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

[TiQuinn]

There are over 300 Forgotten Realms novels.

Even if you take out the villains who are in more than one of them, survived the events of the stories, or the ones who got resurrected, the vast majority of villains in those novels died and stayed dead. The same goes for the heroes who died during those adventures.

Also resurrection is not as accessible in-universe for characters as it is for PCs.

In the City of the Spider Queen campaign the main villain is a powerful Cleric but the adventure outright states that only a few villains are likely to be resurrected.


Ed Greenwood when talking about the laws regarding resurrection and nobility in the Forgotten Realms on the Candlekeep forums.

It's prohibitively expensive, requires a powerful Cleric, etc.

And Sammaster is responsible for creating one of the most noted villain organizations in the Realms that has stuck around through the years, long enough to get a name drop in the D&D movie. Also, if I’m understanding this correctly based on the FR wiki, his destruction wasn’t even depicted in one of those 300 novels! Finally, a character with the resources of Sammaster surely wouldn’t be bound by laws or expense of resurrection.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Sigh...

Go read the rest of the exchange between me and Scribe. I'm not in the mood to explain it yet again...

I read it, I just wasn't particularly convinced by it.

 

[TiQuinn]

So much of this conversation just feels like…

 

[Parmandur]

No, the setting lore as established by Ed Greenwood is still canon, it's in his contract.

Doesn’t mean that a given powerful villain doesn't have ways to come back, particularly with time travel on the table.

 

[Remathilis]

I read it, I just wasn't particularly convinced by it.

Yeah. Sorry. Not here for it. I'm sick and tired of lore purists screaming bloody murder if you dare change anything.

I like Keith Baker's take. He never says what is the canon or correct answer. He says "In my Eberron" to imply his is not the only version of the setting that matters. His Eberron is not 100% aligned with WotCs, and it certainly doesn't align with mine which has all manner continuity edits and personal spins. Yet his, and mine, and WotCs are all valid interpretations. Keith's opinions aren't any more important or valid than mine. He's more knowledgeable and has a wider audience, but that alone doesn't make his take right any mine wrong.

But I can see why some people can't understand that egalitarian view of D&D. There has to be a correct way to play. There has to be a One True canon, a version that is more pure, more correct, more authoritative. A version they can hold up as Word of God that they're right and I'm stupid.

I'm done with that. Lore is a suggestion. Canon a false prophet. Make each setting your own. There is no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.

 

[Remathilis]

So much of this conversation just feels like…

Well, except for this part:

 

[Scribe]

Make each setting your own. There is no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.

I will note, that I never disputed this, and indeed agreed to it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sigh...

Go read the rest of the exchange between me and Scribe. I'm not in the mood to explain it yet again...

Mod Note:

And yet, you’re in the mood to tell everyone you’re not in the mood.

You’ve been on ENWorld long enough to know you should deescalate or disengage instead of provoke. In this thread, you keep getting reported. Not all were actionable, but it’s definitely a pattern.

Which puts me in the mood to issue a threadban.

 

[bedir than]

Lore is a suggestion. Canon a false prophet. Make each setting your own. There is no wrong way to play as long as everyone is having fun.

LOVE THIS

 

[Scribe]

LOVE THIS

lol, again. Nobody is saying you cannot do what you want at your own table. The books have always said this.

That does not remove an actual canon, a shared setting with actual facts that exist, from the equation.