Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="humble minion" data-source="post: 9725283" data-attributes="member: 5948">Of course, the same lore body that establishes Drizzt is NOT a serial killer also establishes that the Purple Dragons already have a dragon in their history (a black so old it’s scales had turned purple, as extensively documented by Troy Denning in the Cormyr: a Novel/Death of the Dragon books in which Azoun died).So why is there the sudden desperate urge to shoehorn an amethyst dragon in there? And how did an order that was basically the Cormyrite in-house knighthood suddenly become multiversal?Now, I know that modern WotC doesn’t feel itself bound in the least by lore from previous editions, and indeed when it uses such lore it really only makes token Easter eggs of it without engaging in what made the lore interesting in the first place. Lord Soth’s ‘generic bad guy’ role in SotDQ which plastered Ol’ Buckethead all over every piece of art and promotion for the product then failed to have a plot in which Soth’s history or personality were in the least relevant is the classic example of course.  And I'm not even against new lore or the evolution of old lore, plus being entirely aware than in my age bracket, I'm not WotCs target audience any more and they don't care what I think.But this particualr case just strikes me as ... lazy?  Shallow?  Like the original PDK subclass which got so widely panned, it smacks of the work of someone who only bothered to vaguely browse the FR lore before finding an interesting phrase and riffing off it in the most perfunctory and uninspired direction as possible.  Using the shape of the lore without caring or learning what it is.Edit: not sure where this post started [USER=6807152]@Scribe[/USER] , but it probably veered way off from being a response to yours into an unfocused stream-of-consciousness ramble.  Sorry about that...</blockquote>

Verification