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

[SirGrotius]

When I used to play in Krynn during the DL heyday, I definitely followed canon. It was pretty easy to do so (lacking kobolds didn't exactly make people cry), and there was something about the Epic nature of that setting that made going against the lore sacrosanct.

While I think it should be possible to bend certain elements of the lore to meet a certain campaign's story arc, I wonder if by even touching on the suspension of disbelief and potentially disregarding some of the core ideas of the settings' creators may be worth it in the long run.

 

[Maxperson]

I thought Athar are Atheist because they do deny that Gods exist, claiming that "Gods" as we know them are just more powerful creatures not actually Gods in the same way that a Cargo Cult is not actually worshipping a God even though John Frum may actually exist.

Yes, they were atheists.

 

[pemerton]

The theme is not, "The gods exist." It is not, "The gods came back." The theme is "The gods abandoned Krynn for centuries and then returned." Atheism is a clear part/result of the abandonment.

DL is not neutral with regard to the merits of the gods returning, though. It's a redemption theme.

What's wrong with playing someone from Harandor who resents Gondor's occupation and is fighting back?

Nothing's wrong with it. But it's not what I would think of if I signed up for a Middle Earth game. Again, Middle Earth (as written by JRRT) is not neutral as to the struggle between Gondor and the other people of Middle Earth.

the return of the gods and their departure in the first place in Dragonlance were only treated as good and bad things respectively because that's what the authors (devout Mormons) believed they should be seen as - let's be honest, who here thought that the Cataclysm was at all a measured, justified response? Who didn't think the gods got told off properly for expecting mortalkind to immediately cower afterwards, especially since we know they took all the clerics away beforehand and then didn't send them back to tend to the injured or preach about how the Kingpriest, beloved "champion of good", had been misleading them? Mortals are supposed to be the ones at fault? It looks to me more like the gods got sniffy over being told off to me!

Seriously, a lot about Dragonlance grinds my gears, but the presentation of the gods as somehow actually morally perfect and superior, despite acting like classic pagan style gods (read: hubristic, arrogant, and prone to bringing their troubles upon themselves), is one of the biggest flaws.

If I was setting out to play a Middle Earth game or DL game, and then discovered that it was a type of "anti-" game (like the heroes of Harad vs Gondorian oppressors), I'd feel that was different from what I expected.

Likewise a Marvel superhero game where we expect the heroes to deal with real issues (eg economic crises, droughts, wars) rather than fighting supervillains.

All these settings seems to me to bring with them at certain thematic framework, which you take on board as part of playing the setting. (Unless you're going for a deliberately ironic or "ant-" game.) They're not just collections of geographic and demographic data.

Then change the word "doubter" to atheist and deal with the argument as it was intended, please. I was using doubter in the medieval sense, wherein it literally refers to atheism. Ie, a denial of the existence of the divine.

If I've misunderstood what you were saying, can you please restate it?

As I said, I think that playing an atheist or agnostic whose character arc is rediscovery/redemption is fairly sophisticated for a D&D game, in part because there are not really the system elements to support this.

In any event, playing such a character would establish a degree of disonnance between the PC and the player - because the player knows the PC is wrong and going to change. There is nothing wrong with that, but as I said I don't think it's typical for D&D.

 

[pemerton]

Except "I don't think god/s exist" is the very definition of an atheist. Actively scorning or denying the existence of gods is maltheism

I'm working with the standard definitions:

atheism = disbelief in the existence of god(s)
agnosticism = the view that we don't (and, perhaps, can't) know whether or not there are gods.​

Agnosticism is a Victorian coinage as far as I know, and probably to some extent a Victorian conceit - because under stricter religous norms, the agnostic's doubt (ie not taking purported revelation at face value) would be considered tantamount to denying god's existence.

Whether groups like the Athar should be considered atheist or not seems to me up for grabs, because depending on what the relevant conception of "the gods" is. As Planescape presents the "powers", their relationship to creation, the moral order etc is such that it's not clear to me exactly what the Athar are denying that others might reasonably take as given.

 

[Maxperson]

DL is not neutral with regard to the merits of the gods returning, though. It's a redemption theme.

Redemption is NOT a theme of the setting. It is only the theme of the War of the Lance. Prior to the war, no redemption was happening, yet the setting existed. After the war, no redemption is happening because the gods are back, yet the setting still exists.

Nothing's wrong with it. But it's not what I would think of if I signed up for a Middle Earth game. Again, Middle Earth (as written by JRRT) is not neutral as to the struggle between Gondor and the other people of Middle Earth.

Yet it is still part of the setting. This is the same issue you have above. These things are not what YOU think of when you play in those settings, but that doesn't mean that they are not a part of the settings. They just don't strike your fancy is all.

Both DL atheists and rebels against Gondor are a part of those settings. The settings transcend the books that spawned them.

If I was setting out to play a Middle Earth game or DL game, and then discovered that it was a type of "anti-" game (like the heroes of Harad vs Gondorian oppressors), I'd feel that was different from what I expected.

As I mention above, setting transcend the books that spawn them. Maybe hold back on the expectations a bit

 

[Hussar]

Not to mention the apathetic agnostics.

One of of my favorite DL characters was a warlock/rogue called Donnar, who had seen evidencee of the gods in his youth, and concluded that they were not worth worshipping, and everyone should be thankful they weren't around. They burned a world to punish an empire, and then left. When the gods came back, he didn't take it well.

And, we're back to "Is lore important?" Your favorite DL character was a warlock? And that's no problem? I'm sorry, but, exactly how do warlocks fit into the setting? How much retconning would you have to do to slot warlocks into the setting?

Or, better yet, if you described your warlock/rogue, would anyone's first guess as to which setting he belonged to be Dragonlance?

 

[Hussar]

Redemption is NOT a theme of the setting. It is only the theme of the War of the Lance. Prior to the war, no redemption was happening, yet the setting existed. After the war, no redemption is happening because the gods are back, yet the setting still exists.



Yet it is still part of the setting. This is the same issue you have above. These things are not what YOU think of when you play in those settings, but that doesn't mean that they are not a part of the settings. They just don't strike your fancy is all.

Both DL atheists and rebels against Gondor are a part of those settings. The settings transcend the books that spawned them.



As I mention above, setting transcend the books that spawn them. Maybe hold back on the expectations a bit

See, I think the problem is, we're talking past each other. To me, Dragonlance isn't about the geography or the history of the setting. That's part of it, of course, but, that's not what the setting is about. The setting is about redemption. How the setting is presented is all about redemption. First with the War of the Lance and the return of the Gods, then with the Twins trilogy and the redemption of Raistlin. Over and over again, the primary theme of the setting has been about redemption.

AFAIC, no, the setting does not "exist" until the players start playing it. Settings, for me, serve the campaign, not the other way around. Dragonlance isn't really defined by Ansalon which, at the end of the day, is a fairly stock standard D&D setting (other than no orcs). What defines Dragonlance is the themes - epic fantasy, clash of cultures, massive conflict between good and evil and the final redemption of the setting.

Which, at the end of the day, is why I don't really care when people add in things like warlock/rogues or Wild mage gnomes. So long as it serves the campaign, it's not really a problem. Nor does it actually bother me when someone plays a character which challenges the conceits of the setting. To me, that's just excellent play. It makes the game far more interesting when you have one or two (or all) characters who aren't marching in step. Fantastic.

But I don't care about setting canon

You do. You are telling me (and I'm using you to mean every single person in this thread who has argued with me) that canon matters. That canon is important. That canon should be adhered to. But, apparently, no it doesn't. 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.

This thread has nicely proven just how little canon actually matters. How unimportant canon really is. Anything is subject to change. I mean, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] says it himself:

As I mention above, setting transcend the books that spawn them.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-setting-quot-canon-quot/page51#ixzz4Pw8UHj2i

IOW, canon doesn't matter. If settings can go beyond the canon of the setting itself, then canon can't really be all that important.

 

[Maxperson]

See, I think the problem is, we're talking past each other. To me, Dragonlance isn't about the geography or the history of the setting. That's part of it, of course, but, that's not what the setting is about. The setting is about redemption. How the setting is presented is all about redemption. First with the War of the Lance and the return of the Gods, then with the Twins trilogy and the redemption of Raistlin. Over and over again, the primary theme of the setting has been about redemption.

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.

AFAIC, no, the setting does not "exist" until the players start playing it. Settings, for me, serve the campaign, not the other way around. Dragonlance isn't really defined by Ansalon which, at the end of the day, is a fairly stock standard D&D setting (other than no orcs). What defines Dragonlance is the themes - epic fantasy, clash of cultures, massive conflict between good and evil and the final redemption of the setting.

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.

Which, at the end of the day, is why I don't really care when people add in things like warlock/rogues or Wild mage gnomes. So long as it serves the campaign, it's not really a problem. Nor does it actually bother me when someone plays a character which challenges the conceits of the setting. To me, that's just excellent play. It makes the game far more interesting when you have one or two (or all) characters who aren't marching in step. Fantastic.

But I don't care about setting canon

You do. You are telling me (and I'm using you to mean every single person in this thread who has argued with me) that canon matters. That canon is important. That canon should be adhered to. But, apparently, no it doesn't. 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.

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.

IOW, canon doesn't matter. If settings can go beyond the canon of the setting itself, then canon can't really be all that important.

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And, we're back to "Is lore important?" Your favorite DL character was a warlock? And that's no problem? I'm sorry, but, exactly how do warlocks fit into the setting? How much retconning would you have to do to slot warlocks into the setting?

Or, better yet, if you described your warlock/rogue, would anyone's first guess as to which setting he belonged to be Dragonlance?

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 theif 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.

@pemerton how is it sophisticated? I played that when I was 12. It didn't take any extra consideration or anything, it was just a fun and engaged character.

And what system would be needed? It's roleplaying. Like....it's just roleplaying. It's just having a character with a a few strong views on an aspect of the setting, and then playing that out.

As for disconnect...I'm not an elf. I can't cast spells. I am a theist. i don't live in a pseudo medieval world. This is roleplaying, man.

 

[Shasarak]

And, we're back to "Is lore important?" Your favorite DL character was a warlock? And that's no problem? I'm sorry, but, exactly how do warlocks fit into the setting? How much retconning would you have to do to slot warlocks into the setting?

Or, better yet, if you described your warlock/rogue, would anyone's first guess as to which setting he belonged to be Dragonlance?

It is almost as if a main starring character never ever made a Warlock type deal with Fistandantilus in exchange for power.