D&D 5E (2014) Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Mirtek]

Well, just to be clear- you didn't identify the official source of the canon.

It was actually on the WotC website at some point, but it seems to have been lost in one of the many re-designs unfortunately.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mirtek]

I would expect it to be cached!

I am no expert in searching for cached copies of websites taking offline over a decade ago, but at least I found this (specifically refering to the BG games only):

http://web.archive.org/web/20010906144145/http://www.sorcerers.net/Games/BG2/TOBchat.htm

Relevant part:

<Ulairi> <Howdy> Are the BG games considered canon Forgotten Realms history by WotC?

<Drew2_Bio> Because of our multiple endings, the BG games can't be considered "official" in the FR world. However, the novels (including the upcoming TOB novel - another free plug for me!) are considered canon.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pemerton]

It also goes out of its way to specify that the Celestial Emperor is only a belief. There is nothing to suggest that he is even real, let alone rules the west.

It specifically says it's a mere belief, and yes, you can also BELIEVE that that such a mythical being has office holders that also don't exist in reality. It says that the belief includes a government of spirits. The second sentence was written in context to the first sentence, merely describes the offices and positions believed to be held by the spirits presented. Given the context, it wasn't necessary to be redundant and state believe a second time.

There are many, many monster entries in OA that talk about the role of the monsters in the Celestial Bureaucracy and in relation to the Celestial Emperor: Hu Hsein, Oni, Dragons, Shirokinukatsukami, just to mention some.

In the context of the gameworld, the belief in the Celestial Bureaucracy is not mere belief - it's presented by the monster descriptions as fact!

 

[pemerton]

The thing is there have been many changes to canon D&D lore in the past. Not just adding, but real changes. Some on purpose, some by accident, but until 4e they all have been very minor in overall scope. 4e was the first to introduce such drastic changes to the tapestry of D&D lore that they couldn't just be swept under the rug.

I didn't find the 4e changes to be "dramatic" in the way you suggest.

The most "dramatic" change I can think of was done by the 1st ed MotP, and confirmed and compounded by Planescape - namely, that all the pantheons in DDG exist simultaneously in the gameworld (rather than being a menu of options for game players to choose from in building their gameworlds). This has the effect of fundamentally changing the role and nature of divinity, alignment, etc in the game.

In fact there are worlds where one pantheon rules the whole world on all continents. We just know that Toril doesn't happen to be one of those worlds

This is exactly why I regard it as an error to locate Kara-Tur in Toril.

It makes a change to the implied setting of the OA book. (Which did not present the Celestial Bureaucracy as a purely local phenomenon.)

 

[pemerton]

If they had a "continuity department" all along to make sure that each new release is just advancing the canon in an orderly fashion, then it would not have been necessary to reboot.

Are you serious?

Mark Gruenwald did his best, but he was just one guy.

And more generally: I'm way out of the Marvel loop, these days, but back in the 80s and 90s there were dozens of titles a month. The artists were drawing around a page of art a day. The notion of a "continuity department" to manage all that is just ridiculous!

 

[Hussar]

As long as we remember that it is a work of art and not actually a representation of history then who cares if there is an extra person at the table?

Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost here, but, aren't YOU the one claiming that addition is not changing?

Adding another person at the table would be changing no? Same as changing the color of the representation of Jesus? Is it somehow different?

 

[Mirtek]

Are you serious?

Yes

Mark Gruenwald did his best, but he was just one guy.

So it was only a matter of to few ressources assigned for it.

And more generally: I'm way out of the Marvel loop, these days, but back in the 80s and 90s there were dozens of titles a month. The artists were drawing around a page of art a day.

I assume that drawing was the slow part of it and that the stories were written faster than they could be drawn.

The notion of a "continuity department" to manage all that is just ridiculous!

I don't agree here. Have a continutiy department work with the authors to greenlight the stories, which were certainly written for month in advance for the artists to catch up with their drawing.

Now comics are a different case, as there canon is also re-written and disregarded on purpose. E.g. all the animated spiderman series rebooting every X season just because they want to re-tell their stories with a new theme (Spiderman The Animated Series vs. Spectacular Spiderman vs. Ultimate Spiderman).

Sorry, I'm getting a bit lost here, but, aren't YOU the one claiming that addition is not changing?

That depends on whether it changes previously etablished facts. If the names of the 13 participants were unknown before, than naming each one doesn't change the previously stated event. If we add a 14 we change the previously etablished fact that there were only 13 people present.

 

[pemerton]

Cast a different light on, sure. Change? No.

I first saw Star Wars in (I think) 1977.

There was a romance between Leia and Luke. With no suggestion that the romance was in any way forbidden or wrong.

I first encountered the storyline for RotJ in a book version around the time it came out (I would say 1983). It "revealed" that Luke and Leia are sibiling. This changes the meaning of their (prior) romance - and the film makers clearly recognise this, as there is a whole scene between Leia and Han which clarifies that Leia does not feel romantic love for Luke, but only sibling love.

I don't have a strong view on whether that's a good or bad change, but it's a change. I don't think it had been thought of when the original film was made. I don't think the romance between Luke and Leia was meant to be some sort of foreshadowing - rather, the earlier film sets up a romantic rivalry between Luke and Han ("Do you think a princess and a guy like me . . .?" "No!").

I'm finding it hard to even follow the mental gyrations and pedantry necessary for this argument but I'm curious to see how far this goes...Did Star Wars canon change the minute they introduced Darth Vader in the first movie? He wasn't in the movie before he was introduced so that's changing canon right? Did they change cannon when the opening scroll proclaimed it took place in a "galaxy far, far away"? Before that it wasn't established where it took place... In fact everything changes canon according to your definition so how do we ever establish canon or lore since, according to you, anything added is a change?

Surely you recognise the difference between a work, and a series of works that are meant to be, in some sense, about the same place/person/thing, but change the meaning of said place/person/thing?

Darth Vader is Star Wars canon. His status as Luke's father is also (one assumes) intended from the start ("vader" being Dutch (? I think) for father.

But Luke and Leia as siblings I think was not. Or, if it was, it was poorly foreshadowed!

Some additions change the meaning of the thing they are added to. Suppose it was added into default D&D lore that a person can only become a warlock by making a human sacrifice. This would be addition to, not changing, the received information about warlock pacts. But clearly it would change the significance of being a warlock!

I find it amusing that someone who considers their subjective interpretation of the LotR canon... now disregards the implied elements of the OA setting to suit his argument...

What implied element? I don't think that OA implies that the worldview of "gajin" is correct. It implies that, in the OA setting, the world view of "the oriental" is correct.

The reference to "subjective interpetation" is also strange. Are you denying that JRRT's writing in LotR and Silmarillion deals with topics such as the Fall, the relationship of human freedom to providence and the divine will, etc? I mean, even if Tolkien hadn't told us as much (in his discussion of "sub-creation" in On Fairy Stories), it is obvious from even a cursory reading.

To be honest, one of the reasons that I find the way that some D&D fans approach "canon" frustrating is that they are more concerned with the minutiae of dates, maps, names etc than with the more fundamental eleements of theme, trope, etc. As if a work of art is constituted primarily by a list of elements, rather than the arrangement, interaction etc of key idea-expressing elements.

In the context of RPGing and D&D: if a revision of some point of planar geography, creature origin etc makes some game element truer to itself, then that is not butchering or disregarding lore - it's honouring and enhancing it. (See eg the discussion of the metaphysics of undeath in the 4e book Worlds & Monsters.) Conversely, if an addition of some element makes a game element less true to itself (eg the way MotP presents all the pantheons as co-existing in the gameworld) then that is not respecting or preserving lore just because it is addition rather than revision.

The fact that what counts as the key ideas, etc of a work can be a matter of disupte doesn't change the above. It just means that commercial publishing is a risky business, because not everyone will think the publishers made the right call. Which I think is obvious. It also tends to mean that commercial publishers will err on the side of conservative and non-adventurous writing. I agree with [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] that this can be ultimately self-defeating. I'm glad that WotC, at least on one occasion (c 2007-8) had the courage to do something more interesting.