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

[Cap'n Kobold]

I cleave pretty close to the 'canon' 3.5 Eberron setting unless a game requires an actual change.

However to me that canon is almost always based on Keith Baker's view rather than the setting books.

Some of the writers who contributed to the later setting books seem to have had different views and agendas that conflicted with the original. Legally, if something appeared in a supplement its more canon than the views of the setting creator, but in general KB's ideas hold together much better and seem to be thought out more.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is it easy to ignore changing Demons to Elementals but such a drastic change making Gods into Aliens?

It also doesn't necessarily change the prime plane inhabitants from being correct to being wrong. Perception is greater than reality. They could have been wrong the entire time and Planescape merely revealed that they were wrong.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't accept that the Planescape change is nothing, or is purely "additibe", whereas the 4e change is huge. They're both big changes to the fiction - though personally I think the Planescape one is bigger, because it changes the relationship of demons to human gods and morality (by making "Joe Peasant" and his/her clerical advisors wrong about all that), whereas the 4e one leaves all that intact but changes the metaphysics (by sharpening the metaphysical contrast between the heavens and the chaos/abyss).

I don't necessarily disagree. Or at least, I think the "bigness" of any lore change is kind of a subjective thing, and people are free to feel that any particular lore change is something that's "too big" for them. The PS changes might be too much for some people. The 4e changes might be too much for others. Etc.

That's part of why I keep reiterating that every lore change is different for every person, and that people are free to have a problem with Lore Change X and not have a problem with Lore Change Y.

And the more lore you change, the more likely it is that more people will have more problems with it.

That reiteration is to apparently little effect, but I keep reiterating it anyway.

And any lore change produces an active question about which lore is in use for any particular game, creating ambiguity and confusion that leads to unsatisfying character play in practice. If I created a character who believed in peace at any cost who wanted to make peace between the devils and the demons but there was no Blood War, this would not be as resonant a story in a game that didn't use 2e lore, for instance. It creates an additional burden on the DM to know of and explicitly state which version of demon/devil lore we're using for the game during character creation, when even the DM might not be aware that the Blood War was ever a thing if he only started DMing in 4e (and a character might not feel empowered to make a PC that uses that story if it's not clear which version of the lore they're using). Or it requires a player to create a character independent of any particular stakes in either bit of lore, which makes creating a character that uses lore to tell an interesting story more difficult.

 

[Remathilis]

I propose there is three levels or stages of change, ranked in severity.

Level 1: Changes that radically alter how a PC functions or its place in the world. Player characters to me at personal, and radical changes to what a character can do or are reflect harshly. For example, a character who was an assassin in 1e doesn't feel right under 2e's "thief with the assassin kit" because the things that made him an assassin (death attacks, weapon/armor choices) aren't there. The same is true for changing tieflings appearance, or giving all high elves teleportation. It changed what those characters were. Generally speaking, radical changes to classes (including removal of), races, or spell mechanics (such as the removal of Vancian casting) fall under this boat.

Level 2: Changes to the Story or World. This is changes beyond the PC that rules no longer would allow for. For example, if one of the iconic stories of your game was a fight with a blue dragon in a sand-covered pyramid in the middle of desert, but the rulebooks now say blue dragons and coastal and semi-aquatic; you have mis-match of story and canon assumption that can't easily be explained without ignoring one or the other. Changes to monster mechanics, magical items, or core game assumptions (like wealth per level) fall into this.

Level 3: Backstory or minor changed: This is the level where, unless it affects level 2, can safely be ignored. Few people care what a mind-flayers origins are as long they fill the same role in the game. Or if the Abyss is under the elemental planes or next to Carceri if all you need is a few vrocks to fight? Or if orcs are Lawful or Chaotic as long as they are evil and guarding pie? These changes might annoy sticklers or purists, but as long as things function mostly as they did before, few people care. Changes to monster lore, world lore, or background game material fall here unless they end up affecting PCs (level 1) or the game/story (level 2).


So for me, giving my previously unmagical elf rogue the natural ability of teleportation is a major, radical change because it changes who he is. I'm less concerned that the succubus he fought at level 7 was hanging around demons when she should have been hanging around devils, and I'm only minorly annoyed that the demons she was hanging around with are corrupted elementals.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I propose there is three levels or stages of change, ranked in severity.

I think it's a fine ranking, but I don't think it's universal. For someone like me who wants to use the lore in character generation, for instance, all changes are in effect a "Level 1" change because they change my PC's story possibilities/place in the world/how they function in the narrative. If my character is a githyanki psion, bet your butt the origin story of the mind flayers matters a hell of a lot to the story I'm telling with that character. If I'm playing a warlock who makes pacts with demons and summons them into battle, whether those demons are elementals or fiends or outsiders (and what those mean in terms of what the creature's nature is) matters a great deal to my narrative. If the Law vs. Chaos conflict is very important to my character, it matters a lot if orcs are on Team Law or Team Chaos in general (and what if this particular orc is in line with its kin or an exception could radically influence how my character approaches it). It might affect whether I want to play a githyanki, a demon-summoner, or a Lawful character at all.

So for you it might not matter if the demons are corrupted elementals, but for Bilfar the dwarven demon-summoner, knowing a demon's place in the story of the setting he's playing in is important. And if you whip up that character in 5e and presume that demons are fiends (and thus are likely made of chaos and evil), but the demons are really corrupted elementals (and thus might be un-corrupted or even truly Redeemed!) that could dramatically affect your character's motivations and purpose. And maybe you have a situation where one player labors under 4e presumptions and another player labors under 5e presumptions and the DM is kind of silent on the whole topic. And then you go to the elemental planes and the 4e-presuming player says, "Hey, shouldn't some of your demon-speaking abilities be a little useful here since demons are corrupted elementals?" and now it's A Whole Thing.

Meanwhile, for someone who self-identifies as "not caring about lore," every change is a Level 3 since Sir Generic of Anywhere doesn't relate to the fiction in any significant way at character creation anyway.

 

[Shasarak]

In any event, the DSG didn't say anything much about the origin of mindflayers. It talked about their goal - namely, the obliteration of the sun.

Why would you expect people to get particularly worried when a species goal is changed? I mean a whole species is supposed to be working on the obliteration of the sun? And none of them is genre savy enough to know that the plan will never be allowed to work?

Which of these is the case?

I did say as close as it can within its limitations.

 

[Shasarak]

I think it's a fine ranking, but I don't think it's universal. For someone like me who wants to use the lore in character generation, for instance, all changes are in effect a "Level 1" change because they change my PC's story possibilities/place in the world/how they function in the narrative. If my character is a githyanki psion, bet your butt the origin story of the mind flayers matters a hell of a lot to the story I'm telling with that character.

At least the Githyanki origin story has been kept pretty standard through the years.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's a fine ranking, but I don't think it's universal. For someone like me who wants to use the lore in character generation, for instance, all changes are in effect a "Level 1" change because they change my PC's story possibilities/place in the world/how they function in the narrative.

Of course, what falls into what ranking is highly dependent on the DM and his players, but I don't think the model doesn't have universal truth to it.

For example, the character escaping a Githyanki prison will probably be the same character whether or not the githyanki's arch enemies are from the Far Realm or Far Future. Really, unless your PC's lore specifically relates to the mind-flayers origin. Its far easier to retcon the PC's arch-enemy's backstory than it is, say, to remove the monk class after he's been kung-fu fighting for 8+ levels! Similarly, its easier to work around the fiend/corrupted elemental lore aspect than it is to remove all demon-summoning spells or retroactively say the succubi demon he summoned was really a devil. The question really is how much can you handwave before you've totally changed the narrative/character.

Then again, no living fictional world can survive without some degree of retcon or contradiction. The larger the setting (and the more hands involved in it) the more easily it is to find where the lore has been re-written or replaced. (Sometimes, the author himself is to blame: See the original "Riddles in the Dark" chapter in the Hobbit or the Star Wars special editions). The question really comes down to how much does the change affect the character, the story, or the background.

 

[pemerton]

It also doesn't necessarily change the prime plane inhabitants from being correct to being wrong. Perception is greater than reality. They could have been wrong the entire time and Planescape merely revealed that they were wrong.

I'm not talking about an in-game change. I'm talking about a retcon which changes the thematic significance/meaning of the setting.

If I rewrite my devils so that, instead of being a certain sort of exemplar of moral failing (which is what devils are, by default) they become other-dimensional alients whose main raison d'etre is the Blood War, I've changed their meaning as part of the shared fiction.

To some players that doesn't matter, because "meaning" of the shared fiction isn't that important to their game. Likewise, rewriting demons from outsiders to elementals doesn't matter to me, because that sort of "metaphysical" stuff isn't a very big deal to me.

 

[pemerton]

Why would you expect people to get particularly worried when a species goal is changed?

Well, I can't say I fully grasp all the reasons that motivate canon enthusiasts. But some seem to think it matters that a succubus is a devil rather than a demon, which is primarily a change of goal.

And many also seem to care about changes in origin or backstory, and that seems no more important than goal.