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

[pemerton]

When I mentioned 10,000 moons, I was arguing that things not mentioned in canon are not proof that those things exist. Canon doesn't say that there aren't 10,000 moons. It wasn't a comparison of 1 against 10,000.

Just for fun, I went back and found the post:

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.

So you certainly didn't seem to be "arguing that things not mentioned in canon are not proof that those things exist" - you seemed to be trying to rebut [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s contention that "three moons is compatible with the setting canon". And your refutation seems to take the rhetorical form of a reductio by appeal to extreme cases: "Why stop at 3? . . . Pretty sure nothing in canon says that [various extreme cases that you conjure up] didn't happen, so that would also be "compatible" with canon."

Now, here is the post from [MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] which you described as "demonstrat[ing] that anything taken to a ridiculous extreme is bad":

First, additions are not changes in the way we are talking about them. Introducing NEW heroes and NEW problems, etc. doesn't change existing canon. It adds to it. Second, I've said at LEAST a dozen times that changes through game play by the players is fine.

So you are fine with the DM adding a new God / Goddess? A new great city in a very noticeable location that has never been mentioned before? A new moon that's never been mentioned? An extra sun? A evil emperor that has taken over most of the known world?

Needless to say, I can't see any difference at all between (i) your attempt to rebut Hriston's observation that a third moon is a canon-compatible addition by inviting us to consider adding 12,000 moons, and (ii) FrogReaver's attempt to put pressure on your change/addition distinction by quering whether a hitherto-unmentioned wolrd-conquering emperor would count as a mere addition.

But I'll now leave it to you to explain how and why your rhetorical device is any different from FrogReaver's, and why it's a disingenous tactic on my part to draw the comparison.

 

[pemerton]

I've been re-reading some of this thread, around the late 300s and early 400s.

Canon has told us who the gods are, and it has told us that there are two moons.

The folio doesn't tell us who any GH gods are. And it doesn't tell us that there are two moons; only that there are at least two moons. (Assuming the sage's descriptions are accurate.)

Again pedantry. Numerous sources state how many moons are in the greyhawk setting

In the interests of pedantry, which "numerous sources"? Not the folio or boxed set. They simply include one set of observations by one sage, who happens to mention Luna and Celene but doesn't even use the phrase "two moons", let alone the phrase "only two moons" or "the number of moons".

Basically, it needs to change canon, not be an addition to it like making Ivid a lich.

Folio canon leaves this open. Later canon does not - it establishes that he is an Animus.

All these claims about what is addition, what change, etc - none of which seem to actually fit with GH canon!, and which make me wonder how familiar either of you actually is with GH as a published setting.

 

[Imaro]

For my part, I have no difficulty understanding [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] on this point.

Backstory is part of the fiction. Sticking rigidly to canon is using someone else's fiction - in many cases established via their play - as the raw material of my own play. Some people like that, or think it's important. Others are less concerned with it, or actively dislike it.

That's still not "telling someone else's story"... It's using other's backstory, which as far as I can tell in this thread we are all using someone else's fiction to one degree or another... So I'm still failing to parse the distinction being made...

 

[Nagol]

I've been re-reading some of this thread, around the late 300s and early 400s.

The folio doesn't tell us who any GH gods are. And it doesn't tell us that there are two moons; only that there are at least two moons. (Assuming the sage's descriptions are accurate.)

<snip>

To be fair, given the context of the celestial article, the sage is discussing all notable celestial objects. He describes the stars, the zodiac, the 5 wanderers, and two moons. Contextually, he only knows of two moons and five wanderers. It doesn't mean there aren't more he hasn't noticed, but it would be poor reading to infer there are other visible objects in the sky that he didn't enumerate.

 

[Nagol]

That's still not "telling someone else's story"... It's using other's backstory, which as far as I can tell in this thread we are all using someone else's fiction to one degree or another... So I'm still failing to parse the distinction being made...

Lore is "what is". It often includes some discussion as to how it came to be, but to my mind that's not telling someone else's story. What is telling someone else's story is using the lore's discussion around motivations and animosities in place of your natural inclination. If lore says A is secretly in love with B, but copes with public hostility. If you role play that in-game, you're literally telling someone else's story. If lore says a war is being fought between X and Y along this coast and X is winning, then having the PCs encounter the war bands and discovering X is winning is literally telling someone else's story. It's not your story, you are conforming to the direction given by the creator. Perhaps, given all other inspiration, you'd have X and Y be allies against Z, but the lore says a war is raging. You subsume your story and tell the original creator's.

 

[Maxperson]

Just for fun, I went back and found the post:

​

So you certainly didn't seem to be "arguing that things not mentioned in canon are not proof that those things exist" - you seemed to be trying to rebut [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s contention that "three moons is compatible with the setting canon". And your refutation seems to take the rhetorical form of a reductio by appeal to extreme cases: "Why stop at 3? . . . Pretty sure nothing in canon says that [various extreme cases that you conjure up] didn't happen, so that would also be "compatible" with canon."

I absolutely was arguing that. He was arguing that 3 moons is compatible because canon doesn't say that there aren't 3 moons. I was showing that it doesn't say that there aren't great numbers of moons, nor does it say that those moons didn't cause lots of damage to the land.

Needless to say, I can't see any difference at all between (i) your attempt to rebut Hriston's observation that a third moon is a canon-compatible addition by inviting us to consider adding 12,000 moons, and (ii) FrogReaver's attempt to put pressure on your change/addition distinction by quering whether a hitherto-unmentioned wolrd-conquering emperor would count as a mere addition.

Because there isn't a difference. 12000 moons WOULD break Greyhawk. 12000 moons is also "compatible" with canon in the same way 3 moons are. As in, just because canon doesn't say something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it does exist.

By the way. The portion of the Greyhawk Boxed set that discusses astronomy mechanics discuss the two moons, also as if there are only two moons. Plus a third hidden moon couldn't remain hidden from a population that pays attention to astronomy as Greyhawk does. It would block out stars as it travels, and a travelling hole would have been noted long before the time of the boxed set and been noted within it.

 

[Maxperson]

The folio doesn't tell us who any GH gods are. And it doesn't tell us that there are two moons; only that there are at least two moons. (Assuming the sage's descriptions are accurate.)

That's being disingenuous again. The folio, at least as you have quoted it, does not say "at least" two moons.

In the interests of pedantry, which "numerous sources"? Not the folio or boxed set. They simply include one set of observations by one sage, who happens to mention Luna and Celene but doesn't even use the phrase "two moons", let alone the phrase "only two moons" or "the number of moons".

The boxed set does in fact discuss moons other than the observations of the sage. It discusses them under Astronomical Phenomena.

Folio canon leaves this open. Later canon does not - it establishes that he is an Animus.

I was not aware of that. That means that yes, making him a lich would be a change in canon. Not sure why you'd want to make that change, though. I just Googled Animus and it's very much like a lich already.

 

[FrogReaver]

I absolutely was arguing that. He was arguing that 3 moons is compatible because canon doesn't say that there aren't 3 moons. I was showing that it doesn't say that there aren't great numbers of moons, nor does it say that those moons didn't cause lots of damage to the land.



Because there isn't a difference. 12000 moons WOULD break Greyhawk. 12000 moons is also "compatible" with canon in the same way 3 moons are. As in, just because canon doesn't say something doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it does exist.

By the way. The portion of the Greyhawk Boxed set that discusses astronomy mechanics discuss the two moons, also as if there are only two moons. Plus a third hidden moon couldn't remain hidden from a population that pays attention to astronomy as Greyhawk does. It would block out stars as it travels, and a travelling hole would have been noted long before the time of the boxed set and been noted within it.

But as you said, anything taken to extremes is bad. 12000 is an extreme when comparing with 3.

It's easy to believe a third moon could be missed for a variety of reasons. Go read the history of some of our astronomical discoveries. It's hard to believe 12000 moons could be missed. So one would be a change to cannon (adding 12000 moons) and the other would simply be an addition (adding a single moon). But this test is somewhat subjective because we are basing it on believability and your evaluation of a set of evidence may lead you to a different belief than my evaluation of a set of evidence leads me.

 

[Maxperson]

But as you said, anything taken to extremes is bad. 12000 is an extreme when comparing with 3.

Extremes are bad for the game world, sure. Extremes are good for illustrating points.

It's easy to believe a third moon could be missed for a variety of reasons. Go read the history of some of our astronomical discoveries.

We could not have missed a moon, and neither could the inhabitants of Greyhawk. The ancients of our world noticed pinpoints of light that moved in a funny manner and discovered planets. It would not be possible for people who pay attention to the heavens to miss a huge black hole in the sky that wandered around hiding stars and planets.

 

[FrogReaver]

Extremes are bad for the game world, sure. Extremes are good for illustrating points.

So care to actually engage the point I made with my extreme?

In case you forgot it was about whether you were okay with adding gods, or moons or an evil emperor that has conquered the world etc.

Obviously you are not okay with adding in moons which is enough to reveal my point.

You say that you are okay with additions but not changes. But then anytime we mention an addition you think should have been noticed or expounded upon in the lore to have occurred then you have a problem with that too.

The point is that it's not just changes you have a problem with. You have a problem with certain additions as well (like moons). You try so hard to fit these additions in the "changes" category but they don't really belong there. The point is that since you have a problem with some additions and not others that there is a subjective line between what is okay and what isn't okay and it varies from person to person and table to table.

We could not have missed a moon, and neither could the inhabitants of Greyhawk. The ancients of our world noticed pinpoints of light that moved in a funny manner and discovered planets. It would not be possible for people who pay attention to the heavens to miss a huge black hole in the sky that wandered around hiding stars and planets.

Yea, that's your take. It isn't mine. 1 believe 1 moon could be missed. So at best we have a subjective example of "adding a moon" that I call an addition and you call a change because of subjectivity. That's what we keep trying to get across. There's no sole test for what is okay to do to the setting and still have it be Gray Hawk. It's not addition vs change. There's more to it than that. And it's subjective and will vary from person to person.