• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

pemerton

Legend
If something hasn't been touched on or defined in a setting and you do so... it's adding lore and inevitably happens as more and more source books are released.

If something has already been touched on, defined or established and you make it something different... that's changing it.
This is too simplistic.

If you write an entry about character A, and then write an entry about character B, and say little or nothing about their family life, and say nothing that suggests they are related or resemble one another very much - then that generates an implication that they're probably not related, and are independent entities.

A subsequent book that tells me that A is the parent, or sibling, of B is - by your criteria - a mere addition rather than a change. But from the point of view of many users of the lore about A and B it is going to be experienced as a change. Because it establishes a canonical link between two beings which were hitherto presented as (and hence used by GMs as) independent of one another.

When I used salamanders in my 4e game, which is the first time I've used them probably since the 80s, I didn't think of them as being slaves of efreeti. I though of them as indepdently-motivated elemental creatures who are "greedy and cruel . . ., quick to rob or enslave weaker folk. . . . [and] governed by dukes and duchesses, kings and queens." (MM, pp 226-27) This seems pretty consistent with how their presentation in the original MM, which says nothing about their personalities except that they are CE "creatures of the elemental plane of fire [who] come to the material plane occasionally for purposes known only to them." (MM p 85)

If I was to treat them as typically slaves of the efreet, that would affect the way I was using them, because it would require me to introduce additional background material to explain why these particular salamanders in my game are not slaves of any efreet.

the original Eladrin were now gone in 4e...
The 4e MM has the following eladrin nobles: Bralani of Autumn Winds, and Ghaele of Winter. As best I can tell, these are original eladrin.

The 4e Bralani seems like a 4e version of the Bralani in the 3.5 MM. It has a "cloak of autumn gusts" difficult terrain aura and a whirlwind blast power, which seem to resemble the 3E Bralani's wind wall, gust of wind and whirlwind powers. The 4e statblock has longsword rather than scimitar, but the picture of the Bralani does have a scimitar, and that would not be a hard change to make for anyone who cared (they're both d8 weapons). (Oddly, the picture of the Bralani in the 3.5 MM has a spear, not a scimitar.)

The 4e Ghaele, on the other hand, seems quite different from the 3E one. The latter is a 14th level cleric with fairly typical angelic spell-like abilities (light, flame, a fear gaze that kills evil creatures, etc). Whereas in 4e there is a close burst "imperious wrath" power that is a bit like the fear power, but otherwsie it is a cold-based attacker.

As has been pointed out earlier in the thread, "eladrin" meant one thing before 4e, 2e and 3e had them as CG extraplanar creatures, then the name was co-opted into teleporting elves in 4e.
But in 4e they are also extraplanar creatures of a CG bent (in D&D terms, elves are the paradigm of CG creatures):

Creatures with strong ties to nature, eladrin hail from shining cities in the Feywild. Their cities lie close enough to the natural world that they sometimes "cross over", appearing briefly in beautiful mountain valleys or deep forest glades before fading into the Feywild again. (MM, p 103)​
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Clearly untrue. And that misses the point anyway. Wanting things to never change is pretty clearly wanting things to never change. Getting rid of Thac0 was a change.

It is amusing that the guy that thinks Eladrin never changed also thinks that THAC0 did change.

I mean going from having to roll a 15 to hit using THAC0 to having to roll a 15 to hit using BAB is a big change! o_O
 


Hussar

Legend
The semantics are yours, though. An addition is not a change like is being discussed in this thread.



It's not his fault you picked a bad setting for your example. Planescape is written so that two different lores, Prime and Planescape can exist simultaneously about the same topic.

Ok. So why is the Astral Plane and 4e's cosmology a problem then? That's the dodge I was talking about. If Prime and Planescape can exist simultaneously about the same topic, what's the problem with Eladrin?
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
Yeah, how did those 12 year olds cope with the stress of the calculations that may or may not change with every level?
 

Hussar

Legend
- No... but that's completely missing the point. My old books work just fine, if I'm playing using 2nd edition rules! But if I want to use my old material with 4e, there's a major problem because many monsters have been changed or eliminated, and the cosmology is different. Hell, I might just as well be trying to play Planescape using the rules from Vampire: The Masqurade, it's about as easy. Or maybe GURPS. A new edition of a game - any game - should not put up roadblocks making it difficult to continue your game from a previous edition. That's just bad customer service and PR.

Well, of course the cosmology is different, that's the point. You're using a different cosmology. But, since you HAVE all that material, using it in 4e isn't terribly difficult. While some of the monsters were changed, most weren't. Demons were still big and nasty. Devils were still big and nasty. Angels became any alignment, meaning you could still use them exactly as written in 4e, just with an alignment change.

IOW, it would be a pretty minor bit of work on your part to run a Planescape game using 4e rules. The fluff stuff you already have in your Planescape books and the mechanical end of things is pretty easy to adapt. Yup, you're using a 4e Vrock vs 4e characters, but, so what?

You're basically saying that because it costs you a minor bit of work, I can NEVER have anything that I want. Because I DON'T WANT standard D&D cosmology. I've never liked it and have always been forced to home-brew my own since my 1e days. ALWAYS. Then in 4e, I finally got a cosmology that I could work with and I liked, only to have that shut down and flushed down the toilet because you apparently can't be bothered to do any work.

And the justification for this wasn't that the 4e cosmology was bad or badly written or made no sense. No, the justification for this was that the 4e cosmology was different. It's incredibly frustrating to be told, no, sorry, your creativity isn't quite good enough for this ride, because I happen to like what came before.
 

Imaro

Legend
This is too simplistic.

I wouldn't say "too" but yes the difference is pretty simplistic to grasp...

If you write an entry about character A, and then write an entry about character B, and say little or nothing about their family life, and say nothing that suggests they are related or resemble one another very much - then that generates an implication that they're probably not related, and are independent entities.

A subsequent book that tells me that A is the parent, or sibling, of B is - by your criteria - a mere addition rather than a change. But from the point of view of many users of the lore about A and B it is going to be experienced as a change. Because it establishes a canonical link between two beings which were hitherto presented as (and hence used by GMs as) independent of one another.

I think this is actually a pretty poor example that you are using... You're establishing 2 characters somehow without touching on anything whatsoever that would even remotely imply that they are related? How is that even possible?

Putting that aside... the long lost family member is a pretty well known and well used trope in a variety of media...

When I used salamanders in my 4e game, which is the first time I've used them probably since the 80s, I didn't think of them as being slaves of efreeti. I though of them as indepdently-motivated elemental creatures who are "greedy and cruel . . ., quick to rob or enslave weaker folk. . . . [and] governed by dukes and duchesses, kings and queens." (MM, pp 226-27) This seems pretty consistent with how their presentation in the original MM, which says nothing about their personalities except that they are CE "creatures of the elemental plane of fire [who] come to the material plane occasionally for purposes known only to them." (MM p 85)

So you used the Salamanders that weren't slaves of the Efreet... cool.

If I was to treat them as typically slaves of the efreet, that would affect the way I was using them, because it would require me to introduce additional background material to explain why these particular salamanders in my game are not slaves of any efreet.

Why? The lore establishes non-slave Salamanders... ruled by other salamanders.

The 4e MM has the following eladrin nobles: Bralani of Autumn Winds, and Ghaele of Winter. As best I can tell, these are original eladrin.

The 4e Bralani seems like a 4e version of the Bralani in the 3.5 MM. It has a "cloak of autumn gusts" difficult terrain aura and a whirlwind blast power, which seem to resemble the 3E Bralani's wind wall, gust of wind and whirlwind powers. The 4e statblock has longsword rather than scimitar, but the picture of the Bralani does have a scimitar, and that would not be a hard change to make for anyone who cared (they're both d8 weapons). (Oddly, the picture of the Bralani in the 3.5 MM has a spear, not a scimitar.)

These are mechanics... what's the lore?

The 4e Ghaele, on the other hand, seems quite different from the 3E one. The latter is a 14th level cleric with fairly typical angelic spell-like abilities (light, flame, a fear gaze that kills evil creatures, etc). Whereas in 4e there is a close burst "imperious wrath" power that is a bit like the fear power, but otherwsie it is a cold-based attacker.

But in 4e they are also extraplanar creatures of a CG bent (in D&D terms, elves are the paradigm of CG creatures):
Creatures with strong ties to nature, eladrin hail from shining cities in the Feywild. Their cities lie close enough to the natural world that they sometimes "cross over", appearing briefly in beautiful mountain valleys or deep forest glades before fading into the Feywild again. (MM, p 103)​

Again I thought we were discussing lore...
 

Shasarak

Banned
Banned
If Prime and Planescape can exist simultaneously about the same topic, what's the problem with Eladrin?

No one ever complained about Planescape Eladrin when they were Planescape Eladrin.

The problem with Eladrin is that they all of a sudden stopped being Planescape Eladrin and became Prime "Blink" Elves.
 

Hussar

Legend
I wouldn't say "too" but yes the difference is pretty simplistic to grasp...



I think this is actually a pretty poor example that you are using... You're establishing 2 characters somehow without touching on anything whatsoever that would even remotely imply that they are related? How is that even possible?

Putting that aside... the long lost family member is a pretty well known and well used trope in a variety of media...



So you used the Salamanders that weren't slaves of the Efreet... cool.



Why? The lore establishes non-slave Salamanders... ruled by other salamanders.



These are mechanics... what's the lore?



Again I thought we were discussing lore...

We are. In 5e lore ALL salamanders are slaves to Efreeti. In earlier lore, they could be slaves, they could be free, they could be enslaved by someone else entirely.

IOW, 5e CHANGED the lore. And you're perfectly fine with it. Why? Why is this change perfectly acceptable, when other changes aren't. If lore is important, how do you distinguish between important and unimportant lore? What's the criteria?
 

Hussar

Legend
No one ever complained about Planescape Eladrin when they were Planescape Eladrin.

The problem with Eladrin is that they all of a sudden stopped being Planescape Eladrin and became Prime "Blink" Elves.

But, they didn't since the 4e MM HAS Planescape eladrin.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top