Talk:Lolth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categoiry[edit]

Gracefool: Hmm, I understood the categorization under Category:The Abyss, but really Lolth has as much relevence in the new Category:Outer Planes as any other D&D God. I'm removing that category for the moment. Maybe a separate article - The Demonweb Pits - should be created? -Erolos 23:36, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gods & goddesses of D&D are now subcategories of Category:Outer Planes, since as you say, they all live there. :) ··gracefool |☺ 00:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Not all of them do. In fact, according to the 3E Forgotten Realms setting, none of the Realms gods exist in the Outer Planes, because there's no Outer Planes in the 3E Realms cosmology. -Sean Curtin 02:55, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
Oh. Okay. Removed. ··gracefool |☺ 02:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jeremy Hanson (January 1, 2005): This article is very interesting. I had no idea that Tolkien created the concept dark elves. I always assumed that dark elves, or drow, were an idea created by the authors of Dungeons & Dragons.

Tolkien didn't create the concept of dark elves. Tolkien was havily influenced by Norse mythology, which has a race of dark elves, though they're little like the drow. As far as I can tell, it was Gygax who gave the dark elves black skin. Robbstrd 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Lolth isn't one of the "Fictional Demons"? She is a GODDESS, not a "demon"...

She is very much both a goddess AND a demon (turned into a tanar'ri by Corellon Larethian). -Erolos
Actually, Corellon changed her form into that of a spider, but she didn't become a demon(ess). As she is a goddess, she can change her form at will into almost anything (she can, but she doesn't). → JarlaxleArtemis 03:14, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Evermeet: Island of Elves pg. 70 Corellon: "you are declared tanar'ri. Be what you are, and go where you must." It was also highly stressed in 1e and 2e that much like Orcus and Demogorgon Lolth was a tanar'ri with worshippers rather than just a goddess. And I think she changes her form all the time... according to 3e stats she spent several Salient Divine Abilities on Shifting Form and Size. -Erolos 15:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... By what author is Evermeet: Island of Elves? → JarlaxleArtemis 00:23, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The lovely Elaine Cunningham. Also, pre-Evermeet, Demihuman Deities (Eric. L Boyd) states: "Araushnee was transformed into a spider-shaped tanar'ri and banished to the Abyss. As an Abyssal Lord, Araushnee assumed the name Lolth and conquered a considerable portion of that foul plane, driving off Ghaunadaur and subjugating Kiaransalee in the process." Though references to Lolth as a tanar'ri go back before TSR even published the Forgotten Realms. -Erolos 19:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually references to Lolth as a demon pre-date the Forgotten Realms. Gary Gygax created Lolth as the Demon Queen of Spiders, & placed her in the World of Greyhawk. Robbstrd 06:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better resolved by some mention of the character's development through various works and editions. I think originally (in Greyhawk) she was a worshipped demon queen, and later the Realms version altered many details in the process of developing her background and current place in Realms cosmology. Wasn't the original Greyhawk spelling "Lloth", which was changed to "Lolth" in the Realms?

R. A. Salvatore's War of the Spider Queen[edit]

Should I mention Lolth's recent silence? → JarlaxleArtemis 18:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's relevent, so certainly if you want. Remember to add a {{spoiler}} warning, and to make sure that its noted that the silence only happened to the FR Lolth. I've actually been meaning to expand and clean-up this article in line with the FR deity articles for a while, I'll get to it now. :) -Erolos
I believe Lloth is now a Greater Power due to the events leading up to, during, and after the silence. Also, she killed and subsumed her daughter(not Eilistraee) when she ascended in power. Nezu Chiza 16:29, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Location of the Demonweb Pits[edit]

However, there appears to be some controversy regarding the status of the Demonweb Pits in that particular campaign: the 3rd edition campaign setting says that the Demonweb Pits are a separate plane, but in the novel Extinction by Lisa Smedman they are explicitly referred to as part of the Abyss, namely the 66th layer (as in the "default" cosmology). Lolth's Third Edition domains are Chaos, Destruction, Evil, and Trickery (and Drow, Darkness, and Spider in the Forgotten Realms).

The whole point of the War of the Spider Queen series is to "move" the Demonweb Pits out of the 66th and into another plane, is it not? So it should be all sorted out and there shouldn't be any controversy? (Haven't read the last book so I still don't know the whole deal.) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


ummmmmmmmm[edit]

Im almost positive it is spelled Lloth ..... is anyone else not extremely surpised at this blatant error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.176.117 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's Lolth. Lloth was a mistake in the spelling that appeared in some of RA Salvatore's novels, which was never really corrected, and later on given an in-game explanation that it was a minor regional variation on Lolth's name present in the Forgotten Realms.Shemeska (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was misspelled too and had to look in my FR Campaign D&D book but it clearly is Lolth. The lol part weirds me out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.14.234 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finding more 3rd party sources[edit]

In order to justify a removal of those godawfully annoying templates, it might be worth looking at the 3rd party drow related books by Mongoose publishing (The Drow War" module series, and Quintessential Drow) and Green Ronin (Plot and Poison: A guidebook to drow). However veiled (or not) their usage of Lolth might be, they might be some viable 3rd party sources if anyone has access to them to check and see.Shemeska (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Removing the tags[edit]

I am going to add many more references to Lolth today including appearances in the D&D cartoon, several novels that focus on her, all the game books (both TSR/Wizards and others) as well a bit of work that describes how she was enspired by both Lilth and Shelob. If this turns out to be as much information as I believe it will be I will remove the notability tags and work on removing the rest. Web Warlock (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with Shemmy above; anything you can do to get these tags removed is appreciated. They sure do ugly up an article! BOZ (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems there are people here that would rather waste everyone's time buy putting these tags in instead of doing the work needed. It's lazy and it's stupid, and if you are too lazy or too stupid to do the real work needed here the get the hell out of my way. Thanks BOZ, I know anything you have will be welcome too. Been very busy of late working on that second Ph.D. Web Warlock (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tags are there to involve as many editors as possible (which seems to be happening), so that secondary references can be added and the other cleanup issues can be addressed. I suggest that the cleanup tags remain until the cleanup has been effected. Thanks, --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that, WW. :) Been pretty busy myself lately, just with silly Wiki-things, like getting the monster charts ready. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would ask that the notability cleanup template is restored; opinion of one editor is not evidence of notability, but reliable secondary sources are.--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The tags can be encapsulated using the {{Multiple issues}} template, which is somewhat less ugly. Unfortunately, the {{In-universe/Dungeons & Dragons}} template is not supported, though the un-sub-categorized version, {{In-universe}}, is. If that trade-off is deemed appropriate, the code {{Multiple issues|primarysources=October 2007|nofootnote=February 2008|in-universe=April 2008}} produces: {{Multiple issues|primarysources=October 2007|nofootnote=February 2008|in-universe=April 2008}}

  • That is not the issue that is being debated. The question is should the notability (fiction) template also be added because there are no reliable sources cited as evidence?--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy with the 3rd opinion? Honestly Gavin, this again is where your unfamiliarity with the topic is a real stumbling block. Some additional sources are needed to support Lolth's notability, but to anyone familiar with the character and its publication history, the notability itself isn't even remotely in question.Shemeska (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you admit the article does not have sufficient reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability? Then restore the cleanup template, and this issue will be addressed. You must admit, if I had not put it there in the first place, this dicussion and the addition of sources to date would not have happened. Please restore the notability template.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that at all Gavin. Additional sources would help -support- the notability, which is something multiple editors have already stated. The notability isn't in question to anyone except to you it appears. Again, with your lack of familiarity on the topic and its publication history in various media, you apparently don't see what those of us who do know about the topic understand: Lolth is notable. You don't agree it seems, but coming from a position of little knowledge on the topic, your opinion on the matter is coming from a considerably weaker position than those of us who do. And myself and others are still waiting for you to answer why you've chosen to slap tags all over the place on RPG associated topics when you know so little about them, versus any other topic on wikipedia. You've been directly asked that multiple times by multiple editors, and you've avoided providing an answer. It stretches other editors' desire to assume good faith on your part on these tags given the appearance of you just not liking the entire subject.Shemeska (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if this article were taken to AfD on notability grounds the nomination would be snowed closed within five minutes. Lolth is a major figure in a number of novels and popular campaign settings. There is more than enough material to justify a separate descriptive (viz. not in-universe) article in addition to mentions on Drow (Dungeons & Dragons), List of Forgotten Realms deities, and List of Dungeons & Dragons deities. The question of whether this notability is asserted in a way accessible to the casual reader is not what the {{notability}} tag is intended to address. I think that if the current call for more independent sources is addressed, the assertion of notability will naturally follow. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of editors say Lolth is notable, but none provide any evidence other than primary sources. Notability is attested by reliable secondary sources: this the point of the cleanup template: to attract those sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has access to them, Lolth is presented under a OGL-friendly name in several modules/books "The Drow War" by Mongoose publishing. "Plot and Poison" by Green Ronin publishing may also refer to Lolth in such a manner, and there's also the Billy & Mandy episode which was heavily inspired by Lolth and drow. I don't have a clue how to properly cite that episode however. The three of those are also entirely independant of TSR/WotC for sourcing purposes.Shemeska (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#Notable_topics_merit_individual_articles proposed policy section may explain my point - Lolth is a significant figure in a clearly notable fictional universe. The issues of sourcing and tone are better covered by the present tags. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the use of lolth as street slang, and removed notability. That should rid the tmplates for Lolth at least, lolth!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenbabyhead (talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More secondary sources[edit]

Here are valid secondary sources which may benefit the article/merge target if worked in:

Daranios (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lolth&oldid=1201974057"