D&D 5E What is canon about older-edition settings in 5E?

[Parmandur]

Sure, so what I was driving at with asking Paramandur about their familiarity with Faction War was that there were two specific choices made in the caption labeling for the illustration involving Rhys.

The first was selecting Rhys as the NPC to be portrayed and described. They could have selected any number of Planescape character, including for instance Factol Alisohn Nilesia (who theoretically survived Faction War, by virtue of being sold into slavery on the Lower Planes IIRC). They could have said "Guildmaster Erin Darkflame Montgomery", for example. Instead they opted for the one ruler who was explicitly left alive and active in Sigil.

Then the second choice is using the title Guildmaster, as opposed to any number of other titles: Lord, Ruler, Leader, etc. They could have used no title whatsoever. They chose guildmaster. Which is relevant because in the aftermath portion of Faction War, when the factions were kicked out of Sigil they were replaced by the Sigil Advisory Council – which consisted of various guilds, and Rhys was a member of that group. "Guildmaster" in this context strongly evokes the aftermath chapter of Faction War.

Taken separately, if we had just "Rhys" or if we had "Guildmaster Montgomery", I think your assertion that it's just looking for a term everyone understands, would be more plausible. But together, they form a picture of two deliberate choices, both of which point toward Faction War.

My point is, that given the current stated position on canonicity, we cannot read too much into the use of a particular title: WotC may have decided to keep "Guildmaster" but dropped the Faction War. One does not lead to the other, as they are free to mix and match,

 

[Parmandur]

So by this reckoning, Ed Greenwood himself is canon in Dragonlance but Taladas and the Chaos War and Malystryx aren't.

Wow.

Yes.

 

[Quickleaf]

My point is, that given the current stated position on canonicity, we cannot read too much into the use of a particular title: WotC may have decided to keep "Guildmaster" but dropped the Faction War. One does not lead to the other, as they are free to mix and match,

Yep. Their position makes a grey murky middle ground of unknowns. You might say "they're ripping it all apart and will mix and match as they please with no regard for past" and I might say "they're carefully retooling and stitching back together problematic elements while honoring the well of past lore", and we might both be right. It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. Their position makes a grey murky middle ground of unknowns. You might say "they're ripping it all apart and will mix and match as they please with no regard for past" and I might say "they're carefully retooling and stitching back together problematic elements while honoring the well of past lore", and we might both be right. It's all a matter of perspective.

Oh, believe me, I think their current approach is positive. And they may try to do something with the aftermath of the Faction War, but I think they will probably want something closer to the original status quo.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which is relevant because in the aftermath portion of Faction War, when the factions were kicked out of Sigil they were replaced by the Sigil Advisory Council – which consisted of various guilds, and Rhys was a member of that group. "Guildmaster" in this context strongly evokes the aftermath chapter of Faction War.

Wait so you're telling me (and has been like 20 years since I read Faction War and I basically threw it across the room) that it was Monte Cook who is behind the utterly ghastly three-letter-acronym organisations?

I'd be totally fine with a post-FW Sigil where said three-letter-acronym organisations were recently vanquished and destroyed and burned to the ground and the Factions are back baby back! (And maybe the Lady of Pain is taking a break to think about what she did, possibly an enforced one). I'm just terrified we'll get the trash one with the acronyms.

 

[Parmandur]

Wait so you're telling me (and has been like 20 years since I read Faction War and I basically threw it across the room) that it was Monte Cook who is behind the utterly ghastly three-letter-acronym organisations?

Sounds plausible.

 

[Quickleaf]

Wait so you're telling me (and has been like 20 years since I read Faction War and I basically threw it across the room) that it was Monte Cook who is behind the utterly ghastly three-letter-acronym organisations?

I don't think you need any more fuel on your fire concerning Faction War.

I tend to be an optimist and take people at their word, unless they've given me reason to do otherwise, and even then I look for the best in people. I guess that makes me an outlier on internet discussion boards. Anyhow, that preface was to clarify that I did take Monte Cook on his word when he posted years ago about Faction War supposed to have had a followup adventure to weave the factions back into Sigil, but it was interrupted by the PS product line ending. I know I dug up the quote years ago and linked it on ENWorld, but don't feel like it right now. I believe you have a strongly dissenting opinion, however?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think you need any more fuel on your fire concerning Faction War.

I tend to be an optimist and take people at their word, unless they've given me reason to do otherwise, and even then I look for the best in people. I guess that makes me an outlier on internet discussion boards. Anyhow, that preface was to clarify that I did take Monte Cook on his word when he posted years ago about Faction War supposed to have had a followup adventure to weave the factions back into Sigil, but it was interrupted by the PS product line ending. I know I dug up the quote years ago and linked it on ENWorld, but don't feel like it right now. I believe you have a strongly dissenting opinion, however?

I don't really disbelieve him entirely as much as I feel like given he had various Factions destroyed or disbanded (I'd look up which, but it'd make me feel kind of sick, honestly PS was the only D&D setting I've ever been a "fan" of, well maybe Taladas too but that's it, despite my dozens of FR books, I've only ever "liked" that), that his intention, when he "wove them back in", wasn't to bring back all the Factions, or the most important Factions, but only the Factions that Monte Cook liked (as opposed Zeb Cook, y'know the dude who actually came up with all this), and to probably reposition Factions and introduce new Monte Cook Factions so on, and I don't think Monte is half the genius Zeb is (Arcana Unearthed notwithstanding), so that would still be like the old lady "repainting" that poor saint in that church, with all the same "Well I think I did a good job!" attitude too. That his objective was to create "Monte Cook's Planescape".

So I buy he was going to do more. I just don't buy he'd have brought back destroyed or disbanded Factions, or put Factions back into the roles they previously played, or even fully got rid of those godawful beige 1970s three-letter-acronyms.

If the quote contradicts my belief I may ease up on him a little but IIRC the quote is more like "I was gonna bring back [some] factions to Sigil I swear", without any detail or comment on which or how many.

4E doubled down on this by portraying the setting as having moved on several years and almost all the Factions still being exiled/destroyed/disbanded (I think the Dustmen or someone were back but that was it).

 

[ersatzphil]

That his objective was to create "Monte Cook's Planescape".

That's the vibe I got from an ancient interview here on ENworld: article.

What was the real purpose behind the release of Faction War? Was this a creator decision based on the feeling that the current Faction system was too complicated, a way to "go out with a bang" since the setting support was coming to an end, or something else entirely?

Ray: Ah, the question that won't go away. Lemme tell ya: Monte and I wrote Faction War after the whole PLANESCAPE group came up with the basic idea for the adventure. The setting was so heavily faction oriented that we wanted to see what would happen when that support system was taken away. How would the residents of Sigil react? What would the former faction members do? How would this impact their beliefs and philosophies? The creative possibilities were compelling, and the war was a plot point that had been brewing in the background of just about every product since the launch of the setting. And, as I said at the time, we always planned to restore the factions to power after seeing how they reacted to being knocked flat for a while. It just so happened that PLANESCAPE itself got knocked flat right after the release of Faction War, so we never got the chance. A total coincidence. I can see the lure of all the conspiracy theories that have developed, but they're just not true.

Monte: Faction War was never meant to be the final product. It's kind of a real kick in the teeth that it ended up that way. I look on it as though the setting ended on a cliffhanger, I guess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's the vibe I got from an ancient interview here on ENworld: article.

Yeah that's interesting. I just hope WotC decide it was a cliffhanger and to resolve it with the dramatic return of the factions, not the ongoing story of the world's most boring organisations and their safe, steady bureaucracy.