Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parakitor

Fate of King Daqan

Recommended Posts

The fate of King Daqan has been mentioned several times in these forums to bring those unfamiliar with Terrinoth up to speed with the lore and history of this land. But reading through the Lore Guide again last night, I was struck by some stark differences between the new Runewars Miniatures Game lore, and the former lore found in Rune Age (and possibly other games).

From the Rune Age Rules of Play book, page 18:

Quote

The Council of Thirteen dates to the time of the Second Darkness and the fate of King Daqan. The king vanished in the midst of the crisis, and his fate remains unknown. He left no heir, and with no certain proof of his death none of the barons would accept one of their own ascending to the throne. Thus, the Council of “Daqan’s Lords” was formed. The Council, intended at first to be a temporary solution, endures to this day.

The people of Daqan whisper that King Daqan will return someday, and that he will suffer no other king to sit in his throne before he does. The superstition and legend of the Lost King forms as much a part of the character of Daqan’s former kingdom as the cult of Kellos or the Magistrates of the Common Law. As darkness gathers once more, some whisper that Daqan’s return is imminent…but the Council will not wait for the Lost King. The Daqan Lords march to war.

Compare that with the words found in the Runewars Miniatures Game Lore Guide, page 10:

Quote

The forging of the Land of Steel began with the hero Arcus, first of the Penacor line. The Penacor kings called their realm Talindon, and they added to its glory over centuries. But the First Darkness extinguished their line, and the crown passed to Daqan, the legendary knight and baron who delegated much of the realm's power to his Coucncil of Barons. After the rise and hard-won defeat of Waiqar the Betrayer, Daqan was assassinated. By his will, no kingly successor was named, and instead the Council of Barons was to rule the land, bolstered by the growing wealth of the Free Cities.

So we have two very different stories. In the former lore, King Daqan's fate is shrouded in mystery, and the people's reverence for his deeds caused them to carry on with the Council of Barons, rather than replace Daqan with another to be king. Many superstitious folk await King Daqan's return, even though it becomes less likely with each passing year. This is similar to the oft-used trope of the return of the king seen in many fantasy stories. I like this version the best.

However, it looks like those hopes are nothing but dreams. According to the new lore, Daqan is dead, assassinated after the fall of Waiqar and the Second Darkness. In this version, Daqan insists that there be no heir to his kingdom, and chooses to rely on the Council of Barons to rule when he passes. This is very odd to me. With the glory days of the land long past, wouldn't a strong king be in a good position to unite and rebuild the land? Was he so proud that he didn't think anybody else could do as good a job as him? And who was it that assassinated King Daqan? Do you think that despite the claim that he was assassinated, he may still be alive somewhere? The only advantage to this story is that we get rid of the well-worn "return of the king" trope, but I liked it in this story. The other odd thing is that the Council of Barons is known for being slow to act, and for quite a bit of infighting. It feels more like an interim solution as suggested in Rune Age, rather than a final solution to replace the line of kings.

I'm eager to hear your thoughts about the fate of King Daqan, and which story you like better (even though the new lore is obviously the more accurate telling at this point).

Edited by Parakitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That difference struck me quite hard, as well. I prefer the old Rune Age lore, too. If the Runewars MG lore guide were written from the point of view of an omniscient narrator, it could easily be the truth while the general people believe the rumors of Rune Age, but the lore guide is written from the deputy to the warden of the Citadel, so it's not such an easy thing to rationalize away. Though I think @Ywingscum is on to something. Perhaps both versions are told widely throughout the realm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But one version has him disappearing while fighting the Dragon Lords, who came after Waiqar's defeat. There is a long gap there, you would think it would be pretty clear what decade he disappeared in which would make one story true and the other false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Waywardpaladin said:

But one version has him disappearing while fighting the Dragon Lords, who came after Waiqar's defeat. There is a long gap there, you would think it would be pretty clear what decade he disappeared in which would make one story true and the other false.

Where is that version found? The Rune Age version says he disappears at the end of the Second Darkness, which was Waiqar's first rise to power. The Dragonlords took over during the Third Darkness, I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...