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

[Hussar]

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?

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.

 

[Hussar]

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

So, Raistlin is a warlock now? Wow. Goalposts on rollerskates. After all, it's impossible for magic users to make deals with other magic users.

The mental gymnastics you have to undergo to rationalize that are amazing.

I guess we are back to canon is whatever the beholder happens to like. Good grief, if you can rationalize warlocks in Dragonlance because of Raistlin, why do you have any problems with any D&D changes?

 

[Shasarak]

Why is it that the people who say that they do not care about setting canon are the ones who know the least about setting canon?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?



Umm, isn't this the base backstory of a warlock in 3e?



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.

You're joking.

There aren't emojis for this.

Ok, so, no one I know ever played a warlock as a person with a sorcerer's background, which is what that writeup reads like. What I've seen a lot of is a magic user like Constantine in comics, or Warcraft warlocks. Ie, ritualistic and binders who have found various loopholes and shortcuts, and risk dealing with forces and beings far beyond themselves to get done what they need to get done. A person who fled the Tower instead of taking the Test, stole several tomes and a couple artifacts, and has taught themselves from there, binding and/or trading with otherworldly creatures, sneaking in to wizards spaces and such to glean secrets, all while keeping one step ahead of the magical fuzz....is an entirely canonical DL character.


While we're at it, maybe you play LoTR or hobbit campaigns when you play in middle earth, but you are literally the first person I know who does. My groups and the ppl I talk to on forums about it play, at the closest to that, games set at the same time or close to. The One Ring RPG takes place in between the two for a reason.

 

[Shasarak]

So, Raistlin is a warlock now? Wow. Goalposts on rollerskates. After all, it's impossible for magic users to make deals with other magic users.

The mental gymnastics you have to undergo to rationalize that are amazing.

I guess we are back to canon is whatever the beholder happens to like. Good grief, if you can rationalize warlocks in Dragonlance because of Raistlin, why do you have any problems with any D&D changes?

I am sorry Hussar, but does your quote about Warlocks "trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power" not fit exactly the type of deal that Raistlin made with Fistandantilus?

What mental hoops am I supposed to go through here? This is perhaps the most famous of all the characters in Dragonlance and yet you seem to be totally unaware of what happened to him.

 

[Maxperson]

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

He did, but he didn't get warlock class abilities for it. It takes more than a pact to make a warlock. He was just a very gifted wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure, you use sub-settings like LotR or Hobbits for specific campaigns, but those sub-settings are set in the Middle Earth setting.

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?

Almost. I'd say that the setting should make sense with what isn't denied, such as atheists in DL. With the disappearance of the gods for centuries, it's inevitable that atheists would appear, so they fit the setting perfectly. With Middle Earth's Gondorian invasion and occupation of Harondor, it's inevitable that there would be rebels against Gondor, so those fit the Middle Earth setting perfectly.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Innate use of magic doesn't mean that the magic comes from within. It means that there is an intuitive understanding of how to use the external magic available. So an innate ability with magic in DL would mean the PC uses the magic of the Moons in an intuitive way and doesn't learn spells like wizards do.

 

[cmad1977]

Pretty much no. The only canon I care about is player canon.
Who fought in the great magic disjunction war? No one cares.
Which council members did bargoth the unclean offend, and how did Celia escape the tower of pain? Important,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Shasarak]

He did, but he didn't get warlock class abilities for it. It takes more than a pact to make a warlock. He was just a very gifted wizard.

If he got Warlock levels out of his pact is of no importance - it was never stated what form this "power" was that he received because the novels never really followed the games rules that closely.

What is important is when someone tells you that no one ever traded their soul for power in Dragonlance you can tell them that Raistlin never cared about their rules and then drop the mic.