Talk:Dark Sun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated Start-class, High-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, or join the discussion, 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
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Unofficial Material"[edit]

I would prefer if the title "Unofficial Material" was changed to something a bit more accurate. both Dark Sun versions released by and by Paizo's Dragon/Dungeon magazine articles are considered official, and are sanctioned by Wizards of the Coast which owns the license/copyrights for the setting. Placing them in an "unofficial material" section is highly misleading. --Xlorep DarkHelm 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought Rajaat was obsessed with killing off all non-halflings, not non-human races. I don't have the books at hand to verify this, so thanks for doublechecking that. --TheBlueWizard 22:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think Rajaat wanted to kill the non-halflings, but the other sorcerer-kings wanted to kill the non-humans. -Sean Curtin 23:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Rajaat wanted to return the world Athas to it's initial utopian form; the original race on the planet was halfings. Once the seas receded and many races including Rajaat himself (a Pyreen) came out of that transformation, Rajaat tested all the races for the greatest potential to become magical weapons; humans won out; so he convinced the greatest mages/psionicists of the human race, who became his champions (and later sorcerer/dragon-kings) that he wanted to give the world over to them the humans, so he assigned them each a race to exterminate (excluding halflings) and they went about their work; until they discovered Rajaat was meaning to turn against them at the end and return the world to the halflings; at which point the champions turned against him and imprisioned him in The Hollow. 22:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As a brief overview, the article is fine as is, but the above concerns can be remedied only by significant expansion. Rajaat, for instance, wasn't so much obsessed with racial "purity" as he was with reinstating the mythical "Blue Age" - hence why halflings, and Thri-Kreen, for that matter, were exempt from genocide. --Albrecht 23:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the page took a little extra reworking, to be slightly more accurate. You are correct, Rajaat was focused on wiping out non-halflings. The Sorcerer-Kings, then Champions of Rajaat, were misled and told that he wanted to wipe out all non-humans. When they discovered the truth, they revolted against him. --Xlorep DarkHelm 3 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)

The only thing we have on Rajaat's opinion of Thri-Kreen is the Thri-Kreen of Athas book, which says he ignored them because he thought they were animals, it's not mentioned anywhere that there were exempt from Genocide because they were the other blue age race.

rajaat's beef was with all the races that "evolved" from halflings which thri-kreen didnt they where with halflings original inhabitants of athas - syrric —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you can find something where Rajaat said that please add it (and a footnote) There's no place I know that says Rajaat didn't want them dead because they were the other blue age race (that I've ever read at least) Ultimately, Rajaat's reasons for the cleansing wars were he thought he was a freakish accident and then turned his hate outward. The snare (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

all the relavent info is in the wander's cronicle from the box set - syrric —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last Sea[edit]

Should the Last Sea be mentioned in this article? I heard something about it being declared non-canon, although I can't find any sources for that. --MasterGrazzt 21:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

well the last sea is from the adventure mindlords of the last sea published by tsr so i would think it was cannon- syrric —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree to merge Dark Sun and Athas[edit]

Considering that the entire setting is focused specifically on the only world that exists, Athas, it would stand to reason that these articles should be merged. Whenever you talk about the setting you are automatically talking about the planet itself and thus it should form part of the setting article. Enigmatical 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Since all you can say about Athas, really, is that it is the world where the Dark Sun setting takes place, it really should be merged and redirected. – ClockworkSoul 06:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree.

Go for it. - AndyBQ 18:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for new Topic list[edit]

  • Introduction
  • History
  • The World
    • Geography
    • City States
    • Races and Monsters
    • Characters
  • Source Material
    • Official Material
    • Unofficial Material
    • Novels
    • Computer Games
  • Footnotes
  • External Links

CURRENT DRAFT can be found HERE (Still heavily being worked on)

added a cover[edit]

Well, I added a copy of the cover. I tried to find a version of the logo, but didn't seem to have any, though I think the old TSR site used to have them. FrozenPurpleCube 01:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I found this. NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Grey Shadow 02:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful, I believe Wizards of the Coast owns the copyright on that image. --Xlorep DarkHelm 19:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, you can use copyrighted material for educational purposes, look up fair use for details. The snare 08:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Enigmatical 00:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed following sentence, as I can't find a reference for it anywhere:

Psionists are often considered the most 'pure' as their power doesn't come from  external sources, though power-hungry Psionists frequently become Defilers.  

Korvar The Fox 15:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about that one. It "sounds" right and what I would expect of Dark Sun, where Psionicists believe themselves to be pure due to internal power rather than defiling or having to preserve the environment while using magic. It could be indirectly pulled from one of the books. Enigmatical 22:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have any reference for the "purity" bit, but it is arguable. However, it's the "power-hungry Psionists frequently become Defilers" bit that gets me... Korvar The Fox 11:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Publishing date[edit]

Fixed publishing date in the infobox to match the text of 1990, not sure which one is correct at this time. If anyone has a reference to whether it was published in 1990 or 1991, please change all the sources in the article (I'll try to check myself, but my original box is in another city right now).--WildElf 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe nobody caught this sooner. Just corrected it to October 1991. Sources are the copyright statement on my copy of the boxed set, and TSR's Fall/Winter catalog of 1991. Great Cthulhu (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What type of Fantasy is it?[edit]

There seems to be a bit of confusion as to the specific type of fantasy this setting would be covered by. While the use of Fantasy is obviously true, it would be better that we define a genre which most aptly describes it.

The problem here of course is which one it should be:

  • Hard fantasy
    1. -ve: As the setting contains Dragons and magic I feel this subgenre is not suitable
    2. -ve: It is not based on science
    3. -ve: It does not have a more realistic approach
  • High fantasy
    1. +ve: Clearly the setting contains epic battles between good and evil
    2. +ve: It features fantastical creatures and races
  • Dark fantasy
    1. +ve: In terms of being "grittier" and reflecting a harsh reality it certainly fits the setting well
    2. -ve: There is not however any obvious tones of horror or supernatural which would be more for the Ravenloft setting
  • Dying Earth
    1. -ve: Its obviously not based on Science fantasy
    2. -ve: It does not reflect a far distant future
    3. +ve: It does however reflect a dying world and thus has some aspects which meet this subgenre

My personal choice would be High Fantasy simply because it more accurately depicts the struggle between good and evil with fantastical creatures and powers based on magic.Enigmatical 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, you forgot something very important. Fantasy Genres such as "High Fantasy" "Low Fantasy" and unfortunately, this relatively new and undeveloped term, "Hard Fantasy" are notoriously poorly defined. This means any discussion on that should probably state what definition is being used. Beyond that, instead of going to a vote, I think it might be worth looking and seeing how TSR billed the setting. See what terms they used. Unfortunately, I don't have the Dragon archive collection, so I can't search it for anything, and the books I do have for the setting didn't mention any particular fantasy archetypes in the introductions. That said, I think it's clear from Dark Sun's very nature that it is not High Fantasy. If anything, it's a twist on the whole setting. Not quite a parody in the style of Discworld or the like, because it's not a joke. It's serious. Not sure what word to use for that though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I assumed that the opening definition of each of the subgenre would be used. In breaking down High fantasy I get the following:
  1. Set in invented or parallel worlds
    • Dark Sun is definately invented
  2. Can into fruition through authors such as CS Lewis and JRR Tolkein
    • Being a D&D franchise including elves/dwarves definately places it within this category
  3. Serious in tone
    • Dark Sun is most definately serious in its tone and harshness
  4. Epic in scope
    • Again, its scope is clearly epic
  5. Dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces
    • The Sorcerer-Kings clearly fit this bill
  6. Fantastical races such as elves and dwarves, magic, wizards, invented languages, coming-of-age themes, narratives
    • The setting even introduced its own dwarven race the Mul
    • Magic and wizards are highly featured in specialist classes of preservers and defilers
    • Many, many books were written in the Dark Sun setting matching multi-volumne narratives
Seeing all of this evidence and when comparing it to the other definitions I could not find any other one that actually fit as much as this one. Can you explain more fully where you feel this setting clearly does not match the definition of high fantasy that is provided in the article? Enigmatical 23:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let me try to get us on the same page. I don't agree with your criteria as distinguishing, even if they are applicable. The first for example. Not an exclusive to high fantasy, you can find it in Sword and Sorcery, Dark Fantasy, Low Fantasy and I don't see why not Hard Fantasy either. I might even be convinced there is high fantasy without it. I could quibble with the others too. Beyond that, I don't think I'm expressing this clearly, but I'll try agian, namely that things like the presence of all the elves, dwarves, muls, halflings, etc, are deliberately distorted from the common forms. Take Elves. They aren't high and mighty learned ones, distant and mystical. They're a bunch of nomads desperate for survival. Halflings? Instead of jolly gourmands, they're a bunch of savage cannibals. Heck, even Muls are an example of that, because they answer the question of "If you can have a Half-Elf, and a Half-Orc, why not a Half-Dwarf?" which bothered some folks. Same goes with Magic. It's not just there. It's actually related to the life-force around a person. Add in the psionics to make things even more weird, and as such, that Dark Sun has some High Fantasy elements doesn't make it High Fantasy. The point is, those elements it does have are taken in a direction that's different, and that's why I just do feel it's a bit wrong to put Dark Sun in the High Fantasy category. FrozenPurpleCube 00:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I do understand where you are coming from and while I do agree with your points, what I feel you are failing to do is come up with a better alternative. Its easy to say what something is not... but its often a good idea to actually say what it is. If we take each of the above categories we can eliminate all but high fantasy because it clearly is not any of the others, but it does indeed fit into high fantasy even if it is not the best fit. So please, I am open to suggestions. "Fantasy" is just a bit too generic though maybe we could put something like "Fantasy (with tones of hard/dark fantasy)"? Enigmatical 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
When I think High Fantasy, I think Greyhawk, the Realms, Dragonlance, Birthright and even Eberron before the Dark Sun setting. To put it another way, think of it as musical instruments. Both a Guitar and a Violin may both be string instruments, the sounds they produce are very different. In the case of Dark Sun, it's even more different, because the creators of it pretty obviously decided to do things more or less backwards on purpose. Anyway, if we needed a more specific term to use, I'm more inclined to go with a Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy setting if we had to go with a specific term, but however, I'll repeat my earlier suggestion, that we examine how TSR itself described the setting, if at all possible. That way the article would be at least consistent with their own terminology. It'd be my preference anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 02:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess when I hear Post-Apocalyptic Fantasy I think about distopias of the future. While I do understand than an apocalyse can occur through any means, and in the case of dark sun there as no specific apocalyse that I can think of, it just doesn't convey the right image. Personally I was thinking Dark Fantasy because the setting certainly is darker and more grittier... it just isn't supernatural/horror which is why I tended away from it. While the things are very different in the setting, they are still there, so it still fits High Fantasy... its just not a very good fit. I will try to look through some source books at home to see if I can find anything, but I am not holding my breath that they ever defined it. Enigmatical 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I can think of at least two in Dark Sun. Namely, whatever caused the end of the Blue Age, and the events of Rajaat's War of Annihilation. Maybe others, depending. Furthermore, consider that Dark Sun is a dystopia of the future, not of our contemporary world, but of the fantasy archetype. Elves, Dwarves, degenerate. Wizards and priests too. Dark Fantasy doesn't quite work for me, as I get that feeling for Ravenloft, with its horror, but while Dark Sun is dark, it's not dark in the same way. YMMV. And like I said, I'd suggest Dragon magazine rather than the actual books. That might be more descriptive of the setting. Perhaps an inquiry on might also be of some value. FrozenPurpleCube 23:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah ok, my memory was a little fuzzy on how it got that way. As for it being a dystopia it is not. There is nothing "future" about it, in fact it is set in the same timeframe as all other D&D settings. There is no mention at all about it being any further into the future than any other place. I guess your right, but unless they come up with a completely new subgenre its still going to fit into what we have. Maybe just fantasy isn't such a bad thing after all LOL! Enigmatical 00:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Dark Sun is not a Dystopia? Why not? Is it not a cruel, oppressive place? And is not some, if not all of it a result of human (or at least, humanoid) action? I'm sorry, but if you're going to claim it is not a dystopia, I'm going to have to see some logic for that. And for the future part, well, Dark Sun's temporal relationship to other D&D campaign settings is irrelevant, the point I was making was that it was the advancement from the past history where things were more routine. In other words, it is the future of its own self, when the world was very much a conventional fantasy world. In any case, the current time line is certainly the FUTURE of the apocalyptic events which occured in the PAST. Anyway, Fantasy is enough for now. It's not as specific as it could be, but it is true. FrozenPurpleCube 02:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps my view of a dystopia and the general meaning behind "Apocalyptic" is similar to your view about "High fantasy". I see both of them relating to modern worlds, nuclear wars and futures which advanced in technology only to be totally destroyed or brought to its knees. When I think of those words the last thing I think of is Dark Sun for the very same reason that you don't see it as being high fantasy. If I were to tell a layman "Apocalytic dystopia" what do you think would be the thing they most associate the term with? Enigmatical 04:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ruined world having fallen since its Golden Age, harsh living conditions, savage society? All things present in the Dark Sun setting. You may be more used to seeing it in Mad Max, Gamma World, and Rifts, but don't you think the same thing can happen in a Fantasy-world? Because that is exactly what TSR intended with Dark Sun. It's right there on the back of the box. They took High Fantasy and put it through an apocalypse, just like Gamma World did to its future. Or Mad Max to the more or less present. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say Dark Sun is not a Dystopia, or a Post-Apocalyptic setting. Maybe some people not familiar with fantasy might not recognize it, but I'm not going to them for advice.

In terms of the High Fantasy definition, I'd quibble about the following:
  • Dealing with themes of grand struggle against supernatural, evil forces
    • The Sorcerer-Kings clearly fit this bill
A great deal of emphasis is given to struggling against the environment - simply getting from one city to another is supposed to be a difficult and dangerous. The day-to-day struggle to survive is an important aspect - at least for the beginning of the game.
Personally, I see Dark Sun as a Sword & Sorcery game that becomes High Fantasy at later levels. There's a definite change in emphasis, whereas most D&D backgrounds are High Fantasy from the get-go.
Korvar The Fox 08:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I dont think you quite get the point. If we say "high fantasy" then even though it basically features everything that high fantasy does (ie elves, magic, etc, etc) it just doesn't "feel" right. while it does fit the requirements for being a dystopia and post-apocalyptic, both of those terms have been used extensively in real world situations to the point where I feel it doesn't quite "feel" right also. We are looking for a term that if a layman were to stumble in and read it, he would understand what is meant. If you say "post-apocalyptic dystopia fantasy" the person will automatically assume sci-fi which it is not. If you say "high fantasy" they will also make an assumption which clearly it isn't quite either. Enigmatical 22:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Shaded Fantasy would be a good fit for this world if one had to be made up. Heres why. It doens't have the easy life most people are accustomed to in a fantasy world like Grey Hawk. In Gray Hawk Adventurers could live in the temperate wilderness without specilized equipment or spells. Also for the most part commoners don't have to worry about there ruler sacraficing them or there world to increase there own power. Though it still has the the elements (Elves, Dwarfs, Fey) of a High Fnatasy world. In Dark Sun there is no temperate climate. It's all extremes. Characters could potentially die on there way to the next destination if they don't have enough supplies to protect them against the dangers of not only the animals but the planet itself as Kovar the Fox stated. Though it doesn't have the horror elements to make it a true Dark Fantasy. Though they are present in specific places of the world. This discussion of what a destopia or post-apocolyptic world is should be discussed on another page. Doo-A —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
First, this conversation is over four years old. Second, Dying Earth subgenre fits well, if not Postapocalyptic Sword and Sorcery. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


  • High Fantasy : Enigmatical 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Champions of Rajaat[edit]

Could someone change the 'The Champions of Rajaat' section to a summary. Extensive details of the campaign setting are encyclopediac. Ashmoo 05:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the best source material for this would be the wanderer's cronicles. Sadira killed one the two floating heads.. but i cant for the life of me remember whether it was sacha or wyan but either way rikus only killed one of the two. why do people keep quoting a novel over actually source material? the rise and fall of a dragon king is not cannon. kalak is the orge doom! the mistakes made in that series are why it was ruled non-cannon by the then tsr. - syrric

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 

I don't know who's responsible for this sort of thing, but much of the section is lifted verbatim from a copyrighted work. I would remove what I know to be copied, but I don't have the book with me at the moment, and I don't want to do anything that drastic without someone giving me the go ahead. -- 03:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the Champions section the way it is. I like the level of detail it provides, though yes, if someone wants to paraphrase it rather than quoting it directly The snare (talk) 08:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Champions of Rajaat are powerful, evil, immortal sorcerers in service to the Warbringer. Originally Rajaat had promised his champions to make them gods if they were successful in exterminating all nonhuman life. Using specific artifacts they drain the life of sentient beings for later use in their spellcasting and psionics. Champions do not age or die of natural causes. They are immune or resist many damage related spells and can regenerate lost appendages in a short time.

Orb of Energy Storing - artifact used by Champion to drain levels from sentient creatures surrounding Champion. Energy is used to power spells and psionics cast by Champions.

"Legends of Athas" page 99-101, copyright 2008, Wizards of the Coast.

Theory of creation: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

i deleted the information that was non-cannonical about the information from rise and fall of a dragon king again, due to it being incorrect. its been stated several times that it isnt cannon for the setting for 2nd edition and since 4th edition hasnt stated anything about the future of the setting. ~ Syrric

Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia! (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No "commoners" on Athas?[edit]

What is the source of the statement, "Unlike other worlds, there are no "commoners" in Athas..."? This stongly contradicts the AD&D 2nd edition material printed by TSR, which makes frequent mention of slaves, freemen, and others, who have no character class (0-level), nor any unusual training.

If this was overruled by new official material by or Pazio, this should be mentioned. 16:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Nick

Perhaps this simply means none speak "common" tongue. There is no "common speak", but only different languages between different city-states. (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hamanu Stuff[edit]

Where is this stuff about Hamanu coming from? I've read Rise and Fall of a Dragon King and I never read his eyes of fire ability could be used on other champions, and was to kill them after the cleansing wars. Actually, he says during that book that Rajaat is probably making a champion to kill Humans. Nor does it say he used it on Sielba of Yaramuke. It says in that book that "his dagger pierced her heart" The snare 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, this business about Hamanu hundreds of years in the future is speculative and non-canon. -- 04:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

the whole series that including rise and fall of a dragon king are non-canonical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone objects, the part about Hamanu replacing Myron should be revised - it's non-cannon to my knowledge (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the revised dark sun boxed set says he did in fact replace Myron. This is first stated in the Cerulean Storm Novel by Wyan or Sacha, one of the two. The snare (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


I've been working offline (to put on wikipedia) and a contradictions page for dark sun, a master list, if you would. I remember being on AOL in 96 and Kevin Melka said that the Prism Pentad and Dark sun materials contain good continuity for the most part and that Lynn Abbey's stuff is mostly non-canon. I'd like to get some pdf's of the books to get quotes out of them for my contradictions page The snare 10:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Chronicles of Athas non-canon?[edit]

Why are the Chronicles of Athas considered non-canon?--Sonjaaa 05:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

because they had many errors in them, ie champion titles etc and where never supported in actually game supplements as was the prizm pentad, the prizm pentad where the only canonical series of books. in the first box set templars where a class and kalak was still alive and tithian was still his high templar. in the second release of the box set it updated the campaign setting to account for the prizm pentad story ie tyr being free the cerleum storm the death of the dragon and it even had a small section for how gm's can introduce the stories of the prizm pentad into thier campaign and the info needed in case they hadnt read the books- syrric


Please, let's bring this up to par. I only recently found this article on Dark Sun, and it is a very valuable resource that should not be lost. Here's my brief proposal: we need to find some good third-party references to Dark Sun to back up the value of the setting, especially as a historically important setting in the canon of D&D. I know that it's out there. Then, we really don't want to lose the information on the cultures and kings of the setting, but they might be able to be moved to linked sub-articles. DaneWeber (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Finding original material to use as source is going to be difficult, but I'm going to search anyway. (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Avangions (good) & Dragons (evil)[edit]

Wikipedia on some page, should go into depth into this conception of the sorcerer-kings and them all seeking this god-like attainment of becoming athasian dragons. The transformation of high level (20th is it?) multiclass preserver/defiler (wizard/magic-user-mage) & psionicist (psychic/telekinetic mind-power-user) (20th level also), in ten stages (each stage requiring, doing different things, and being bestowed different powers and having different handicaps, etc) to level 30, should be delved into.... In some published work, there was one (or two?) ever Avangions (giant, translucent good aligned demi-god (as far as "god" means anything on Athas) dragonfly-man type beings) this was the "good"/preserver counterpart to the much more common "Dragon".... I use 'common' loosely as there had been only one full 30th level Dragon (Borys of Ebe) but many other partial dragons (at least a third of all the champions?) started the temple building required to become a dragon...... this is why they all own city-states; they require worshippers to build a temple of exceeding value (worth so much, and of such a size, made of such material, stone-wrought, or metal or such at a higher level; hard to come by commodities in the barren world of Athas) and many humanoid sacrifices with each level, so much pre-requirements that it is a difficult task, but full dragons have god-like powers, the same with Avangions. (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

that info is in the high lvl campaign book called dragon kings.. but the thing is that there are only 2 mentions of story line dragons and avangions... for the dragons there is borys who dies.. and a short story in one of the books just for flavor, about a man achieving the dragon transformation being killed by the sorcerer kings.. i would guess he was in his first lvl of dragon.. there are two avangions oronis and one other guy i cant remember his name but he is part of one of the adventures where i believe he died —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I had many official Darksun guides: Borys was a final level, not first level, dragon; level 30. 21 was the first level, and the beginning of the transformation, 30 was a final, full dragon. Same is true of avangions. (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Guys, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

4th Edition[edit]

I think the 4th edition information is up to date. I changed the tense on anything already released, and I added a bit more to reflect content provided by WotC. I don't think any of the old information should be out of data, since 4E really just adds material and doesn't really revise much. Just about all of the information on Athas is right out of the previous books, just reworded. --Alphastream (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

As you can see below, this is far from the case - the article currently contains much information that no longer is (an official) part of the campaign setting. CapnZapp (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

how can you say its no longer part of the setting? has wotc printed books that say the story goes in a different direction? you have to remember wotc is out to make money so they spread the info out through out many books so they can make more profits. and current rajaat being released and killing some of the dragon kings is the only set of info about the future course of events and therefore should still be included. you dont delete information about books that still exist, wikipedia is about knowledge, not whats current and new.. Syrric (talk)

"Parts of this article (those related to 4th edition) are outdated"[edit]

There's already a template saying so, so I'll just enumerate some of the changes that need to be made for this article to conform to the current edition of the campaign world:

1) all the events and outcomes of what I assume is the Prism Pentad metaplot needs to be removed/rolled back. Abalach-Re and Tectuktitlay are not removed from power (and not about to be, either; not in any official/canon capacity at least) to just mention two factoids.

2) the old 2e assumptions need to be revised. Again, just a short example: not all "common goblinoids" are eradicated from the surface of Athas. There are Gnoll raiders outside Tyr, for instance.

3) ... (there's sure to be more differences. I'm not an expert, though)

Feel free to split off something like a "Differences in former edition (AD&D Dark Sun)" section (or even page) if you like, but the main article should reference the current edition first and foremost, and so let's keep the "outdated" template until this is done. CapnZapp (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The best thing to be done with this article is to have a long section on second edition, a small section on its breif inclusion in third edition, and a section to be grown for fourth edition. No elements need to be removed which were later "invalidated" by subsequent editions; we explain what happened in second edition, and then we explain what changed later. (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion. Two chapters to focus on could be Ch 4, The Tyr Region and Ch 11, The Champions of Rajaat. Feel free to add "In 2E, ..." before any statement such as "was killed by NN".
What doesn't fly is to first present Tectuktitlay, say, as killed; and then later on, in some 4E section, state something like "4E rolls back the events of XXX, so that Sorcerer-Kings described as killed no longer are." Much better (as in clearer, more direct, and not as confusing) would instead be to describe the initial status quo (the parts of the backdrop common to all editions) as the first thing a reader learns, and then, in a AD&D section, summarize the events that took place in that "alternate time-line" or what you would call it. Likewise, a 4E section could detail the new additions made there (if any?). Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with your Tectuktitlay example, but in general the 4E material does not contradict other canon. It rewinds time to the end of the first Prism Pentad book and sees the other resulting canon as a possible way things can pan out. That isn't a contradiction, just one possible future. It is up to the DM to decide whether to go forward in that manner. As such, it should not be removed but separated, in my opinion (perhaps with a header like Events after The Verdant Passage". Here we could explain the 4E paradigm and note how the material can be used. Related to this, 4E leaves out a lot of things, such as Rajaat's background, the Champions, details on how magic was created, Green Age particulars, details on the halflings as the original race, etc. This material isn't contradicted but again left as a possibility. We should not remove it, in my opinion, just note that 4E leaves these possibilities as open. Thoughts? --Alphastream (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the new novels, but I personally hate what I've seen, the whole thing with Tharizdun (Athas has no gods) So, what's going on for 4th edition. Is Wizards retconning everything back to just after Kalak was killed in the first novel, and nothing after that in the Pentad or anything else ever happened? (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

its silly to just want to delete the 2nd edition information, second edition is the heart of the campaign and until they actually change the storyline (which they havent) you cannot just assume that the information is incorrect. Syrric (talkcontribs) 23:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The recent clean up attempt[edit]

I think the content removal went a bit too far, but I could see possibly either trimming down some of the information, splitting it off to some sub-articles, like geography of Dark Sun for example, or both. The source book information should definitely stay though. Some of the external links are bit spammy, however, and I'm going to pull a few. —Torchiest talkedits 15:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a trim is OK, or a split-out might be better. If whole sections are to be removed, then there should at least be some kind of summary left in their place. (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I dunno, I don't think it was a step in the wrong direction. If you look at the Forgotten Realms article, it really only gives a very general overview, linking to elements that have proven notable on their own (since notability is not inherited). As much as I love Dark Sun and hate hate hate Forgotten Realms, this is an encyclopedia, not a substitute for the CS books. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

i support a clean up but i am against the wholesale deletions like was attempted. darksun is very different than the more standard campign settings and the article should reflect those differences, the lists of city states and how different each one is culturally is signifigant to the flavor and the article. --~Syrric (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Holes in content[edit]

This article still needs to be reviewed and properly cited in a number of places, and I'll try to mark those places as best I can.

I don't have access to any Dark Sun sourcebooks myself at the moment, but there are a number of references in the current article that are not brought up again and could probably be elaborated upon. I've made a list of a few of those areas where more information could be helpful: the Cerulean Storm, the Dark Lens, the Shipfloaters, the Mind Lords, Death and the afterlife, and a greatly expanded section on Psionics.

Also, the entries for each city in the Geography section are inconsistent in what sort of information is provided. I don't know that this information is available for each location, but a list of standardized entries for each city might be something like: Relative location, Ecology & trade, History & politics.

I'll be picking up some sourcebooks pretty soon, but if anyone can fill in the missing information in the meantime, it's much appreciated. I also feel that any elaboration of the mechanics of the game should be avoided. Zamarren (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts! I will try to help out, too.  :) I wish we had the kind of sources to get this one up to the quality of Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the article's overall completeness, I think that it may benefit from a history section as well. Something that clearly delineates the events leading up to the Cleansing Wars and what happened afterwards, in a more timeline-like way. Zamarren (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I updated city descriptions for the city-states in the Tyr region drawn from the 4e book and created a citation for the D&D 4e campaign setting. — Preceding Sugarcoma (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Real world inspiration[edit]

Here is what I would expect to see for the parts where we are saying "region X from Dark Sun is like country X from Earth". Either we want to see "Game designer Smith said in an interview that he was reading about Ancient Greece when he thought of Blah" or "Game designer Smith said that he based Blah on Rome", or even "In a review of the Dark Sun campaign book, Reviewer Jones says that Blah reminds him of Thailand". Otherwise, if we random Wikipedians just say we think this is like this, and that is like that, then we are committing original research, which is not allowed; if we can't find sources like what I suggest above, then these lines need to be removed. (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Page Needs The Following[edit]

I decided to have a go at this page as I've recently take an interest in the setting. I've largely been citing from the Revised and Expanded source book (1995), Dark Sun 3, and Dark Sun 4e. Because the metaplot advances between the 1991 and 1995 releases I included those changes. I plan to add in the Paizo version as well as that bridges the gap between the 1995 release and Dark Sun 3. The 4e book was an attempt to return the spirit of the 1991 source book and leaves it up to the players to decide how to advance the metaplot. Much of the "fat" was cut from the 4e book but in my estimation they stayed true to the original source material. Given that the fans have differing opinions about the metaplot at any given point I included the advanced metaplot from the original releases first and then noted how 4e changed those things. The major differences seem to be the omission of some of the minor or already deceased sorcerer-kings/Champions and the shift from the Great Wheel cosmology, which Athas only marginally participated in, to the World Axis cosmology which is fully participates in. I also created a Dark Sun characters list page which needs expanding. The source material list should also probably get its own page at some point and needs more clean up. I removed the world details and gave them their own page to separate the detailed in-game summary of the world versus the actual development of the setting and what sets it apart mechanically from its contemporaries.

Here's a list of stuff the page needs. Feel free to add it. If I can I'll get to it.

  • More secondary sources
  • Better distinctions between the types of magic. In 2nd and 3rd there was just arcane and divine though the divine was a bad fit for the setting. In 4th they introduced primal power which makes more sense but its not clear to me if clerics were removed from the setting, if they now draw on primal power, or if they still cast divine magic. Sugarcoma (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I removed the primary sources and in-game style as the page as been revamped to be out-of-game and numerous secondary sources have been added. Feedback is welcome. Still not sure on the level of detail. Thoughts? Sugarcoma (talk) 04:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

guidelines for video game subjects[edit]

I don't know who tagged the page as containing inappropriate video game information. I altered the section heading to be in line with what was done on the Dragonlance page and changed the working to match how it is done there. Can someone from the video game group have a look at this and let me know what needs to be addressed here? Otherwise I'm going to remove the tag as there is very little information about DS video games on the page. Sugarcoma (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)