D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

But would you agree something can be "non-canonical" and yet still "not violating canon"?

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]

Yes... additions as opposed to changes. Thats been my stance in this discussion. It's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who seem unable or unwilling to differentiate the two. They've claimed there is no fundamental difference between the two and anything added is a chang.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes... additions as opposed to changes. Thats been my stance in this discussion. It's [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] who seem unable or unwilling to differentiate the two. They've claimed there is no fundamental difference between the two and anything added is a chang.

Sure, but I agree with them that any attempt to define what that distinction is has been pretty horribly muddled. Every change is simply an addition of a new fact to the lore. Likewise, every addition is a change if you assume that canon mandated the absence of that element, like the two moon example.

 

[Imaro]

Sure, but I agree with them that any attempt to define what that distinction is has been pretty horribly muddled. Every change is simply an addition of a new fact to the lore. Likewise, every addition is a change if you assume that canon mandated the absence of that element, like the two moon example.

Yeah and I disagree... it's pretty clear from Greyhawk lore that it has two moons (Every source I havce access to confirms this). What I feel like is pedantry is being used to "muddle" what is a pretty clear difference for anyone trying to discuss it in good faith. If a fact has been established (Greyhawk has 2 moons) then a change (Greyhawk has 3 moons) contradicts what is stated which is not the same as an addition (Greyhawk's two moons are a source of power for a mysterious cult) which contradicts nothing that has already been established..

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

But why? I mean, other than making arbitrary distinctions between additions and changes?

Why... what?

Also...I don't find them arbitrary at all...

GH has always been pretty firm about what races are in GH. But let's say you want to run 5e in GH, and a player wants to play a Dragonborn. GH doesn't have Dragonborn. So, you "add them in." Even though it was not mentioned in GH canon. It's just an addition.

You just stated that the lore around what races exist in Greyhawk is firm... and yet in the same sentence see adding a race not in Greyhawk into it as an addition as opposed to a change. How is that so? If the races of Greyhawk have been detailed canonically why is that an addition. If someone tells me to make up a character for a Greyhawk game should I or shouldn't I assume Drgaonborn are alllowed? If they tell me it's a homebrew Greyhawk campaign that includes all 5e D&D races should I assume Dragonborn?

Same with the moon. Maybe they didn't see it. There's nothing in GH that is contradicted when you add a third moon.

Again pedantry. Numerous sources state how many moons are in the greyhawk setting... see the above post for questions but substitute moons for Dragonborn.

Heck, if you don't like sci-fi, then if you remove the spaceship from Barrier Peaks, have you done something Badwrongfun to GH canon? Is that a change, an alteration, an omission, or a negative addition? And why does it matter?

No one said anything about Badwrongfun... and yes it is a change (though I find the question of whether modules/adventures are part of a settings canon interesting)...

It's all just angels on a pin at a certain point, innit?

I don't see it that way, When I tell my group that I am running a 3rd edition Greyhawk campaign as opposed to a homebrew Greyhawk they know what to expect, what characters are allowed, a general history break down, geography, etc. It works as a lingua franca for us that cuts down on overhead and pre-game confusion for where our game is taking place. IMO, it's one of the greatest advantages to using a pre-made setting... otherwise I'm going homebrew.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

....oh.

So, here's the thing. You're not running GH. I know you think you are, but you're not. You're running your GH. Some alternate GH, that shares some of the lore with "real" GH.

All you are doing is playing a shadow on the wall, buddy.

Real GH was a specific campaign run by a specific DM, and that's not you. I think what you mean is, "I am running, to the best of my ability, what I think GH is." Which is fine! You want to play in someone else's sandbox. You don't want to create wholesale, so you are borrowing aspects of someone else's lore.

But you don't get to adjudicate how much lore makes something "canon" or not. Because you aren't the arbiter. It's fine if you think that borrowing more (or less) makes your game more authentic, like corn tortillas with your tacos; but it doesn't make it qualitatively better or more similar to Greyhawk prime.

FWIW, "canonical" GH (1983 folio) specifically states that additional astrological information can be found in additional non-existent texts, specifically opening up the possibility of other things (including "wandering stars," which may, or may not, be moons).

Where did I use or have used the word... "real" in this conversation?? If we want to be pedantic... WotC owns Greyhawk and thus they decide what is canon.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaro]

Uh, no. Because you are playing a separate game. By definition, everything in your game can't be canon, because it's not WoTC approved.

My point has been about starting from a canon game... did you not read the reasons I gave for using a pre-established setting. From that point any and all things can happen all a canon game does for me and my group is set the starting parameters...

Just like a Star Trek fanfilm isn't canon.

I agree it isn't...

See the problem.

For my purposes in using a canon setting... no I don't. For the argument you seem to have created and are pushing against... I guess??

FR novels can have canon.

Ok...

Greyhawk, or even FR as a setting within an edition, can't.

Wrong once play begins it can't but it can be canon to start with... which again, as I expressed in an earlier post, is the whole reason I want to use a canon/pre-made setting because it provides a common base to start from.

EDIT: You seem to have constructed some situation, use, argument or whatever for canon that doesn't align with my desires and uses for it and then proceeded to assign it to me and argue against it. That's why I asked you earlier what the point of your post was...