D&D General Baldur's Gate 3 Hates Religion (Spoilers)

[Shardstone]

I'm hardly upset, I just don't count alternative forms of media as existing in the same universe. It doesn't matter how cool they are. The MCU, for example, is not the same place as universe 616 in the main Marvel comics canon. It doesn't mean I object to the MCU, but what happens there has no direct effect in-universe on the comics. And its the same with video games based on a literary property. Popularity simply doesn't enter into it.

Has WotC come out and stated that these video games to which you are referring are part of the core story of the FR? They did with the Gold Box series (publishing supplements to that effect), but I haven't heard of anything like that more recently.

They actually said the opposite and that there is no canon. And that makes sense. There are hundreds of books written in the FR, and many of those books require introducing new materials or changing old ideas. How could anything new be made for the FR while trying to balance hte incoherent stories of 50 books, let alone hundreds?

At the end of the day, it's ok for you to not count anything else as canon. But no one else cares, and I don't say to be rude or dismissive, but it's just a very personal problem you have and you can't really convince other people to accept your views when they are a little bit outlandish, as this is. And it isn't that I think lore consistency is bad, it should always be reached for, but in a game with parallel timelines and universes, alternate realities, wish spells, gods, etc, you really should never, ever, ever expect that everything will conform itself to the original vision. Even Greenwood doesn't share his original vision; the original FR Campaign Guide is a totally different FR then the one Greenwood has published 5 books on the DM's Guild for.

You expect WotC to keep a strict canon when the setting's creator goes back and changes things?

 

[Micah Sweet]

They actually said the opposite and that there is no canon. And that makes sense. There are hundreds of books written in the FR, and many of those books require introducing new materials or changing old ideas. How could anything new be made for the FR while trying to balance hte incoherent stories of 50 books, let alone hundreds?

At the end of the day, it's ok for you to not count anything else as canon. But no one else cares, and I don't say to be rude or dismissive, but it's just a very personal problem you have and you can't really convince other people to accept your views when they are a little bit outlandish, as this is. And it isn't that I think lore consistency is bad, it should always be reached for, but in a game with parallel timelines and universes, alternate realities, wish spells, gods, etc, you really should never, ever, ever expect that everything will conform itself to the original vision. Even Greenwood doesn't share his original vision; the original FR Campaign Guide is a totally different FR then the one Greenwood has published 5 books on the DM's Guild for.

You expect WotC to keep a strict canon when the setting's creator goes back and changes things?

I expect them to make an effort. And for the record I do not appreciate my views being called "outlandish", because you don't think they're relevant. That is insulting, and dismissive of anyone who holds an appreciation for a story that has been told and expanded upon for decades. Now FR itself doesn't actually mean a lot to be me personally, but it does to others, and there are properties that I do care about quite a bit, and my perspective applies to them.

 

[Incenjucar]

My opinion is that setting books should maintain a canon that can be relied on as a shared experience and understanding of the world, with retcons being limited to things that have to change with the times, and ideally even then it should be explained in-world as a rumor or illusion, like "the slavers were all devils in disguise or people under mind control" etc.

Novels, games, etc. should be free to have their own canon, but these shouldn't overwrite the setting books.

Overall, I find that the "yes, and" and "yes, but what if" approaches are better than the "no, actually" ones.

 

[Shardstone]

I expect them to make an effort. And for the record I do not appreciate my views being called "outlandish", because you don't think they're relevant. That is insulting, and dismissive of anyone who holds an appreciation for a story that has been told and expanded upon for decades. Now FR itself doesn't actually mean a lot to be me personally, but it does to others, and there are properties that I do care about quite a bit, and my perspective applies to them.

But we're talking about FR, not other properties. For example, I think canon in Star Wars should be more rigidly maintained. However, for FR, I don't. There has never been a canon. If the old books contradict themselves, and if the setting guides contradict themselves, and if the creators contradict themselves, then you cannot in good faith argue that WotC should be more rigid with a canon. You are asking them to do something for an IP that has never been done before and, by all accounts, was never intended to be done in the first place.

Also, FR is designed specifically for game tables to take it and make their own. That means that other artists using the FR, such as video game creators or book authors, are empowered to do the same. Greenwood did not arrange for the Forgotten Realms to become a game property so that a canon would be built. He arranged it so that people could play in a new Fantasy World and, just like he did as a child, explore their own ideas of fantasy. Therefore, it is inline with the intentions of the setting's creator for people to make their own canons and own ideas of the FR.

Why are you trying to argue that an IP made to be reimagined so as to empower young creatives should start doing something that it was never intended to do?

 

[Incenjucar]

It is not being suggested that FR canon works like Dragonlance, where even the future is set in stone. Canon in an RPG is used to establish the baseline for the start of the campaign so DMs can ask each other "hey does anyone know what towns might trade with Tassledale?" and get an answer beyond "just make one up".

 

[Shardstone]

It is not being suggested that FR canon works like Dragonlance, where even the future is set in stone. Canon in an RPG is used to establish the baseline for the start of the campaign so DMs can ask each other "hey does anyone know what towns might trade with Tassledale?" and get an answer beyond "just make one up".

I don't see how that really leads to any problem though. Every setting guide is basically it's own canon, as is every adventure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But we're talking about FR, not other properties. For example, I think canon in Star Wars should be more rigidly maintained. However, for FR, I don't. There has never been a canon. If the old books contradict themselves, and if the setting guides contradict themselves, and if the creators contradict themselves, then you cannot in good faith argue that WotC should be more rigid with a canon. You are asking them to do something for an IP that has never been done before and, by all accounts, was never intended to be done in the first place.

Also, FR is designed specifically for game tables to take it and make their own. That means that other artists using the FR, such as video game creators or book authors, are empowered to do the same. Greenwood did not arrange for the Forgotten Realms to become a game property so that a canon would be built. He arranged it so that people could play in a new Fantasy World and, just like he did as a child, explore their own ideas of fantasy. Therefore, it is inline with the intentions of the setting's creator for people to make their own canons and own ideas of the FR.

Why are you trying to argue that an IP made to be reimagined so as to empower young creatives should start doing something that it was never intended to do?

What I'm suggesting is that, just because a popular video game says something about a world, it doesn't mean that it applies to the world in general. Just that video game, and gamers who agree with it and use it that way at their own tables. I have never cared what groups do in their actual games.

In this particular case, I'll explain my point of view more fully. Someone claimed that the Wall of the Faithless was destroyed in a video game, so it canonically no longer exists in the FR. As I don't accept video games as acceptable sources of canon material without creator say so (which we don't have), and I actually like the story of the Wall, I disagree with that poster, who expressed a poor argument that they even understand what canon is as a concept. I also, admittedly, have a personal beef with any argument that claims, explicitly or otherwise, that popularity is in any way valid as a reason why something is good or bad, true or false. So there's that too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see how that really leads to any problem though. Every setting guide is basically it's own canon, as is every adventure.

What you are saying here is that this consistently across individual products, or editions, doesn't matter to you. That's fine, but please just say that. @Crimson Longinus expressed a preference on this matter and I accept that, even if I don't agree. And again, the number of people who agree with you does not strengthen your argument or make it more than a preference.

 

[Zardnaar]

What I'm suggesting is that, just because a popular video game says something about a world, it doesn't mean that it applies to the world in general. Just that video game, and gamers who agree with it and use it that way at their own tables. I have never cared what groups do in their actual games.

In this particular case, I'll explain my point of view more fully. Someone claimed that the Wall of the Faithless was destroyed in a video game, so it canonically no longer exists in the FR. As I don't accept video games as acceptable sources of canon material without creator say so (which we don't have), and I actually like the story of the Wall, I disagree with that poster, who expressed a poor argument that they even understand what canon is as a concept. I also, admittedly, have a personal beef with any argument that claims, explicitly or otherwise, that popularity is in any way valid as a reason why something is good or bad, true or false. So there's that too.

Wall being destroyed is easy enough to explain in canon.

God of the dead theoretically would have dominion over it.


Normally souls go to their alignment plane or Deities realm. FR dlightly different but I'm kind of lenient on the wall eg you actively have to be Faithless or false to get condemned to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wall being destroyed is easy enough to explain in canon.

God of the dead theoretically would have dominion over it.


Normally souls go to their alignment plane or Deities realm. FR dlightly different but I'm kind of lenient on the wall eg you actively have to be Faithless or false to get condemned to it.

But the question is, was it explained? I don't believe it was outside of a video game, but I'm open to be corrected on that point.