Hussar
Legend
It was a theme that was repeated, but just as many, if not more DL novels had nothing whatsoever to do with redemption. Focusing on that one aspect to the exclusion of everything else that the DL setting encompasses does the setting a disservice.
The adventure/campaign doesn't exist, but the setting exists as soon as the creator creates it. Let's look at the Middle Earth setting. You can play that one in any age, starting from the first age and going on past the books. You can be elves, humans, dwarves, hobbits, etc. You can play in Gondor, the Harad, Harondor, Rohan, and more. The idea that rebelling against Gondor is against the setting is absurd. The setting isn't the LotR, it's Middle Earth.
Pesonally, setting is an important starting point, but it quickly gets modified from there if I don't like something or the players alter it.
To me it's semi-important, but not critical to hold pristine. And I wasn't saying the setting can go beyond canon. I was saying that D&D settings which become canon all go beyond the novels that spawn them.
But, the thing is, you don't generally play a Middle Earth Campaign. You play a Lord of the Rings Campaign. Or a Hobbit campaign. Or whatever. You set that campaign in a specific time of the Middle Earth and the themes of that time play a pretty large role in that campaign (unless, of course, they don't, which is generally going to be made pretty explicitly clear at the outset of the campaign ). You would probably not expect to play a Middle Earth campaign where you are eco-terrorists out to preserve Mirkwood. Or, elven eco-terrorists out to protect Rivendell. Not that you can't play that campaign. And it might be a lot of fun. But, it's not really what I'd expect if the DM told me we're playing a Middle Earth campaign and certainly not what I'd expect if we're playing a Lord of the Rings campaign.
As I see it, you're saying that anything that does not specifically contradict canon is acceptable. So long as canon doesn't specifically disallow it, it's fine. Is that correct?
Doctorbadwolf said:Seriously? How does a warlock fit in DL?
well, before 4e there wasn't necessarily a "Patron", instead warlocks could be explained many ways. For instance, a character who has spent their young life avoiding Tower wizards and their rules and tests, and who is as much a their of magic as a proper theif. So, yeah, describing the character explicitly involves elements of the DL setting.
Literally no retconning is required. At all.
/snip
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6944422#ixzz4PwXp36FE
Umm, isn't this the base backstory of a warlock in 3e?
Born of a supernatural bloodline, a warlock seeks to master the perilous magic that suffuses his soul. Unlike sorcerers or wizards, who approach arcane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing more than an effort of will. By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will, a warlock can perform feats of supernatural stealth, beguile the weak-minded, or scour his foes with blasts of eldritch power.
Many warlocks are champions of dark and chaotic powers. Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power. While many warlocks have turned away from evil, seeking to undo the wrongs of their former colleagues, they are still chained by the old pacts through which they acquired their powers. The demand to further the designs of their dark patrons, or to resist them, drives most warlocks to seek the opportunities for power, wealth, and great deeds (for good or ill) offered by adventuring.
That, right there, is pretty removed from canon. Magic in Dragonlance is not innate. It comes from the gods and the moons. None of this appears anywhere in Dragonlance.
Again, do you honestly think that if you described a warlock character then asked people what setting they'd expect to see this character in, their first (or second or third for that matter) would be Dragonlance? Seriously? A class that appears nowhere in any of the canon, with a background specifically counter to the canon of the setting (magic must be learned), is a canon Dragonlance character?
Look, I'm not saying it's a bad character or that it's uninteresting or anything like that. But, canon? In Dragonlance?
How would that be any different than me saying, "Hey look at my Psionicist character. He's a canon Dragonlance character." Or an Illumian. Or a Golliath. After all, none of those are specifically precluded by DL lore. There's nothing to say that psionics don't exist. Or no Illumians or Golliaths. So, I guess they're all canon DL characters.
Last edited: