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

[Shasarak]

We've seen, in this thread, that sorcerers and warlocks make this an even bigger issue. Plus there is 5e's change to the spell memorisation rules. And the quetion of whether Tanis is a fighter, or should be reconceived as a ranger. (In 4e clearly he's a warlord!)

How can Tanis be a Warlord when he clearly never shouted anyones hand back on?

 

[Shasarak]

So, in my view, no, this is not a "uniquely Dragonlance" character. A uniquely Dragonlance character wouldn't oppose the gods. Any more than a uniquely Dark Sun characters would worship Correlon. Or an Oriental Adventures character that doesn't believe in Honor. You could play a character that has no honor. But, an OA character that thinks Honor should not exist at all? To me, that's a bridge too far.

If you have ever played 3e OA then you should know that there are different Clans with different definitions of Honour, which does include no Honour. How could the Scorpion Clan even operate if it had to worry about Honour?

 

[Elderbrain]

Are you arguing that Pathfinder is not D&D?

I have no problems with canon in and of itself.

To me, canon is meant primarily to apply within a specific campaign. It's only when people enshrine canon into the broader game that it becomes problematic. If gnomes are 20 feet tall in my game world, how does that bother you in the slightest? If orcs are civilized members of society (Eberron), how does that impact orcs of the Pomarj in Greyhawk? Canon should be discrete and self contained.

- Yes, Pathfinder is not D&D. Is it LIKE D&D? Sure, just as Tunnels and Trolls, Runequest, and a dozen other games are LIKE D&D. (Most of these games have some version of Magic Missile, Fireball, etc.) But being LIKE something and actually BEING something are two different things. Robin Williams and John Belushi were both comedians... that doesn't mean Robin Williams was the same individual as John Belushi , or that they are interchangeable. All space RPGs have commonalities, such as starships, aliens, other planets, space battles, etc... that doesn't mean the Alternity game is the same as the Star Trek or the Star Wars game!

- "I have no problem with canon in and of itself." Unless, of course, anybody dares to (GASP!) actually insert traditional D&D canon into the actual D&D books. The Great Wheel? Fine, it can be canon, as long as it never actually sees print. That's not what having canon means, that is actually BANISHING canon from the game and making it private rather than public. It's like saying you're fine with anyone who want to play a Warlock... as long as no Warlock character class is printed in the PH, and the players and DM homebrew one.

- "If Gnomes are 20 feet tall in my game world, how does that bother you in the slightest?" It DOESN'T... but that's NOT what you are arguing for, you want YOUR version of the monsters to replace the default versions in the core books! Thus, YOUR new-style Archons, Eladrin, or whatever see print in a MM, mine (the originals, I might add!) don't. Your Eberron example actually supports MY argument, since the Orcs are changed NOT IN THE CORE RULEBOOKS, but ONLY in the Eberron campaign books. You want MY canon - the traditional canon - to be "discrete and self-contained"; i.e. Planescape material can ONLY appear in a non-forthcoming Planescape campaign setting - whereas YOUR canon is permitted to permeate the core books, as occurred in 4e. When the situation is reversed, suddenly you're not cool with it. Canon can appear in the core books - just not MY canon. Got it - that seems fair.

 

[Elderbrain]

Canon is easily left by the wayside whenever it's convenient. Play Gondor Rebels? No problem. Make any change you like. Retcon anything. Slot anything in that tickles your fancy.

- And that's fine, IN YOUR HOME GAME. But don't insist that (for instance) the actual text of the Middle Earth RPG be re-written to accommodate your non-canonical play. Don't demand that the Balrog be altered in the core Middle Earth books to reflect the aquatic ice creature it is in YOUR home game, rather than the standard fiery giant. That's not fair to other people who bought the rulebooks expecting to play a standard Middle Earth game (or One Ring or whatever they're calling it these days.)

 

[Elderbrain]

Sigh. It's really annoying when people pick and choose bits to argue about.

Dragonlance does not have intuitive casting. At no point, anywhere in any of the stories, modules, supplements or whatnot, does it change that. Casting is TAUGHT. That's one of the main points of the Towers of High Sorcery is that anyone who has any arcane talent MUST be tested. Failure to do so carries a death sentence.

But, hey, why isn't my Vulcan Jedi with a TARDIS not canon in Star Wars?

Nobody is arguing that you cannot go against canon in your HOME GAME! What they ARE arguing against is taking the Star Wars RPG rulebooks and inserting Vulcans and the TARDIS into it, and thus forcing it on people who just wanted vanilla, canonical Star Wars. Want your Jedi character Toth Rendan to blow up the Death Star instead of Luke Skywalker? Fine - in your HOME GAME. Just don't insist that the core Star Wars rulebooks be re-written to credit YOUR Jedi character with the feat.

 

[Hriston]

"Fengel's two older brothers, Folcred and Fastred, were killed in Harondor while fighting for Gondor in T.A.2885, meaning that even by the late Third Age, it had not given up its claims to the region. However, by the time of the War of the Ring all the land south of the river Poros was occupied by the Haradrim."

As you can see, Gondor was still waging war in Harondor at LEAST as recently as 56 years before Bilbo got the ring. Probably more recently than that. The Haradrim held Gondor when the War of the Ring started, but nothing says that they held it even 4 years before that. We do know that it was in dispute a maximum of 56 years prior to Bilbo gaining the ring, which as a far cry from the hundreds of years that you are claiming.

Folcred and Fastred rode to their deaths in Harondor to stop the Haradrim from invading Gondor! They were not enforcing a claim to Harondor. The Haradrim were fully in possession of Harondor as can be seen by the fact that they were using Harondor to stage an invasion of Ithilien by crossing the River Poros, the southern border of Gondor at the time and the dividing line between Ithilien and Harondor. What's more, the Haradrim had been provoked into this aggressive action by emissaries from Sauron! This was over one hundred years before the War of the Ring, and even though Gondor won the battle (about which I was mistaken upthread), it did not retake Harondor. It was merely successful in holding back the Haradrim, for the time being, from further incursion into Gondor. By the time of the War of the Ring, the Haradrim were marching their armies through Ithilien without much resistance at all.

Again, this was not a battle for control of Harondor. It was a battle for control of the border between Gondor and Harondor, the crossings of the River Poros.

 

[Hussar]

Our interpretations can be different, but for the purposes of this a particular game, we should be on the same page about which of the many different interpretations is the "true" one for that game. We should agree on what "a Dragonlance game" means for this campaign, even if we'd do things differently or don't know about some bit of the lore or something.

But, doesn't that make your enjoyment of the game dependent on me? I mean, you obviously think that you have created a Dragonlance character. Fair enough. Why put your enjoyment of the game on me though? That's the difference between my problems with my fighter and your character. I don't really care if you think my character was fine or not. Whether or not you have a problem with my character was never the issue (except that it made it somewhat more difficult to make changes, I suppose). But, my enjoyment of the character is completely independent of you.

Why are you placing the enjoyment of your character on me? Your insist that you are following lore to create this character and that this character is a "unique Dragonlance" character. Ok, fair enough. I disagree. I think that you have created what is essentially an anti-Dragonlance character that opposes the core conceits of the setting. But why should your enjoyment of the character hinge on what I think?

And, if it DOES hinge on what I think, why didn't you ask the group before making the character? Although, to be fair, likely no one would have said anything, because quite obviously in this group, no one particularly cares about canon. Being "authentic" to the setting is certainly not a big concern for this group and never has been. AFAIK, no one seems to share your priorities. The character sounds cool, and that trumps any canon concerns.

But, again, if your goal was to make a genuinely Dragonlance character, why did you go this direction? You're a gnome, but, certainly not a Dragonlance Gnome which is a pretty specific background (although to be fair, the whole "Mad gnome - gnomes that other people would consider "gnormal" is a thing). You're a wizard, but, not a Dragonlance wizard because Dragonlance wizards are all Wizards of High Sorcery. And, to top it off, your character wants the gods to go away, a view espoused by no one in the setting.

So, I'm still kinda stuck on between your stated goals and what you actually brought to the table.

 

[Hussar]

Nobody is arguing that you cannot go against canon in your HOME GAME! What they ARE arguing against is taking the Star Wars RPG rulebooks and inserting Vulcans and the TARDIS into it, and thus forcing it on people who just wanted vanilla, canonical Star Wars. Want your Jedi character Toth Rendan to blow up the Death Star instead of Luke Skywalker? Fine - in your HOME GAME. Just don't insist that the core Star Wars rulebooks be re-written to credit YOUR Jedi character with the feat.

Actually, the argument most certainly is about canon in a home game. Is this an "authentic" Dragonlance character or not? Is my Vulcan Jedi an "authentic" Star Wars character. Why not?

And, additionally, the argument has always been, if you can ignore canon when it suits you, why does it matter what changes they make to supplements? If canon is malleable in a home game, then use whatever canon tickles your fancy. Instead, we have people losing their collective minds over some changes while letting other changes pass without comment. And the only difference that I can see between the two is that people like some changes and not others.

IOW, change to canon is only bad when people don't like the change.

Now, [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] is arguing something somewhat different in that changes to canon make it more difficult to play an "authentic" character. True enough, I suppose. Although, to be honest, in this specific issue, the biggest issue I have with this character don't really come from any changes to the lore of the setting but rather what I see as a character that is set up in opposition to the setting conceits. It's not like gnomes have changed in DL. They have always been the mad-tinker gnomes setting up Rube Goldbergesque contraptions and speaking at high speed. To me, that's an "authentic" DL gnome.

So, I do disagree that it's changes to canon that make it harder to play "authentic" characters. Playing an "authentic" DL character is pretty darn easy. It may just be me, but, playing a DL gnome is a lot like playing a DL Kender. They come with some pretty specific behavior. If I play a DL Kender and never steal anything, am I playing an "authentic" DL Kender? In my mind, not really. If I play a Kender Cleric during the War of the Lance, would you say that's an "authentic" DL character? I wouldn't.

I mean, good grief, if "authentic" character was what you were looking for in a Dragonlance game, there's some pretty low hanging fruit here. Kender thief. Solamnic Knight. Wizard of High Sorcery. Cleric. Minotaur. Irda. Silvanesti or Qualinesti Elf. To me, THOSE are "authentic" DL archetypes. How is Generic Rock Gnome Wild Mage with a social disorder and a hate on for the gods an "authentic" DL archetype?

 

[Shasarak]

Actually, the argument most certainly is about canon in a home game. Is this an "authentic" Dragonlance character or not? Is my Vulcan Jedi an "authentic" Star Wars character. Why not?

If a time traveling Vulcan in Star Wars blows your mind (and really why would it when Spock time travels all over the place and logically *hah* Star Wars space and Star Trek space could be in the same universe) then dont bother seeing any of the Disney Star Wars because that derps all over the place.

I mean, good grief, if "authentic" character was what you were looking for in a Dragonlance game, there's some pretty low hanging fruit here. Kender thief. Solamnic Knight. Wizard of High Sorcery. Cleric. Minotaur. Irda. Silvanesti or Qualinesti Elf. To me, THOSE are "authentic" DL archetypes. How is Generic Rock Gnome Wild Mage with a social disorder and a hate on for the gods an "authentic" DL archetype?

So basically the only "authentic" character is a Half-Even Ranger called "Not Tanis" or "Sinat" for the one-true grognard?

 

[Shasarak]

So the great case against 4e is that it changed the alignment of the grey render - a monster that did not exist in classic D&D, and as far as I'm aware has never had a memorable module or adventure scenario designed around it.

I remember one of the more jarring moments was when they decided a Drow being turned into a Drider was a good thing. I think I stopped paying attention after that little gem.