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

[Necropolitan]

But it still stands that those who stand on original canon would, logically, need to reject the updates and retcons in Lands of Intrigue as much as they reject amethyst dragons for the PDKs or Sammaster coming back from the dead.

That's completely false.

It's like claiming anyone who hates burgers from McDonalds hates burgers in general.

The objection to the retcons is that they're bad, not that they happened at all.

The Purple Dragon Knights becoming a Realms-spanning organization of multiverse-watchers using child soldiers, the addition of the Aevendrow, etc. are bad changes.

The Tiefling lore from Brimstone Angels was absolutely fantastic and fully justified the retcons necessary for it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The objection to the retcons is that they're bad, not that they happened at all

That’s purely down to taste. I happen to think the new version cooler and more modern than a boring order of generic Hollywood-medieval knights. I’m just mad that lore-fanatics stopped us getting the cool subclass to go with it.

 

[Necropolitan]

boring order of generic Hollywood-medieval knights

Not sure how you got that from their lore. It'd be like describing Indiana Jones as a "boring generic history professor."

I’m just mad that lore-fanatics stopped us getting the cool subclass to go with it.

Nothing stopped WOTC from making a Dragon pet subclass that wasn't ripping off the name of an established group.

None of the fans upset about the Purple Dragon Knight change would have complained if it was called the "Draconic Warrior."

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Not sure how you got that from their lore

Easy. I read it.

I also used it in a campaign, but mostly to spoof pseudo-medievalism.

None of the fans upset about the Purple Dragon Knight change would have complained if it was called the "Draconic Warrior

Personally, I dislike the blandification of subclasses. I think making them more specific makes them more interesting. And I can always tinker them if I want to use them for something else.

 

[Necropolitan]

Easy. I read it.

I also used it in a campaign, but mostly to spoof pseudo-medievalism.

Personally, I dislike the blandification of subclasses. I think making them more specific makes them more interesting. And I can always tinker them if I want to use them for something else.

Why do you want to play in the Forgotten Realms then?

You don't seem to like anything about it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why do you want to play in the Forgotten Realms then?

You don't seem to like anything about it.

You know very well that’s nonsense, since I haven’t mentioned anything apart from Cormyr.

Some bits are good, some bits are okay, most bits have multiple versions so I can pick whichever I like best, and some bits have aged very badly. Cormyr isn’t actually terrible though, it was just boring.

 

[Demetrios1453]

That's completely false.

It's like claiming anyone who hates burgers from McDonalds hates burgers in general.

The objection to the retcons is that they're bad, not that they happened at all.

The Purple Dragon Knights becoming a Realms-spanning organization of multiverse-watchers using child soldiers, the addition of the Aevendrow, etc. are bad changes.

The Tiefling lore from Brimstone Angels was absolutely fantastic and fully justified the retcons necessary for it.

But I, and others here, don't think that the PDK and (potential) Sammaster retcons are bad. And honestly, I didn't much care for the teifling retcons in that series - thankfully we're back to demon and yugoloth descended tieflings now, for example.

There are, logically, only three possible opinions on retcons (and many other things in life):

1. They are all objectively good
2. They are all objectively bad
3. Some are good and some are bad, but that judgement can only be subjective, and will vary from person to person.

Very few people will argue 1 or 2. Almost everyone falls into 3. But everyone is going to, by definition, disagree on what is good or bad. But that means that it's very hard, if not impossible, to argue subjective choices as if they are objectively good or bad. If you're going to attempt to argue that what you believe is objective, then you'll need to default to 1 or 2.

 

[Necropolitan]

The majority of fans rejected the changes to Purple Dragon Knights, that's why WOTC didn't go forward with them being a dragon pet class.

The same goes for why the UA Tiefling lore of them being universally considered as heroes was thrown out as well.

And why there's still Alignment.

 

[Demetrios1453]

The majority of fans rejected the changes to Purple Dragon Knights, that's why WOTC didn't go forward with them being a dragon pet class.

The same goes for why the UA Tiefling lore of them being universally considered as heroes was thrown out as well.

And why there's still Alignment.

Even if a majority says it's right doesnt make it objectively right. Only that a majority holds that subjective opinion.

And WotC's threshold is 70% if I remember correctly, not 50% plus one.

 

[Parmandur]

Even if a majority says it's right doesnt make it objectively right. Only that a majority holds that subjective opinion.

And WotC's threshold is 70% if I remember correctly, not 50% plus one.

Technically, it's the satisfaction rate: to get to 70%, it seemed that most respondents had to give 4 or 5 on the responses.