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

[Remathilis]

@Hussar already gave RttToEE - which has a non-desert dwelling blue dragon.

Speaker in Dreams has a mind flayer living and working on the surface.

One of the adventures in the old GH City boxed set has tasloi running around the City of GH.

That's just a few in less than a minute's thinking about it. Oh, another one: the lich in D1 just hanging out on a hidden ledge in the troglodyte's warren.

You're pointing out exceptions and saying the rule doesn't apply because of them. Each of them are unique because they play against the lore, but they don't invalidate it. By that token, drow shouldn't be listed as "evil" in the MM because Drizzt proved the lore wrong.

But I want to specifically call out Speaker in Dreams for a minute. Below is the Background Summary.

"Far below the surface of the earth, in the lightless caverns
of the Underdark, a weird and alien city broods on
memories of ancient glory. Long ago, the mind flayers
ruled a mighty empire that spanned hundreds of worlds
until it met its downfall in a slave rebellion. Every mind
flayer in the underground city of Ilkkool Rrem dreams,
plans, and schemes for the restoration of the illithid
empire, the crowning achievement of their kind.
Ghaerleth Axom is one such mind flayer. His
dreams are grand indeed: In his vision, the hub of the
reborn empire will be none other than himself,
Emperor Ghaerleth Axom, Ruler of Worlds. Not only
human thralls, but illithids too will bow and grovel
before him. He will report to no god, no illithid Elder
Brain—all will report to him. He will be a god, and
even devils will serve him.
[...]
He wandered the Underdark for many years, until he
set his sights on a great challenge: the infiltration of a
human town on the world’s surface. Ghaerleth Axom
strode out of the Underdark and into Brindinford.
Under cover of darkness, he moved through the town,
gathering allies and thralls around him as he had done
in numerous subterranean cities before. With their help,
he plants the seeds of a new illithid empire."

Please tell me how that invalidate Mind Flayer Lore?

 

[pemerton]

You're pointing out exceptions and saying the rule doesn't apply because of them.

How is RttToEE, or the lich in D1, an "exception"? To me they just look like they're disregarding the lore.

I want to specifically call out Speaker in Dreams for a minute. Below is the Background Summary.

<snip>

Please tell me how that invalidate Mind Flayer Lore?

The opening sentence of the Mind Flayer entry in the AD&D Monster Manual:

Mind flayers are found only in subterranean places, as they detest sunlight.​

The Dungeoneer's Survival Guide then built on this, saying that the collective goal of mind flayers is to extinguish the sun.

I think that having a mind flayer in an ordinary town is a flat-out contradiction of them being "found only in subterranean places".

And from the point of view of actual play, if players - being familiar with that lore - decide to have their PCs avoid going into subterranean places, so as to face no risk of meeting mind flayers - well, lo and behold!, here's one anyway, above ground!

 

[Jacob Marley]

How is RttToEE, or the lich in D1, an "exception"? To me they just look like they're disregarding the lore.

Regarding RttToEE - It being a 3.0 book, 3.0 was quite clear on page 11 of the Monster Manual that the Climate/Terrain entry only listed where the creature was most often found. Most often =/= always. Monte Cook didn't disregard 3.0 lore by placing the blue dragon in the moathouse, he simply utilized page 11 to create an exception. 3.5 lists a similar exception to the environment entry on page 7 of the Monster Manual, only it goes even further to state, as an example, that gold dragons, while being listed as warm plains, can really be found anywhere from underground to cold hills to another plane of existence! Within 3.0/3.5 lore, any monster can be found in any environment.

 

[billd91]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] already gave RttToEE - which has a non-desert dwelling blue dragon.

So? An individual blue dragon being in a temperate farmland/woodlands area doesn't invalidate the lore that blue dragons prefer deserts, nor does it deny that the lore exists across multiple editions of the game. Rather, it just says "this dragon is here right now".

 

[pemerton]

Within 3.0/3.5 lore, any monster can be found in any environment.

So? An individual blue dragon being in a temperate farmland/woodlands area doesn't invalidate the lore that blue dragons prefer deserts, nor does it deny that the lore exists across multiple editions of the game. Rather, it just says "this dragon is here right now".

And then the value of the lore is . . .?

I mean, if an individual GM is free to place a blue dragon wherever s/he likes; and WotC is free to publish adventures with blue dragons wherever they like; then what work is the lore doing? Eg how is it creating a "shared experience"?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] already gave RttToEE - which has a non-desert dwelling blue dragon.

This does not contradict the lore at all, as blue dragons on TYPICALLY live in deserts, which leaves open blue dragons livimg everywhere else as exceptions to the general rule.

One of the adventures in the old GH City boxed set has tasloi running around the City of GH.

The lore doesn't say only in jungles the way mind flayers only live in subterranean areas. They PREFER to live in tree tops. That leaves open some few living in cities.

That's just a few in less than a minute's thinking about it. Oh, another one: the lich in D1 just hanging out on a hidden ledge in the troglodyte's warren.

Similar to the above 2, liches are only MOST OFTEN found in their hidden chambers, TYPICALLY in out of the way areas. No lore was broken there.

Speaker in Dreams has a mind flayer living and working on the surface.

You found one! The 1e lore does indeed say that they are only found in subterranean areas. 2e loses that, though, and the lore specifically leaves open mind flayers being on the surface, as they avoid sunlight WHEN POSSIBLE, which means that there are times when they go out into it.

 

[Maxperson]

And then the value of the lore is . . .?

The value of lore has been told to you repeatedly, yet you refuse to acknowledge it, because YOU don't need it.

I mean, if an individual GM is free to place a blue dragon wherever s/he likes; and WotC is free to publish adventures with blue dragons wherever they like; then what work is the lore doing? Eg how is it creating a "shared experience"?

Lore doesn't create a shared experience. Playing the game does that. Lore just helps(many peopl greatly) color the shared experience that the players are creating.

 

[Sadras]

And then the value of the lore is . . .?

It might not be apparent that this specific lore about blue dragons preferring the comfort of deserts be immediately useful in RttToEE but it might be creatively via the DM's and players' imagination in the roleplaying.
Furthermore, personally I don't believe it is a requirement for every bit of lore to be useful all the time.

 

[pemerton]

The value of lore has been told to you repeatedly

I've been told (by billd91) it's to help create a shared experience - except it won't do that if module writers ignore it - and that it's to help new GMs answer questions - except if module writers can just make stuff up, then why can't new GMs?

Or - to elaborate on that second point - if module writers are allowed to ignore lore in placing dragons, tasloi, liches etc then why can't MM writers change their minds about what is "typical" from time-to-time? Who is going to be hurt or misled by that?

 

[Maxperson]

I've been told (by billd91) it's to help create a shared experience - except it won't do that if module writers ignore it

It absolutely helps with the shared experience, just as work you do helps with it.

and that it's to help new GMs answer questions - except if module writers can just make stuff up, then why can't new GMs?

Some aren't that creative. Others don't have the experience yet and don't want to step out onto that limb. Yet more don't have the time to create every last detail. Some just don't want to create every last detail. And on and on and on.

That's why.

It's also not just for new DMs.

Or - to elaborate on that second point - if module writers are allowed to ignore lore in placing dragons, tasloi, liches etc then why can't MM writers change their minds about what is "typical" from time-to-time? Who is going to be hurt or misled by that?

The MM writers do occasionally make those changes, and it throws off some DMs and players who rely lore and who know about the prior lore. A true change that is. Most of your examples didn't even violate the lore and weren't changes at all.