Talk:Shadar-kai

Hi, guys. Long time no see (real life stuff, a really long story and that stuff). To the point. I've been reading Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, and, well, if you're following the topic at Candlekeep forums, you know that the fey (or more accurately, elven) shadar-kai are once again THE shadar-kai, and that they are related to the Raven Queen. Also, some people in the Realms know about her (at the very least, Alustriel Silverhand does). So, should we update this article with the information presented in the Tome of Foes? Should we create an article for the Raven Queen (at least, her incarnation in the mentioned book)? Well, that is. Glad to be here again. --Zero (talk) 01:56, May 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome back! Lhynard and I have been having a similar discussion in the eladrin talk page. From my reading of the elf chapter, it looks like Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes also at least hints at all previous versions of eladrin as being essentially the same, the only major difference being how long they spent in the Feywild and how much of their "primal" state they regained as a consequence. It seem to be the case with the Shadar-kai as well, although the book is conspicuously silent on the 4e version of them. As for that quote from Alustriel about the Raven Queen, it is probably a consequence of Evermeet being now connected to other worlds as well, which is pretty cool. ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 17:11, May 31, 2018 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I would've said that the change from fey to elf should be reason enough to treat them as different races, but it seems pretty clear WotC now wants to make the line between elf and fey and eladrin as fuzzy as possible. So I'll neglect that.


 * So, are these 5e shadar-kai compatible with the 3e shadar-kai, in their history, culture, and society? So far, what I've heard of the history suggests it might be a filled-in-the-blanks version of the original vague origin story. If the culture and society are close enough, I'm in favour of including the new ones here. If they go yet in another direction, perhaps a third shadar-kai article would be more effective, being better focused on the new race.


 * In any case, we'd need to rename the articles again so the new shadar-kai are the first ones found in a search. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:48, June 1, 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, you're the expert in 3e shadar-kai, so I'm going to quote Sirwhiteout summary of 5e shadar-kai and let you to judge for yourself:
 * Now the twist: one elven queen, during the conflict between Corellon and Lolth, tried to ascend to godhood in order to put a stop to the fighting. The idea was to use the souls of her followers to increase her power. When the ritual was almost finished, she was betrayed by wizards among her followers that tried to use the magic to increase their own power. When the queen strikes them in retaliation, the ritual backfires, plunging everyone involved into the Shadowfell and reducing the newly-deified queen to a jumble of memories and feelings. She becomes the Raven Queen, and her elf followers become the Shadar-kai. The book makes no distinction between humanoid and "fey" shadar-kai and treats them all as the same creature. However, it does say that the PC variant is usually the ones sent in long-term missions to the Material Plane, while others remain in the Shadowfell most of the time.


 * IMHO, they are retconning all. Again...--Zero (talk) 01:00, June 2, 2018 (UTC)


 * Since the only explicitly different shadar-kai are the ones mentioned in the Dragon magazine 391 article as having a very specific Netherese origin, and even existing in parallel with the other 4e shadar-kai of the Raven Queen (who, as of 5e, is known in the Realms), my suggestion for renaming these pages is the following: move the shadar-kai page to Shadar-kai (Netherese), to reflect their unique origin, and move the shadar-kai (fey) page, which refers to the Raven Queen-related elves, to simply "Shadar-kai". Objections? ― Sirwhiteout (talk) 16:16, March 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that's basically undoing the changes I made originally. But agreed. — BadCatMan (talk) 11:45, March 23, 2019 (UTC)

Good Article status

 * Correct: yes
 * Referenced: yes
 * Formatted: yes
 * Clean: yes
 * Nearly complete: yes
 * Policy-adherent/Demonstrative: yes