D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Hussar]

Was anything already established contradicted? Changed? It seems like you are purposefully choosing not to see the difference between changing something...

Eladrin are no longer a race of good aligned celestial beings on a higher plane but instead the subrace of Elves formerly known as High Elves...

As opposed to adding too existing lore...The previously established unknown dealings Salamanders have with the Efreet are that of slave and master or rebel and enslaver...

It's not about preferences it's about contradiction...

EDIT: The laughter button... nice, mature way to signify you're really trying to converse and understand the other point of view. It's cool alot of people resort to mockery when something is beyond their understanding...

Actually, appologies for the laugh button. I generally don't do that, but, you post actually made me giggle, so, I clicked and then realized I shouldn't have. Mea culpa. I found the mental gyrations you are willing to go through to attenst that X is a change while Y is not just too funny.

I mean, I've had dealings with probably hundreds of people in my lifetime, just like anyone else. I'm pretty sure though, when I say I've had dealings with people, none of those dealings were slave/master relationships. Well, not without a safe word in any case. But, hey, if your definition of "have dealings with" include enslavement, then fair enough.

 

[Hussar]

Rolling this back around into a different direction for a moment.

I was cogitating the idea of a kender that didn't steal as a "authentic" Dragonlance character, and I'll admit, I do have a problem with it. One defining aspect, if not THE defining aspect of kender is the idea that kender don't understand personal ownership. This is a major part of what a kender is and sets it quite far apart from the baseline of halfling.

If a player came to me and told me he or she wanted to play a kender that didn't steal, my first reaction would be, "why?" A kender that doesn't steal is called a halfling. You can play a halfling in any number of other settings without any problems at all. Dragonlance defines kender (at least in part) by their kleptomaniac tendencies. If you really want to play a kender that doesn't steal, why are you playing in a Dragonlance game?

See, that's my biggest issue with players who play characters that challenge setting conceits. It's no different than playing odd ball one off characters, which I'm really not a big fan of either. "Hey, look at my character!!! Isn't he/she/it SO different?". If your basic character concept is to run straight against the grain of the setting, why are you playing in that setting at all? Because, the thing is, if we weren't playing in Dragonlance, dollars to donuts, that player wouldn't even consider playing a halfling. It's being put forth as a character specifically to be different.

I remember years ago, I had a player who played a short race charismatic bard. Fantastic character. But, the character was a kobold. Didn't act like a kobold, didn't really do anything koboldish. And I asked the player, why a kobold? Why not a gnome? After all, this character IS a gnome in everything but name.

"Oh, I don't like gnomes" was the answer.

And it's baffling to me to be honest. Why players and DM's get this singular notion in their head that X MUST BE Y. That a simple name change completely remakes the character. That it somehow matters.

 

[billd91]

And it's baffling to me to be honest. Why players and DM's get this singular notion in their head that X MUST BE Y. That a simple name change completely remakes the character. That it somehow matters.

Because it does to them, perhaps in some way they have a hard time communicating, perhaps it matches a concept they have in their mind, perhaps they just aren't good enough at role playing an intelligence alien to their own sufficiently? Why would it matter to you? Isn't it enough that it matters to them?

 

[Sadras]

If a player came to me and told me he or she wanted to play a kender that didn't steal, my first reaction would be, "why?" A kender that doesn't steal is called a halfling. You can play a halfling in any number of other settings without any problems at all. Dragonlance defines kender (at least in part) by their kleptomaniac tendencies. If you really want to play a kender that doesn't steal, why are you playing in a Dragonlance game?

See, that's my biggest issue with players who play characters that challenge setting conceits. It's no different than playing odd ball one off characters, which I'm really not a big fan of either. "Hey, look at my character!!! Isn't he/she/it SO different?". If your basic character concept is to run straight against the grain of the setting, why are you playing in that setting at all? Because, the thing is, if we weren't playing in Dragonlance, dollars to donuts, that player wouldn't even consider playing a halfling. It's being put forth as a character specifically to be different.

Hussar I don't have a stake in the current debate between you and Imaro, however the above quote by you reminded me of a thread we once participated in, probably some two years ago, where you said (paraphrasing here due to memory) that you allow players to play whatever they wish as long as it wasn't game-breaking, that the DM shouldn't limit the character concept no matter what the setting. Yet your above statement seems to run contrary to that line of thinking. Have you since changed your mind on this?

I think it was one of the threads where we were discussing about DM empowerment on their setting and such...

 

[Hussar]

Because it does to them, perhaps in some way they have a hard time communicating, perhaps it matches a concept they have in their mind, perhaps they just aren't good enough at role playing an intelligence alien to their own sufficiently? Why would it matter to you? Isn't it enough that it matters to them?

It wouldn't matter to me. Except that those same people keep telling me that I cannot have the things I want because what I want doesn't match. I'm not allowed to have a different cosmology in D&D. I'm not allowed to have kobolds separate from dragons. I'm not allowed to have efreeti that aren't slavers bent on unleashing "war and destruction across the planes" (5e MM p 265, for [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]).

It matters to me, because these self same "guardians of canon" have no problems telling everyone else that there is one true way to play, but, hey, if a change happens to pass the personal sniff test, then it's perfectly fine.

I'm just not arrogant enough to try to force my personal tastes on the rest of the hobby.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar I don't have a stake in the current debate between you and Imaro, however the above quote by you reminded me of a thread we once participated in, probably some two years ago, where you said (paraphrasing here due to memory) that you allow players to play whatever they wish as long as it wasn't game-breaking, that the DM shouldn't limit the character concept no matter what the setting. Yet your above statement seems to run contrary to that line of thinking. Have you since changed your mind on this?

I think it was one of the threads where we were discussing about DM empowerment on their setting and such...

I think it was perhaps some miscommunication on my part and the tendency of a group of posters to rewrite my opinions to suit their arguments.

My argument was always that DM's should allow players to play whatever they want so long as it isn't game breaking AND fits with the conceits of the setting. Now, where I probably differ from some DM's is that I'm pretty flexible about what I think fits with the conceits of a setting. So, in a fantasy naval campaign, a warforged ninja that was reworked to be an animated figurehead from a sunken ship would probably not bother me as a DM. However, someone's character that specifically is created to work directly against the conceits of the setting does tend to bother me.

So, a comic-relief character in a Ravenloft campaign would likely be a problem for me. An atheist character in Forgotten Realms (who then complains about being stuffed into the Wall of Faithless if he dies) would be an issue. The bajillion "good drow" characters that have crossed my desk over the years. That sort of thing. Play the campaign in front of you, not the campaign you wish to force the DM to run.

 

[Imaro]

Actually, appologies for the laugh button. I generally don't do that, but, you post actually made me giggle, so, I clicked and then realized I shouldn't have. Mea culpa. I found the mental gyrations you are willing to go through to attenst that X is a change while Y is not just too funny.

I mean, I've had dealings with probably hundreds of people in my lifetime, just like anyone else. I'm pretty sure though, when I say I've had dealings with people, none of those dealings were slave/master relationships. Well, not without a safe word in any case. But, hey, if your definition of "have dealings with" include enslavement, then fair enough.

Do you view most people as enemies or servants? If so that pretty much means the majority of your dealings with them will be confined to one of two types of interactions... combat or servitude. Doesn't seem like that big of a mental gyration, just taking the time to actually read the lore.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not allowed to have efreeti that aren't slavers bent on unleashing "war and destruction across the planes" (5e MM p 265, for @Imaro).

So no planar "Apocalyptic War"as you stated (IMO incorrectly) earlier. They unleash war and destruction across the planes... well duh, they are raiders, slavers, robbers and militaristic... What I don't see is lore claiming they are unleashing some war to end all wars across the planes... which you stated earlier was part of their lore.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, appologies for the laugh button. I generally don't do that, but, you post actually made me giggle, so, I clicked and then realized I shouldn't have. Mea culpa. I found the mental gyrations you are willing to go through to attenst that X is a change while Y is not just too funny.

I mean, I've had dealings with probably hundreds of people in my lifetime, just like anyone else. I'm pretty sure though, when I say I've had dealings with people, none of those dealings were slave/master relationships. Well, not without a safe word in any case. But, hey, if your definition of "have dealings with" include enslavement, then fair enough.

Just as an FYI, you can undo a laugh if you want to. Just click laugh again and it goes away. You have to reset the timer, though.

 

[Mirtek]

... Now that said I fail to see how 5e diverged from their original lore of 4e... or that of AD&D 2e. In the MM it touched on the general gnolls just as 4e did in it's MM.

For starters 5e says that Yeenoghu created them. Previously Y just stole their attention from their original deities.

That is a pretty major change. Poor Gorellik