| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Kuje |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 06:19:20
Well now,
It turns out I was wrong and WOTC should updated their book list about these novels. In the Greater Doppleganger entry in Monster's of Faerun, the events of these novellettes is referenced.
For years, I told people that they were not canon since WOTC's online book list says they aren't canon, however, it seems that they are.
The link I'm talking about is:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/fr/lists#Apocrypha
So..... I guess Volo didn't write these until 5 years after the events actually took place. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Bakra |
Posted - 27 Apr 2006 : 16:51:51
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
I've always considered them canon (not that my opinion has any influence on whether or not they actually are).
I must of missed the memo too. Then again we never really used any of it in our games. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Apr 2006 : 02:11:48
quote:
Originally posted by EytanBernstein
I agree with Erik and Elaine's intrepretations of things. There are probably a large number of "grains of truth" throughout the DD saga, but the entire thing cannot be taken as canon fact. Good tall tales always contain elements of truth, or they are not believable. Elements of the DD saga could certainly be expanded on in supplements and novels. I wouldn't quote DD directly as a factual source, but one could use some of the ideas as inspirations or rumors for real events.
As I said before... that's a perspective I can lean towards for this. And given the official confirmation now... it's all the more likely to be the case. Past the date of the events portrayed of course -- during or post 1377 DR -- which can then suggest some level of canon for events depicted in the DD novelettes should either Ed or any other designers involved in a future FR sourcebook seek out some details in the Double Diamond book as a Realmslore reference to be expanded upon.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 27 Apr 2006 : 02:10:46
quote:
Originally posted by Sam from WotC
However, it was the best example the Monsters of Faerun author had for Greater Doppelgangers at the time.
Well, that explains the bit I posted above about James Wyatt using the details from FR sources (and possibly the DD books) as a reference for the "In the Realms" entry for the doppelganger. So while they've likely been used to support the creature entry, they aren't canonising the event itself.
Fair enough. It's nice to have some official confirmation on this...
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 23:33:30
Well met
Many thanks on delving further into this, Kuje, and for bringing this to us  Thanks for your thoughts too, Erik. It's certainly interesting to hear views and suggestions on this matter.
|
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 23:31:16
I agree with Erik and Elaine's intrepretations of things. There are probably a large number of "grains of truth" throughout the DD saga, but the entire thing cannot be taken as canon fact. Good tall tales always contain elements of truth, or they are not believable. Elements of the DD saga could certainly be expanded on in supplements and novels. I wouldn't quote DD directly as a factual source, but one could use some of the ideas as inspirations or rumors for real events. |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 22:22:18
Well I'll admit when I'm wrong. :)
Scott,
Sorry for the confusion. The reference in the Monsters of Faerun book does not make the Double Diamond Triangle Saga canon (it is not yet 1377 DR in the FR timeline). It is erroneous in assuming that the events already happened when they haven't. However, it was the best example the Monsters of Faerun author had for Greater Doppelgangers at the time.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Sam
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 19:24:15
I just want to thank our FR authors that are part of the community that have taken time out to alalyse and chime in on this situation. No matter how much we manage to get confused over issues like this, its great to know that we have some authors that are so willing to jump into this and provide us some great opinions . . . |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 19:09:59
Greetings,
I haven't read the DD books, actually, but I have read the discussions here on the board with a philosopher's eye, and I think that there are valid arguments, both, presenting alternate explanations for the similarity between the MoF entry and the events of the novellettes.
There are at least two completely different ways of reading it: Kuje's way, or George's way. (I'm sure there are many others as well!) That is, "does an entry to a doppelganger in a certain place in MoF, which seems reflective of the DD novellettes, entail that Volo is describing an actual event?"
I suppose it depends on WotC's intention, which we don't know, and probably never will. By the indications (that is, Wizards has avowed that the series is not canon), it would seem that George's interpretation holds more weight.
That doesn't mean, of course, that the authors of MoF didn't just take the idea/inspiration from the DD books. That also doesn't entail, necessarily, that the DD books are canon. Doppelgangers replacing lords and ladies of import are hardly rare occurances (Baldur's Gate, anyone?) a fact that Volo no doubt "knew" when he "wrote" the novellettes.
Alternate reasons to explain an otherwise incredible coincidence:
- Perhaps Volo based it on a story he had heard (as Elaine has suggested)
- Perhaps Volo just entirely guessed, and happened to get it right (without realizing it)
-Maybe, before they did it, whatever sinister forces are behind the impersonation of Piergeiron's wife read Volo's novellette and thought to themselves, "What a great idea -- and no one would ever believe this woolhead that it ACTUALLY happened. Brilliant!"
Who knows?
I myself am more inclined to read the situation as not implying that the DD books are canon, for the reasons above, and knowing Volo's tendencies toward exaggeration, inflation, or outright inaccuracy. Frankly, even if he had come by the truth and known that this was a real event, he likely would have missed it entirely.
I think this is actually rather clever on Wizards' part, and brings out amazingly good speculation.
Cheers
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 17:53:07
And Lisa's psi trilogy expands on a entry in Monsters as well.
So as the others said, parts of it have to be.
As for the Volo thing, that web page is from 2000 and Monster's came out in 2001. Wizards hasn't updated that webpage since 2000 and so, since newer material over writes older material, obviously they made parts of that series canon even if Volo later writes about it 5 years later. As I said earlier, without that series being writen here on Earth then there wouldn't be a event to reference for a later sourcebook. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 17:26:11
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Speaking of Monsters of Faerun
In the Realms lore section of the Beast of Xvim it says Carina Tchazzam was killed by a Beast of Xvim/Bane in 1371 but in Nobles enhancement of City of Splendors shes still alive and still the House Heir.
Im wondering if MoF is cannon
Parts of it have to be; the stinger entry leads into Power of Faerun, for example. |
| Reefy |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 16:25:25
quote:
Originally posted by Archwizard
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Speaking of Monsters of Faerun
In the Realms lore section of the Beast of Xvim it says Carina Tchazzam was killed by a Beast of Xvim/Bane in 1371 but in Nobles enhancement of City of Splendors shes still alive and still the House Heir.
Im wondering if MoF is cannon
There's always a chance there could have been a Resurrection type spell involved.
Similar to, and not really wishing to bring the Baldur's Gate computer game into it, the resurrection of Grand Duke Eltan, as mentioned in a recent sourcebook. |
| Archwizard |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 15:52:41
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Speaking of Monsters of Faerun
In the Realms lore section of the Beast of Xvim it says Carina Tchazzam was killed by a Beast of Xvim/Bane in 1371 but in Nobles enhancement of City of Splendors shes still alive and still the House Heir.
Im wondering if MoF is cannon
There's always a chance there could have been a Resurrection type spell involved. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 14:47:30
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
Im wondering if MoF is cannon
Hmmm... a lot of the "In the Realms" entries for the monsters detailed in MoF, when specific examples of monsters and/or events involving them are used as a basis for lore, seem to refer to actual canon events in the Realms. Notable examples of such entries include both the malaugrym and the shalarin.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 14:39:59
Since I'm curious about this... I've contacted both James Wyatt and Rob Heinsoo on the issue of the doppelganger details pertaining to the DD novellettes. I'm curious about what exactly they can tell us about the research they did for this tome.
Additionally, I was looking over the WotC website -- in particular the details about James and Rob's work on MoF when it was released -- and found this little factoid -
quote:
James: I set out selecting monsters for this book with a huge long list of all the monsters that had been published in Forgotten Realms sources over the years, and tried to select from that list monsters that had a particular Faerûnian flavor to them. It's hard to put a finger on what that means -- but the Realms is a setting of high magic and nasty evil, and you'll see a lot of both in this book.
That would seem to somewhat support the fact that the entry for the doppelganger does in fact relate to, possibly, the events portrayed in the novelette or at the very least, the novel was used as a reference source for the doppelganger entry in MoF as I mentioned above.
I'm hoping James or Rob can shed some light on this...
|
| Dargoth |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 13:30:51
Speaking of Monsters of Faerun
In the Realms lore section of the Beast of Xvim it says Carina Tchazzam was killed by a Beast of Xvim/Bane in 1371 but in Nobles enhancement of City of Splendors shes still alive and still the House Heir.
Im wondering if MoF is cannon |
| ElaineCunningham |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 13:03:48
quote:
Originally posted by Dhomal
However - if the story is deemed to be fiction - there is nothing saying that some aspects of the story Volo wrote are based in truth. I know that there were other geographic locales visited other than just Waterdeep. Perhaps Volo - in writing the story - included facts about XYZ city/town/etc. Those facts could certainly (*for us - the outside observer*) be considered cannon. However - it could just as easilly be things that he made up for the purposes of telling the story. If I decided to write a short story based in say - Paris - I could do a lot of research - but ultimately - some of what I write will not be true. Perhaps I used a made-up name for a street, or a business establishment name that does not exist. However - if I mention the Eifel Tower - that is know to exist, so there is a line between 'cannon' and 'creative license'.
That's how fiction works in our world. I see no reason to believe that it works differently in the Realms.
Volo's guides--his non-fiction--are MEANT to be factually dubious. These are all about gossip and rumor and travelers' tales, occasionally corrected by Elminster but with a strong implication that not ALL falacies are corrected by Elminster. This leaves a lot of material to the discretion of the DM, which is, to my way of thinking, a very good idea. Do Volo's guides contain solid information? Absolutely, and some of it is readily verifiable. But quite a lot of it is conjecture or invention, and the existance of a few verifiable facts does not change the overall nature of his work.
Knowing what we do about Volo's non-fiction, why would we assume that verification of a few facts from the DD novelettes canonizes the whole?
This is my interpretation, and I'm not arguing that it's the only one. Considering my understanding of the purpose of Volo's work--to provide a level of ambiguity that leaves room for campaign customization and DM creativity--that would be ironic, if not actually hypocritical.
|
| Dhomal |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 06:15:45
Hello-
I'm not sure where my basis comes from - but I have for a long time considered them 'Apocrypha', in the sense that Volo wrote them - as Fiction, and not as 'news.'
As I understand it - the main reason for this is due to events that transpire to another author's character being used and abused. That being said - and its been years since I read them - I would agree that some of the contents of the books is of course cannon. However - what is cannon must be carefully looked at.
To say Volo got the idea for the beginning of the story froma doppleganger masquerading as Piergeron's wife is quite acceptable. I'm sure we all get ideas for our own campaigns from all sorts of sources.
Also - saying that we beleive that whatever Ed wrote would not be changed seems reasonable. However - if the story is deemed to be fiction - there is nothing saying that some aspects of the story Volo wrote are based in truth. I know that there were other geographic locales visited other than just Waterdeep. Perhaps Volo - in writing the story - included facts about XYZ city/town/etc. Those facts could certainly (*for us - the outside observer*) be considered cannon. However - it could just as easilly be things that he made up for the purposes of telling the story. If I decided to write a short story based in say - Paris - I could do a lot of research - but ultimately - some of what I write will not be true. Perhaps I used a made-up name for a street, or a business establishment name that does not exist. However - if I mention the Eifel Tower - that is know to exist, so there is a line between 'cannon' and 'creative license'.
I sure hope I am making some sense. Its late - and I seem to be loosing some of my thoughts - so I'm going to stop about now. 
Dhomal |
| Faraer |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 02:47:51
From respect for Ed's ability to write novels too quickly, I recall this from an interview with Ramsey Campbell:quote:
I corresponded with [August Derleth] for many years, and I remember one memorable occasion where he said he was supposed to have a doctor's appointment that Sunday, but the doctor didn't turn up so he wrote a novel.
|
| EytanBernstein |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 02:45:17
I've always considered them canon (not that my opinion has any influence on whether or not they actually are). |
| The Sage |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 02:40:52
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Have I ever told you fellow scribes about Ed writing THE MERCENARIES (which should really be called “The Pirates”) in an afternoon, from a one-paragraph outline?
For which his reward was to be handed the last book with a one-day turnaround, with his co-author’s first draft more than twice as long as the allowable wordcount for the final version?
Ed bought himself an extra day by pointing out (truthfully) that Fed Ex didn’t do Saturday pickups in Canada at that time, rolled up his sleeves, cursed at the ceiling, and did what he had to do.
I understand there’s still blood on the ceiling.
love,
THO
Oh, I suddenly have renewed appreciation for Ed's position. Hehe...
Thanks for sharing THO  .
|
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 02:34:23
quote:
Originally posted by The Hooded One
Have I ever told you fellow scribes about Ed writing THE MERCENARIES (which should really be called “The Pirates”) in an afternoon, from a one-paragraph outline?
For which his reward was to be handed the last book with a one-day turnaround, with his co-author’s first draft more than twice as long as the allowable wordcount for the final version?
Ed bought himself an extra day by pointing out (truthfully) that Fed Ex didn’t do Saturday pickups in Canada at that time, rolled up his sleeves, cursed at the ceiling, and did what he had to do.
I understand there’s still blood on the ceiling.
love,
THO
Grin,
No, this is a new tale. :) |
| The Hooded One |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 02:29:42
Have I ever told you fellow scribes about Ed writing THE MERCENARIES (which should really be called “The Pirates”) in an afternoon, from a one-paragraph outline?
For which his reward was to be handed the last book with a one-day turnaround, with his co-author’s first draft more than twice as long as the allowable wordcount for the final version?
Ed bought himself an extra day by pointing out (truthfully) that Fed Ex didn’t do Saturday pickups in Canada at that time, rolled up his sleeves, cursed at the ceiling, and did what he had to do.
I understand there’s still blood on the ceiling.
love,
THO |
| Kuje |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 01:44:09
quote:
Originally posted by Brian R. James
Damn, good eye Kuje. I also have had Monsters of Faerûn for years and never noticed that entry.
I was at Gen Con in 2000 when Jim Butler first mentioned that the Double Diamond Triangle Saga was no longer canon. I was thinking to myself, "Great they tricked me into purchasing novels that I wouldn't have read otherwise." It's nice to see that at least part of the series is canon.
Me to. I was really surprised that that was in Monsters. I went, hey cool so some of those events are now canon, rock! |
| Brian R. James |
Posted - 26 Apr 2006 : 01:41:58
Damn, good eye Kuje. I also have had Monsters of Faerûn for years and never noticed that entry.
I was at Gen Con in 2000 when Jim Butler first mentioned that the Double Diamond Triangle Saga was no longer canon. I was thinking to myself, "Great they tricked me into purchasing novels that I wouldn't have read otherwise." It's nice to see that at least part of the series is canon. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 16:35:12
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
Of course, the real world, and likely less explosive, explanation is that whoever wrote the Greater Doppleganger entry just didn't realize that DD series wasn't canon, and no one caught the reference before.
Or, as I said above... perhaps they did and decided to use that doppelganger reference for the lore section on the doppelganger and give the event some grounding in canon.
Hmmm... Maybe it was missed during the editing process? Perhaps more attention should have been thrown on the actual "canon nature" of the DD novelettes before they were (perhaps) used as reference sources for Realmslore in sourcebooks if this theory is true.
It seems they may have had some validity as canon, given what Faraer said above. I find it somewhat unlikely that Ed would actively override anything he'd written in his works for the DD series especially if he could use it with further lore he may be working on. So, at the very least... some of the events in the books have the *potential* to become canon.
quote:
Heck, I've had the book for years now and never even read the "In the Realms" section of that particular monster.
Neither had I. In fact, until Kuje mentioned it... that was probably the first time I actually read that entry fully.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 16:06:09
I guess to say that the whole series has to have happened because one of the events of the books may have happened is kind of like saying that since the Baldur's Gate novels happened, then every character in the video games must exist, and all the areas exist as they did in the game, even if the characters in the novels didn't do the "side quests."
Of course, the real world, and likely less explosive, explanation is that whoever wrote the Greater Doppleganger entry just didn't realize that DD series wasn't canon, and no one caught the reference before. Heck, I've had the book for years now and never even read the "In the Realms" section of that particular monster.
|
| Faraer |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 13:54:49
Does this event take place as shown in the DDTS books? We don't know one way or the other. Does it make the whole series canonical? I don't see why it should.
We already knew the books were partly canonical in that if, say, Ed Greenwood revisited subjects he covered in his instalments, it's not likely he would replace stuff he created for the DDTS just because their events had been labelled outside of canon. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 13:39:35
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Despite myself, I respond. They are not coindidence, they are interrelated inasmuch as they talk about the same 'type' of event, namely a doppleganger masquerading as Piergeiron's wife. Volo hears about such an event, thinks "interesting" and much later when writing some fiction, uses this event as a plot premise with the only connection being the use of, and I repeat myself, a scenario where a doppleganger masquerades as Piergeiron's wife. Kuje is right: the entry does canonise a situation where a doppleganger masquerades as Pieregeiron's wife - but that doesn't necesarily mean that it canonises such an event in the context or form of the DD novelletes. IMHO at least.
But, if we're talking about fictitious works... why reference them in a canon sourcebook in the first place?
Now I know, Volo could've been using an historical note about a doppelganger impersonating Piergeiron's wife and crafting a tale from it... but it's a tale that's been referenced in canon material. Yes, it could be the actual historical event referenced in the doppelganger's entry and not Volo's tale thus opening the way for your interpretation that says that the novelette's events haven't been "properly" canonised. But why do that? We already know of the events from the novel... and James Wyatt and Rob Heinsoo likely did as well and so utilised the novelette's plot as a basis for lore in the "In the Realms" entry for the doppelganger.
Thus, a canonised event.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 13:35:37
quote:
Originally posted by ElaineCunningham
I read a lot of historical fiction. Some of it cleaves closely to the historical record, other stories seize an interesting fact (or rumor) and write a fictitious story around it. Quite a lot of historical fiction includes reference to famous individuals, incorporating actual events touching the lives of the great and famous into a fictitious narrative. I view Volo's DD novelettes in this light. This interpretation not only deals with the canon/apocryphal issue, but it's consistent with a) the way historical fiction works and b) Volo's long-established reputation for factual unreliability even in such works as purport to be non-fiction.
I can certainly see that as a possible explanation.
I think, what this really comes down to... is just how much strength, you as the DM, choose to give to the details in that particular entry for the doppelganger in MoF. If you want it as canon for your campaign... that's your choice -- you're viewing it as a proper reference dealing with the events portrayed in the novel and making it a canon event. If you don't, then look at the entry and Volo's portrayed events in a way Elaine illustrated above -- historical fiction following Volo's regular tendency for factual unrealiabiliy.
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 25 Apr 2006 : 12:47:08
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
So, what you're saying is... that the described doppelganger plot detailed in the "In the Realms" section for the doppelganger's entry in MoF and the events detailed as fiction by Volo in the DD books are merely co-incidence and therefore not the same event?
Despite myself, I respond. They are not coindidence, they are interrelated inasmuch as they talk about the same 'type' of event, namely a doppleganger masquerading as Piergeiron's wife. Volo hears about such an event, thinks "interesting" and much later when writing some fiction, uses this event as a plot premise with the only connection being the use of, and I repeat myself, a scenario where a doppleganger masquerades as Piergeiron's wife. Kuje is right: the entry does canonise a situation where a doppleganger masquerades as Pieregeiron's wife - but that doesn't necesarily mean that it canonises such an event in the context or form of the DD novelletes. IMHO at least.
-- George Krashos
|
|
|
