Forgotten Realms "Canon Lawyers"

[JohnRTroy]

I find it ironic that so much criticism is done towards "gaming fiction", when the pulps were also criticized for similar features, and yet nowadays those pulps have a big resurgence amongst gamers.

It makes me wonder if the novels of Salvatore, Gygax, Greenwood, or Weiss/Hickman might be regarded with a lot more love 50-75 years from now. It's a little harder now in the trademarks shared fiction world to see this, but who knows what "crap" will become tomorrow's classics.

 

[S'mon]

Pet peeve: No, it's not. Frequently, author avatars (let alone self-inserts) are Mary Sues, but it's not automatic at all. The best definition of a Mary Sue I've seen, and which I stick to, is that they're like black holes: their presence warps everything to be about them. Elminster, in the Elminster novels, does not qualify, because the story is about him in the first place.

On the one hand I agree that the reality-warping field is an important characteristic for the Mary Sue. However I am not sure that disqualifies cases where the author creates a reality, puts a protagonist in it, and from the readers'-eye-view the reality seems warped to accommodate the protagonist.

For instance, if the protagonist is a homely-looking Gandalf clone wizard and without the use of magic, large numbers of powerful beautiful female wizards spontaneously fall in love with him and want to have sex with him. Or the hero has a thing about bondage-domination and every spirited, beautiful female he meets he sexually enslaves - only for them *all* to 'realise' that that's what they always wanted all along. Cases of warping human nature in the cause of wish fulfilment, in a way that can make the reader's suspension of disbelief impossible.

So my opinion is that an author-created reality does not exclude the possibility of a Mary Sue, if (a) that reality becomes bent and twisted to service the Mary Sueness of the protagonist, and (b) those changes violate all known norms of human conduct and probability to such an extent as to prevent S.O.D.

 

[Primal]

I played in a few D&D games set in the FR back in the early 90s, read one of the novels (I think it was Curse of the Azure Bonds (which my friends wrongly told me was good)), played one of the computer games, read all the core campaign settings except the 4e one, quite a few scenarios and boxed sets such as Ruins of Undermountain, articles in Dragon magazine, interviews and message board posts by Ed Greenwood, wikipedia articles, some reviews of the novels and I've picked up a fair bit of info by reading ENWorld and other rpg boards. Really, it's hard to be any kind of geek and not know a fair bit about FR.

I think that's more than enough to have an informed opinion about the Realms. Note that even with my more limited knowledge I was able to find good counter evidence (Ed Greenwood on the Candlekeep forum) to Faraer's claim that Elminster and The Simbul are in a monogamous relationship, which I think shows one doesn't have to have read all the novels to make a useful contribution to a debate.

I'm not saying that you wouldn't have an informed opinion about the *Realms*, but if you're claiming that Elminster is a 'Mary Sue' character, I'd advise you to read the novels by Ed Greenwood, because I think they paint a very different picture of El. Boxed Sets and adventures don't necessarily give you a good image of a NPC, especially if the author takes liberties with said NPCs. Computer games are not part of canon (and some of them were only marginally FR-related) and Wikipedia articles, online personal reviews or forum posts are not what I would call reliable sources. Of course you can participate in discussion (even Google up sources to back up your arguments) but it's generally considered to be polite that you don't try to pass on your own opinions (or those expressed in/by your sources) as facts, i.e. you remember to mention that you're citing a source or expressing your own opinion. Also, while I could google up stuff about Eberron, I wouldn't participate in discussion about 4E EPG, for example, because I just don't know enough about it (i.e. all my comments would be derived from online sources -- this is just an example, and obviously you know more about FR than I do about Eberron).

A lot of posters usually claim that Elmister and the other Chosen are Ed's "power trip" DMPCs who exist as omnipotent railroading plot devices, or to prevent player abuse and to strenghten the DM's authority. That is not an accurate description (I recommend reading the 'Silverfall' which depicts all the Chosen in a different light) in my books, and tells me that the poster just doesn't "get" the "spirit" of the Realms.
Things in FR are rarely black-and-white; for example, Ed has subtly hinted for years that all the Chosen are slowly going mad, as Mystra's power gradually consumes their minds (IIRC Ed has noted that such power was never meant to be wielded by mortals).

 

[Obryn]

I don't think I need to be familiar with every single source for an NPC to know whether or not I like them, or whether or not I think they have a bad effect on a setting. He's not a real person, and I don't think I owe imaginary people a fair shake.

You wouldn't need to read everything released for the Post-Spellplague Realms to know you don't like it, would you?

I also see a little irony that canon-lawyering is being used to correct peoples' views of Elminster in a thread complaining about canon-lawyering.

-O

 

[Primal]

I read quiite a few of the Elminster novels on recommendations from friends. I kept waiting for them to get better. They didn't. In terms of literary genius, I'd say they rank right up there (down there?) with Gord the Rogue. Of course, with the exception of a few short story collections, that's where I place pretty much all D&D fiction (i.e., a notch above marketable and right below everything else).

And you're fully entitled to your opinion; I'm not claiming that Elminster novels would be classics of fantasy literature (although some works by Greenwood, in my opinion, are) or suit everyone's tastes. I like them, you don't, and that's fine.

 

[Primal]

I don't think I need to be familiar with every single source for an NPC to know whether or not I like them, or whether or not I think they have a bad effect on a setting. He's not a real person, and I don't think I owe imaginary people a fair shake.

You wouldn't need to read everything released for the Post-Spellplague Realms to know you don't like it, would you?

I also see a little irony that canon-lawyering is being used to correct peoples' views of Elminster in a thread complaining about canon-lawyering.

-O

Well, it's one thing to say, for example, that I don't like 4E and that I think 4E sucks based solely on what I've read on the Internet, and another to say it after trying it, right? I don't expect everyone discussing FR to know who, say, Dunman Kiriag is, but if you're trashing the 'Eveningstar' module, I expect you to know him. There's a difference, and here it is important because not every source depicting Elminster was written by Ed Greenwood (or even moderately closely to how El appears in works written by him).

As I said, I don't participate in Eberron threads and trash it because I only have second-hand, marginal knowledge about it -- fictional setting or not (and yes, I *do* think that would be a bit unfair, such as it would be unfair to trash 4E without bothering to read the books or even try it).

 

[Obryn]

There's a difference, and here it is important because not every source depicting Elminster was written by Ed Greenwood (or even moderately closely to how El appears in works written by him).

But does that honestly matter?

Elminster is a fictional character. Ed Greenwood isn't the only one with the rights to write material including him. If you want to make a distinction between Elminster stuff written by Ed Greenwood and that written by others, that's fine, but I don't think it's a necessary distinction for a casual FR gamer to make. He's a fictional, corporately-owned entity, little different from Luke Skywalker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Mickey Mouse. Even stuff not written by Ed Greenwood is (afaik) considered canonical for the setting.

I'd rather talk about the character himself, who is not only Mr. Greenwood's. That keeps the potential for ad-hominems down to a minimum.

-O

 

[Primal]

But does that honestly matter?

Elminster is a fictional character. Ed Greenwood isn't the only one with the rights to write material including him. If you want to make a distinction between Elminster stuff written by Ed Greenwood and that written by others, that's fine, but I don't think it's a necessary distinction for a casual FR gamer to make. He's a fictional, corporately-owned entity, little different from Luke Skywalker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Mickey Mouse. Even stuff not written by Ed Greenwood is (afaik) considered canonical for the setting.

I'd rather talk about the character himself, who is not only Mr. Greenwood's. That keeps the potential for ad-hominems down to a minimum.

-O

In my opinion it does -- during the TSR era, FR (and AD&D in general) suffered from poor quality control (mainly from poor editing and lack of attention to canon and continuity). I'm fairly sure that Eberron fans would feel the same if there had been a 'All around the Eberron' and stuff like it. Too many people got to write just about anything in the Realms on the basis that it was their flagship product, and it sold well. So I'd keep 'Elminster as written by Ed' separate from 'Elminster written by other people', especially when people so often make statements like "Elminster is just Greenwood's 'Mary Sue' character" (too often based on someone else's writings). And, to my knowledge, SW fanatics also argue whether novel X or graphic novel Y portrayed Luke Skywalker in an "illogical" way.

Yes, it's not just Ed's writings that are canon FR lore, but I'd say there's a huge difference between Elminster or Halaster written by Ed and someone else (just compare 'Escape from Undermountain' and 'Ruins of Adventure' as an example of the latter NPC).

 

[Parlan]

And that's cool - as long as you're not DMing fans of the setting who want a DM with more knowledge of the setting.

But part of the appeal of the Realms to some people (not you apparently) is the fact that it *is* so detailed, and in their imagination, they've practically lived there. It's likely to be less fun for them if you don't know the setting as imtimately.

Of course, if the players are willing you can always compromise. If all you are familiar with is the campaign setting book only, then simply let them know that if something is not in the campaign setting book, then it's just a rumor. (Maybe that secret door they think they know about is actually a trap to lure suckers [a.k.a. adventurers] to their doom - probably set up by the local thieves guild.)

Fair enough. I haven't met a player like this before so I have a hard time imagining someone with those motivations. (Ironic given that I'm trying to run an imaginative game!)

Different strokes for different folks and all that.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Fair enough. I haven't met a player like this before so I have a hard time imagining someone with those motivations. (Ironic given that I'm trying to run an imaginative game!)

I can only speak from experience, but MOST of the group who taught me D&D were Realms fanatics. Amongst the group, they probably had every FR novel published. When one person was done with a book, they'd pass it on to whoever hadn't read it yet.

I was the new guy in the group and just learning D&D, but FR sounded super cool the way our DM portrayed it. I started reading novels that anyone would lend me as well. I just read slower than most people and didn't finish them nearly as quickly as the others.

I always felt like I knew nothing. I hadn't read the campaign guide or any game books about FR. Just the novels that people would give me and whatever I learned from playing in the game. But I know the people in my group would have constant discussions about stuff like "I wonder where Elminster is right about now. Oh, right, it's X year, he's currently dealing with that thing from Y book. Of course it's likely that the Simbul is in town visiting XYZ person because of that same book. Maybe we should go visit her."

I was totally lost. All I knew was that we were in some town where we were supposed to find some guy who stole a book from someone.

It just sounded like there was all this information to know, that I didn't. It was interesting to play in as long as the DM knew about all that stuff, but it was intimidating. I never even tried to run a FR game after that. I tried reading through the 3rd Edition FRCG, but it was too daunting to finish as it is very large and rather boring to read.

But even with what I currently know about FR(having read about 15 novels, and most of the 3e FRCG), I'm sure I could still make a DM who had only read the 4e FRCG completely baffled with questions. I already have.