If Aurgloroasa is indeed a dracolich as indicated in both the text and the char. box, shouldnt she be put in the dracolich category? Johnnyriot999 07:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Done. --Ebakunin 07:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


I was looking through Dragon magazine 344 and noticed that Aurgloroasa is statted there as an ancient shadow dragon. Upon checking Dragons of Faerûn (the main source used in our article) I saw that she is noted there as a wyrm instead. However considering her age, as of1374 DR, is 948 which would suggest that the Dragon Magazine article is correct rather than the sourcebook. The magazine and the book were published within a month of each other and normally our policy would side with the slightly more recent Dragons of Faerun but the dating and contemporary dragon article make me think it might be a misprint. Are there any other supporting references people are aware of to help clear this up?--Eli the Tanner (talk) 19:04, June 9, 2014 (UTC)

There's a reference to her being of venerable age in 1332 DR in Cult of the Dragon (sourcebook). -hashtalk 09:35, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I should probably mention that venerable in 2e is equivalent to ancient in 3e. -hashtalk 09:37, June 10, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Hash, that clears things up. I'll amend the article to read ancient and put a note in explaining what the discrepancy is. Good work!--Eli the Tanner (talk) 22:43, June 12, 2014 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.