Talk:Lord Soth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Dragonlance work group.
WikiProject Fictional characters (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

VFD[edit]

From VfD:

Lord Soth: minor fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • delete 66.238.96.194 07:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Do anon votes not count on vfd?
  • Keep - a character who was the titular character and protagonist of at least three novels merits an article. -Sean Curtin 08:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - major character in Dragonlance. --Rlandmann 08:54, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the reasons in the two comments above. ··gracefool | 11:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Send it to anime ghetto. Grrr. Redirect and merge with Dragonlance. Geogre 13:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. As important as any other fantasy character with their own entry (such as every minor hobbit in LotR). -- Necrothesp 13:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Somewhat prominent character from 3 books. Also, the article is nicely written. Thue | talk 21:13, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Conflicting histories?[edit]

Just curious what, in this instance, could be considered canon and what would not? Weis & Hickman, being the original authors, would seem to have priority; then again they have stated multiple times that they were not the owners of the character(s), rather TSR (and later WoTC) were.

Example:

the info on Caradoc, while interesting and well written, is not necessarily canon, as he only became a character in Soth's mythos in the Ravenloft novel, Knight of the Black Rose. At no point does the seneschal exist in the novels by W&H, either before or after the Ravenloft novels. Furthermore, W&H seemed to take exception to his use in Ravenloft, stating that Soth had never left Krynn, and that the Soth in Ravenloft was not the real Lord Loren Soth. (sorry, cannot for the life of me find a link) Now, though they are not the owners of the character, they are the authors, and in point had him appear in Dragons of Summer Flame, conflicting with his existance in Ravenloft.

So my question, I suppose, is what is canon in Soth's histories and what is not? what is classed as canon? I understand, unfortunately, that it's hard to weed out conflicting histories, particularly in Dragonlance, but there has to be a line in the sand somewhere, and the comments about Soth becoming a lich, and his soul being tied to a cursed coffer, while again, interesting, seem to me completely new and not canon at all.

Thoughts? Arguments? Criticism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.59.90 (talkcontribs) .

Actually, the novel Lord Soth (Dragonlance Warriors, vol. VI) contains that information (the Seneschal, the curse, etc). If I recall correctly, from that novel Lord Soth was taken to the Ravenloft realm. W&H novels do not exploit Lord Soth, and only describe him enough for casual readers to know who he is. Supposedly, Lord Soth lives in the "Ravenloft" plane, but is able to travel to the "Dragonlance" plane. -- ReyBrujo 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Obviously I'm uninformed, I think I may (or may not!) have read 'Lord Soth'. However, the question remains: What is canon wrt Soth? If current WoTC literature states that Soth is 'alive' and well in Ravenloft, then there is a very large continuity error; W&H killed him off in the War of Souls (Or, more accurately, Takhisis did). In fact, though Ravenloft made an effort to explain his reappearance in Krynn during the Chaos War and the WoS, the authors Weis and Hickman have stated on the record that they refused to even review the original novel "Knight of the Black Rose", that they insisted Soth never existed in Ravenloft and that "Wizards of the Coast can explain it however they want, Soth will be in the War of Souls trilogy" (this being prior to the trilogy, obviously). I suppose the real question would be, what is classed as canon? the wishes of the author or the wishes of the IP holder? Genrally with regards to fiction, it's the original material by the author (as with J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter) but then again Dragonlance has always had many conflicting ideas from many authors as 'canon', so would an author writing for the same character under a different banner (i.e. Ravenloft) be considered uncanonical, even though both are owned by the same IP holder? I really don't know.
Which is, I suppose, why I'm asking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.59.90 (talkcontribs) .
Unluckily, this is one of those grey matters where you have two versions by two different people who can't agree on what is cannon and what is not (W&H and Wizards). If this is for the article, the best way is to divide Lord Soth's plot in Dragonlance and Ravenloft realms. If for personal use, I have no idea. -- ReyBrujo 00:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well. That sucks. That would require a complete rewrite of the article.
You know what? on further contemplation, I think the point is minor, and it should be left exactly as it is.
Well, here is what you find is "canon" with Loren Soth [1]. Loren Soth has never traveled to the world of Ravenloft according to WotC, Margaret Weis, and SP. It is a totally different storyline. See this link [2]. Hope that helps you out.--Kranar drogin 01:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
...And so there you are. By Dragonlance canon, this article is completely wrong. it's almost as if two articles would need to be created; a 'Lord Soth (Dragonlance)' and a 'Lord Soth (Ravenloft)', though for a single character from a fictional universe that might be a little much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.59.90 (talkcontribs) .
Why completely wrong? The only section that includes Ravenloft information is Rule in Ravenloft. All the other parts was taken from "Dragonlance cannon". Just moving the Rule in Ravenloft section below the War of Souls section, and renaming it to "Ravenloft setting" or something like that, should be enough for now. -- ReyBrujo 04:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, no, you're right. Not completely wrong, though it would change his motives for his actions in the War of Souls section as well, as that section indicates that his refusal of Takhisis was a direct result of his trials in Raveloft restoring some of his humanity.
I'm wondering if there's enough anal-retention here to warrant a section about the contention behind the move from Dragonlance to Ravenloft and back again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.38.59.90 (talkcontribs) .
As long as it is not original research, and you can give reliable sources to verify the information, there should be no problem. In fact, the article should be more out-of-universe oriented, that is, talk more about how the character was created, why it went to Ravenloft, the opinion of the authors about him, etc, and less about the character himself. -- ReyBrujo 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
while I'm thinking of it, just thought I'd toss this here for future reference http://www.trhickman.com/faq.html#twoer
it's not much, but it's a start, and it's from one of the authors.

Undead Curse[edit]

Just looking for clarification, or maybe I'm nitpicking, I'm not sure. In the Undead Curse section it mentions that in following the quest laid out by the gods Soth would be killed, however in retrieving the artifact from the coffer it states that the coffer housed his soul, turning him into a type of lich. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't retrieval of the artifact make him into an evil undead creature, thereby dooming his quest from the start? I mean, the vision Isolde had said specifically that he would die in the process of stopping the Kingpriest, but a lich who has their mortal remains destroyed does not die; instead their soul returns to their phylactery, in this case the coffer.

Is this an error in the facts of Soth's history or in the logic behind his quest? I suspect it might simply be the wording in the article but I don't have the source material to check against.

I'm probably nitpicking anyway.

Stereotype[edit]

Seems very Darth Vader/ evil dread lord. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.84.1.2 (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree: he appears to be a stock character, similar in appearance to the Death knight.--Gavin Collins (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you even read these articles? Web Warlock (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah... Lord Soth is a death knight, thus the resemblance. :) BOZ (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord Soth was a normal character much like you or me at a young age......however....his companion did not survive with him intact...she lived...the M took the name and made it real for his sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.253.214 (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sothinaction.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sothinaction.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability is disputed[edit]

At the time of writing, no reliable secondary sources providing evidence of notability for the fictional character Lord Soth are cited in this article. The article has many primary references (citations from the author & publishers), but none that are reliable seconary sources that are independent of the subject matter and provide any real-world evidence that this fictional character is notable outside of the source material. I request that the notability template be restored to this article.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

HOMM3[edit]

Anyone else ever played Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and noticed how SIMILAR this guy looks to Nagash? Murdersaurusrex (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Only in HoMM3: WoG. In original heroes Nagash has apearence of skeleton. (and sorry for my poor, poor english) 193.242.114.164 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good ref[edit]

[3] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Under Soth's Armor[edit]

Is there any canon information as to what is under his armor? It would seem to make more sense that he is incorporeal under there (I heard he is a transparent spectre) with his red eyes that aren't shaped like human ones. But in Spectre of the black rose he takes off his helmet and drinks water from the lake, an incorporeal being couldn't do this. The snare (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever made clear what death knights look like under their armor. In the game, you can destroy one physically with weapons and/or magic, so obviously they are not quite incorporeal creatures, although it is possible that their "bodies" aren't much besides the armor they wear. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think destroying one with weapons or magic matters with regard to what is under the armor. You can destroy a spectre or ghost too with weapons and magic, that doesn't mean they aren't incorporeal. And, actually you couldn't destroy Soth this way. If you killed him (in Ravenloft at least) he'd reform on his throne 2d6 days later. The snare (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point, but what I think I meant is that a death knight is housed in a physical body - that is, if you rapped your knuckles on the armor you'd hear a "clang" as opposed to falling on your face as you easily push though a nonexistent body. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall that they mention it in the book Spectre of the Black Rose. I do believe they said his skin (he pulled off a gauntlet after being wounded by a magical dagger) was grey almost to the point of being black, and dessicated, or something like that. I have the book in my room somewhere, so when I come across it next, I'll double check. - NemFX (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)