Talk:Utter East

Surely the Ffolk mentioned here are not the same people from the Moonshae Isles. Can someone verify this? Artemaz (talk) 12:53, April 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * Surprising as it is, they seem to be the same. Check out the Scouring of the Utter East link with an excerpt from The Grand History of the Realms and the history in the Ffolk article. Daranios (talk) 19:28, April 8, 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm that link mentions Grand Caliph Arash bint Sanjar as the ruler of Zakhara in the Year of the Nine Stars ... which is 657 DR ... but the Grand Caliph page here on the wiki says that that title wasn't even around until roughly the mid 9th century DR. Artemaz (talk) 00:35, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * Yep, the same Ffolk, dating back to Faces of Deception. And the Northmen are there too. Interestingly, that GHotR piece was written after and probably inspired by our Utter East Redux project, yet still managed to be contradictory and unsupporting to what we'd found. Welcome to the Utter East, a congerie of disparate sources in different media, all bar the GHotR made in 1998, yet with each one bit contradicting or not supporting another.


 * Well, Al-Qadim material is undated, but can it be shifted back two centuries or more? Probably not. Arash could be from a former lineage of Grand Caliphs. — BadCatMan (talk) 02:08, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * This thread says more or less all about it. The first Grand Caliph of Huzuz lived 600 to less than 500 years before the date of the campaign setting (with a definite 18-Caliphs-line to follow), so there's not that much freedom. I like the interpretation that Arash bint Sanajar was some ruler from Zakhara taking a grand title (Zakharans will be like that ;-)), even though "ruler of the Enlightened Throne of Zakhara" sounds like one of the offical Grand Caliphs. Daranios (talk) 07:23, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * The passage in Grand History is an in-universe tale about something that happened centuries ago. The simplest explanation is that it's mistaken: maybe the Mar writers used modern titles for an earlier ruler (Arash is a man's name, but described as a daughter, "bint", of Sanjar; unless he's trans-something). Anyway, it's too uncertain a reference to alter Zakharan history over. — BadCatMan (talk) 07:47, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact of the matter is that the novels and sourcebooks are full of errors and contradictions, some caused by mistakes and others by laziness to research earlier sourcebooks and novels. Grand History is also only pseudo-official, right? Wasn't it basically the pet project of a fan that they decided to publish? It was not well-checked to remove or clarify inconsistencies.


 * I think it is good for us to document all such cases and write the articles in what we think makes the most sense, footnoting the discrepancies. I think it is ok for us to make blanket decisions, such as, "Al-Qadim will be set at this date for the purposes of this wiki," as long as we discuss it. We could equally say, for the purposes of this wiki, such and such is considered an error.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 12:50, April 9, 2016 (UTC)


 * It was originally a fan project that was chosen to be published, yes, but it was significantly added to with a lot of new history and vignettes written by various Realms authors, including Ed Greenwood, and it advanced the official setting by 10 years to be the lead-in to 4th edition. It couldn't be more official. Errors in chronology I've found date back to the original sourcebooks. And the new errors are just like the old errors. It's the art choices that are terrible. :) So, this Grand Caliph is just another continuity error we have to deal with. As Lhynard says, we document the lore as it is, and note a potential error and some possible solutions in the Appendix. — BadCatMan (talk) 13:02, April 9, 2016 (UTC)