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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

That's the issue with long-running series and popular products (Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, etc.). It starts to get increasingly difficult to reconcile all the different bits and pieces.

Look no further than two of the hottest pop culture commodities right now: Marvel and Star Wars. The former completely separates their mega-successful movie franchises from their various comic book lines. The latter recently wipe away 98% of their setting's told stories into the non-canon trash heap, where they can pick through the giant mound at their whim looking for the occasional salvageable nuggets or gems to recycle.

 

[Shasarak]

But, that's not what @I'm A Banana 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.

As I have pointed out earlier that is just not true, Gnomes can be casters, wild magic appears in the very first book and frankly characters can believe what ever they believe - how is that even a thing?

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

The "authentic" Solamnic Knight character in the core Dl books is a guy pretending to be a Solamnic Knight.

So then surely by this official canon anyone can pretend to be a Knight - even a Kender.

 

[Corwin]

I confess to only a superficial awareness of DL. Do gnomes not exist in that setting?

 

[Shasarak]

The main Gnomes in DL are of the "tinker" variety but that is a long way from being the only Gnomes in DL are "tinker" Gnomes.

 

[Corwin]

So gnomes are a thing. And evidently these Solamnic Knights are too. So why the heck couldn't there be a gnomish Solamnic Knight? Seems a no-brainer to me.

Sounds like a job for... Analogous Storytime!

November, 1990. A basement in Madison, Wisconsin. Young Jimmy sits down with his friends to play a game of 1e AD&D, staunchly set in the Forgotten Realms. A setting they have been enjoying for all three years it has been in publication. He presents the DM with his idea for a new character. He wants to play a drow ranger who left his sinister home of Menzoberranzan to become a hero. The DM chides him for his foolishness, “Underdark Drow aren’t wilderness warriors. And they certainly aren’t heroes. Nothing in this Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting here suggests your character idea fits the setting. We need to stick to canon. So you'll have to make a different character.” Even the other players join in with the mockery of Jimmy's silly notions of what makes for good Forgotten Realms storytelling.

One month later R.A. Savatore's novel, Homeland, is published. I guess Jimmy’s friends owe him a heartfelt apology. The ‘canon’ just hadn’t caught up to them yet. And that wasn’t Jimmy's fault.

 

[Hussar]

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.



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.



Except that isn't what I ever said.

Yes, I know you didn't. I'm explaining to you what is actually going on in the thread beyond your personal point. While you may not be saying these things, lots of people ARE. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

 

[Prakriti]

Even the other players join in with the mockery of Jimmy's silly notions of what makes for good Forgotten Realms storytelling.

One month later R.A. Savatore's novel, Homeland, is published. I guess Jimmy’s friends owe him a heartfelt apology. The ‘canon’ just hadn’t caught up to them yet. And that wasn’t Jimmy's fault.

That's odd. Why did it take the 4th Drizzt novel to change their minds? Did they miss the whole Icewind Dale Trilogy?

 

[Hussar]

As I have pointed out earlier that is just not true, Gnomes can be casters, wild magic appears in the very first book and frankly characters can believe what ever they believe - how is that even a thing?



The "authentic" Solamnic Knight character in the core Dl books is a guy pretending to be a Solamnic Knight.

So then surely by this official canon anyone can pretend to be a Knight - even a Kender.

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.

Ahh, I see now that you changed my point [MENTION=94143]Shasarak[/MENTION]. I didn't say, "pretend" to be a Knight. I said, BE a knight. And no, wild magic does not appear in the first book. You have to be a wild mage to cast wild magic no? Are you now retconning Fizban as a wild mage? Fizban was a GOD. No, Raistlin didn't not sell his soul to Fistandantilus, he was POSSESSED by Fistandantilus. To the point where that possession actually changed his alignment. Warlocks aren't possessed by their patrons. You're retconning canon to fit your personal narrative.

And you'Re still missing the point. Gnomes can be Magic Users NOW. That's a retcon. They can be Wild Mages NOW. That's a retcon. Believe it or not, the setting actually existed before 3e. I know it's hard to believe, but, honest, there really was D&D before 1999. Granted, it was written on strips of bark burned with sticks, but, hey, it was there.

Again, you're arguing a different point than what [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION] is arguing. You're arguing that a gnome wild mage "fits" with the setting. I'd totally agree with that. [MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION], after arguing that later changes aren't "authentic" is claiming that a gnome wild mage is an "authentic" Dragonlance character.

Look, if someone said, "I'm playing a gnome wild mage with a hate on for the gods, what setting should I play this character in?" would your first or even third answer honestly be Dragonlance? Seriously?

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I know you didn't. I'm explaining to you what is actually going on in the thread beyond your personal point. While you may not be saying these things, lots of people ARE. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear.

No, it wasn't clear. Thanks for clarifying. That said, I haven't seen anyone say that you are bad for liking canon changes or changing canon yourself. Some have said that no canon change works for them, but that's different.