Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faraer" data-source="post: 4847584" data-attributes="member: 6318">You're right, I sometimes overestimate how well-known this is. Here are a few quickly scrounged citations: the interview in Dragon #335, Candlekeep.com <a href="http://www.candlekeep.com/library/articles/sse/sse_040506-06.htm" target="_blank">here</a> (search for "No, of course not") and <a href="http://www.candlekeep.com/library/rumors/rumor3.htm" target="_blank">here</a>, and a 1998 REALMS-L post which I can't find in the archive so I'll quote from:Unfortunately, some of the information from Wizards people has been lost in wipes of the Wizards.com message boards.Ah, in the other thread. I did answer most of Gmforpowergamers's stuff until I stopped, and I missed Lancelot's. Well, of course Elminster's really powerful. I don't agree with all his interpretations, but that really is 'he said'/'she said', no? More to the point, I think, all this fuss about who's powerful is specifically a point of view of villains in the Realms, and not how Ed thinks -- just chalk and cheese ways of thinking. My quick citation there is the whole of Elminster in Hell.Of course I'm arguing, along with other people, about what Realms 'canon' is, that's part of this discussion. I dislike the basic idea of 'canon' and have argued strongly, here and in the past, for why it shouldn't in the least dictate or be required in individual campaigns.</blockquote>