D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Hussar]

No its a change to canon(which is perfectly fine to do if you want to)... not an addition (an addition would be adding to the canon where it hasn't been detailed or established). The point is that GH having 2 moons has been established since the setting first apeared.

I'm sorry but if I add one moon don't I still have the original two moons?

Funny how 1+1=1 apparently but 1+2=\=2.

I hope you stretched out before performing those mental gymnastics. You could pull a hammy.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm sorry but if I add one moon don't I still have the original two moons?

Funny how 1+1=1 apparently but 1+2=\=2.

I hope you stretched out before performing those mental gymnastics. You could pull a hammy.

If canon says "There are two moons.", then that automatically means that there are not three moons, or canon would have said three. It's a definitive statement. In order for the third moon to be an addition, canon would have had to have been worded so as to allow it. For example, "There are two known moons". That wording leaves a hole that a DM can fill with an addition if he likes.

 

[Hussar]

Meh. If adding slave race status to kobolds, something that isn't even hinted at previously isn't a change then I'm not sure how adding one more moon is a sudden radical change to the extent that it makes Greyhawk not greyhawk.

Never minding adding the Isle of Dread to a previously unmapped part of the setting somehow isn't an addition but is a change.

Does that mean that adding Kara Tur to FR makes it not FR?

How do you justify adding anything to a setting then? After all adding just about anything is by definition going to be contraindicated by earlier lore.

 

[Hriston]

I'd like to point out that while Greyhawk canon mentions and gives details about two moons, it doesn't say, "There are two moons," or in any other way specify a definitive total number of moons.

 

[Shasarak]

So I am just wondering if people are getting confused about if they can add things to their campaign or not.

Because of course you can add as many moons as you want in your own game.

 

[Hussar]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding things here.

I can add several new races, an entire civilization and a complete pantheon of gods with a unique cosmology to Forgotten Realms (Kara Tur) and that's not changing the setting.

But, if I add a moon that isn't actually visible to the naked eye, that's not only a change, but such a drastic change as to make the setting no longer canon?

Is that seriously the argument that's being put forward here?

 

[Shasarak]

If you add an invisible moon then are you really adding anything at all?

 

[Imaro]

I'm sorry but if I add one moon don't I still have the original two moons?

Funny how 1+1=1 apparently but 1+2=\=2.

I hope you stretched out before performing those mental gymnastics. You could pull a hammy.

I find it strange that you are having such trouble with this concept... honestly it's pretty similar to how [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] chooses what has been and hasn't been established when he runs a game (unless I'm mistaken)... modifying a fact already established in a campaign world = change. Fleshing out or detailing something the setting hasn't detailed= addition.

 

[Imaro]

I'd like to point out that while Greyhawk canon mentions and gives details about two moons, it doesn't say, "There are two moons," or in any other way specify a definitive total number of moons.

I do find it hard to believe that in no Greyhawk campaign setting material across all editions is the sentence... "Oerth has two moons...".

 

[Nagol]

I do find it hard to believe that in no Greyhawk campaign setting material across all editions is the sentence... "Oerth has two moons...".

Read in context, it does. The WoG paragraph describes the celestial objects visible from Eastern Oerik: the stars, the sun, and two moons. It doesn't specifically call out there are exactly two moons in much the same way we say "the moon" as opposed to "and our single moon".

Adding a moon that the observer(s) wouldn't notice (either an odd orbit that avoids Eastern Oerik, invisible, or too faint for available instrumentation) would not affect lore and would be an addition to the setting and be perfectly plausible in much the same way Uranus and Neptune existed unknown until the 18th and 19th centuries in our own history.

At least as far as the folio goes. I can't comment on the Spelljammer supplement.