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

[Amphytrion]

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).

 

[bedir than]

while I’m less keen on replacing one frequent fantasy flavor for another (e.g. Purple Dragon Knights).

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.

 

[Amphytrion]

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?

 

[mellored]

To be fair, the lore could be

Some dragon grows up hearing about purple dragon knights. So decided to join them. And then it became a thing.

 

[Parmandur]

To be fair, the lore could be

Some dragon grows up hearing about purple dragon knights. So decided to join them. And then it became a thing.

Yeah, there is no indication so far thst they are engaging in a retcon: just because the Purple Dragon Knights in the 14th century weren't involved with an Amethyst Greatwytm doesn't mean the 16th century Purple Dragon Knights can't be.

 

[bedir than]

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?

Almost every bit of lore hits multiple tropes

 

[Older Beholder]

As someone that pulled an Amethyst dragon mimi, (I think from the Dragonlance* set), I approve this change.

Edit: actually, it was the Fizban's treasury set of minis.

 

[pukunui]

Yeah, there is no indication so far thst they are engaging in a retcon: just because the Purple Dragon Knights in the 14th century weren't involved with an Amethyst Greatwytm doesn't mean the 16th century Purple Dragon Knights can't be.

The late 15th century PDKs weren't either, though. Like, the 2014 FR is set in the 1490s. The new 2025 FR is 1501. That's less than a decade later. And there's nothing the PDKs teaming up with amethyst dragons in the SCAG or any other 5e book that mentions them. So this change is either brand new or it's going to be retconned to have started pre-1490s.

 

[Parmandur]

The late 15th century PDKs weren't either, though. Like, the 2014 FR is set in the 1490s. The new 2025 FR is 1501. That's less than a decade later. And there's nothing the PDKs teaming up with amethyst dragons in the SCAG or any other 5e book that mentions them. So this change is either brand new or it's going to be retconned to have started pre-1490s.

To be fair, SCAG really doesn't have much to say about Coromyr or the Purple Dragon Knights, IIRC. There is the Banneret Subclass, but not too much on historical developments there.

And...they may be doing something of a retcon, we just don't know the angle yet. Too soon to say. Doubly so how sensible or lazy whatever the new lore is.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

No, it's on WOTC to make it make sense because as it is it's an absurd change.

Maybe wait for the book to explain it first then.