Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Demetrios1453" data-source="post: 9730838" data-attributes="member: 6801060">Canon is fine, but too rigid adherence to canon can be a problem.Also, what exactly can be considered canon? I imagine that most people think the versions of Amn and Tethyr as presented in the 3e FRCS and later are the original canon version, but that depiction only started in the 1997 boxed set Lands of Intrigue. Amn and Tethyr as originally depicted in the 1988 accessory Empires of the Sands were in some ways quite different, and there are a lot of retcons and contradictions in Lands of Intrigue when comparing the region to the original version. There's a line in the boxed set saying that differences from the original versions were due to an unreliable narrator, likely from a biased Calishite perspective (it does help that EotS seems to be poorly researched -&nbsp; for instance there are mentions of traders from Amn, Cormyr, and Waterdeep at a time before any of the three actually existed!). 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Demetrios1453, post: 9730838, member: 6801060"] Canon is fine, but too rigid adherence to canon can be a problem. Also, what exactly can be considered canon? I imagine that most people think the versions of Amn and Tethyr as presented in the 3e FRCS and later are the original canon version, but that depiction only started in the 1997 boxed set [I]Lands of Intrigue[/I]. Amn and Tethyr as originally depicted in the 1988 accessory [I]Empires of the Sands[/I] were in some ways quite different, and there are a lot of retcons and contradictions in [I]Lands of Intrigue [/I]when comparing the region to the original version. There's a line in the boxed set saying that differences from the original versions were due to an unreliable narrator, likely from a biased Calishite perspective (it does help that EotS seems to be poorly researched - for instance there are mentions of traders from Amn, Cormyr, and Waterdeep at a time before any of the three actually existed!). But it still stands that those who stand on [I]original canon[/I] would, logically, need to reject the updates and retcons in [I]Lands of Intrigue[/I] as much as they reject amethyst dragons for the PDKs or Sammaster coming back from the dead. [/QUOTE]

Verification