Is "official" lore important to you?

Is official lore important to you?

  • Yes, always

    Votes: 22 16.7%
  • Yes, but only in regards to one setting

    Votes: 12 9.1%
  • Not usually, but I have a specific hangup or two

    Votes: 26 19.7%
  • No, never

    Votes: 52 39.4%
  • My opinion is too complex for your silly poll

    Votes: 20 15.2%

  • Total voters
    132

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
2) The Raven Queen was not an interloper in the cycle of death. She did not interfere with it. She was the primary guardian of it. The god of death she killed and replaced was an evil god of necromancy, while she was a neutral deity of death, fate, and winter, more akin to real world deities like The Morrigan or various psychopomps. Now she messes with death in an almost parasitic way, stealing interesting souls and making them play out their tragedies for her entertainment.
Canon be damned, that "now" version of her sounds far more interesting and entertaining than the "she was" version! :)
 

Marandahir

Explorer
I think part of the issue is that the Raven Queen is a goddess in Nerath (and even may have given her name to the nation itself – the capital is named Nera, and one 4e legend of the goddess claimed she was originally the consort of Nerull, an ascended human who became the winter goddess Nera, until she overthrew him and took on his death portfolio). Meanwhile, she had NO official role in the Realms.

She's an official goddess with 4e-type lore in Exandria, so I think we can take this as a bit of evidence that there's 2 different Raven Queens in 5e – the former Human Goddess (in DMG & EGtW), and the Elven interloper (in MTF), who are present in different settings and have different roles in their settings.

This suggests to me that the Crystal Spheres of old may still be in place, rather than one set of Planescape planes for all D&D settings (should have been obvious due to Eberron and Magic: The Gathering having different cosmologies, but there's been some questions of this in these forums).
 

MGibster

Adventurer
Add canon into the mix, and it becomes, "I don't like the change to X. The change is bad because it is a change." Which, frankly, ends conversation. You can't really argue that it doesn't change X and, since the person isn't arguing against the quality of the change, but, rather that change is, in itself, negative, there's no real way forward. Canon arguments are simply a rhetorical trick for winning.
This pretty much applies to most conversations here. Saying you don't like something without saying why doesn't really add much to the conversation. But usually when I hear someone say they don't like canon change they'll usually point to what it is they don't like.

Where it flies up my nose is that canon arguments are always based on preference. 15 other changes are perfectly acceptable, but, because someone doesn't like THIS change, then change is bad. :erm: It's so hypocritical and completely arguing in bad faith.
Whether we're talking about canon, rules, or styles of play we're pretty much talking about preferences. In general I think change I don't like is bad while change I like is good. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite though.
 

Hussar

Legend
This pretty much applies to most conversations here. Saying you don't like something without saying why doesn't really add much to the conversation. But usually when I hear someone say they don't like canon change they'll usually point to what it is they don't like.



Whether we're talking about canon, rules, or styles of play we're pretty much talking about preferences. In general I think change I don't like is bad while change I like is good. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite though.
No, it just means that you conflate your preferences with quality.
 

Advertisement

Top