What exactly is the relationship between the sidar and arawn? I've heard that they worship him but he hates their guts or something. Would someone care to explain lol. Also, if anyone has any info about them. Obviously not what's coming out in shadow, just anything we already knew or havee been told. I'm playing a shade in a forum game so I just want a little background info. Besides, I love the theme of the sidar, they will probs be the first civ I play when shadow comes out.

I've already read the pedia of Morgoth (or should I say Sandalphon ;)) and the Sidar.

Arawn is the god of death and formerly life too.
The sidar are humans who consume their souls to be able to live forever.

They seem to be more or less Arawn's worshippers but he "ignores what few worshippers he has left", according to the canon info.

I think that Arawn accepts the sidar because they are just extending their lives and only keeping their souls away from his realm, while he despises necromancy as it grabs souls back from his vault to the world. The sidar share this and Rathus Denmora (a sidar,their hero) got the quest of bringing balance to the world and kill those who "wield death as if they were Arawn himself"

wow obscure sillmarillion stuff!! :goodjob:

Then add Varn Gosam, the archmage-whose-name-I-don't-remember, the once-elves, Mulcarn, Mulcarn's dragon, Auric Ulvin, Chalid, Talia, that angel of Arawn who gave the Nether Blade, Perpentach, Kylorin and some others to get very confused:D

...that angel of Arawn who gave the Nether Blade...

A what? Of Arawn!? Nether blade? I haven't seen that part :confused:

No me neither. But anyway, I thought Arawn hated the Sidar because they have kinda escaped him. I'm sure I read that somewhere?

Nope

That's what many people think, but look at Rathus's 'pedia entry.

He is obviously a sidar
He clearly got that blade from that Arawn's angel

->Arawn can't hate sidar more than slaughterers.
->the theory of souls, necromancy and sidar

Yes but Arawn's angels don't necessarilly have the same views as him. Think about when Bhaal fell. Bridget, her archangel rebeled against her and many of her angels defected to other 'Gods', mostly to Lugus.

Also, it says somewhere that the Sidar din't consume their souls but traded all (or part of it?) to something else. Thus Arawn hates them because they gave their souls to someone else? Don't know who they traded it to, Agares maybe?

Not Agares, they aren't Ashen Veil savants.
I think Arawn doesn't hate them, but just ignores them.

It would also explain why the Sidar hate necromancy despite of their own soultinkering.


O mighty Kael, come and solve our troubles, bring thy eternal wisdom, knowledge and power here to us mortals and tell us the answer to this question.:p

Yeah please. I know Arawn generally chooses to ignore his wprshippers and doesn't really have an opinion or care about them but I think it meant other worshippers, Ie. not Sidar. He ignores the Sidar too, but he doesbn't like them because they're kinda cheating him.

I think I heard that Rathus got tricked into taking the nether blade so that some evil angel could raise an army of the most powerfull heroes after they die

Arawn is focused on the underworld and doesn't really care what happens in creation. He doesn't like necromancy, but not enough to do anything about it. The compact would allow him to empower priests to go fight undead, but he really can't be bothered. He is similarly apethedic towards the Sidar.

Saying that the Sidar worship Arawn is probably to much. Its better to say that they revere him (not that he cares).

The underworld itself is infinitly large and changes to reflect the emotional state of those within it (many would say the world works the same way but it takes more time). It is not controlled by the powerful wills of the gods as the vaults are so the dead spirits unconsciouly create their worlds within it. Some of these areas are shared by several spirits, some are alone.

The darker spirits are usually claimed by one of the evil gods and whisked off to hell, so you don't see anything to horrifying in the underworld. Though there can be pretty disturbing sites. Some places are pleasent (grass fields where children play), some can be dark (ruins of a house with the echoes of crying throughout), some are bizarre (a city that runs in reverse).

Arawn was intially the god of life and death. He created 2 archangels, twins, one to guard the gates that new life enters creation (Basium), and one to guard the entrace to the netherworld (Gyra). Gyra is more compassionate than her brother and she has acted a few times to protect the Sidar (including keeping Basium from wiping them out once), she also helped the enslaved elves escape from the Dungeon of Laroth.

Laroth... a powerful archmage during the Age of Magic, now dead and building his own kingdom in the underworld. One of the few with enough control over himself to use the underworlds reflective nature to create the environment he wants. He is building an army meant to challenge Arawn himself but the normal spirits of the realm are incapable of real action, they are trapped inside their dream worlds. So he needs heroes to die, powerful men with powerful wills to serve as his captains. So he created the Nether Blade and saw that it was delievered to Rathus. Arawn doesn't care if powerful men live or die, but Laroth wants them.

Very interesting. We will get to see Laroth in the game? An Armaggedon Counter event? A scenario? A new civ?

So that was the reason, I was kinda tricked too:p

Better improve my suspicion before I enter the gate

So...why was Basium trying to destroy the Sidar?

Also, how did Laroth get (at least) one of Arawns angels (the one who delivered the Netherblade) to serve him instead of the Arawn?

Laroth coming into the world near armageddon would be fun...

Laroth coming into the world near armageddon would be fun...

Or a quest reguiring you too defeat him as he is about to defeat Arwan and destroy the already failing balance.

or a quest to help him by killing another civ's hero.

So...why was Basium trying to destroy the Sidar?

Also, how did Laroth get (at least) one of Arawns angels (the one who delivered the Netherblade) to serve him instead of the Arawn?

Basium was just generally rampaging at the time. He has a very "you are for us or you are against us" mentality. ;)

Several of Arawn's angels have sided with Laroth. They are tired of serving as the administrators of the underworld and want a more aggresive god of death (it doesnt hurt that if their is a power switch they have been promised more powerful positions in the new hiearchy).

EDIT: nm, Kael beat me to posting :)

BTW Kael, love the sig...

Fall from Heaven: Age of Ice (now includes Beyond the Sword) At least someone knows the real reason people buy the expansion ;)

Is there any kind of personal cult of Necromancers focused on Laroth? One would think that all but the most thickheaded of Arawn-worshippers would realize he's not listening and turn to other targets of worship sooner or later.

(My theory: DM & C => NC = 2*+ good ,where DM equals death mages, C equals Cults and NC equals necromantic cults :) )

Right, I didn't get that equation thing *at all* but the whole Laroth necromancy thing would make a cool scenario for Ice. Is Laroth a necromancer though?

I mean, first, he's dead anyway, he gave the sidar hero the netherblade so that people able to control their emotions, strength etc would die to join his army because normal people weren't very responsive. Then he wants to overthrow Arawn (and become the new god of death?). Maybe he could be a new leader for the sidar in a scenario, or something like that anyway.

Laroth is actually a master of Spirit magic. As in being able to tear someones spirit out of them, bind a spirit to an object, or control the emotions of a target (well at Laroths skill level, a city).

Because of the nature of the underworld Laroth is actually more powerful there than he was in life.

Ooh, sounds interesting. Too bad there are no such spirit spells in FfH (I don't think Sirona would look more kindly on this type of magic than Arawn would on Necromancy). It would be interesting to add new spells for each sphere that depend on other factors, like Alignment. Evil Spirit spells could be powerful offensive weapons, unlike their more peaceful good counterparts.

Agares realized that it was only a matter of time until the Holy won their war. The countries that venerated evil gods were growing weaker. The greatest students of Kylorin were falling, Laroth and Gastrius were dead, Perpentach was locked within the Tower of Eyes (which held his body, but his mind wandered through creation and farther reaches).

Well, now that we know about Laroth and Perpantach, who is Gastrius, and what is his magical specialty?

He's dead, so in the underworld / hell, but who was he?

I second Kol7's question and add my own questions: Is it possible for living (or undead) mages in the normal world (the Prime plane, the middle earth, the real world, whatchamacallit) to communicate with being in the lands of the dead? If yes, would anyone be able to strike a pact with Laroth for nefarious purposes?

Well, traditionally necromancy was more communicating with the dead and spirits than raising skeletons. Ancient civilizations were more concerned with telling the future than cool fx. ;)
I don't know Kael's specific answer, but I'd lean towards yes.

but death mana is more waking corpse or corrupted soul than discuting with dead ones...

Yep, I'd say spirit magic is the way to go when you wish to converse with the spirits of the dead. Wait ... Now I am just stating the obvious.

But what if animating corpses was enchantment rather than death? What has death to do with them anymore anyway? They are already dead. I don't see a fundamental difference between a golem and a skeleton really. But if Kael insists undead are an abomination, whatever. Skeletons suck anyway, except for calabim. I'd rather see death magic be more like just killing somebody discreetly and instantly. Perhaps direct damage spell, does not declare a war but will hurt relationships with everybody with access to death mana. Spamming it will eventually trigger a war. (So artificial stuidity (AS) does not get so completely raped.) Direct damage spells, which can completely kill . .. .. .. ..

And I'm off topic. I know. Hmmmmm I'm going to edit some spells. . .. .. .. . 40% damage caps.

EDIT: To clarify things, I think the term undead is not a very good one. Of course people will not like you if you make their uncle bob into a golem (unless they hated him, really hated him), iron is a more socially acceptable material and sturdier too. Bones are abundant after a battle though.

...But what if animating corpses was enchantment rather than death? What has death to do with them anymore anyway? They are already dead. I don't see a fundamental difference between a golem and a skeleton really...

Somewhere on Erebus, at some point it it's history, an Amurite mage started a brawl in a bar with a Luchiurp by saying about the same thing. :lol:
Way I see it, the difference between making a golem and raising a skeleton is that the former has to be mechanically sound, or it'll fall apart. Take someone's bones to the local enchanter. Enough gold, and he won't ask questions. If he was drunk enough to enchant it without doing anything else first, it would fall to pieces, lacking muscle to hold it together. He'd have to do some work to make it stay together, perhaps nailing, lashing, and hinging bones together. The result would still be a very frail and inefficient golem. One smack from a good axe, and the bones splinter and crack. (The Bone Golem, before you mention that, isn't actually a skeleton, but rather a golem carved out of huge pieces of ivory. The skeletal shape is merely proof that Luchiurp golems have a dark sense of humor; they might as well have made them look like gargoyles, or giant llamas, and they would have worked as well.)
Now let's say you hire your friendly neighborhood necromancer to raise a skeleton, the old-school way. He might lash the bones together as his dwarveern counterpart would, as doing so provides some extra support, but it's not strictly necessary. Then he'll call up some spirits. Weak ones. Perhaps old ghosts who have forgotten that they even exist, maybe the fragments from some disintegrated specter, possibly the leftovers from a Sidar's waning... basically, he'll grab a handful of the white noise of the spirit world. Any adept can do it. Then he'll stick what he's got into the skull. The spirits, combined with the tiny fragment of life that got leftover when the skeleton's previous inhabitant left for the next world, will "remember" how to move. It'll be a bit frail, of course. But whereas the theoretical skeleton golem would last about as long as a skeleton lashed together would, the old-school skeleton will prove unusually hard to kill. Smash the bones and, often, the damned thing will still stay together. The fact that it should not, physically, even be able to stand or move comes in handy; until you smash the bones until they're unrecognizable, or hit it with something holy to sever the spirits from the bones, it'll re-assemble itself out of sheer, dumb stubbornness. Obviously, it's not the most dangerous opponent; slow, clumsy, and vulnerable while re-assembling itself. But it's greater than the sum of it's parts, so to speak.

(I'm thinking I may iterate on this further, at a later date, in an in-world format... no gurantees, though, but I have a rather amusing image in my head now.)

Yeah, a golem and a skeleton aren't the same thing at all...

A golem is (in modern terms) a computer, of sorts. You give it imput (orders), and through some inner programming (enchantment) you get an output (killing machine). A computer (or golem) is only as smart as the programmer (enchanter). Now, I can tell you what a computer programmer has to go through to get from input to output - they have to, first of all, anticipate what "orders" will be given, then they have to know how to do those orders themselves, because if he (the programmer) doesn't have a clue how to do some complicated algorithm he won't be able to make the computer do it for him. I expect some of the same is true for golems, at least in that an enchanter has to have some idea of what orders the golem will be given, and magick them accordingly. Thus, a "war" golem won't know how to bake cookies and the "waiter" golem can't wield a sword. Notable exception: Barnaxus, who has made the jump from computer AI to actual intelligence. Another thought - it may be possible to add new "programming" to a golem to expand it's abilities.

Now, a skeleton doesn't really have a "real life" equivalent.... Imagine it as a dog, kinda. It'll follow orders if it's been taught, but there's always that chance that it says "Screw this!" and does whatever the hell it wants. Now, a Death mage can probably use some magic coercion to force the skellie to heel, and thus the skeleton still ends up doing whatever the mage wants. However, while the end products (golems/skeletons) have many of the same functions, the means of getting there are quite different. An enchanter isn't forcing something against it's will, while a Death mage presumably is...

That ties into why Death magic is such a topic of contention on Erebus. First of all, these skeletons are created from once living spirits that some believe should be left alone. However, "natural" skeletons can be created somehow (Barrowspawn), so this isn't necessariy an unnatural process. The coercion/magical bonds, however.... the debate is much like that of abortion today, in that the question is "are they alive"? If skeletons possess "life", then it's basically slavery. If they don't, there's no harm done. This is complicated by the fact that a skeleton's basic desire without compusion is to kill everything around it, but some Good guys are still repulsed by the idea. There are other reasons, too - and in fact, some Good guys probably have no great feelings about slavery one war of the other (Bannor, anyone?) - but I would think this is a small part of the debate as a whole.

I'm not positive that everything I just wrote is accurate, but if I'm grossly in error someone will set me right sooner or later.

Somewhere on Erebus, at some point it it's history, an Amurite mage started a brawl in a bar with a Luchiurp by saying about the same thing. :lol:
Way I see it, the difference between making a golem and raising a skeleton is that the former has to be mechanically sound, or it'll fall apart. Take someone's bones to the local enchanter. Enough gold, and he won't ask questions. If he was drunk enough to enchant it without doing anything else first, it would fall to pieces, lacking muscle to hold it together. He'd have to do some work to make it stay together, perhaps nailing, lashing, and hinging bones together. The result would still be a very frail and inefficient golem. One smack from a good axe, and the bones splinter and crack. (The Bone Golem, before you mention that, isn't actually a skeleton, but rather a golem carved out of huge pieces of ivory. The skeletal shape is merely proof that Luchiurp golems have a dark sense of humor; they might as well have made them look like gargoyles, or giant llamas, and they would have worked as well.)
Now let's say you hire your friendly neighborhood necromancer to raise a skeleton, the old-school way. He might lash the bones together as his dwarveern counterpart would, as doing so provides some extra support, but it's not strictly necessary. Then he'll call up some spirits. Weak ones. Perhaps old ghosts who have forgotten that they even exist, maybe the fragments from some disintegrated specter, possibly the leftovers from a Sidar's waning... basically, he'll grab a handful of the white noise of the spirit world. Any adept can do it. Then he'll stick what he's got into the skull. The spirits, combined with the tiny fragment of life that got leftover when the skeleton's previous inhabitant left for the next world, will "remember" how to move. It'll be a bit frail, of course. But whereas the theoretical skeleton golem would last about as long as a skeleton lashed together would, the old-school skeleton will prove unusually hard to kill. Smash the bones and, often, the damned thing will still stay together. The fact that it should not, physically, even be able to stand or move comes in handy; until you smash the bones until they're unrecognizable, or hit it with something holy to sever the spirits from the bones, it'll re-assemble itself out of sheer, dumb stubbornness. Obviously, it's not the most dangerous opponent; slow, clumsy, and vulnerable while re-assembling itself. But it's greater than the sum of it's parts, so to speak.

(I'm thinking I may iterate on this further, at a later date, in an in-world format... no gurantees, though, but I have a rather amusing image in my head now.)


Actually, last time I checked, Bone goems were made from bones. However, all the bones had to be from the same source and the only animal large enough to provide the quantity of raw materials required is the Elephant. I'd imagine there would be some ethical concerns about this kind of golem, but you could counter them by saying that at the end of the day they were only animals, being killed for similiar reasons as you might kill an animal for its fur. Also, it would be different from a skeleton because it isn't using spirits to make it work. This means that it would have no intelligence or mind of its own, like a skeleton would, and can only do what its been told to do.

Yeah, IIRC the Bone Golem's immortality is caused from inherant properties of bone; if I am right in my earlier post, the use of bones in golems isn't that big of a deal (besides, you know, disturbing remains and whatnot - but it's an animal, so who cares?)

I always imagiend that undead were souls bound in the world. But that there was a difference between binding the soul and binding the mind and various levels of undead may have differing amounts of conscious thought available to them.

As such a skeleton is a soul bound to bones with little brain power to back it up. It hates and it wants to kill things but it cant talk and occasionally you may see skeletons fixated on weird things (one carrying and protecting a doll, another ignoring living creatures entirly to focus on tearing apart pieces of an old wall).

But unless magic is used to control them skeletons are of little use to necromancers except as guards (if they can keep them from attacking those the necromancer doesn't want attacked or wandering off) or maybe to harass enemies by releasing into the wild. One would assume that a necromancer powerful enough to create a skeleton would also be powerful enough to not fear the skeleton turning on him, the skeletons may sense his power and fear him.

Zombies have a little more brainpower, though its also limited. They could understand basic tasks that are told to them or to not attack certain people. But they are notoriously slow, easy to trick, and can suffer from the unusual fixations as skeletons.

Going up the line undead get more of the mind they had in life until at the upper tiers that have complete control of their mind/soul/body.

In FfH skeletons should always be barb units, and maybe the death summon should be for a zombie or some such. But it isn't really a big deal (theres only a select few of us that sit around and think about skeleton philosophy).