| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jakuta Khan |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 10:41:31
Hi Everybody, how far can content from the Dragon Magazine be considered canon when it comes to realms related content, or racial information?
Like the Hobgoblin entry in Dragon 309 on Page 52-up
Thanks.
Best
JK |
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Joebing |
Posted - 05 Jun 2013 : 00:58:24
quote:
Originally posted by coach
Joebing if you need help on any NPC from the Cold Lands/ Bloodstone Lands lemme know
i have all of em on an outline
Thanks. Still working on the copy/paste of the ones already online, so please PM me the outline or a link to it. Will help when I got to check who I have. |
| coach |
Posted - 05 Jun 2013 : 00:26:56
Joebing if you need help on any NPC from the Cold Lands/ Bloodstone Lands lemme know
i have all of em on an outline |
| Joebing |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 12:17:57
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
The main reason I ask is I am working on a comprehensive NPC 3.5 project involving any NPC not published during 3.5, including forum ones here and at WotC's forums.
*Blink* If any NPC posted in prior editions to 3.5 were not defined in 3.5 FR logo, they are not canon for 3.5.
Oh you could guess at level advancement from 3.0 or 2.5 or 2, however it only becomes a guess of yours and has no value as canon.
Level advancement is not needed unless you are running past 1374 DR. The end of 2nd edition into the beginning of 3.0 was smooth timewise. I have just done a straight conversion each time. Moving it to 3.5 rules doesn't mean you have to move time either. Anything can be converted to any edition in any year. Canon is not what edition you use an NPC in, it is the personality itself.
The goal of this project is to make a database of NPC stats for NPCs never given proper stat blocks in 3.0/3.5. On each one, I plan to include the approximate year the character's stat block fits in. What each DM does with it after that is up to them. Some could even be under a Clone spell, or some form of stasis, to fit into a campaign set at a later date. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 31 May 2013 : 02:59:00
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't know about the trading cards... I personally wouldn't call them canon, but I don't know the official stance.
The cards don't have much lore on them, and I don't think anything that was new on the cards was ever printed elsewhere. The artwork was recycled, too, sometimes more than once. For a lot of it, they just slapped a campaign setting on the card, and made up an NPC or whatever from scratch.
I'm going from [long-ago] memory of a discussion with TSR reps on the old FR Mailing List... but as I recall, the reality that the TSR trading cards were canon was left deliberately ambiguous.
Some, like the DRAGONLANCE and GREYHAWK cards, often referred to canon events and/or NPCs -- I distinctly remember using the many doubles of the Lord Soth card I had as bookmarks -- and most of the lore-based details on those cards were lifted almost directly from previously published sources.
While others, like the skeletons warriors I also had plenty of... were pretty generic with little to no lore at all printed on them. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 23:01:10
I don't know about the trading cards... I personally wouldn't call them canon, but I don't know the official stance.
The cards don't have much lore on them, and I don't think anything that was new on the cards was ever printed elsewhere. The artwork was recycled, too, sometimes more than once. For a lot of it, they just slapped a campaign setting on the card, and made up an NPC or whatever from scratch. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 22:44:53
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
The main reason I ask is I am working on a comprehensive NPC 3.5 project involving any NPC not published during 3.5, including forum ones here and at WotC's forums.
*Blink* If any NPC posted in prior editions to 3.5 were not defined in 3.5 FR logo, they are not canon for 3.5.
Oh you could guess at level advancement from 3.0 or 2.5 or 2, however it only becomes a guess of yours and has no value as canon. |
| Joebing |
Posted - 30 May 2013 : 21:35:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Per Steven Schend, the DC/TSR comics were also considered canon.
So going by this, when Elminster met Presto from the animated series in the comics, that is canon? Then in theory, because the kids in the series could not travel out of the Realm (something ALWAYS happened), not to mention it was called "The Realm", the animated series could have taken place in the Realms, even though it existed before Ed and TSR worked out a deal.
I was referring to the DC/TSR comics published in the Realms -- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure who published The Grand Tour for TSR --I'm at work, so all I have a is a pic of the cover -- but it does not have the DC logo on it and it was not one of the ones Steven was referring to.
And unlike the DC/TSR comics, The Grand Tour was never referred to anywhere else in published Realmslore... Which is good, because the story was really weak, and the artwork wasn't much better. I was once told that in one of the Baldur's Gate games, there is a pic of the kids from the cartoon, on the wall of a shop somewhere -- so you could make the argument that they are in the Realms, though there's really nothing to support that other than this promo comic.
My copy of the comic says it was published by TSR in 1996...another good question is the early 90s trading card sets. Are the ones marked Forgotten Realms, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, and (haven't looked this far but in case) Maztica considered canon for purposes of items and NPCs? I know a few major players have cards, as do cities, but there are a lot of interesting characters I have never heard of.
The main reason I ask is I am working on a comprehensive NPC 3.5 project involving any NPC not published during 3.5, including forum ones here and at WotC's forums. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 May 2013 : 21:59:11
quote:
Originally posted by Joebing
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Per Steven Schend, the DC/TSR comics were also considered canon.
So going by this, when Elminster met Presto from the animated series in the comics, that is canon? Then in theory, because the kids in the series could not travel out of the Realm (something ALWAYS happened), not to mention it was called "The Realm", the animated series could have taken place in the Realms, even though it existed before Ed and TSR worked out a deal.
I was referring to the DC/TSR comics published in the Realms -- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure who published The Grand Tour for TSR --I'm at work, so all I have a is a pic of the cover -- but it does not have the DC logo on it and it was not one of the ones Steven was referring to.
And unlike the DC/TSR comics, The Grand Tour was never referred to anywhere else in published Realmslore... Which is good, because the story was really weak, and the artwork wasn't much better. I was once told that in one of the Baldur's Gate games, there is a pic of the kids from the cartoon, on the wall of a shop somewhere -- so you could make the argument that they are in the Realms, though there's really nothing to support that other than this promo comic. |
| Caladan Brood |
Posted - 27 May 2013 : 18:53:10
Geez so many scattered sources! It's kind of driving me nuts because therr's always something more to learn, but at the same time I like searching and researching the Realms (relatively new in that departement, but I was glad to find my old Dragon Archives CDs for additional FR material) |
| Joebing |
Posted - 27 May 2013 : 17:29:01
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Per Steven Schend, the DC/TSR comics were also considered canon.
So going by this, when Elminster met Presto from the animated series in the comics, that is canon? Then in theory, because the kids in the series could not travel out of the Realm (something ALWAYS happened), not to mention it was called "The Realm", the animated series could have taken place in the Realms, even though it existed before Ed and TSR worked out a deal. |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 17 May 2013 : 13:38:58
I think Garen Thal hit the nail on the head with his post. Though I'll throw the Forgotten Realms Wiki's canon explanation in there for the Keep's consideration too http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Forgotten_Realms_Wiki:Canon
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 19:28:55
Per Steven Schend, the DC/TSR comics were also considered canon.
Several things from the comics have been mentioned in other sources -- Vartan being Labelas's Chosen was in Planescape material and I believe in Demihuman Deities, Kyriani was written up in Powers & Pantheons, all of the main characters from both titles were written up in Dragon, the characters from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons were in the Lands of Intrigue boxed set, some ToT-specific events from the FR title were in the now-vanished web article about deity locations during the ToT, the 3E Shining South mentioned characters from the Forgotten Realms comic and included a monster from the comic, City of Splendors: Waterdeep named Kyriani as a Lord of Waterdeep, and then Steven Schend used her (and a bit character from AD&D in his novels. Tertius Wands was also a minor character from the same title, and there were one or two short stories about him in the earliest Realms of anthologies. |
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 15:03:47
As both a freelancer and a canon wonk, here's the basic rundown of rules we use for determining what is and isn't canon for the setting. Please remember that I'm speaking for myself, from the perspective of a guy who helps keep canon straight, not on behalf of Wizards of the Coast.
-Specifically-branded Forgotten Realms publications are canon for the setting. This includes novels, sourcebooks, magazine articles, short stories (both in anthologies and on the website), etc. The only exceptions here are the Double Diamond saga, which is apocryphal by nature. [We also tend to leave out the annual Spin A Yarn tales, which are better viewed as in-world stories than actual tellings of real Realms events.] Adventures, while specifically-branded, depend on the actions of a group of adventurers (the PCs) to determine story outcomes. While the setup information in adventures is, in fact, canon, their results are not considered to be unless introduced in a later product--which may presume varying degrees success or failure on the part of the faceless canon adventurers that took on the threat.
-Declarative mentions about goings-on in the Realms in a generic D&D publication (for example, an article on Corellon that says "the elves of the Forgotten Realms worship like this...") are likewise canon, but can be superceded by FR-specific publications.
-Things Ed says online, in Gen Con seminars, or otherwise publicly are also canon, and--depending on the specificity of the publication in question--can be superceded only by one of the above two categories.
-Descriptions of races, deities, weapons, cultures, etc. that appear in generic D&D publications that don't specifically mention the Realms (or call themselves out as applying to all members of a race/religion across all worlds) are not canon for the Realms. They can help inform the reader, players, or DMs, but the setting isn't bound by them. This is particularly true of language; the Realms have had a number of things introduced which suggest language featurs for particular races, which are not superceded by the general D&D discussion of similar topics. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 13:07:54
I consider Dragon magazine content to be Canon, with the caveat that rules-centered articles aren't as useful as information in non-rules articles.
I'm a little hesitant to accept material in Dungeon as 100% Canon since much of what happens in an adventure is predicated on the players in any of several different campaigns. Generally I look at the framework of the adventure as existing in the Realms proper, it's the details of 'who did what' that I ignore. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 13:06:23
Yes, if it is specifically an FR article, then it is considered canon.
Thus, we have zoot-suit wearing Beholders in The Realms.  |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 10 May 2013 : 10:52:01
The basic rule is if the article has FR logo on it it is canon, unless superseded by something printed later. For something like Hobgoblin racial information it clearly might be applied to a subset of Hobgoblins that live in limited area. I have not read the article so can not fully comment on that, my answer is mostly about what is considered canon. Hope this helps some. |
|
|
