| Author |
 Topic  |
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
 Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 04:22:41
|
So as not to hijack the Amn/Tethyr thread I thought I'd start up another regarding this topic.
The only positive 'canon' FR lore is found in the official products published by WotC/TSR. Everything else is, not to put too fine a point on it, up for grabs.
As Faraer pointed out there are many recent examples (especially in 3E) where FR Dragon articles have been superseded or ignored by FR designers. Heck, 3E outranks 2E and 1E so that we can have Xara Tantlor of Silverymoon suddenly turn out to be an evil NPC and give Silverymoon a mythal.
I don't speak for WotC and have never claimed to, but just because someone gets something published, that's set in the Realms, doesn't mean that it won't be ignored or superseded by future material when some author/freelancer is asked to write about a topic. Seriously, will the freelancer who ends up doing "Impiltur: The Forgotten Kingdom" in 2008 (and no, this isn't happening - it's an example) going to research all the way back to Dragon #277 and dig up my "Soargar's Legacy" article and incorporate it into his work? Highly doubtful.
The reason Dragon, Dungeon and Polyhedron material can't be considered to be canon is that there is no expectation that future FR authors use these sources when the time comes to do so. Good FR authors (such as Eric Boyd & Thomas Reid of the current crop) will go that bit extra or ask others to do so on their behalf. Mediocre FR authors (such as good old Slade) will come up with a great "idea" and ignore such material or people's work/suggestions (like Slade did when he ignored the notes Ed gave him prior to writing the Netheril boxed set) or think that a Dragon article published 10 years ago means nothing. The "idea" is all.
Hence, at the highest, Dragon material can be considered quasi-canon until ignored, superseded or re-written in a future "official" product.
Long ago, when I was into comics, there was a DC comic line called "All Star Squadron" set in WWII. It was effectively re-writing and adding to the Earth 2 comic books published in the 40s and 50s (old Justice Society of America comics). The process was labelled "retroactive continuity". Everything they wrote had to match what had previously been published and new material had to be moulded around the core old material and old loose ends dealt with by the new stuff.
It was great comic book writing and something that I've always kept in mind when I have had whatever minor input into published FR material. Eric Boyd and his efforts for FR over the years is the embodiment of this concept - but just because he, I and others subscribe to it doesn't mean that it will hold sway - now or in the future.
I know for a fact that Rich Baker is making a sterling effort to keep to what has gone before, but he is also a pragmatist and realises that he has to do what is best to sell FR products. I can assure you, if that means ignoring "Soargar's Legacy" when the time comes, he will do so without batting an eyelid - and won't get a peep out of me. I like to think that my work would be considered and incorporated into future FR products but as the concept of "canon" stretches more and more, and there is a greater amount and type of material to consider when writing something "definitive" on an FR topic, there will come a time when the FR designers will have to simply say, "No, we're going with this ..." and whether it's been published in Dragon, Polyhedron or National Geographic won't make a lick of difference.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 04:38:35
|
And this is different then ignoring material in sourcebooks how? I don't see the difference. They ignore material from official sourcebooks as well.
Sorry again but WOTC has claimed over and over that Dragon is official canon material and it says so right on the cover. The editors from Dragon when it was with WOTC as well as Paizo have said as much as well.
Email WOTC if you will and ask them, because I know they will tell you that Dragon/Dungeon is 100% official canon material. I had this debate on the boards awhile back.
Also issue #300, "Dragon Magazine has always been known as the official D&D magazine. Now that you are no longer with WOTC, will you maintain your official status."
Answer: We're are still the official D&D magazine. Paizo licenses the magazine titles from Wizards, and we are required to maintain an active relationship with both the business and the R&D teams so that they ensure we are honoring the terms of the deal."
Again, WOTC also considers it canon because we can now discuss characters from the novels if they only appeared in canon material which includes Dragon.
BTW Silverymoon was rumored to have a Mythal in Volo's Guide to the North. :) And also 3e material only over writes 2e material if it is mentioned in a sourcebook. There is no material in 3/3.5 that overwrites the BG novels yet.
Also I ask again since you didn't answer me, are you really telling me that Ed's article on the Palace of Silverymoon, or Steven's write up on Undermountain and Qilue's temple is not canon? Sorry but that seems to be a stretch to believe that the old material that got cut from the sourcebooks and was printed in Dragon is not canon, as are all the stats from the novel characters, plus any thing else that has never been printed in sourcebooks. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 15 Jun 2004 04:49:13 |
 |
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:11:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
And this is different then ignoring material in sourcebooks how? I don't see the difference. They ignore material from official sourcebooks as well.
Yes, but the ignored material still exists in its "official" capacity and hence good FR authors at some latter stage can come up with an explanation as to why Xara Tantlor went from good to evil. Dragon magazine articles once ignored/superseded disappear into the ether IMHO.
quote:
Sorry again but WOTC has claimed over and over that Dragon is official canon material and it says so right on the cover. The editors from Dragon when it was with WOTC as well as Paizo have said as much as well.
Well of course they say that - Dragon is a wonderful vehicle for getting people interested in D&D and keeping them interested. But the point I'll make is a simple one: find me one, single example of a 3E FR product that has referred you to a Dragon article and not re-printed the information contained in that article, such as a magic item, feat, prestige class, etc. If Dragon is canon, why do they re-print the information? They refer you to other material in other published, "official" FR products ...
quote:
Again, WOTC also considers it canon because we can now discuss characters from the novels if they only appeared in canon material which includes Dragon.
I wouldn't point to what WotC does with its Message Boards and what one WizO says, as a definitive company line regarding whether Dragon et. al. are "canon".
quote:
BTW Silverymoon was rumored to have a Mythal in Volo's Guide to the North. :) And also 3e material only over writes 2e material if it is mentioned in a sourcebook.
Yep, it certainly was rumored to be. But then again, Gondegal is rumored to still be intriguing against the throne of Cormyr and Lashan is rumored to still be seeking to overthrow the Dales. Rumors aren't "canon" either.
quote:
There is no material in 3/3.5 that overwrites the BG novels yet.
There is no gaming material in an officially published FR product that acknowledges the BG novels either. Although there is lots for other novels. Also note that there is a precedent for FR novels to be deemed apocryphal (as in, stories within stories) ala the Double Diamond books. I know what I think about the BG novels - they were a good cash cow for those who played the computer game.
quote:
Also I ask again since you didn't answer me, are you really telling me that Ed's article on the Palace of Silverymoon, or Steven's write up on Undermountain and Qilue's temple is not canon? Sorry but that seems to be a stretch to believe that the old material that got cut from the sourcebooks and was printed in Dragon is not canon, as are all the stats from the novel characters, plus any thing else that has never been printed in sourcebooks.
Hate to tell you Kuje but if there is ever a sourcebook on Silverymoon and the FR freelancer doesn't get his hands on Steven Schend's Dragon Annual article, and does it different, then yes, the article isn't and never was canon. At best, it was quasi-canon because people considered it to be canon.
By your logic, if Dragon prints an article on magical and natural disasters and someone sets it in the Realms and notes that Waterdeep was levelled by an earthquake in 1375DR, then we are all bound by this. That can't be good for the Realms. Designers need flexibility when doing their work. Saying that everything, no matter the medium, which has an FR context is "canon" is just setting the whole gameworld up for a fall. The idea is to be as inclusive as possible but not get your hands tied. In the end, "canon" will be whatever people want it to be.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:31:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Sorry again but WOTC has claimed over and over that Dragon is official canon material and it says so right on the cover. The editors from Dragon when it was with WOTC as well as Paizo have said as much as well.
What Wizards says and what Wizards does are 2 different things
To bring up our old arguement "Are the BG games Canon?" Wizards says they are Canon but if there Canon why arent the events in the BG series covered in the RPG side? Why isnt Saradush destroyed (it isnt even an option in he game it is 100% guarranteed that the Fire Giant Bhaalspawn will destroy the city with his army)
I think the only reason why Wizards say the BG, NWN and Dragon Magazine are Canon is because if they didnt they might be sued after all both Pazio and Bioware spent good money buying the licence from WOTC. I suspect that NWN, BG and Dragon magazine are Canon without substance as there events willl be ignored or over written by the RPG side of the buisness |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:34:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
Yes, but the ignored material still exists in its "official" capacity and hence good FR authors at some latter stage can come up with an explanation as to why Xara Tantlor went from good to evil. Dragon magazine articles once ignored/superseded disappear into the ether IMHO.
I wouldn't point to what WotC does with its Message Boards and what one WizO says, as a definitive company line regarding whether Dragon et. al. are "canon".
There is no gaming material in an officially published FR product that acknowledges the BG novels either. Although there is lots for other novels. Also note that there is a precedent for FR novels to be deemed apocryphal (as in, stories within stories) ala the Double Diamond books. I know what I think about the BG novels - they were a good cash cow for those who played the computer game.
Hate to tell you Kuje but if there is ever a sourcebook on Silverymoon and the FR freelancer doesn't get his hands on Steven Schend's Dragon Annual article, and does it different, then yes, the article isn't and never was canon. At best, it was quasi-canon because people considered it to be canon.
By your logic, if Dragon prints an article on magical and natural disasters and someone sets it in the Realms and notes that Waterdeep was levelled by an earthquake in 1375DR, then we are all bound by this. That can't be good for the Realms. Designers need flexibility when doing their work. Saying that everything, no matter the medium, which has an FR context is "canon" is just setting the whole gameworld up for a fall. The idea is to be as inclusive as possible but not get your hands tied. In the end, "canon" will be whatever people want it to be.
-- George Krashos
And I would since WOTC, not the Wizo's, handed down the novel rules and so WOTC considers Dragon canon.
Woopie. Novels have always been canon in FR, except for one series. So what if they are not mentioned in the Sourcebook? And actually I'd like to point out that Ed's Volo's Guide to BG11 is canon and ties in with the novels and Steven's original write up for ingame books lists that as existing in the world.
"And, as promised, Ed’s words to kuje31 re. canon (Athenon/Will, I promise I’ll tell some Ed as DM stories, to go with the ones in the early single-digit pages of this thread, the moment life spares me the time to do more than snatch and toss Ed’s words to waiting scribes . . . which may be five or six days from now) :
Although many licensed Realms products have given some designers fits over the years (and yes, the elf queen who appeared in the Wealdath in the BG II game was one such matter), the Volo's Guide to BG II is indeed canon. I can’t personally speak for the BG novels being canon.
What I can say is that, although gamers and fans hold many different personal positions on what is and what is not canon, the original Realms agreement is pretty clear on this: anything I write or say about the Realms IS official canon (hmm, sounds almost papal, doesn’t it?), although future in-print products can “fix” things I write or say and then the revision becomes canon, AS LONG AS it’s an in-the-Realms explanation. (To make up a hypothetical but entirely fictitious example, if a BATTLESYSTEM --remember that? -- product came out that changed the class and stats of an established Realms character, that alteration would NOT be a canon change, because it’s a rules sytem detail that can be ascribed as being unique to BATTLESYSTEM: “Well, in your AD&D game King Thog is still a 7th level barbarian, but in BATTLESYSTEM terms, he’s a YY” UNLESS the BATTLESYSTEM product stated that King Thog was transformed by a god into a YY.)
So, yes, my sourcebook is canon, and I’d assume the novels and “the stats for the characters in those novels that are in Dragon” are canon, too. However, that last bit IS an assumption on my part.
But yes, like it or not, if I say it, it’s canon. Which is why, of course, I say so little, and in such guarded terms. :}"
Look at that, Ed assumes that Dragon is canon as well. I guess you could ignore his words as well.
Also the BG novels are not apocryphal either.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/fr/fictionlist&tablesort=1b
Baldur's Gate II Philip Athans 2000 1369 1369 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
Baldur's Gate Philip Athans 1999 1368 1368 Interplay Computer Game tie-in
Who said people are bound to material in any canon source be they Dragon, Dungeon, Sourcebooks, or Novels? I sure and the Hells did not and so you are putting words in my mouth. Look at any of the 2e or the 3e material, TSR/WOTC was never bound by novels, Dragon, Dungeon, or Sourcebooks and they changed what they wanted to when they wanted to.
And again how is this different from doing the same with sourcebooks? Let's see SKR rewrote the planes, Ed's words have been rewritten many times. I still don't see the difference here.
Sorry George but it says 100% OFFICIAL on the covers of both magazines and I know for a fact that WOTC okays every article in both magazines. Please write to WOTC and ask them and as I said they will tell you that all material that is issued for FR is official canon material. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 15 Jun 2004 08:53:24 |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:39:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I know for a fact that Rich Baker is making a sterling effort to keep to what has gone before, but he is also a pragmatist and realises that he has to do what is best to sell FR products.
The end portion of George Krashos quote is, to me, what ends all arguments about canon.
If it suits WOTC, by that I mean they can sell more products, than something will be considered canon. If by ignoring something that was considerd canon before, the current design team can sell more of a current product, bye bye to whatever was considered canon in the past.
I don't mean that in any way to be a slam against Richard Baker or WOTC. I more than understand the desire to do what's best to sell a product. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:40:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Sorry again but WOTC has claimed over and over that Dragon is official canon material and it says so right on the cover. The editors from Dragon when it was with WOTC as well as Paizo have said as much as well.
What Wizards says and what Wizards does are 2 different things
To bring up our old arguement "Are the BG games Canon?" Wizards says they are Canon but if there Canon why arent the events in the BG series covered in the RPG side? Why isnt Saradush destroyed (it isnt even an option in he game it is 100% guarranteed that the Fire Giant Bhaalspawn will destroy the city with his army)
I think the only reason why Wizards say the BG, NWN and Dragon Magazine are Canon is because if they didnt they might be sued after all both Pazio and Bioware spent good money buying the licence from WOTC. I suspect that NWN, BG and Dragon magazine are Canon without substance as there events willl be ignored or over written by the RPG side of the buisness
I am not claiming NWN's is, nor HAVE I EVER claimed the games are. But sorry you are wrong over and over on the novels. IT DOES NOT MATTER that the novels have never been put in the sourcebooks. ALL FR NOVELS, except for one series, HAVE BEEN CANON SINCE 1987. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:44:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
The end portion of George Krashos quote is, to me, what ends all arguments about canon.
If it suits WOTC, by that I mean they can sell more products, than something will be considered canon. If by ignoring something that was considerd canon before, the current design team can sell more of a current product, bye bye to whatever was considered canon in the past.
I don't mean that in any way to be a slam against Richard Baker or WOTC. I more than understand the desire to do what's best to sell a product.
Well let's be fair here. TSR did the same. Do I have to bring up the Chauntea example. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:45:06
|
To me this seems to have really become a quagmire of issues. Canon has been discussed on other threads and exactly what can and cannot be considered is sketchy at best. PC games are not, but books are, but Baldur’s Gate is a Book so…and NWN was scheduled to be one but stopped, etc…. etc…
Now to say that Dragon is not canon, is really a bit ludicrous to me. But then again so is changing the cosmology of the realms with the new edition. One of my favorite articles of Dragon was Mr. Greenwoods series Wizards Three. But according to WOTC, such an occurrence can not have occurred, which goes against allot of what I knew the realms to be.
If D&D was to be bought out next week by say 'Bards in the East Side'  would that suddenly make the web articles from WOTC that many of us have archived invalid and no longer canon? It has become like a salad bar or Chinese Super Buffet, too many choices and not all are great….so is it each to his own? And the one person, who should have final say, does not seem to have the legal rights or the clout to do so.
I understand what Mr. Krashos is saying when he says, “Seriously, will the freelancer who ends up doing "Impiltur: The Forgotten Kingdom" in 2008 (and no, this isn't happening - it's an example) going to research all the way back to Dragon #277 and dig up my "Soargar's Legacy" article and incorporate it into his work? Highly doubtful.” But any writer who would not do such is (in my mind) simply too lazy to do the proper research required and needs to go back to college to learn how. Such contempt shows disrespect to the works of other authors that have come before and seem somewhat egotistical (at least to me).
Sure the realms are vast with nearly 2 decades of publications and it is easy to accidentally overlook something, but fixing on oversight is as simple as a web-update. I mean that’s what 3.5 has taught us anyway
|
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:50:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Well let's be fair here. TSR did the same. Do I have to bring up the Chauntea example. :)
Oh no, please, if anyone got that impression that I'm trying to say, "Gaming was great before WOTC took over," that's not the case.
I recall TSR days. But, that's a whole different thread.
|
|
|
|
Dargoth
Great Reader
Australia
4607 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:52:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Sorry again but WOTC has claimed over and over that Dragon is official canon material and it says so right on the cover. The editors from Dragon when it was with WOTC as well as Paizo have said as much as well.
What Wizards says and what Wizards does are 2 different things
To bring up our old arguement "Are the BG games Canon?" Wizards says they are Canon but if there Canon why arent the events in the BG series covered in the RPG side? Why isnt Saradush destroyed (it isnt even an option in he game it is 100% guarranteed that the Fire Giant Bhaalspawn will destroy the city with his army)
I think the only reason why Wizards say the BG, NWN and Dragon Magazine are Canon is because if they didnt they might be sued after all both Pazio and Bioware spent good money buying the licence from WOTC. I suspect that NWN, BG and Dragon magazine are Canon without substance as there events willl be ignored or over written by the RPG side of the buisness
I am not claiming NWN's is, nor HAVE I EVER claimed the games are. But sorry you are wrong over and over on the novels. IT DOES NOT MATTER that the novels have never been put in the sourcebooks. ALL FR NOVELS, except for one series, HAVE BEEN CANON SINCE 1987.
All novels are not Canon and I can give you at least ine example where a novel has been over written by the gaming department
In the novel Pools of Twilight the author claims that Shar is Banes sister yet we now know that Shar has been around since th begining of time while Bane is a relatively young deity.
2 sources that contradict each other cant both be Canon |
“I am the King of Rome, and above grammar”
Emperor Sigismund
"Its good to be the King!"
Mel Brooks |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:56:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chyron
To me this seems to have really become a quagmire of issues. Canon has been discussed on other threads and exactly what can and cannot be considered is sketchy at best. PC games are not, but books are, but Baldur’s Gate is a Book so…and NWN was scheduled to be one but stopped, etc…. etc…
Agreed, and if one isn't careful reading such threads can become depressing or frustrating.
But all that could be stopped with a Canon Coordinator. Any bright, young, and intelligent scribe out there willing to volunteer for such a job at WOTC? I'm sure they will pay you well enough to feed a small family of four....just not four humans, four cats maybe. But, think of the glory.
Girl in Bar: "What do you do for a living?"
Guy: "I'm the Canon Coordinator for the best campaign world in the history of D&D."
Girl: "You mean Eberron!"
quote:
Sure the realms are vast with nearly 2 decades of publications and it is easy to accidentally overlook something, but fixing on oversight is as simple as a web-update. I mean that’s what 3.5 has taught us anyway
It also taught us that things can change without explanation or a very unsound one when such is provided. |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:58:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
In the novel Pools of Twilight the author claims that Shar is Banes sister yet we now know that Shar has been around since th begining of time while Bane is a relatively young deity.
Whoa, really? I never knew that. Thanks for sharing this piece of Realms history even if it's now not history.
Did that just make sense?  |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 05:58:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dargoth
All novels are not Canon and I can give you at least ine example where a novel has been over written by the gaming department
In the novel Pools of Twilight the author claims that Shar is Banes sister yet we now know that Shar has been around since th begining of time while Bane is a relatively young deity.
2 sources that contradict each other cant both be Canon
So? Point being? Sorry but the Pools novels are canon, they are written up in Heroes Lorebook and even if they were not they still would be. Novels are canon and have been since the beginning of the printed realms.
Do you seriously expect me to believe that since it has a error it is not canon? Then we best throw out half the sourcebooks as well! Let's see there are at least three or more sourcebooks that can't decide if the Earthmother is part of Chauntea or not. Let's not even get into the stat'ing of the Open Lord of Waterdeep as well as some of the stats of the Knights when one of them starts at 4th level then moves to 6th level and then down to 2nd level, depending on which canon sourcebook you want to believe.
Sorry you need a better arguement then, "it contains errors so it can't be canon."
I guess then some one better tell WOTC that the Player's Guide isn't canon either. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 15 Jun 2004 06:06:15 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:15:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Agreed, and if one isn't careful reading such threads can become depressing or frustrating.
But all that could be stopped with a Canon Coordinator. Any bright, young, and intelligent scribe out there willing to volunteer for such a job at WOTC? I'm sure they will pay you well enough to feed a small family of four....just not four humans, four cats maybe. But, think of the glory.
Girl in Bar: "What do you do for a living?"
Guy: "I'm the Canon Coordinator for the best campaign world in the history of D&D."
Girl: "You mean Eberron!"
I'd do it. :) Except for the thing that must not be named part. hehehe. WOTC wouldn't like me though, since I am anal about this. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:24:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
I'd do it. :) Except for the thing that must not be named part. hehehe. WOTC wouldn't like me though, since I am anal about this.
Yeah, I know you would. I wish I had the confidence that others making such current decisions were as anal. I know there has to be a balance between: respect towards canon before and continuity versus producing a product that will sell and keep the line profitable. However, I worry that one side might be tipping the scales as of late. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:31:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yeah, I know you would. I wish I had the confidence that others making such current decisions were as anal. I know there has to be a balance between: respect towards canon before and continuity versus producing a product that will sell and keep the line profitable. However, I worry that one side might be tipping the scales as of late.
I agree, but not much we can do less we stop buying FR books...... And even though I disagree with a lot of WOTC stuff, it would be a cold day that I would stop buying FR material. :) |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:34:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
I agree, but not much we can do less we stop buying FR books...... And even though I disagree with a lot of WOTC stuff, it would be a cold day that I would stop buying FR material. :)
Yeah, they got me for now. Although, the fact I'm buying SK and Shining South have more to do with my trust in the authors than anything else. Alas, even if I'm disappointed or something in these two tomes destroys canon of previous lore, I'll still be back next year for the Waterdeep gaming product. I'm too much of a City of Splendors fan to turn my back there. |
|
|
|
RogueAssassin
Learned Scribe
USA
207 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:38:30
|
quote:
I guess then some one better tell WOTC that the Player's Guide isn't canon either. :)
Booyah.
Im (fairly)young and (fairly)new to Dungeons and Dragons and Forgotten Realms alike. Ive read plenty of threads about how someone said this and its wrong because this book says that. I think that in the real world writers ARE going to overlook some details. You can hardly go through any "Canon" sourcebook or novel and not find a problem. I could list problems with every one of my novels, when compared to my sourcebooks and vice verse. The reason i got into the realms was for the level of depth in every one of its characters and all of the different lands. When 2 things in Fr dont combine, i feel like it makes the realms just a little more shallow. I dont hold it against the authors of the books or anyone. Its very easy to over look minute details. I do hold it against them when they say, "Oh yeah, it was always like that you just didnt know it." that just seems a little cheap for me. Either fix the books or tell us how it happend.
If it says "100 official" on the front page or its "Canon" material it should go along with every other canon and offical document. to the letter.
-The Rogue |
"Spirit. Its a Heros strength, a mothers resiliance, and the poor mans armor. It cannot be broken and it cannot be taken away. This i must belive"---Drizzt Do'Urden |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:42:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yeah, they got me for now. Although, the fact I'm buying SK and Shining South have more to do with my trust in the authors than anything else. Alas, even if I'm disappointed or something in these two tomes destroys canon of previous lore, I'll still be back next year for the Waterdeep gaming product. I'm too much of a City of Splendors fan to turn my back there.
Grin, I'm to much of a FR junkie to stop buying novels, sourcebooks, and Dragon/Dungeon articles for FR. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:47:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by RogueAssassin
If it says "100 official" on the front page or its "Canon" material it should go along with every other canon and offical document. to the letter.
-The Rogue
No if there, it does say 100% official. And again I bring up the column where people write into Dragon/Dungeon from Issue #300, "Dragon Magazine has always been known as the official D&D magazine. Now that you are no longer with WOTC, will you maintain your official status."
Answer: We're are still the official D&D magazine. Paizo licenses the magazine titles from Wizards, and we are required to maintain an active relationship with both the business and the R&D teams so that they ensure we are honoring the terms of the deal."
Again any one who wants to write to WOTC will recieve the same answer. BOTH magazines are official canon lore for the core setting, the planes, FR, Planescape, Dark Sun, Zakhara, Maztica, etc. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
SiriusBlack
Great Reader
USA
5517 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:47:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
Grin, I'm to much of a FR junkie to stop buying novels, sourcebooks, and Dragon/Dungeon articles for FR.
I won't stop buying. But, even when I want a FR gaming product, I purchase from Amazon or someone similar so I can ship it back for a refund if I don't like it. I know that may come across as harsh but I've run into too many disappointments be it with canon issues or just plan lack of originality in past 3.0/3.5 products. |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 06:55:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusBlack
I won't stop buying. But, even when I want a FR gaming product, I purchase from Amazon or someone similar so I can ship it back for a refund if I don't like it. I know that may come across as harsh but I've run into too many disappointments be it with canon issues or just plan lack of originality in past 3.0/3.5 products.
Well I couldn't send stuff back... hehe it would break my heart, even if I didn't like half of the material in them. I guess I'm to much of a FR collector as well as a DM and novel reader. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Garen Thal
Master of Realmslore
USA
1105 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 07:14:48
|
"Official D&D" and "Official Forgotten Realms" aren't nevessarily synonymous. In the d20 age of RPG publishing, "Official D&D" holds a relatively small amount of influence; once upon a time, it was contrasted against the only other D&D standard: "homebrew." The officiality really only comes into play as applies to things which need to be official, namely the Sage Advice column. For nearly everything else, being official is almost meaningless.
A Forgotten Realms item which appears in a Dragon Magazine is, roughly speaking, as official to the Realms as one which appears in a core D&D book (such as the FR classes which made it into Complete Warrior or Complete Divine): their "D&D-ness" isn't in question, but the scrutiny with which they are evaluated for use in the Realms is. The second an FR designer decides to change the details from a Dragon article for a branded Forgotten Realms product, that "official D&D" status becomes, officially speaking, meaningless.
Example: The Purple Dragon knight prestige class was updated to 3.5 in both Complete Warrior and Player's Guide to Faerûn. CW came out first, and for the briefest of moments, the Leadership feat requirement for the class became Negotiator. An official D&D change, to be sure (being in a D&D book), but not necessarily an official FR change. A few months pass, and PGtF reestablishes Leadership as the requisite feat. That's the official FR version of the class, and there are technically two official D&D versions. We can get into other examples, such as Rich Baker's statement that the Complete Warrior version of the bladesinger class isn't the official Forgotten Realms version of the class, but that would just belabor the point.
This is not to say that good FR material doesn't come out of Dragon; it does, all the time. But until we get that information into solid, bound, FR-branded products (where the good stuff belongs), it really does float in that 'quasi-canon' ether that George suggested. |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 07:19:03
|
I guess in a perfect world, WOTC would start to fold and Mr. Greenwood would buy back the full rights to the FR line. Then set up his own Greenwood Press and oversee all future publications of realms products....
blah...I can dream can't I? |
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 07:25:12
|
Who runs D&D? That's right the people who print official D&D material. If WOTC did not want Paizo to print some thing, in the 100% OFFICIAL D&D magazine, for FR then they would not be able to. Remember FR is not OGL either. How is this any different then web articles for FR as well? Do you not consider those official canon material either since they are not sourcebooks?
I ask AGAIN, how is changing lore in the official D&D magazine any different then changing the lore in a official D&D sourcebook? Come now, I want a straight answer instead of all these word games that include official D&D is not the same as official FR lore. BULL. FR is a official D&D world ever since Ed sold the rights to TSR, and Dragon, Dungeon, Novels, Sourcebooks, and Web Articles are all official canon material.
Let's put it this way. Game stats from the characters from novels have always been canon and official if they are printed in Dragon, unless they are further updated into sourcebooks.
This is no different then any of the material in the sourcebooks. And if you believe it is different then you have not been following FR lore for very long.
Now since there is 1) character stats from 2e. 2) a bhaalspawn template from 3e. 3) WOTC does not list those novels as being the same as the Double Diamond novelettes. 4) One of the authors of said novels has gone on record saying his novel is canon and official.
Again I post this from WizO Bigsister: "This thread is actually ok It is focussed on a character not on a book or series of books; and this character appears in other sources besides novels. (Dragon magazine is considered a "canon" or valid source.) Its fine so long as you don't get into criticism of how the writers portrayed this character, or the books he appears in."
And it is pretty silly to believe that Dragon/Dungeon articles are not canon and official when WOTC believes them to be. Yes fine people want to ignore the words of a WizO, but again those novels rules came from the head of the novel department, and if the WizO's are not enforcing them then the WizO would be fired.
So then I guess the updates for Zakhara, Kara-Tur, and Maztica in issue #315 are not official canon material either EVEN THOUGH WOTC had to give thier OKAY on said articles. Nor are the new updates for Zakhara that are in issue #321.
Hogwash I say again. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
Edited by - Kuje on 15 Jun 2004 08:49:21 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 08:04:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
I don't speak for WotC and have never claimed to, but just because someone gets something published, that's set in the Realms, doesn't mean that it won't be ignored or superseded by future material when some author/freelancer is asked to write about a topic. Seriously, will the freelancer who ends up doing "Impiltur: The Forgotten Kingdom" in 2008 (and no, this isn't happening - it's an example) going to research all the way back to Dragon #277 and dig up my "Soargar's Legacy" article and incorporate it into his work? Highly doubtful.
And why is this asking too much? If I expect to write something for a shared world, then the publishers have every right to expect me to do all the appropriate research. It should be a requirement, as well as an expectation. Not only that, but I owe it to the fans to keep things straight.
It's all about consistency. Any shared world suffers when there is a lack of consistency. If the publishers want to ruin their cash cow, sure, don't worry about the inconsistencies. If they want it to be around for a long time and remain profitable, then they need to keep things straight.
Until Paizo came along, Dragon was published by TSR/WotC. And they used it as a vehicle to either interest us in particular game worlds and their products, or to share with us more info about those worlds and products. How can that not be canon? Or should the magazine not be canon because some hypothetical writer is too lazy to do proper research, and WotC doesn't care enough about the fans to keep things straight? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 15 Jun 2004 08:08:49 |
|
|
|
Kuje
Great Reader
USA
7915 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 08:20:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Until Paizo came along, Dragon was published by TSR/WotC. And they used it as a vehicle to either interest us in particular game worlds and their products, or to share with us more info about those worlds and products. How can that not be canon?
This is partly what I'm wondering. How can someone claim that when it was produced by TSR/WOTC that it was not canon... It just really stretches my suspension of belief and makes absolutely no sense to me. |
For some of us, books are as important as almost anything else on earth. What a miracle it is that out of these small, flat, rigid squares of paper unfolds world after world, worlds that sing to you, comfort and quiet and excite you... Books are full of the things that you don't get in real life - wonderful, lyrical language, for instance, right off the bat. - Anne Lamott, Bird by Bird
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium |
|
|
|
Chyron
Learned Scribe
Hong Kong
279 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 08:40:28
|
For me, as has been posted by some others, the big issue is not, whether or not this mag, or that book, or these games are canon... but rather how can the company behind the game world continues to run under a policy where the left hand does not know (or care) what the right hand is doing. I don’t know where the fault lies, (only an insider could say) but it's either lazy writing or poor management of a cross platform product that is at the core of all this “Canon: To be or not to be” debating.  |
Just My Thoughts
Chyron :)
|
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 10:19:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by kuje31
[quote]
Again any one who wants to write to WOTC will recieve the same answer. BOTH magazines are official canon lore for the core setting, the planes, FR, Planescape, Dark Sun, Zakhara, Maztica, etc.
I don't necessarily agree with this point but I think it's moot anyway - I know for a fact that Dragon is not interested in FR-based articles.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6666 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jun 2004 : 10:47:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Until Paizo came along, Dragon was published by TSR/WotC. And they used it as a vehicle to either interest us in particular game worlds and their products, or to share with us more info about those worlds and products. How can that not be canon? Or should the magazine not be canon because some hypothetical writer is too lazy to do proper research, and WotC doesn't care enough about the fans to keep things straight?
Firstly, I didn't intend this thread to be a bash of WotC/TSR, so it really shouldn't be heading in that direction.
Secondly, I actually agree with Kuje (believe it or not) that everything should be canon - Dragon, Dungeon, Polyhedron, novels - even all the hideous computer games. But the problem is that too much FR design work in non-core areas (ala the computer games) is done in a vacuum. Their stuff revolves around creative decisions that are not rooted in the FR firmament or in FR continuity. WotC/TSR, in trying to run a successful and profitable business, keeps going to the well - if little Joe loved playing BG he'll probably buy a novel on the computer game. If he sees his computer game featured in Dragon magazine, he'll likely buy an issue which might make him buy another novel or game product or a million HASBRO shares - well, you get the idea.
I personally think that WotC isn't tough enough on Bioware and other game companies regarding FR computer games. They don't vet them as they would a gaming product or novel. Why? Well, who knows. Perhaps because they know that when it comes to writing up a future gaming product or novel not directly linked with the computer game that they are simply going to ignore it. I'd bet anything that if we got another "North" boxed set or "Lands of Intrigue" that neither would reference or include material from BG or NWN. And, IMHO, they would be the poorer if they did.
I admire Kuje's zeal and passion for including everything that is produced with the FR moniker on it as "canon". However, I'll tell him straight out - from hard experience - that decisions regarding integrating creativity with previous material is hard enough as it is when focusing on gaming products dating back to 1987, without having to include "everything". Sometimes it's just not 'do-able' - especially when you have outlier 'canon' sources such as Dragon or computer games that don't fit snugly into 'what has gone before'.
That's why I believe in "qualified canon": if I can fit it in, no matter the source, it's good. If I can't then I have to explain why I can't and go with what does fit. If Kuje doesn't believe me, he can provide me with his idea of how the Fallen Kingdom fits into the history of the Realms and in doing so reconcile all the FR sources he considers so dear to "canon". That's not being nasty or arrogant - it's being pragmatic.
Hats off to you, Kuje. You remind me of me - 10 years ago.
-- George Krashos
|
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Dragon Articles and "Canon"
