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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

Or maybe it's the fact that it's not on me to educate you on the differences...

You do not feel it is incumbent on a person to explain and defend their assertions? You have a strange opinion of how a debate works. Or even just a conversation.

you jump into a conversation without the necessary information to partake meaningfully and that's on you.

I dunno. I've been contributing to this thread for quite a few pages now. What's your threshold for "jumping in"? How long have you been posting in this thread? Heck, I have more posts in this thread than you do. This will be my 33rd. You only have 28. Maybe it is you who should be cautious of "jumping into a conversation"?

Like I said posters are claiming it's out there for free... my suggestion... google it.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times I do, it won't identify the edition changes *you* feel are harmful to canon. I keep asking you, but you refuse to name them. At this point I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to help you come to terms with the "problems" you *claim* you are having. And, truth be told, starting to think you don't really have any. That you are just in this for the fun of arguing. Are you a contrarian by nature perhaps?

Lol... not in the least.

Whew.

 

[Imaro]

You do not feel it is incumbent on a person to explain and defend their assertions? You have a strange opinion of how a debate works. Or even just a conversation.


I dunno. I've been contributing to this thread for quite a few pages now. What's your threshold for "jumping in"? How long have you been posting in this thread? Heck, I have more posts in this thread than you do. This will be my 33rd. You only have 28. Maybe it is you who should be cautious of "jumping into a conversation"?


Unfortunately, no matter how many times I do, it won't identify the edition changes *you* feel are harmful to canon. I keep asking you, but you refuse to name them. At this point I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to help you come to terms with the "problems" you *claim* you are having. And, truth be told, starting to think you don't really have any. That you are just in this for the fun of arguing. Are you a contrarian by nature perhaps?


Whew.

You stay frosty Corwin...

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, @Corwin,

Guys- I have often found it productive, when there is a disagreement, to try and articulate my position and see if I can explain my position a little better, or at least find out where the real disagreement is. Otherwise, I end up in that whole, "Arguing about arguing," cycle that ends in tears, heartache, and eventually being blocked.

Or get a room! Who am I to judge? After all, some of our finest romcoms are based on bickering.

I've explained my position...but when someone jumps in and makes a claim (i.e. the lore for Eladrin has been the same throughout all editions) then it's not on me to support said claim by spoonfeeding them the very lore they claim hasn't changed and thus they should be aware of....it's on them to show the lore hasn't changed. I've given 2 pretty big differences (Celestials & a species as opposed to subrace of elves) already which [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] didn't address... I'm not going to spend the time listing out more.

Edit: Just for reference...

Nope. Eladrin lore seems largely consistent to me. Across editions. Basically, strongly feytouched elves from another plane. Cousins to the more "standard" elf. 2e? Check. 3.x? Check? 4e? Check. 5e? Check.

 

[Corwin]

Edit: Just for reference...

How is what I said wrong, again? Are you ready to tackle that? Unlike you, I laid out my claim. You refuse to address it specifically. Remaining nebulous. I get it, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Make up your mind. Are there "eladrin" in 4e or not? You seem to be waffling every other post.

There were.

The 'Eladrin' were originally a grid-filling race of outsiders created to populate one of the CG (or CnG or Ncg or whatever) alignment-based outer planes - about as playable as demons, modrons or angels.

Though a case could be made that they were another Tolkien rip-off, since his model elven languages included something called 'Eldarin.'

Of course, everything 4e did or didn't do was an unforgivable sin against The One True D&D(tm), including lifting the name of a now-redundant team-Good(Chaotic) outsider (immortal in 4e) to equally-redundantly paste over 'High Elf.' (why? IDK. to counter claims that there were too many elf sub-races by not calling one of them a '_____ elf?')

As far as the spot on the outer planes grid (wheel) they were filling goes, the corresponding Domain in 4e would have been Arvandor, and it was supplied with Eladrin (among other fey and non-fey 'exalted' enjoying the mixed blessing of having worshiped Correllon/Sehanine/Avandra/Melora or the Seldarine), while the Feywild was the stomping ground of living Eladrin, including the specific seasonally-flavored ones that were originally Outsiders.

Personally, I couldn't help but notice that Arvandor and was just slightly odd and feywildish for a Divine Domain, so I've blurred the distinction between the two in my 4e campaign, leaving it a matter of moot philosphical debate whether it's just an extension of the Feywild into the Astral Sea and rather the immortals/exalted there are actually/also fey or not - whatever, the case, neither fey nor immortals consider themselves 'mortal' in the sense that natural creatures are....

Oh, and the one time a played an Eladrin, he insisted on calling himself a 'High Elf,' and, on a point of religious/philosophical/family dogma, refused to acknowledge the elf/eladrin/drow trichotomy.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Jer]

The 'Eladrin' were originally a grid-filling race of outsiders created to populate one of the CG (or CnG or Ncg or whatever) alignment-based outer planes - about as playable as demons, modrons or angels.

I wouldn't go that far. I stole the Eladrin from AD&D and used them as the ultimate progenitors of the elves for my old B/X D&D campaign back in the day. Having this race of mysterious extraplanar elves and fairies made for an interesting addition to the game and fit with the Faedornae who were part of the Mystara setting. I was amused to see 4e basically do what I did with the eladrin and make it into 4e canon - clearly I wasn't as original as I thought I was.

Personally, I couldn't help but notice that Arvandor and was just slightly odd and feywildish for a Divine Domain, so I've blurred the distinction between the two in my 4e campaign, leaving it a matter of moot philosphical debate whether it's just an extension of the Feywild into the Astral Sea and rather the immortals/exalted there are actually/also fey or not - whatever, the case, neither fey nor immortals consider themselves 'mortal' in the sense that natural creatures are....

I actually decided that the whole idea of needing a separate Arvandor from the Feywild was kind of nonsensical for my campaign and the two became names for the same place - the elves call it Arvandor, everyone else calls it the Feywild. Sure some gods live there, but I've never really felt the need to keep the gods all off in the Astral anyway.

 

[Imaro]

I've read through all this thread, and all I understand is that you and @Corwin strongly disagree about something involving the Celestial Medicated Elf thingies and/or lore changes (or not lore changes!) in 4e, and that you both are quite good at various ways at saying, "Nope, you don't get it. Read what I already wrote."

IME, you spend less time if you just explain your position than if you continue saying the other person is wrong and should be able to figure it out themselves. YMMV!

So, here's a template!

I don't like the changes to the Elfadrin. As originally presented in 2e, they were natives of Arborea, and Celestial beings. For example, see this snippet from the webpage-
https://forum.rpg.net/archive/index.php/t-570498.html

The idea that they were celestials continued until 4e. At the point, although some of their extraplanar nature continued (with the Fey connection), they really became just another elf. Now, the thread I pointed to has some reasons for that, but this change in 4e impacted lore because {insert reasons, such as changing Elfadrins, changing elfs, changing planes, reducing elfadrin types, whatevs}.

The reason this lore change matters, and I used it as an example, is because {insert reasons here}.

Helpful?

Oh ok... you mean like this earlier exchange where I did try to engage and explain...

They were celestials in previous editions... not elves...you were probably "confused" about that....

They also had their own subraces and were PC races in 2nd edition and 3rd edition...not sure if you were "confused" or "wrong" concerning this.

and I got snark and dismissal in return...

Oh, dear. That's terrible. "Celestial from another plane", you say? Instead of "Fey from another plane"? How ever can you survive with such a massive, game destroying change? Clearly everyone meeting a 4e eladrin pointed and laughed at them. How shameful a demotion. The difference must be staggering. What is the real difference, anyway, not that I think about it?

Also I think there's a mis-communication going on here. I never commented one way or the other on liking or disliking the changes... my point was that it was much more than a name change. Now truth be told I don't like it because IMO it illustrates an unnecessary change and loss of lore. Can any 4e fan here truthfully claim that if they had named them something else (how about the Eldar or Alfar or anything else) it would have impacted their enjoyment of the 4e Eladrin? If done this way those of us who liked the original lore would have gotten to keep our Eladrin as well as a new Elver subrace being introduced. Again IMO this is the difference between adding lore vs changing lore.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I was amused to see 4e basically do what I did with the eladrin and make it into 4e canon - clearly I wasn't as original as I thought I was.

Or they weren't.

I actually decided that the whole idea of needing a separate Arvandor from the Feywild was kind of nonsensical for my campaign and the two became names for the same place - the elves call it Arvandor, everyone else calls it the Feywild. Sure some gods live there, but I've never really felt the need to keep the gods all off in the Astral anyway.

The line between God and 'Arch-fey' isn't that clear, anyway. The Astral was much looser conceptually as a metaphical 'Sea' with Domains floating around in it, than as a 'Plane' permeating the more static/complete Great Wheel. I do also have to admit that I liked the Feywild and Shadowfell a lot better than the old Ethereal (which seemed like it had potential as spirit world or otherworld but was always pretty blah, just a bunch of mist, mostly), Plane of Shadow, or positive/negative elemental planes.

Though on the subjects of nothing being too orignal, the Feywild/Shadowfell planes were a lot like the WoD Umbra (Dreaming/Shadowlands, once Changeling & Wraith were out), and, of course, all that clearly drew from the tradition of Faerie or the 'Otherworld' and, more obscurely but pervasively, the Theosophic vision of the afterlife.