Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[Hussar]

/snip
I've ran into them in message boards, like when I once said something about the Forgotten Realms that is contradicted by some obscure public e-mail Ed Greenwood from years ago that was dutifully archived, and I've heard some horror stories about them here, but I do really wonder, just how common are they in typical Forgotten Realms D&D play?

The trick is, like most things, it only takes one. It only takes that one guy to really piddle in your corn flakes. I've never had a FR canon lawyer, but, I've run into players who would scream and holler if I used a creature outside of its climate/terrain entry in the 2e MM.

It can be a real PITA.

 

[Hussar]

That does sound like an issue and I have to admit I know nothing of how WotC assigns projects. There just are certain writers who I'd expect do not need to do much research to write a book in FR and I don't see why they could not limit FR projects to those, given that they usually have produced better books.

Well, yes and no.

Over the what two and a half decades of FR material, we're looking at tens of thousands of pages of books. Only the latter half of which would have been produced with any sort of electronic backing - the early stuff was hand written. I imagine that little or none of it has been collected, and then an electronic, searchable database created. It would be virtually impossible for anyone to have more than a glancing familiarity with the source material.

Heck, even looking at Greyhawk, which has far, far less canon than FR, and you see all sorts of mistakes and contradictions come up. S K Reynolds Scarlet Brotherhood background is directly contradicted by earlier material, for example.

Trying to untangle the unholy mess that is FR with thousands of pages, hundreds of thousands of words, just isn't possible for any one guy.

'Mary Sue' is used so vaguely that I'm not sure what you mean by that. Speaking of Ed's work, if you're referring to the core meaning of a perfect self-insertion egoboo character (originally and still primarily in someone else's world as a kind of one-upmanship), that's a long-ago-debunked factual mistake. If you mean something looser, I won't argue your interpretation -- I think the sources, and Ed, speak well enough for themselves.

Ok, instead of Mary Sue, how about a self written character that is better than every protagonist, in every possible way? Elminister is more powerful, more sexy, knows more, and can do pretty much anything. And he's NOT the protagonist. If that's not a textbook example of Mary Sue, I don't know what is.

 

[Faraer]

Ok, instead of Mary Sue, how about a self written character that is better than every protagonist, in every possible way? Elminister is more powerful, more sexy, knows more, and can do pretty much anything. And he's NOT the protagonist. If that's not a textbook example of Mary Sue, I don't know what is.

Again, the sources -- which I know quite well -- just don't bear that out. With the possible exception of 'knows more' (he is, after all, first and foremost a sage), I could list many, many characters who are 'more powerful', 'more sexy', or 'better' in multifarious other ways than he is, and situations where he hasn't been able to do what he wanted.

 

[jdrakeh]

Speaking of Ed's work, if you're referring to the core meaning of a perfect self-insertion egoboo character (originally and still primarily in someone else's world as a kind of one-upmanship), that's a long-ago-debunked factual mistake.

Really? I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people claim that Elminster isn't a Mary Sue character, but how he is actually written belies this claim in almost every possible way. If you have some proof (i.e., something other than people saying "Not true!") that Elminster isn't a Mary Sue character, I'd love to see it.

 

[Faraer]

From what I've read online, most of the people who think/thought so are/were under the impression that Ed chose to write novels about Elminster, and openly uses him as something of an alter ego. Those things are what definitely isn't true.

They think he's Ed's favourite character. While that can't be proved, he's said many times that he's not, it doesn't seem to be an idea shared by anyone who's worked with him, and I've never seen even a detailed argument made to the contrary in hundreds of these threads. As I say, the vaguer feeling that El is Mary Sueish is a matter of personal impressions. Mine is that very few people would have got that one if not for this meme that has a life of its own separate from the books.

I've never expected to change the mind of people fixed in some of these ideas, just to encourage people who haven't made their mind up not to believe them blindly (as some unquestionably have) and instead to look for themselves.

 

[jdrakeh]

Those things are what definitely isn't true.

Why? Because you say so?

As I say, the vaguer feeling that El is Mary Sueish is a matter of personal impressions.

Well, using the commonly accepted definiton of "Mary Sue," Elminster certainly is one. I mean, several people have cited reasons in this thread how he (i.e., Elminster) conforms to nearly all aspects of that definition and all you can come back with is a "Does not!" defense. That's not very convincing.

I've never expected to change the mind of people fixed in some of these ideas, just to encourage people who haven't made their mind up not to believe them blindly (as some unquestionably have) and instead to look for themselves.

Canon lawyers assemble!

 

[Faraer]

Why? Because you say so?

Because Ed, Rich Baker, Steven Schend etc. say so and no one in TSR/Wizards/Canadian circles says anything to the contrary. In other words, to get epistemological about it, the kind of evidence we have for most behind-the-scenes gaming history, except less unclear and controversial.

Well, using the commonly accepted definiton of "Mary Sue," Elminster certainly is one. I mean, several people have cited reasons in this thread how he (i.e., Elminster) conforms to nearly all aspects of that definition and all you can come back with is a "Does not!" defense. That's not very convincing.

I had a look back and didn't see any such posts, and certainly no commonly accepted definition. Seems to me I'm the one who's kept bringing the discussion to specific, arguable points, but I've been mistaken. (Not to mention, I'm not the one making the claim.)

Canon lawyers assemble!

What? I hope not.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

I can certainly understand why FR "Canon Lawyers" exist.

I mean, they've probably spent a lot of money - not to mention a lot of time - on FR books. It's quite understandable that they'd want to adventure in a world in which they've invested so much.

To have some DM change that which they know is undoubtedly disappointing, and diminsihes the fun they thought they'd have in such a game.

Of course, one doesn't even have to be knowledgable about all the Realms to be a "Canon Lawyer" either. Even if they'd just read a supplement (or novel) or two and know that person X plays a particular part in an area, it could be very disappointing if the DM says person X doesn't exist in that area.


Personally, I think that if a DM is not fully versed in a setting, then they shouldn't run it for knowledgable fans of that setting - unless, of course, the players are fine with the DM's lack of knowledge.

Just because i have a couple of books about, say, Eberron doesn´t mean that i have to implement everything they present into my game. Canon layers want to force you to do that - and i´ve always hated that with a passion. And to make it clear:

I do NOT want to be "fully versed in a setting".​

I want to find interesting nuggets around which to build a campaign. The idea that "incorporate everything, all published stuff has to be part of your world" is a fallacity extraordinaire.

And it just kills the fun. Do you know how much in-depth information is available about the Zhentarim? And the Zhents, of course, because that is something else. As are the Zhentilar. And the Black Network.

I´m not going to feel that i HAVE to implement that stuff into my game. As a possibility - nice. But if a community produces the idea that ALL THAT has to be part of the presentation of a world: count me out. Back to the Grey Box, thank you.

 

[jdrakeh]

Because Ed, Rich Baker, Steven Schend etc. say so and no one in TSR/Wizards/Canadian circles says anything to the contrary.

Again, I think I'll need cites for that, as I've never seen those claims. Right now, I just your word for it. I haven't invested years of my life studying FR canon, though.

I had a look back and didn't see any such posts, and certainly no commonly accepted definition.

Look at the post by Lancelot, several of the posts by Gmforpowergamers, etc. Many of them mention the often idealized, nigh-ominipotent, nature of Elminster. All of which are known and recognized traits of Mary Sue/Gary Stu characters.

Seems to me I'm the one who's kept bringing the discussion to specific, arguable points, but I've been mistaken.

I haven't seen you post any specific, arguable, points. As Obryn mentioned, it seems that you're just nay-saying.

What? I hope not.

Well, what you're doing is arguing FR canon, claiming (repeatedly now) to be some kind of authority on the matter while simulataneously stating that everybody who disagrees with you is incorrect. If that isn't "canon lawyering," I don't know what is.

 

[Orius]

I need to dig out Ed's full description of the marital rites of Sharess . . .

Huh? They even bother with marital rites?

continuity porn as defined by TVTropes.

Normally, I would complain about linking to TV Tropes because of my lack of willpower, but I was going to go to that page anyway. Now I don't have to bother searching for it.

Earlier editions' Forgotten Realms was particularly guilty of Pandering to the Base as defined by TVTropes.

Yup. And there goes three more hours of my time. *flush*

I maintain that it is the novels that cause all the problems. Staying abreast of the Realms is quite simple if you only rely on the game books but the novels are a problem (in part because many of the earlier ones are turgid dreck).

I'd say the problem is Dragonlance.

Before DL, there was just Greyhawk, the bits and pieces of the Known World that existed at the time, and prehaps the people playing Empire of the Petal Throne. Gary set up Greyhawk as a kind of sandbox where DMs culd build their own campaigns. Then came Dragonlance, and it was a huge success.

And since this was right around the time when Gary lost control of TSR, management felt the Dragonlance approach was the best way to make money. So that's why they bought the Realms from Ed, and why 2e saw the mushrooming of settings. They wanted to make money selling modules, campaign sets, books, calendars and whatnot all tied into these different worlds. The Realms ended up being successful, while the others not so much, even if they gained their fanbases.

The problem is, unlike other big shared universes like say Star Trek, various comic book universes, Star Wars and so on, is that an RPG setting needs to be a bit more open-ended. It's hard to do that with tons of continuity porn flying around, because each DM will have his or her own inpirations for developing a campaign, and because the nature of an RPG requires things to be open ended, otherwise you have to set things on rails.

I'd say WotC's current strategy seems to be an updated version of the one behind the old World of Grewhawk box. Release the basic setting itself, and let the DMs develop it on their own, excpet now they have official fan websites to offer new material since they know players interested in the setting are going to look for material on the web.