| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Tidrec |
Posted - 25 Nov 2005 : 02:44:26
In "Rising Tide", the Sahaugin attack on Waterdeep is 1369 DR. But in "City of Splendors" (which I have just started reading...PLEASE, NO SPOILERS  ), the events take place in 1370 DR. The "City of Splendors" sourcebook agrees with the older novel, placing the attack in 1369, the Year of the Gauntlet.
I would normally assume the original novel and the sourcebook are canon for recent Waterdeep history. But since Ed Greenwood co-wrote the new novel, I don't want to jump to conclusions.
So, which is correct? And, for future reference, what is the rule-of-thumb for deciding which source is correct in conflicts like this? |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 03 Dec 2005 : 21:35:19
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
The Threat from the Sea was not a tidy, occurred-on-this-day event, but more than a season of raids on shores, estuaries, and islands.
love,
THO
*nods* True enough--well said. |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 20:53:15
The attack on Waterdeep that penetrated as far as the city streets, by way of the sewers, occurred in 1370 DR (the WotC Book Department checked all dates in the novel).
It was not the first attack from the sea in what has become known as "the Threat from the Sea," nor the last. It was, however, the only one in which the attackers conquered the harbor and were able to assault the docks at will.
The Threat from the Sea was not a tidy, occurred-on-this-day event, but more than a season of raids on shores, estuaries, and islands.
love,
THO |
| Tidrec |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 20:09:36
The novel has a prelude, which is dated "30 Ches, Year of the Tankard, 1370 DR". As others have said, I won't worry about it in terms of my campaign. I'm just a stickler for continuity when it comes to things like that. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 28 Nov 2005 : 15:52:27
does the City of Splendors give an actual date? I thought it just made reference that the attack happened "a year ago". If so, that's subjective (if it was a year and 11 months, you might still say a year ago). Not that I'm doubting you (and I know they often do put the month,year reference starting off chapters). |
| Rinonalyrna Fathomlin |
Posted - 25 Nov 2005 : 22:10:42
ACK! The dreaded C word! Get it away, get it away!
As for your question, Tidrec there is at most a year's difference between the two dates, so I wouldn't worry about it. :) It's not really a big deal, and I know it didn't keep me from enjoying the novel or anything. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 25 Nov 2005 : 03:28:49
As for the year difference, I would not worry about it. Lore can be told from the presepetive of each side.
the one side considers the attack started in 1369.
The recorders of Waterdeep history consider the starting point 1370, at which they consider consider the battle started, there certainly could have been incidents recorded in Waterdeep history of events occuring in 1369.
As for what is current canon the general appears to be everything in print that bear the FR Logo is canon and anything not in print that Ed Greenwood says is canon. When canon conflicts the last printed item replaces older printed item. When a novel and a source booh conflict released at about the same time, the sourcebook should be considered canon.
Not a perfect guideline that has lead to many debates of when a novel has changed canon, because no source book was released at about the same time.
Also my rule of thumb might be disputed by others, however it is the best answer I can give you.
|
|
|
