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

[Imaro]

My point is that three moons is compatible with the setting canon represented by the folio and boxed set. That someone later writes something about Oerth's moons that becomes part of canon and contradicts three moons would in no way diminish three moons' compatibility with the original canon.

I don't think we are discussing a contention around compatibility (I'm sure most DM's can make almost anything they homebrew into a setting "compatible" with it)... We are discussing whether a particular fact that a DM adds is a change in the canon of the setting or an addition within the parameters of the established canon of the setting. A change being the replacing or modifying of an already existing fact about the setting...while an addition is adding to or fleshing out lore within the parameters of what has already been established in said setting.

When I said we already know what canon represented by the folio says about the moons, I meant that any canon about the moons added subsequently needn't have the effect of making folio canon incompatible with something with which it was formerly compatible.

Again it's not about issues of compatibility... However I would argue that if the folio establishes there are two moons of Greyhawk/Oerth (A fact I think has been consistent across all editions) and you decide there are three moons, especially in the context of adding the Wizards of High Sorcery from Dragonlance into the setting (an order who draw their power from the phases of the moon in the setting...which in turn makes it kind of odd that no one was aware of that third moon until... well that hasn't been fully explained yet) then you are in fact making a change to the lore as opposed to adding within the parameters of the lore. Not sure where compatibility really enters into the discussion here.

 

[Maxperson]

My point is that three moons is compatible with the setting canon represented by the folio and boxed set. That someone later writes something about Oerth's moons that becomes part of canon and contradicts three moons would in no way diminish three moons' compatibility with the original canon.

Why stop at 3? Why not have 12,000 moons fill the night sky. That would also be "compatible" with the canon of there are two moons. Heck, the 12,000 moons could bash into each others, causing some to break up and rain death and destruction down upon Oerth. Pretty sure nothing in canon says that didn't happen, so that would also be "compatible" with canon.

 

[TwoSix]

Why stop at 3? Why not have 12,000 moons fill the night sky. That would also be "compatible" with the canon of there are two moons. Heck, the 12,000 moons could bash into each others, causing some to break up and rain death and destruction down upon Oerth. Pretty sure nothing in canon says that didn't happen, so that would also be "compatible" with canon.

Sounds like a Rain of Colorless Fire.

 

[Imaro]

Sounds like a Rain of Colorless Fire.

I believe that was caused by wizards... not 12,000 rogue moons....

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds like a Rain of Colorless Fire.

LOL Nice try, but we know what caused that.

 

[TwoSix]

I believe that was caused by wizards... not 12,000 rogue moons....

Sure, but what if an arcane ritual summoned a 3rd unseen black moon into the sky way back when, and its new orbit knocks the 12,000 little moons circling Oerth out of orbit, causing several to plunge down in a massive cataclysmic purge, later named by sages as the "Rain of Colorless Fire"? Now you've attached new canon by using old canon, which seems an agreeable way to both respect old tropes while introducing new concepts.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, but what if an arcane ritual summoned a 3rd unseen black moon into the sky way back when, and its new orbit knocks the 12,000 little moons circling Oerth out of orbit, causing several to plunge down in a massive cataclysmic purge, later named by sages as the "Rain of Colorless Fire"? Now you've attached new canon by using old canon, which seems an agreeable way to both respect old tropes while introducing new concepts.

Fairly certain 12,000 moons raining down on the world would provide colored fire. The rain also only hit one small section of Oerth, not the larger area such a rain of moons would hit, and it didn't make craters, but rather just burned things to ash.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, but what if an arcane ritual summoned a 3rd unseen black moon into the sky way back when, and its new orbit knocks the 12,000 little moons circling Oerth out of orbit, causing several to plunge down in a massive cataclysmic purge, later named by sages as the "Rain of Colorless Fire"? Now you've attached new canon by using old canon, which seems an agreeable way to both respect old tropes while introducing new concepts.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with you deciding to do that in your homebrew... however claiming its an addition (and thus still canon) as defined earlier vs. a change in lore would be, IMO, incorrect.

 

[TwoSix]

Fairly certain 12,000 moons raining down on the world would provide colored fire. The rain also only hit one small section of Oerth, not the larger area such a rain of moons would hit, and it didn't make craters, but rather just burned things to ash.

Good question, isn't it? That's the best part of magic, contradictions just provide more story hooks.

 

[TwoSix]

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with you deciding to do that in your homebrew... however claiming its an addition (and thus still canon) as defined earlier vs. a change in lore would be, IMO, incorrect.

But would you agree something can be "non-canonical" and yet still "not violating canon"?