D&D General The Purple Dragon Knights are tied to an Amethyst Dragon (confirmed)

I’m confused about some comments in the thread.

No one has ever said there is a wrong way to play, nor that you cannot change things at will at your table. This is true not only of lore, but also of rules and anything else in the rulebooks—which has always been encouraged by everyone both in this thread and elsewhere.

That is not what the conversation is about. The conversation is about the importance of narrative integrity within new official publications as they continue previous stories. In my home Waterdeep-focused games, I made the Blackstaff Vajra Safahr into a Zhentarim plant. That was best for my table’s narrative and I don’t think anyone here would frown upon my choice. That being said, it would still be jarring if the official product came out and portrayed her as such.

There is a spectrum to these things, it’s not simply binary. Personally, I’m willing to forgive quite a lot if the idea is to give tables more room for adventure (e.g. Sammaster returns), while I’m less keen on replacing one frequent fantasy flavor for another (e.g. Purple Dragon Knights).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


But this hasn't happened.
We don't know the path of the lore, because no one here has read the books yet.

Some people are assuming incompetence, others are taking a wait and see option.
I’m not assuming anything about the actual metaplot of the setting. There are countless ways WotC can explain any lore development they want, and I don’t see that as very important at all. Metaplot rarely, if ever, comes up in any relevant way at the table.

Regardless of any metaplot, tying the Arthurian/Camelot stand-in to actual dragons is a deviation from one player fantasy trope into another. We know this shift has taken place per Makenzie de Armas’s interview. Isn’t that what originated the thread in the first place?
 

Remove ads

Top