D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

Azzy · Oct 21, 2021

Scribe said:
For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either.

I thought that that's what you were supposed to do since I started DMing in the late 80s. Published settings are frameworks detailed to varying degrees (c.f. the original Greyhawk Folio and the 3e Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting), with hooks to hang your adventures around. But they are definitely all meant to "just do what you want"—don't like a certain details (no matter how big or how small), change it, replace it, turn it on its ear. The end user is the final arbiter and nothing printed is sacrosanct nor is it going to be enforced by the publisher.

Scribe · Oct 21, 2021

Azzy said:
The end user is the final arbiter and nothing printed is sacrosanct nor is it going to be enforced by the publisher.

Of course, and nobody is saying otherwise.

dave2008 · Oct 21, 2021

Scribe said:
Nope, its more like.

"I liked the old thing, give me new stuff that reinforces, expands upon, and is consistent with it."

I get that and it enjoy it too. However, I also like revisions, clarifications, innovation, and improvement more then being consistent and reinforcing. If you can get all those great! I just prefer one over the other. And there is some old lore that I would completely change if I was in charge so I can't really blame others for doing the same when they are in charge (I'm looking at you Asmodeus).

dave2008 · Oct 21, 2021

Scribe said:
For what its worth, I cannot grasp the appeal of taking an established setting, and saying 'nah just do what you want' either.

Isn't it a bit impossible otherwise? I mean I know of groups that had a TPK against Tiamat in RoT. There is no "official" lore that will ever support that result. I just don't see how to reconcile player games with setting lore. Of course I don't use official settings so I may just be inexperienced in that department.

Dire Bare · Oct 21, 2021

Micah Sweet said:
The thing is, there's no more canon in D&D anymore.

Sigh. No.

Canon still exists, canon still matters. WotC's approach to canon has shifted, although, not actually by that much really.

Ultimately though, regardless of the existence, importance, and approach to canon . . . use what you want, toss the rest. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Hussar · Oct 21, 2021

Micah Sweet said:
Force is a strong word, but for a long time there was a more or less coherent story for D&D. Now there isn't, which means no story (including what they're pushing now) is more important or "true" than any other.

I'm thinking it was a WHOLE lot less than more. The "story" for D&D is anything but coherent. Like, at all.

Quick, tell me what Lolth is in D&D.

JEB · Oct 21, 2021

Dire Bare said:
Canon still exists, canon still matters.

The only 5E books confirmed to be canon - the "public-facing" canon - are the current printings of the core rulebooks. Every single other 5E book (to include older printings of the core) is at best possibly canon, depending on what's currently part of their internal determination of canon. It also seems very likely at this point that the private canon does not include lore from some published 5E books, since otherwise they would have declared all 5E books to be canon (as was initially suggested, in fact). We can also expect more 5E lore to be retired as it's supplanted by incompatible newer takes in newer books.

We now have a core canon that can change with each new printing, and a whole lot of other products that only might be canon, some of which could cease being canon at any time without notice. So while yes, there is technically a canon, it's pretty hard to say that it matters anymore.

Scribe · Oct 21, 2021

JEB said:
We now have a core canon that can change with each new printing, and a whole lot of other products that only might be canon, some of which could cease being canon at any time without notice. So while yes, there is technically a canon, it's pretty hard to say that it matters anymore.

On the plus side, I can now ignore anything clearly shoehorned into a setting that doesnt need it, and not even care.

Urriak Uruk · Oct 21, 2021

Scribe said:
Nope, its more like.

"I liked the old thing, give me new stuff that reinforces, expands upon, and is consistent with it."

Fair. I don't really think 5E is the edition for expansion of setting lore, as it largely takes material from previous editions and condenses it into fewer books page count. It's largely meant to recontextualize the old stuff for the newer audience. Even if there weren't retcons, I don't think 5E is going to be adding much more stuff, because of the "one book per setting" format.

I personally don't mind retcons if I actually like the changes (a retcon itself doesn't bother me if I like the change). Never really understood the "retcons are bad because changing established lore is always bad," POV, but that's just my opinion.

Hussar · Oct 21, 2021

JEB said:
/snip it's pretty hard to say that it matters anymore.

I'd say that it was pretty hard to say it ever mattered.

D&D has never given the slightest fig about canon. Either between editions or within editions. Stuff has been changed repeatedly.

Again, quick, tell me where the Isle of Dread is.

I have never understood how anyone could try to claim "canon" in D&D.