The Temple of Elemental Evil Interview
-
Category: News ArchiveHits: 2132
Q: I understand that you also spoke to Gary Gygax during the game's development, to better understand his intentions to the extent there was ambiguity in the pen & paper module. How much direction did you get from him? Can you give any tangible examples of where he helped?
A: I cannot overstate how wonderful it was to discuss the module with its creator (and the co-creator of D&D itself). Mr. Gygax was charming and easy to talk with, and he really helped clear up several ambiguities in the module.
The biggest controversy in the module is that Prince Thrommel is listed as a Paladin Lord (and hence Lawful Good) but his artifact sword Fragarach is listed as Chaotic Good. This means Thrommel would take damage from wielding his own sword, due to alignment conflicts. Either the man or the sword would have to be changed, and Gygax told me his original intent was for Thrommel to be a Chaotic Good Paladin. I opted for a Chaotic Good Fighter instead.
Another hazy area involved the spider queen Lolth and her involvement in the Temple. Gygax identified the two characters who were answering directly to Lolth (Lareth and Falrinth), and that her goal was to prevent the Temple from re-emerging as a potent entity. Actually, Gygax referred to the original design of the Temple in which the big bad guy was not the demoness Zuggtmoy but the Elder Elemental God, who existed on lower levels of the Temple that were never designed.
We also discussed the issue of save-or-die traps in the Temple, as well as the realistic chances of any player group unsealing the magically held bronze doors throughout the Temple. In the end, the traps were replaced with 3rd edition versions, and the bronze doors were made inoperable.
I just realized that ToEE is almost four years old already. I really need to fire it up again one of these days.
