D&D 5E (2014) Do you care about setting "canon"?

[Shasarak]

It all sounds so easy when you put it like that - just change the alignment and you are done!

Brilliant!

 

[Hussar]

I'm having a hard time with seeing how you get from "No matter which way we like it, it still has the value of being steak." to "you're telling me I can't have round steak because you don't like it.". You have a disconnect going on somewhere.

Because people are telling other people that canon cannot be changed. That changing canon is bad. So, while you get your steak, I can't have mine. And if the restaurant starts serving my steak, even though you can still get your steak, albeit maybe with a bit more work on your part, it's bad, because it's not your steak.

Wow, that tortured the analogy rather a lot.

 

[Hussar]

I dont really understand. I pointed to Raistlin trading his soul for power in the original books and yet I was told that there are no such thing as Warlocks in Dragonlance only White/Red/Black Wizards.

Because you and [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] are arguing different points.

You're arguing that the character is believable as a Dragonlance character. That there are similar enough elements in the setting that adding something new isn't immersion breaking and it "fits" well enough into the setting. I might quibble about Raistlin trading his soul - he didn't. He was Magic Jar'ed. And certainly not by some extra planar godlike creature, which is what Warlocks do, but, by a high level wizard. But, at the end of the day, I largely agree. The character isn't terribly out there as far as believable and fitting for the setting. I might have had some concerns about the "hates the gods" bit at the outset of the campaign, but, seeing it in play put those to rest pretty quickly.

But, that's not what [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] is arguing. He's arguing that a character that appears nowhere in any of the books, using a class that does not appear in the source material, a race with that class that has never actually been able to BE that class in a large swath of the source material, with a belief system that is held by none of the characters in the setting, is an authentic setting character. It's a pretty large step beyond what you're arguing.

Is it plausible to have this character in the setting? Probably. It doesn't require a whole lot of rewriting and work to slot it in. But, is the character authentic to the setting? When it's drawing from material added DECADES after the setting was created? If Macbeth set anywhere other than in Shakespeare's original setting with original dialogue is not authentic, then how can this be?

Look, I think we can all agree that both kender and Solamnic Knights are authentic Dragonlance concepts. Now, if I step up and say that I want to create a kender Solamnic Knight, is that an authentic Dragonlance character? The rules allow for it - at least since 3e with any race, any class. And there's nothing in the canon that specifically says that kender can't be Solamnic Knights.

But, somehow I don't think anyone would try to claim that a kender Solmanic Knight is an "authentic" DL character.

 

[Maxperson]

More generally, I assume that you accept that authors sometimes write works to convey ideas and to reflect on themes and concerns that they don't expressly put into the mouth of any character, or the ominsicient narrator. DL is not as transparent as Animal Farm, but it's not the most subtle set of novels ever written!

In any event, in understanding why Raistlin can't create, and why evil is not a creative force, in the DL novels, we are not confined to asking that question from an in-fiction perspective. We can ask it as readers - and we ask it of the work itself, and/or of the author (depending, in part, on our broader conception of where artistic meaning is located). There is a whole set of disciplines devoted to this - literary criticism, musical criticism, etc.

Good vs. Evil is a far cry from gods are important. If it were gods are important, he didn't have to fail. He replaced Takhisis as a god. His failure as about evil not having the capacity to create and good being necessary as well as evil. The gods are merely unimportant representatives of the good/evil concept, and are clearly not necessary since Dragonlance eventually ended with The Age of Mortals and the gods were gone for good.

 

[Maxperson]

Because people are telling other people that canon cannot be changed.

I never said that, and in fact have said more than once that players/DMs can change canon all they want. Those changes won't be canon is all.

That changing canon is bad.

Never said that, either. I said that 1e canon is different from 2e canon, though. The changes are self-contained, even if they are built on the foundation of prior canon. Changing canon can be good or bad, but that's subjective and what I view as bad, might be good for you and vice versa.

I also said that the LotR and Hobbit movies were not canon due to their changes. The director had no authority to create new canon, so his changes made the movies not LotR and the Hobbit. They were merely epic fantasy movies very similar to LotR an the Hobbit. They were homebrew.

So, while you get your steak, I can't have mine. And if the restaurant starts serving my steak, even though you can still get your steak, albeit maybe with a bit more work on your part, it's bad, because it's not your steak.

Wow, that tortured the analogy rather a lot.

Except that isn't what I ever said.

 

[Imaro]

Look, I think we can all agree that both kender and Solamnic Knights are authentic Dragonlance concepts. Now, if I step up and say that I want to create a kender Solamnic Knight, is that an authentic Dragonlance character? The rules allow for it - at least since 3e with any race, any class. And there's nothing in the canon that specifically says that kender can't be Solamnic Knights.

But, somehow I don't think anyone would try to claim that a kender Solmanic Knight is an "authentic" DL character.

Actually this is a totally different situation... since canon does specifically state a kender can't be a knight of Solamnia. The original knights could only come from noble blood... thusno Kender. Second Kender uncontrollably steal and that doesn't hold to the knight's code... so canon does make this an inauthentic character since it isn't silent about it or even imply slightly (Kender did try to join the knights) it could be possible.

 

[Sadras]

Because people are telling other people that canon cannot be changed. That changing canon is bad.

I have not read the entire thread so forgive me, I'm just quoting you to ask the question: Is anyone still posting, earnestly arguing that canon cannot be changed at their tables or that it is bad to change it?

Isn't this more a matter of personal preference and shouldn't this be (ideally) ironed out at session 0, as to what degree of the published material will be incorporated or considered a sacred cow?

I believe people here are arguing about degrees of change and are using extremes to showcase their point. No one here is going to drop Kerrigan in a Vampire Dark Ages games and have Spock beam up the party to the Enterprise so they can fight Darkseid which is all part of some Amber megaplot.
Sure the oddball campaign exists but usually there is some buy-in and a good DM knows how far to push the change of the established canon for the party.

If the debate is about WotC changing up the material...well we as fans take what we want. If we want Lord Soth in Ravenloft, we accept the Knight of the Black Rose as canon. Should we be DL loyalists then Soth never met Strahd. Then there are a group of us who try incorporate it all and find a way to make both instances 'true.'

 

[Maxperson]

I have not read the entire thread so forgive me, I'm just quoting you to ask the question: Is anyone still posting, earnestly arguing that canon cannot be changed at their tables or that it is bad to change it?

I have read the whole thread and I'm pretty certain nobody ever said that.

 

[jayoungr]

No one here is going to drop Kerrigan in a Vampire Dark Ages games and have Spock beam up the party to the Enterprise so they can fight Darkseid which is all part of some Amber megaplot.

Wellllll ... not unless it was a deliberate multigenre mashup. Probably run in GURPS, just because you can.

 

[jayoungr]

Both the Kelvin Timeline (Abramsverse) and the "Main Timeline" (everything else) arguably occur in the Prime Universe (Star Trek as we know it(tm)).

Arguably, perhaps, but that strikes me as not the simplest explanation or the one that would occur first to the average viewer. And if I were ever to run a Star Trek game, I'd pick one or the other rather than trying to mix both.