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

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson, @Shasarak - I think that by disagreeing with me about whether or not an atheist character is an appropriate choice for a DL game, you are demonstrating my point that sticking to one particular text won't resolve the sorts of problem that @I'm A Banana is concerned with, namely, a lack of consensus over what it means to be faithful to the setting.

Is being faithful to a setting the same thing as canon, though?

 

[pemerton]

Is being faithful to a setting the same thing as canon, though?

Whether or not it is, it's what I understand [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] has been talking about.

For instance,

If I want to play a character that makes use of the stories and lore suggested in the material, then it undermines my own motivations for play if those things are not agreed upon as shared elements. If I have to debate about whether or not a gnome wild mage is acceptable in a Dragonlance game or if it makes it "not Dragonlance," then my goal of making a uniquely Dragonlance character has failed already.

This seems to be about fidelity to the setting ("using stories/lore to make a uniquely DL character").

 

[Maxperson]

Whether or not it is, it's what I understand @I'm A Banana has been talking about.

For instance,

This seems to be about fidelity to the setting ("using stories/lore to make a uniquely DL character").

It seems like his statement is at odds with itself. If the material and lore of the world include gnome wild mages as later DL material and lore provided for, then why would it require debate?

The only reason I can see to debate such a PC is if you are picking and choosing which material and lore to use. If you're doing that, then there's no reason to think that any given book of material lore, no matter how old and original it is, would automatically be accepted in its entirety. The group would have to sit and debate it all to see which portions would be used.

 

[Shasarak]

Whether or not it is, it's what I understand @I'm A Banana has been talking about.

For instance,

I'm A Banana[/B]]If I want to play a character that makes use of the stories and lore suggested in the material, then it undermines my own motivations for play if those things are not agreed upon as shared elements. If I have to debate about whether or not a gnome wild mage is acceptable in a Dragonlance game or if it makes it "not Dragonlance," then my goal of making a uniquely Dragonlance character has failed already.

This seems to be about fidelity to the setting ("using stories/lore to make a uniquely DL character").

Well that is a simple question really, can you play an Atheist Gnomish wild mage in Dragonlance? Yes.

Does the canon support playing an Atheist Gnomish wild mage in Dragonlance? Yes.

You dont have to debate anything. Where is the rule saying you have to be a Thiest? Where is the rule that says that Gnomes can not cast spells? Where is the rule that says Wild Mages dont exist?

 

[pemerton]

You dont have to debate anything.

Yet here we are!

Where is the rule saying you have to be a Thiest? Where is the rule that says that Gnomes can not cast spells? Where is the rule that says Wild Mages dont exist?

No one is asserting that there are such rules (though gnome wild mages didn't exist at all when DL was invented, and so there was a time when the rules said they don't exist).

But a setting is not defined entirely, or even primarily, by rules. It is defined by tone, theme, etc. And my view is that an atheist PC does not fit with the logic of the setting.

And [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]'s explanation of how the gnome wild mage fit into the setting didn't appeal to rules. It appealed to the history of gnomes and the Greystone.

 

[Maxperson]

No one is asserting that there are such rules (though gnome wild mages didn't exist at all when DL was invented, and so there was a time when the rules said they don't exist).

Being silent on a subject is very different than a rule stating that they don't exist.

But a setting is not defined entirely, or even primarily, by rules. It is defined by tone, theme, etc. And my view is that an atheist PC does not fit with the logic of the setting.

You seem to be in a very small minority here with this one. The logic of the setting is that the gods are gone and not one shred of evidence that they ever existed has been around for centuries.

The blood sea and the mythology that some gods(ha!) created it is clearly absurd. What some fools won't come up with to explain why things exist. What's next? Is the sun a god now? How about thunder? Is that the gods fighting?

And @I'm A Banana's explanation of how the gnome wild mage fit into the setting didn't appeal to rules. It appealed to the history of gnomes and the Greystone.

I'm not seeing how the history of gnomes and Greystone aren't a part of the setting. A setting is more than the rules. In fact, a setting and what makes sense for it primarily comes from fluff. There are very few rules that distinguish one setting from another.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I cleave pretty close to the 'canon' 3.5 Eberron setting unless a game requires an actual change.

However to me that canon is almost always based on Keith Baker's view rather than the setting books.

Some of the writers who contributed to the later setting books seem to have had different views and agendas that conflicted with the original. Legally, if something appeared in a supplement its more canon than the views of the setting creator, but in general KB's ideas hold together much better and seem to be thought out more.

Agreed. One Suppliment in particular goes hard against many of the assumptions tha tbuilt Eberron. Best example I can think of is in Five Nations. It's said in that book that Thrane rejected all Cyran refugees when the mourning hit. Nope. 0% believable that Thrane chooses not to protect people from a supernatural cateclysm. Just plain false. Canon < the heart of the setting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which makes perfect sense for Dragonlance where there have been no gods or even evidence of gods for centuries. Myth and legend is all they are.........to an atheist.

It was a volcano, or meteor. It wasn't gods, because gods don't exist. People who believe ythat gods nonsense are fools.

Why wouldn't it make sense? There are no gods, so why not be an atheist? It's not like the PC can't change his mind if the gods return and actual proof comes into being.

Yeah im mostly with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] on this debate, but the idea that an atheist in DL is even strange, much less against canon, is pretty absurd. It seems strange to me to play DL before the WoTL without any atheists.

 

[Shasarak]

Yet here we are!

No one is asserting that there are such rules (though gnome wild mages didn't exist at all when DL was invented, and so there was a time when the rules said they don't exist).

But a setting is not defined entirely, or even primarily, by rules. It is defined by tone, theme, etc. And my view is that an atheist PC does not fit with the logic of the setting.

And @I'm A Banana's explanation of how the gnome wild mage fit into the setting didn't appeal to rules. It appealed to the history of gnomes and the Greystone.

So you have no rules support. You have no setting support. You just have a feeling that it does not fit.

And that really explains here we are.

 

[pemerton]

The logic of the setting is that the gods are gone and not one shred of evidence that they ever existed has been around for centuries.

So you have no rules support. You have no setting support. You just have a feeling that it does not fit.

Yeah im mostly with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] on this debate, but the idea that an atheist in DL is even strange, much less against canon, is pretty absurd. It seems strange to me to play DL before the WoTL without any atheists.

As I've said, a setting is mostly about tone, theme etc.

The basic theme of DL is rediscovering the gods and freeing the world from the oppression of dragons. I don't see that playing an atheist character fits into this very well.