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

[Mirtek]

Only thing I'm even going to address is the gnolls in 4e part. There is no contradiction in 4e. They expanded the race fluff, and updated the playable race stats. That's it..

That's it if you only mean 'except the standard 4e mutilation of lore by pressing it into the dawn war origin'

 

[Imaro]

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

I'm curious...where is this original lore located? I haven't been able to find anything around their creation in the MM's (AD&D 2e/3.5/4e) until 5e. But I could be missing something.

 

[Mirtek]

It's in Monster Mythology and various Planescape supplements.

Ironically the only novel in which gnolls played a major role was about a village still worshipping Gorellik and working with the hero to stop the big threat

 

[Imaro]

It's in Monster Mythology and various Planescape supplements.

Ironically the only novel in which gnolls played a major role was about a village still worshipping Gorellik and working with the hero to stop the big threat

Ah ok cool didn't know that...of course now that I have the sources I see it was actually 4e that made the change to their origin and 5e kept it...

From Dragon 367 "Playing Gnolls"
Gnoll legends trace the origin of their species to the demon prince Yeenoghu. Known as the Beast of Butchery and Ruler of Ruin, Yeenoghu sought to spread his hand across the mortal world by creating an army that would sow discord and terror across civilized lands. His demons numbered too few and could not remain in the mortal world indefinitely. But Yeenoghu took a few of his mightiest and most savage demons and fed them to a pack of mortal hyenas. The essence of the demons fused with the animals, and their children were the first of the gnolls—fierce humanoid creatures combining the traits of cunning hyena and vicious fiend. Yeenoghu charged the gnolls to spread horror in his name, bathing the lands in blood and bringing suffering to all things unfortunate enough to cross paths with the Children of Yeenoghu.Through this butchery, they earn a place of honor in the domain of the demon prince.

EDIT: Strangely enough I still find the concept of playable gnolls with this backstory a stretch. They are supposed to be a combination of animal and fiend in 4e and yet some are fully capable of interacting with civilized society, curbing their natural inclination for destruction which is going against both of their natures... but where exactly do they get this from if they are a merging of demon and beast with no traces of man or any other civilized race.

 

[Hussar]

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.

So, let's get this straight. According to you, the following is true:

1. "Have dealings with" encompasses "is enslaved by".
2. Servant and slave are synonyms.
3. Unleashing a war of destruction across the planes is the same as being militaristic raiders and slavers.

Sorry, but, how is a war of destruction across the planes not apocalyptic?

See, this is why I talk about this discussion being so disingenuous. Playing silly buggers word games to avoid admitting that the only reason lore is important is to push your own preferences. I mean, we've got [MENTION=40171]Shashara[/MENTION]k claiming that a lich (more or less) possessing a character in Dragonlance is justification for adding Great Old Ones and Warlocks (which come part and parceled to great old ones) to Dragonlance. That changing Fizban to a wild mage isn't somehow contradicting lore in order to justify wild mages in Dragonlance.

I just wish you folks that claim that lore is important would just get your stories straight. But, of course you won't, because that would be admitting that all you're doing is forcing everyone else in the hobby to follow your preferences. If people who claim lore was important were actually consistent, I'd be a lot more convinced of the importance of lore. But, since what is important, what is a change, and what can safely be ignored is entirely subjective, but, presented as objective fact, I'll continue to giggle every time I see someone trying to claim that lore is important.

 

[Shasarak]

See, this is why I talk about this discussion being so disingenuous. Playing silly buggers word games to avoid admitting that the only reason lore is important is to push your own preferences. I mean, we've got [MENTION=40171]Shashara[/MENTION]k claiming that a lich (more or less) possessing a character in Dragonlance is justification for adding Great Old Ones and Warlocks (which come part and parceled to great old ones) to Dragonlance. That changing Fizban to a wild mage isn't somehow contradicting lore in order to justify wild mages in Dragonlance.

It is just as well that you quit reading Dragonlance because if Warlocks and Wild Mages are crazy to you then some of the later lore changes would have blown your mind.

But then again you are already giggling in the corner so....

 

[Imaro]

So, let's get this straight. According to you, the following is true:

1. "Have dealings with" encompasses "is enslaved by".

It encompasses (until further expounded upon) the particular way in which someone behaves toward others. This is the definition of "dealings"...

2. Servant and slave are synonyms.

Synonyms for servant

noun: person who waits on another
assistant, attendant, helpers, slave, dependent, domestic, drudge, help, hirelings, menial, minion, retainer, serfs, server, cleaning persons

Emphasis mine... yes slave is a synonym for servant...

3. Unleashing a war of destruction across the planes is the same as being militaristic raiders and slavers.

Sorry, but, how is a war of destruction across the planes not apocalyptic?

The actual phrase is... "To unleash war and destruction across the planes..."


So...

1. They aren't referring to a singular war (singular).
2. They spread war ( a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state) and destruction across the planes.
3. So no it's not apocalyptic... that's your incorrect interpretation due to misreading the sentence.

See, this is why I talk about this discussion being so disingenuous. Playing silly buggers word games to avoid admitting that the only reason lore is important is to push your own preferences. I mean, we've got @Shasharak claiming that a lich (more or less) possessing a character in Dragonlance is justification for adding Great Old Ones and Warlocks (which come part and parceled to great old ones) to Dragonlance. That changing Fizban to a wild mage isn't somehow contradicting lore in order to justify wild mages in Dragonlance.

The only disingenuous thing I'm finding in these discussions is how you are choosing to interpret and phrase the posts of others. Let's be clear Raistlin made a pact (a deal) with Fistandantilus in order to gain power and survive the test of high sorcery... he wasn't possessed... he was gifted power in a bargain for giving up part of his life force. You phrasing it in the way you did above is what's disingenuous and I think you know it. Whether that makes Raistlin a warlock or not is irrelevant... what it does do is set the precedence for deals being made for power with beings (personally I think Fistandantilus fits neatly under the Undying patron)... which is what warlocks do... What you do however is dismiss all the evidence people present to you without any actual substance to your dismissals... just like in the paragraph above.

I just wish you folks that claim that lore is important would just get your stories straight. But, of course you won't, because that would be admitting that all you're doing is forcing everyone else in the hobby to follow your preferences. If people who claim lore was important were actually consistent, I'd be a lot more convinced of the importance of lore. But, since what is important, what is a change, and what can safely be ignored is entirely subjective, but, presented as objective fact, I'll continue to giggle every time I see someone trying to claim that lore is important.

Eh, there's only one person I see in this conversation subverting people's "stories" because they don't fit the narrative he is trying to present... You want lore to be this wholly defined thing from the beginning that can't be expounded upon or clarified but lore has never worked like that in D&D... at least not since splatbooks became a thing for D&D. Your defintion is the problem and the fact that you cling to it and expect everyone else to view lore in the same way.

Again... expounding on what has already been presented is different from changing what has already been presented.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ah ok cool didn't know that...of course now that I have the sources I see it was actually 4e that made the change to their origin and 5e kept it...

From Dragon 367 "Playing Gnolls"
Gnoll legends trace the origin of their species to the demon prince Yeenoghu. Known as the Beast of Butchery and Ruler of Ruin, Yeenoghu sought to spread his hand across the mortal world by creating an army that would sow discord and terror across civilized lands. His demons numbered too few and could not remain in the mortal world indefinitely. But Yeenoghu took a few of his mightiest and most savage demons and fed them to a pack of mortal hyenas. The essence of the demons fused with the animals, and their children were the first of the gnolls—fierce humanoid creatures combining the traits of cunning hyena and vicious fiend. Yeenoghu charged the gnolls to spread horror in his name, bathing the lands in blood and bringing suffering to all things unfortunate enough to cross paths with the Children of Yeenoghu.Through this butchery, they earn a place of honor in the domain of the demon prince.

EDIT: Strangely enough I still find the concept of playable gnolls with this backstory a stretch. They are supposed to be a combination of animal and fiend in 4e and yet some are fully capable of interacting with civilized society, curbing their natural inclination for destruction which is going against both of their natures... but where exactly do they get this from if they are a merging of demon and beast with no traces of man or any other civilized race.

The idea of a civilized race/species is nonsense. They are social creatures with free will and conciousness. That is all they need.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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 -snip-

Seriously?

No. Kender are defined by curiosity, incapacity for fear, reckless optimism, and ability to taunt enemies into foolish action, more than by their habit of picking up objects and then forgetting about them. Which is quite distinct from kleptomania.

A Kender that doesn't fit one of those things isn't any less a Kender.

Playing racial stereotypes with no variation is, for many of us, entirely boring. Tropes exist just as much to be tweaked and subverted as they do to be used as shorthand. Especially in roleplaying.

 

[Shasarak]

The only disingenuous thing I'm finding in these discussions is how you are choosing to interpret and phrase the posts of others. Let's be clear Raistlin made a pact (a deal) with Fistandantilus in order to gain power and survive the test of high sorcery... he wasn't possessed... he was gifted power in a bargain for giving up part of his life force. You phrasing it in the way you did above is what's disingenuous and I think you know it. Whether that makes Raistlin a warlock or not is irrelevant... what it does do is set the precedence for deals being made for power with beings (personally I think Fistandantilus fits neatly under the Undying patron)... which is what warlocks do... What you do however is dismiss all the evidence people present to you without any actual substance to your dismissals... just like in the paragraph above.

Exactly! Making a deal with someone for power is exactly what a Warlock does and yet somehow in Hussars mind; Raistlin actually has to be making a deal with Cthulhu to qualify.