quote:

---

Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chyron

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fireheart
I thought 'canon' was considered to be that which is officially published by WOTC or given the appropriate nod (aka, Dragon or the novels) or what Ed says? Is this the general consensus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chyron
Another factor that I will add here however is my players. They often dictate what I use as canon in my world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SiriusBlack
General consensus of who? Fans? WOTC? If the former, you'll never get a consensus in my opinion. If the latter, I think, with all due respect to everyone involved, it's safe to say that if Ed Greenwood say something in his thread, WOTC doesn't automatically hold that to be canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faraer
Fireheart, 'canon' actually has two often-conflated senses. The theoretical sense is the information that's authoritative and 'true' if we imagine the Realms is a real place. (What sources are authoritative is a subjective and somewhat philosophical question.) The practical sense is the body of lore that we can expect Wizards (or other publishers) not to contradict in the future. As has been discussed, this is fuzzy, and magazine and web articles and Ed's postings are more likely to be contradicted than, for sure, recent sourcebooks -- but as Ed has said, they're to be taken as canon unless contradicted, and if they do get contradicted through carelessness then Wizards is not honouring the spirit of their agreement with Ed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fireheart
Sorry, I meant general consensus of the people on the board. I was getting that impression from the conversation. I should have been clearer. My apologies.

---

quote:

---

Thanks all for the clarification. I think I'll have to go with SiriusBlack and Chyron...decide how to deal with it within my game and go from there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by George Krashos
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.

-- George Krashos

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yeah, I'm at the point where a lack of continuity does annoy the heck out of me. However, my Realms is so different at this point, it simply means sometimes I won't be keeping a FR product I purchase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuje31
And no one has answered my question still. How is changing what is in a canon magazine or web article any different then changing what is in a canon sourcebook?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuje31
Same here on how my version is so different, but I still keep track of the changes WOTC does so I can decide what to add into my canon version. But the different lack of continuity also bother me to no end as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SiriusBlack
The only difference I see and this is pure personal opinion, is a magazine/web article has a smaller audience than a gaming sourcebook. I'm not saying this should or should not make a difference. However, I think WOTC would hesitate less in changing something that is canon and has only appeared in a magazine/web article versus something that has appeared in a gaming sourcebook.

Again, only a personal opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SiriusBlack
Yes, for example, how do you deal with the fact a certain dancing Goddess now resides in Arvandor? That development is something a DM of any homebrew FR campaign might wish to know no matter his/her view on canon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuje31
Well so much for Ed's contract, since he said back in 2e that they are ONLY ebony, in Drow of the Underdark. So another change WOTC made without an explaination, and now that that has been brought up, did we get one for the planes? I don't believe we have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SiriusBlack
If you mean Eilistraee, no, we haven't. Thus, me clinging to my hope/belief regarding the WOTSQ series. I feel like Linus.

I think your post highlights the biggest problem when it comes to canon and 3.0/3.5 products, a lack of explanation or silly ones when such is provided. Take for example, the reason given for changing canon on drow skin color.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dargoth


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)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarelle
Does no one ever listen to me?

I've said many times before, that the events in the novel of BGII:ToB can be explained by them having not happened yet. Afterall, the Double Diamond saga is set in 1377, I believe. Indications that it hasn't happened yet: Saradush has not been detailed as being partially destroyed (as you said), Bhaalspawn war not really mentioned, risen deity, IT NOT FEATURING IN THE TIMELINE, UNLIKE BG and BGII:SoA. As a novel it is canon, so either you can say it hasn't happened yet, or you can say it has - and explain the events away individually (Saradush was given aid, and has begun to recover quite well; the Bhaalspawn war was insulated and didn't affect the sword coast as much as it affected one another; Adrian is not truly a deity yet for some reason).

Either way, I feel that stating 'novels aren't canon' is incredibly harsh on the authors who put so much time and effort into researching and writing them (I'm pretty sure Ms. Cunningham, Mr. Salvatore, Ms. Whitney-Robinson and co. would be displeased to hear that the details in their novels not mentioned in other sourcebooks are not actually canon).

Kuje - I notice you say 'hogwash' a lot! How very Victorian England of you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuje31



Well see this is the problem because according to the timeline on the WOTC site it lists them as taking place in 1368 and 1369 and in the novels themselves it says they also take place in 1368/1369. However, Adrian gave up his deity status at the end of the novels, so there is no reason to believe he is a deity. Bhaal's essance was taken from him and he returned to Faerun as a normal mortal.

And hogwash is the closest thing I can say publically on the boards without getting yelled at. :)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarelle
It only features two books, though, and if ToB was released in 2001, then the BGII mentioned it SoA:

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

But if it mentions the date in the Throne of Bhaal novel - meh! Just shows, once again, that I should buy more FR books before I start getting all Fr loremaster-y.

Certainly, I didn't know that Adrian abdicated and that takes away the most dangerously un-seating aspect of the novel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chyron
Perhaps the realms have grown too large over the years with too many authors wanting to make their own significant mark on the world.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps too this is one of the major reasons for the big push of products for Eberron. It must be very attractive to WOTC to start with a clean slate with no ¡§eddtional¡¨ baggage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chyron
but when we are paying good money for sourcebooks, books, and games, I think we all feel frustrated to find such blatant errors among products that all bear the Forgotten Realms label.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chyron

My big problem with the whole BG series was the Iron Throne and is takeover by Sarevok. Supposed top level members were replaced by doppelgangers and not a single mention of any of that in the 2E Cloak and Dagger or 3E Lords of Darkness. Let¡¦s not even get into the events at Candlekeep.

If they did not want to make it Official, why use an officially published organization? They could just have easily made it Joe's Trading Guild. You see Realms RPG Fans will know the Iron Throne, non gamers will not, so to them it is not a significant name regardless. But in choosing a 'canon' based name then not placing the events within the sourcebook then the rest of us are left with no choice but to whine and look on dumbstruck at the lack of coordination among departments. Maybe I am making mountains out of molehills, but continuity has always been an important issue to fans of any subject be it film, TV shows, novels, etc. Sure we are all smart enough to resolve the problem ourselves..."ok, this guy was actually here, at this time, and this happened here, etc" but when we are paying good money for sourcebooks, books, and games, I think we all feel frustrated to find such blatant errors among products that all bear the Forgotten Realms label.

Perhaps the realms have grown too large over the years with too many authors wanting to make their own significant mark on the world. Perhaps too this is one of the major reasons for the big push of products for Eberron. It must be very attractive to WOTC to start with a clean slate with no "eddtional" baggage.

---