One of my favorite threads from my time on CF is the one in which it was a challenge/collaborative effort to come up with layers of the Abyss. The challenge was to make up an Abyssal layer, name another one, and the next poster takes that name and creates the new layer and so on. This was an old thread, started back in 2004, ended up being rather popular but eventually ended on its own.
Forum threads can eventually fall off existence into the wilds of the internet. With the various technical issues over the years, I made a point to save this particular thread, because it was a good one and worthy of preservation.
Now I am not attempting to resurrect the thread, but my thought is to compile the results, edit out the comments and present as a series of articles the layers that were designed. I will credit all the posters with their creations and aside from minor editing for clarity present the exact layer as the author wrote it.
So, question to the admin here: does this run afoul of the standards and practices of the Canonfire website? If so, I will not pursue this project any further, but if you think it is worthwhile I will put it together and submit it for the good of the order.
If not, here is a link to the thread so that anyone interested can see what I am talking about. Check it out if you want some creative ideas for the infinite Abyss.
Wow that is some top notch threadomancy! This forum post definitely takes me back in time. I even remember where I was when I thought of my Abyssal entry. As a contributor to this exercise I am fine with your idea. I don't know what others will say, but yes this should be preserved!
I wasn't a contributor, but I would love to see all this great work compiled into a series of edited articles. Hope you get the green light from all concerned, O-D!
These will be popping up on the front page the first half of November. Can't believe this was 17 years ago. _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
All right, I see that the articles are now posted. Let me explain a few things about my thought process.
I divided the thread into three articles (there was a lot to go through in the thread). Parts One and Two reflect the thread as it was intended - that is, when a layer was described by one poster and then the next one was suggested, that became the next layer described and so on. Part Three has all the out of continuity layers that were described on the thread. That is, sometimes a poster either missed the next layer and just wrote in their own - one of those was me - or in the process of discussing the Abyss in the thread just came up with their own ideas. So I put those all together in Part Three.
One thing I did not include was a long posting from Rasgon where he posted a long list of layers from another source. In the thread he stated that he was not comfortable reposting it outside that specific thread, so I am not recopying it either. You can still read it in the original thread linked at the original post in this thread.
I encourage you to revisit the original post anyway, there was a lot of good discussion going on that made it one of my favorite threads in all these forums. Again, I did this as a way of paying homage to those who contributed. Thanks to all of you who did so and hopefully now we have a little extra lore for posterity.
All right, I see that the articles are now posted. Let me explain a few things about my thought process.
. . .
I encourage you to revisit the original post anyway, there was a lot of good discussion going on that made it one of my favorite threads in all these forums. Again, I did this as a way of paying homage to those who contributed. Thanks to all of you who did so and hopefully now we have a little extra lore for posterity.
Thank you greatly for doing this—for all who originally contributed and to O-D for imagining and implementing its republication!
I "printed" the new articles, read the third first, and have now started working through the original thread. Love seeing Tzelios's assertion and then explanation of lexarithms, for example, and Grodog's response that we might use it for some layers and not others in keeping with the chaos incarnate of the Abyss and the futility of mortal attempts to codify its layers. Also, for me, this brings to mind that the lexarithm sum would differ contingent on the language used. Tzelios mentioned that this practice derives from, or is originally associated with, Hebrew and Greek, and might apply to Latin.
For my Hold of the Sea Princes campaign, I've been developing lots of names, using Behind the Name to explore "obscure" languages, mostly European, and then adjust them as makes sense to me with the idea of Earth ≠ Oerth.
Do we "know" what in-campaign sage(s) originally attempted to catalog the "666 Layers" of the Abyss? Was it an olven or Suel sage?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
