D&D 5E Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Yeah. I'm ignoring most of the 5e Gnoll canon in favour of Setting Gnoll canon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah. I'm ignoring most of the 5e Gnoll canon in favour of Setting Gnoll canon.

Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.

Imaro: the winning races article expands on the MM life with gnolls who are separate from and reject the more violent demon worshipping culture outlined in the MM. nothing about the MM changed. It is literally just more lore. And considering it brings them closer to the previous edition's lore, without contradicting any lore...well, not much of a change.

Srsly, how is, "sure that's true of most gnolls, however many gnolls are like this, too" a significant change? OTOH, the 5e change is inarguably a significant change.

 

[Imaro]

Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.

Imaro: the winning races article expands on the MM life with gnolls who are separate from and reject the more violent demon worshipping culture outlined in the MM. nothing about the MM changed. It is literally just more lore. And considering it brings them closer to the previous edition's lore, without contradicting any lore...well, not much of a change.

Srsly, how is, "sure that's true of most gnolls, however many gnolls are like this, too" a significant change? OTOH, the 5e change is inarguably a significant change.

Now that you've taken the time to explain it to me (I don't have Worlds and Monsters and I don't have a sub to Dragon)...I agree it's an expansion and is additive... Now that said I fail to see how 5e diverged from their original lore of 4e... or that of AD&D 2e. In the MM it touched on the general gnolls just as 4e did in it's MM.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Which still gets weird if you consider that Volos is set in FR...where gnolls are predatory and opportunist, but totally capable of being hired as scouts, for instance.

Imaro: the winning races article expands on the MM life with gnolls who are separate from and reject the more violent demon worshipping culture outlined in the MM. nothing about the MM changed. It is literally just more lore. And considering it brings them closer to the previous edition's lore, without contradicting any lore...well, not much of a change.

Srsly, how is, "sure that's true of most gnolls, however many gnolls are like this, too" a significant change? OTOH, the 5e change is inarguably a significant change.

It would indeed be an issue if I cared for FR canon at all.

In Eberron however, I'm sticking with Gnolls that are still predatory, evil and vicious. However they are also the main peacekeepers in Droaam because they are trustworthy to remain neutral.
The Gnolls that bow down to cairns of crushed rocks to honour their ancestors. The Gnolls that threw off the yoke of, and smashed the statues of the demon princes whom their race used to worship.

Actually . . .
That would be an interesting twist on the Eberron Gnolls of the Znir pact: Yeenoghu was an overlord who created the Gnolls just as per Volo's Guide. - In the far past. Since they revolted and Yeenoghu was sealed away, the Gnolls have developed as a race on their own.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It would indeed be an issue if I cared for FR canon at all.

In Eberron however, I'm sticking with Gnolls that are still predatory, evil and vicious. However they are also the main peacekeepers in Droaam because they are trustworthy to remain neutral.
The Gnolls that bow down to cairns of crushed rocks to honour their ancestors. The Gnolls that threw off the yoke of, and smashed the statues of the demon princes whom their race used to worship.

Actually . . .
That would be an interesting twist on the Eberron Gnolls of the Znir pact: Yeenoghu was an overlord who created the Gnolls just as per Volo's Guide. - In the far past. Since they revolted and Yeenoghu was sealed away, the Gnolls have developed as a race on their own.

I like that. In my Eberron, very very few races are naturally any alignment. Pretty much only abberations like mindflayers and stuff like outsiders. Gnolls are like Hyenas. They are aggressive and opportunistic, but their place in Droam makes them a little more inclined toward haggling and competition as expressions of that nature. I mean, it's Droam, so they're still violent, but nothing like the "standard" gnoll murder hobo.

Anyway, I ignore whatever FR fluff I don't like even when running FR, I just find it ridiculous that a book nominally set in FR so blatantly contradicts previous FR canon.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In D&D setting canon, has anyone ever set a cannon in a cañon?

 

[Shasarak]

So stating a race can't be bribed with or parleyed with... and then making it so they can be is... not a change. Got it.

Must follow the Hussar school of "What is a change or expansion"

 

[pemerton]

Jeff Albertson wants a word.

Hey, I'd be more than 100 XP down if [MENTION=6793093]Jeff Albertson[/MENTION] didn't think I'm a comic genius!

 

[pemerton]

In the AD&D Monster Manual it also states...

"Efreet view most other creatures either as enemies or servants..."

So yeah... they tried to enslave the Azer... they enslaved some of the Salamanders and they have slaves of other races as well because that's their nature in both AD&D and in 5e. Telling us specifics about who they enslaved is additive since it's been established that they enslave other races since at least 2e...

Which edition are you referring to? I can't find that phrase on p 37 of the original MM - but in any event, it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of their tendency towards LE.

Not all servants are slaves. Not all LE types hold others as slaves. And the fact that the slaves are salamanders rather than mortals is also significant.

Suppose that someone decided that efreeti enslave beholders - would you really think that that's not a change to efreeti and beholder lore because it's merely "additive"?

 

[Imaro]

Which edition are you referring to? I can't find that phrase on p 37 of the original MM - but in any event, it seems to be nothing more than a reiteration of their tendency towards LE.

AD&D 2e. It looks like they expanded on the Efreet from 1e to 2e...

Not all servants are slaves. Not all LE types hold others as slaves.

This is more pedantry... slave is listed in the dictionary as a synonym for servant and seems quite apt for a LE race of robbers and abusers with an oppressive & militaristic bent. More to the point using servant leaves it open to be expounded upon/clarified, which it is in later editions.

And the fact that the slaves are salamanders rather than mortals is also significant.

Why when their largest city and population is on the Plane of Fire... or do you imagine there are a multitude of mortals who easily traverse the planes of existence and come to visit or reside on the elemental plane of fire. IMO, it makes much more sense for them to have slaves from that plane rather than a surplus of mortals. Also why would you assume the majority of their slaves are mortals? I don't see that specifically as part of their lore anywhere.

Suppose that someone decided that efreeti enslave beholders - would you really think that that's not a change to efreeti and beholder lore because it's merely "additive"?

Well since they've already been established as viewing all others as servants... Them having beholders as slaves isn't a stretch at all (and probably highly likely)... Now as long as the possibility of free beholders was still a part of the lore...well again it would be expansion as opposed to contradiction or change.