Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9563199" data-attributes="member: 6807784">But you're talking taste. Which yes, not all lore published is to my taste. But your tastes are not universal, nor are mine. For example, I prefer MOrdenkainen's take on Correlon, as I don't view him as all that good of a guy to begin with.For the rest , I don't think your point on specters has anything to do with lore, since you're talking about mechanics. Hadozee were indeed a miss. Gnolls in 3E being humanoids doesn't really matter anymore, as this is 5E and they are fiends. IDK, to me, this doesn't really prove anything. Lots of lore in 5E is cool, but people stick to their schemas and reject it if there is no match. That's ok, this is just a human behavior, but my point is a lot of people also call any new lore bad that doesn't match said schema. I love the new Ravenqueen lore. I like Goblins being fey-exiles now. I think it's sick how Gith are now Aberrations, reflecting how their race will never be the same after what happened to them. You may not like it, and that's fine, and we can even discuss how one edition's lore is more interesting then another's, but I'm seeing a whole lot of "This is bad and can never be good" in this thread that isn't really deserved.</blockquote>