time. For instance, it's the "Elven High Mage" epic destiny, not the "Elven and Eladrin and Drow High Mage" epic destiny.


 * I know it's kinda confusing, but the term "elf" refers to both an overall race name AS WELL as a sub-race category (and for the most part a game mechanic that we shouldn't worry about!). That's why people are inventing terms on their own like "true elf" -- there's no such thing in the 4e sources, and I don't think we should invent them.


 * [[Image:Elf-relationship-diagram.GIF]]


 * To be honest, I don't really care what we call it (whether "tel'quessir" or "elf and eldarin" or "pointy ear races"), but I think we should include them all in one "subraces" template. IMO, it's important that we bundle all the different types of elves together, and also match our readers expectations. 22:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're mostly right and i understand what you're saying. But an encyclopedia's job is to be accurate and if we're going by "parent" races then "eladrin" is even more appropriate given that elves and drow both evolved from eladrin (as established in 4e; see also the Design & Development article awhile back). And yes - 4e says outright that "elf" is a cultural term - not an accurate name.
 * "With the reappearance of the Feywild, its natives have begun exploring the world again. These fey folk collectively call themselves eladrin, and many Faerûnian elves have also adopted this name for their lineage, though they have not forgotten their traditional cultural distinctions and names. In casual speech, the word "elven" collectively refers to the two branches of this fey people: elves and eladrin."

- Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide


 * Yes, the term is relevant, but it is inaccurate - in much the same way that in real life biology many animals have different genuses that are related and commonly called using the same name - but aren't actually the same. Take foxes for instance. There are true foxes and then there are other genuses, closely related and part of the same subfamily. So the idea of "true elves" is not unprecedented. Elves and eladrin are closely related - indeed, likely closer than either race is with gnomes - but they are not the same race or both elves. Niirfa-sa 07:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The comparison to foxes only underscores my point. Both red foxes (what you call "true foxes") and gray foxes (a non-vulpine fox) are part of the "Fox" classification and mentioned in that article. It's exactly like the diagram I drew... just replace the word "fox" with "elf".
 * As to whether the parent classification should be "Eladrin" instead of "Elf"... I think we should look at the vast amount of text (starting with their subraces names - like "sun elf") in the sourcebooks that use the term "elf" when referring to the collective elven subraces and take a hint.
 * You say yourself, "elf is a cultural term". We should be using the cultural term for this template -- there's no requirement that states that we shouldn't do so. Just the opposite in fact... we lean away from crunch on this wiki. This wiki is not trying to be a scientifically accurate medical classification system for the races of Faerûn.
 * But either way, I really don't care what classification system we use. Just so long as there is a template (not even necessarily this one) that lists all the culturally-accepted races that comprise "elves". Cheers, 03:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I took my own advice :). I created a template that clearly states in the title that it is cultural. For those subraces that we all agree are pure or true "elven" (wood elves and wild elves) I left the original template. For all of the eladrin subraces and "other" elven subraces, I used the new Elven Subraces and Related Races template. Let me know if we can all at least agree on this :) 03:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't half-elf be in this template?
This template is called "Elven related races" (stress mine), so shouldn't it include half-elves too? David Shepheard 22:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, good idea. This template was a result of a previous issue with how to reconcile 3E elven subraces with 4e's elf/eladrin distinction. But I agree that given the title of this template we should include half-elves. 03:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Merging Tel'Quessir/Elven/Etc templates
There's not really a reason to keep two or three around when one can do the job of all the others. While it might be disputed that drow are not Tel'Quessir (though I'd dispute that myself since in 3e Tel'Quessir and "elf" - which now means elves, eladrin, and drow - were roughly synonymous) this is solved by the "related races" subheader in the Tel'Quessir race template. Is there a reason to keep them separate other than nitpicky subjectivity? Niirfa-sa 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I will agree that maybe merging them is not bad. To be honest, there are just a couple of minor issues with the terminology in the Tel'Quessir template. 1) "Tel'Quessir" doesn't mean anything except to aficionados of elven lore. 2) Drow are "N'Tel'Quess" which literally means "not of the people" (Cormanthyr: Empire of the Elves).
 * The "Elven Related Races" terminology solved this nicely. But either way, I won't fight for it, as the current Tel'Quessir template (though quite big) makes it clear that this is a catch-all term for elves and eladrin, and now that the sub-section heading says "Related" instead of "Misc" the drow inclusion seems appropriate. So if you feel strongly about it, go ahead. 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a Tel'Quessir template
I've undone the change that redirects this to the Tel'Quessir template.

Please see the Template talk:Elven subraces page for why this "elven related' template was created. Since no explanation was given as to why we should merge this template with the Tel'Quessir one, which does not meet the intent explained in the Talk page, I've un-done that change.

That said, let's start a discussion on this issue, so we can reach a consenus, or at least a viable compromise. 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Green Elves are Eladrin?
I noted that Green Elves are included in the Eladrin category. I'm familiar with the argument that Green Elves (aka Wild Elves) as a race have "died out", but that's clearly not true. This was a distinct elven sub-race from the Wood Elves (aka Copper Elves) before the Spellplague... there's nothing to imply that this has been "historically revised".

In fact, quite the opposite: FRPG pg 135 makes it clear that Wood Elves and Wild Elves are still distinct elven sub-races post-Spellplague in 4E. Thoughts? 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've created a Green elf disambiguation page to hopefully act as a solution for this issue of reconciling the different meanings of "green elf". 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Drow are not Tel'Quessir
If we wish to be correct, I believe Drow are not Tel'Quessir. This was part of the reasoning behind the Elven related races template. Instead of "Miscellaneous", should we use the term "related" in the sub-section for this template? 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Reason for the change
Hello together,

I changed parts of this navbox. This navbox gave dark elves and star elves as "High elves". I thought it was wrong. The Grand History of the Realms page 8 talks about the dark elves as an offshoot of the green elves. Races of Faerûn page 27 gives the information that these green elves and the present-day wild elves are the same race, which would make the dark elves an offshoot who arrived later than the green elf. Meaning that the dark elves are an offshoot of the wild elves who are categorized under "Elves" not "High elf".

The reason why the star elves were changed is that "High elves" is a category of 5e and whether the star elves' are high elves or wood elves or a distinct subrace of their own is not clear yet. The only mention I know of them is Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide page 106, though. If this is applied, the categorization of dark elves as high elves is actually even weirder for wood elves are the product of intermingling between moon, sun elves and wild elves per Races of Faerûn page 45 and the Player's Handbook 5th edition page 24 seem to lump the wood elves together with the wild elves, which would lump the dark elves together with them into wood elves.

Thank you for reading so far

Saya222 (talk) 18:56, September 10, 2018 (UTC)


 * "High Elf" is not a term invented by 5e; it has been around at least as long as 3e. The term was a core D&D one for "standard elves", which corresponded statistically with moon elves only.


 * Star elves are also described in 3e, in Unapproachable East.


 * I am not saying that your change was wrong, but you do seem to be missing key information.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 02:42, September 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello Lhynard,


 * Thank you for providing the information. I did indeed not have the information you provided. Unfortunately, Unapproachable East is not a book I have access to, so thank you for looking over for mistakes.


 * Best Regards


 * Saya222 (talk) 05:10, September 11, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, according to the last exchange, should we not consider Star Elves as High Elves ?


 * Should we alos add Painted Elves from Sandstorm (3e) ?


 * Sylaruil (talk) 15:16, April 14, 2020 (UTC)


 * For painted elves, we should not even cover them on our wiki, as this is a Forgotten Realms wiki, and they have nothing to do with the Forgotten Realms. They may exist on other worlds or in some DMs campaigns, but they have nothing to do with this setting, so we do not mention them at all. Our job is not to detail every setting and every last creature from every book. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:20, April 14, 2020 (UTC)