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

[Imaro]

2. There are a very vocal number of players for whom lore is very, very important. They like what they like and they make no bones about liking that. I remain unconvinced that this opposition isn't just a little bit disingenuous. The discussions throughout this thread, where people start pulling out dictionaries to try to prove their point pretty much holds up a giant sign that says, "I don't really have an argument here, but, I'm going to play semantic silly buggers and scream at the top of my lungs until I get my way". If you actually had a valid point, you wouldn't have to do this. D&D gets its lore changed all the time. Going back to Demogorgon again, what plane does he live on? Well, the 88th right? Well, that's from Planescape, but, now it's filtered down into the lore of D&D. Any description of Demogorgon is going to keep that lore, even though that lore was introduced in a specific setting that doesn't actually apply to any other setting. But, people like this change, or, at the very least, don't dislike it enough to comment, so, the change stays. Just like so many other changes to the lore of the game.

I just wanted to state that I feel the same way when people decide to use their interpretation of a work (as opposed to what has actually been written for it) as the basis of canon or lore. IMO... it's a bit disingenuous and I feel if there was a real argument it would stand on the actual words written as opposed to your particular interpretation of said works.

 

[Mirtek]

2. There are a very vocal number of players for whom lore is very, very important. They like what they like and they make no bones about liking that. I remain unconvinced that this opposition isn't just a little bit disingenuous. The discussions throughout this thread, where people start pulling out dictionaries to try to prove their point pretty much holds up a giant sign that says, "I don't really have an argument here, but, I'm going to play semantic silly buggers and scream at the top of my lungs until I get my way". If you actually had a valid point, you wouldn't have to do this. D&D gets its lore changed all the time. Going back to Demogorgon again, what plane does he live on? Well, the 88th right? Well, that's from Planescape, but, now it's filtered down into the lore of D&D. Any description of Demogorgon is going to keep that lore, even though that lore was introduced in a specific setting that doesn't actually apply to any other setting. But, people like this change, or, at the very least, don't dislike it enough to comment, so, the change stays. Just like so many other changes to the lore of the game.

Well, this whole Demogorgon thing is doing the same thing you decry as being disingenuous just a few sentences earlier.

First of all you construct a "setting lore" as being separate from "D&D lore" then you turn a deepening into a change. Specifying where exactly Demogorgon lives in the Abyss is not changing lore. It's like saying that specifying that Spiderman lives in Brooklyn when former comics on stated he lives in New York is a change of lore.

If PS said that Demogorgon lives on Carceri, that would be a change of lore. PS stating on which layer of the Abyss he lives is not changing the lore that he lives in the Abyss.

 

[Imaro]

Well, this whole Demogorgon thing is doing the same thing you decry as being disingenuous just a few sentences earlier.

First of all you construct a "setting lore" as being separate from "D&D lore" then you turn a deepening into a change. Specifying where exactly Demogorgon lives in the Abyss is not changing lore. It's like saying that specifying that Spiderman lives in Brooklyn when former comics on stated he lives in New York is a change of lore.

If PS said that Demogorgon lives on Carceri, that would be a change of lore. PS stating on which layer of the Abyss he lives is not changing the lore that he lives in the Abyss.

A couple of us tried to explain the difference between a change in lore and adding to or expanding upon lore to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]... but apparently that's "semantic silly buggers"...

 

[Shasarak]

I just wanted to state that I feel the same way when people decide to use their interpretation of a work (as opposed to what has actually been written for it) as the basis of canon or lore. IMO... it's a bit disingenuous and I feel if there was a real argument it would stand on the actual words written as opposed to your particular interpretation of said works.

I agree with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]; there does appear to be a certain subset of players that do not have an accurate recollection of DnD and its lore and yet want to argue a position based on the flawed memory of books they read 20 years ago rather then the actual lore. Curiously they are also sneeringly dismissive of providing citations for their arguments.

 

[Hussar]

Well, this whole Demogorgon thing is doing the same thing you decry as being disingenuous just a few sentences earlier.

First of all you construct a "setting lore" as being separate from "D&D lore" then you turn a deepening into a change. Specifying where exactly Demogorgon lives in the Abyss is not changing lore. It's like saying that specifying that Spiderman lives in Brooklyn when former comics on stated he lives in New York is a change of lore.

If PS said that Demogorgon lives on Carceri, that would be a change of lore. PS stating on which layer of the Abyss he lives is not changing the lore that he lives in the Abyss.

Meh, again, I'm not diving down that particular rabbit hole. Whether you're adding, subtracting or modifying, you're still changing the lore. Adding something to something changes that thing. Maybe my Demogorgon, as the Prince of the Abyss, doesn't have a single layer. Maybe he controls several layers in my campaign. Maybe he's like Takhisis, and controls ALL the Abyss. After all, he is the top dog in the Abyss. It makes sense that he controls all of it.

Now, that's certainly not what's stated in the lore of the game, but, prior to Planescape, I wasn't countering any lore either. But, now, he specifically rules one specific plane (and for some reason is the god of demonic stingrays ) And that could have changed how my game world works. After all, if it wasn't specified before, then any answer was equally true. Now, there is the canon answer and whatever answer I have in my game. Which, again, makes supplements about Demogorgon less valuable to me.

 

[Hussar]

A couple of us tried to explain the difference between a change in lore and adding to or expanding upon lore to [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]... but apparently that's "semantic silly buggers"...

Yes. It absolutely is. You're trying to pretend, out of convenience, that "adding" lore isn't changing that lore. That somehow 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Sorry, but, for someone bent on using dictionary definitions to prove your point, you're pretty cavalier about ignoring definitions when it's convenient.

 

[Hussar]

I agree with [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]; there does appear to be a certain subset of players that do not have an accurate recollection of DnD and its lore and yet want to argue a position based on the flawed memory of books they read 20 years ago rather then the actual lore. Curiously they are also sneeringly dismissive of providing citations for their arguments.

Heh, sour grapes much? The irony here is that you're arguing that Raistlin was a warlock, Fizban was a wild mage and none of that is a lore change in any way. And then standing on the hill of "canon is important and shouldn't be changed".

ROTFLMAO.

I still can't tell if you're serious or just trolling. Either way, you're freaking hilarious. Keep sailing on man, keep sailing on.

 

[Shasarak]

Heh, sour grapes much? The irony here is that you're arguing that Raistlin was a warlock, Fizban was a wild mage and none of that is a lore change in any way. And then standing on the hill of "canon is important and shouldn't be changed".

I am not sure that I understand - you say that as if you have evidence in the contrary that you just have not provided yet. I remember you claiming that you were going to give a break down of Raistlins stats but I guess that was either too hard or you forgot or I dunknow some other excuse just like the all powerful Celestial Emperor that never was.

 

[Imaro]

Yes. It absolutely is. You're trying to pretend, out of convenience, that "adding" lore isn't changing that lore. That somehow 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Sorry, but, for someone bent on using dictionary definitions to prove your point, you're pretty cavalier about ignoring definitions when it's convenient.

Here's your defintions...

change
CHānj/Submit
verb
1.
make or become different.

2.
take or use another instead of.


add
ad/Submit
verb
1.
join (something) to something else so as to increase the size, number, or amount.
"a new wing was added to the building"
synonyms: attach, build on, join, append, affix, connect, annex; More


In stating that Demogorogon lives on the abyss and then in turn stating that he lives on the 88th plane of the abyss...

What exactly have I made different? He still lives in the abyss... and he also lives on the 88th plane of the abyss... they are not mutually exclusive statements and since before this I never stated where on the abyss he resided... what exactly have I changed?.

It's like claiming someone changed where they live because in a previous conversation they stated they live in Chicago and later told you that they live in Hyde Park... nothing about what they have told you has actually changed where they said they lived originally. What they have done is join something (more detail) to something else (a general statement of where they live) to increase the amount of background/lore/etc. at this point.

I'm failing to see how the definitions of these words don't support how I and others have been using them. If anything it seems you're the one that doesn't know their meanings...

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. It absolutely is. You're trying to pretend, out of convenience, that "adding" lore isn't changing that lore. That somehow 1+1 doesn't equal 2. Sorry, but, for someone bent on using dictionary definitions to prove your point, you're pretty cavalier about ignoring definitions when it's convenient.

Adding lore is not changing lore. Those are two different things. If I have the lore saying that dark elves live underground and worship Lolth, that's canon. Now, later on I add in driders being drow punished for failing Lolth, no lore has been changed. Dark elves still live underground and worship Lolth. I have however ADDED to that lore, expanding canon without changing anything.