| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 18:42:09
So one of the things Ed did, in his FR material, is rely on the unreliable narrator.
It's even in the beginning of the OGB:
quote:
The information presented herein is as known to myself, those about me in the lands north and west of the Sea of Fallen Stars, and those I have encountered in my travels. On my word as a sage nothing within these pages is false, but not all of it may prove to be true. All stories presented are as I have heard them and had them recorded, all information is checked as best as possible given the limited resources of an old man in a small town (even if that old man has the power to flatten mountains, mind you). As you adventure in this fantasy world, be warned that not all things are as they appear, and trust to your wits, your weapons, and your common sense in surviving and profiting from the Forgotten Realms.
And I see a lot of people reference the unreliable narrator, usually in discussions where some canon lore is being questioned.
But here's the thing, for me: I think the unreliable narrator can only be used so much. You have to have facts.
Also, people apply the unreliable narrator approach to material that isn't from Ed's pen, and that makes no mention of such an idea.
It's from Ed's pen that we know Cormyr has a monarchy. Should we question that, because of the unreliable narrator?
It's from Ed's pen that we know Mystra is the goddess of magic. Again, should this be in question, because it was first stated in a source by someone saying "I'm telling the truth as I know it"?
It is not from Ed's pen that we know that one of the Seven Sisters was a drow. Even though that lore came from one of those designers who could be considered a disciple of Ed's, is there a reason to question whether or not Qilué was, in fact, a drow?
If you apply the unreliable narrator approach to everything, then nothing can be taken as a fact, and every single thing has to be questioned.
So I only apply the unreliable narrator to places where there is reason to apply it.
If multiple sources of published canon tell me that Bahb Nounsilver is a minor Cormyrean nobleman, a human, and a skilled warrior, I'm not going to question those facts.
If a source tells me it's rumored that he's a Harper, then hey, there's wiggle room there. It is not a fact that he's a Harper. He may be, he may not be.
If a source says that few Nounsilvers have been practitioners of the Art, but that many family members have nonetheless displayed minor magical abilities, then I'll accept that as a fact about his family, and that it means Bahb himself may have some minor magical ability. But so long as it's not stated that Bahb does, in fact, have that ability, then there's wiggle room there.
For me, it's how the information is presented. If there is room for interpretation, then something can go either way. The Nounsilvers' magical abilities, for example, could be some magical training, but not enough to progress past level 1 -- it could even be a dual-class thing, like the 2E Shining South book did for Halruaans (page 6: "Such people are considered to be a special form of dual classed characters. They have the abilities of 1st-level mages along with whatever class they have chosen.") Or it could be wild talents, as detailed in the formerly-suppressed work ( ] Volo's Guide to All Things Magical.
If it's presented as a fact, though, then there isn't any wiggle room. Saying Bahb Nounsilver is a warrior is pretty definitive.
I'll only question lore if there is reason to question it.
If there's wiggle room, I'll happily work in that gray area between what is stated and what isn't. If a bit of lore contradicts other sources, or if it doesn't make sense, then I'll question it. Realmspace, for example, is a great place to apply the unreliable narrator. For example, the book has information about Nimbral that's been contradicted in published Realmslore. It also mentions a castle disappearing from the Moonshaes and a group of Moonshae assassins, neither of which is mentioned anywhere in published Realmslore. So this is a great place to apply the unreliable narrator, and assume that it's all written by some spelljamming person that's not native to the Realms.
Even in the Shadowrun setting, where most of the information is presented in the form of online information exchanges by a very varied bunch (some of whom don't trust certain others in the group), there's still a lot that is fact. The setting is built on the concept of shadows and secrets, but there are still facts. It's a fact that the dragon Dunkelzahn was elected President of the United Canadian and American States. It's a fact that he was in human form, in a limousine that blew up and that he's not been seen since. But no one knows the who or how or why of the assassination, and there are some that believe he'll come back -- which is especially a possibility since there was no trace of him found, afterward, and because his will does demonstrate at least a degree of prescience on his part (in the fact that it was prepared, highly detailed, and among other things references the exact day that an island is going to appear in the ocean). So we have solid facts, but there's still a lot that isn't answered. And much of the material is like that: these megacorps and these power players exist, and they've definitely done these things, but we don't know who did these other things, or we know the who but not the why, and so on. And these other things have happened independently of the megacorps and power players, like the disappearance of III Corps, but even when we find out exactly what happened to III Corps, we still don't know how or why it happened, and why some of the returned soldiers seem more or less normal and others are very, very different.
Shadowrun's default lore presentation is done via unreliable narrators -- but it still has hard, incontrovertible facts. There is a balance there.
And that's my thinking: there must be some balance between unreliable information and unquestionable information. The unreliable narrator approach can be used in some cases, with some information, but it cannot and should not be used for everything. It can work well, and it can be overused. Some things can be left up in the air, but some things must be definitive. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 19:25:55
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Ed wrote articles explicitly built around it: Trusting in Lore and Mintiper's Chapbook.
Oh, sure. But this isn't about unreliable info you must flesh out to find the truth, this gives you the unreliable version vs the actual truth. Unlike most books that use the unreliable narrator. |
| TBeholder |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 14:08:53
Ed wrote articles explicitly built around it: Trusting in Lore and Mintiper's Chapbook. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 05:05:54
I so love these last three posts!  |
| Irennan |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 03:47:34
^ I personally agree on that, because sourcebooks aren't novels and don't read like novels. Besides, sourcebooks have "current clack" and "rumors" sections for a reason. Unreliable info that exists to offer some input for creativity goes in those sections, and/or in the description of the beliefs/opinions/knowledge of the various characters, nations, and organizations. But even if two organizations have an entirely different version of how a certain historical event went down, IMO the sourcebook should provide a "what really happened" version as well. That way, a DM who wants to change it would still be able to do so, and DMs who just want to have canon ready for use can also have what they wanted to buy.
Even in novels, the unreliable narrator only makes sense if you don't arbitrarily withhold or mud info because you want to "create mystery/uncertainty" (that's just incompetent writing). In fact, "unreliable narrator" is quite the misleading term, because it just means that you're filtering stuff from the character's perspective--i.e. the character either doesn't know the full details, or has an opinion or subjective perception of a certain situation, and will therefore see things through their filter. But if your PoV character knows of something, then the reader should too--that's part of the basics of building empathy with the character (unless you're going for a light focus 3rd person PoV, in which case the reader should never get access to the character's filter and thought, tho. Otherwise, if you switch between 3rd light and 3rd deep as you please, you're just withholding info without a valid reason). |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 02:56:48
Personally, I dislike the unreliable narrator because in the end it means more work for me to flesh out the world. I'm one of that group of DMs who buys sourcebooks because I lack the time/creativity to homebrew my world from scratch. So, I need hard facts, not maybes. The unreliable narrator makes me actually take the time to flesh out things, which beats my necessity for buying the books. Why should buy that book if in the end, I'll have to do all the work?
If I dislike something from the canon, I will change it regardless of if the narrator is the most reliable of the multiverse or not. I don't need the authors' help for that. I need their help with a full fleshed world with hard facts I can choose from. Not half-truths and untrustworthy lore. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 02:12:27
I know there is a lot of debate about what “canon” is. This scroll is proof of that. D&D is designed to be something for people to “make their own”. But established settings are also clearly a thing, and people have settings they love, and others they don’t really use. This doesn’t mean they also don’t completely homebrew, but my point is, if we’re going to have established settings, such as Forgotten Realms, then there are certain facts (as much as a fictionalized setting can be factual) of the setting. Sure, Ed has gotten his information from Elminster, which means most/all the information is from El’s perspective, and thus colored by his views/biases, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t truths within that. Just like the “myths” in the Realms, certain truths can still be discerned.
But that does not mean we have to disregard everything or label it unreliable. We have official source books detailing various aspects of the Realms. Much like world history, which is colored by the views of those who recorded them, and especially the farther back you go, it gets harder to know what really happened, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study history. The Realms is the same to me. Sure, to an extent, there is going to be the unreliable narrator element, but I think there also comes a point when the author takes this approach too far, and it just becomes lazy writing and a way of avoiding having to follow what has been established (note that I am only talking about material/novels officially published for the Realms, not what DMs do at their tables. Homebrew away).
To me, if everything is so unreliable that we can’t trust any of of it, then there is little point in having an established setting. The Realms has a history, cultures, lore. If none of that really matters, then D&D, as I have said before, should just be a pamphlet with rules, a few races to choose from, and monsters to fight. No lore, no established settings. Even though it is designed for people to pick and choose what they want out of a given setting, either follow the canon, change, or disregard it completely, even those who homebrew and design their own worlds still design that world. Just like any author. There are rules (and I’m not talking about mechanics) for that world, a “vibe”, if you will, with lore, worldbuilding, etc. There has been much worldbuilding in the Realms (and yes, retcons and inconsistences) over the decades.
There is unreliable narrator, but I don’t think it should be taken to the point where we question every single bit of info given to us, and I certainly don’t think it should be used by authors/designers as an excuse to avoid following lore (again, I’m talking about material officially published for the setting only). Others may disagree, but that's my stance.
|
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 22:22:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
Sometimes a retcon is done well... More often, it's cumbersome and breaks more things.
Retcons should never be used to just change something -- retcons should only be used to fix problems in earlier lore.
Retcons can cause the same issues as over-reliance on the unreliable narrator: if you can't trust basic facts, you can't build on them. You don't build a house on sand and expect it to stand for a long time.
Retcons are really a whole other topic though.
Really I go as far to say Retcons are nearly always bad. They are when a person who HATES the fiction and/or has some type of political agenda and/or whats to make things "cool and hip" for the kidz.
Soft facts are not retcons, they are just facts that are not 100% absolute.
It might be true that you "can't trust facts", but it's not such a big deal not to trust facts.
And if you build a whole world on a lie....so what?
A lot of lore should never really change much....even more so lore that is 'confirmed' over and over again. But plenty of lore does change often.
Ed's own Realmslore is full of stuff..secrets...Elminster knows, but few others know. Zeldra is a kindly old human that bakes pies,,,oh, and she is a 20th level radiant dragon. But few know that. So many people in the Realms.....and even real life people that don't have book X..don't know the secret. So it does not change anything when you find out the secret.
The same way if there was no published secret...ad then one day there was, that still does not change anything. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 20:29:34
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Ultimately, the question comes down for what is canon.... will you be absolutely and totally upset if X fact is changed.
I don't want any facts changed unless it's adding to the setting and doesn't contradict any existing information.
Basically, fix any inadvertent issues or add new layers -- but none of the "oh, it's always been that way but no one knew!" crap that WotC pulled earlier, or the massive retcon of "Yeah, it's not one world named Abeir-Toril, it's two worlds, Abeir and Toril!" |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 15:49:05
Ultimately, the question comes down for what is canon.... will you be absolutely and totally upset if X fact is changed. That's what I see as the argument here. Honestly, I'm so used to change that very little phases me anymore. At least, not like it used to when I was younger. To a degree my idea of the realms is changing to keep up with the modern interpretation. To point, the time of troubles happened, the spellplague happened, the second sundering happened. Now, where are we today?
That being said, there are ideas in the modern interpretation that I consider foolish, and despite they're now being "canon" .... I toss them aside OR I come up with a better explanation to keep it more believable (and I try to use the latter). For instance, its now canon that Auril's priests all over the world will lose their spellcasting for a year if some mid level adventurers find a way to kill what is in essence an avatar of hers. I don't accept this idea of all priests losing spellcasting, but I do like the idea that Auril is affected for a year. Maybe she can't send an avatar back to the prime for a year, and thus she cannot enact the ritual that makes the sky dark over the icewind dales area. Problem solved with only a minor change to the storyline. Similarly, in the same book, one plot means of stopping Auril is "killing her pet Roc"... because she'll have to find a new one to hatch and raise over centuries. Honestly, I find this one entirely just silly. Now, if that particular roc were infused with the spirit of some frost giant follower of hers (wasn't there some endless quest book way back when about a frost giant wizard riding a roc) and therefore some wonkiness needs to occur in order for her to use a particular roc with some particular specialness to it..... hey, we adapt the idea and make it more believable and then I can accept it.
Also, anything that's written in some ruleset or loreset that feels extremely munchkin to me now, and which was only seemingly added to create a shock and awe factor but then never effectively used in the world as a plot point.... I feel that that "fact" is open to interpretation (or assumptions that its an out and out lie), and especially if its something very powerful, then if we can tweak the power level of it downwards and still keep the core concept in play, then we should attempt to do so. I say this knowing that we ALL sometimes get "a little big for our britches" and write something for the fun of the idea, and we may not exactly think it through all the way... then later we'd like to change it a bit. Once its used though, its better to "adapt the narrative". For instance, the idea that Szass Tam had a ritual that could literally remake the entire world to his own whim and set himself as basically the god over it.... so munchkin. However, if we adapt this into an idea that the Tome of Fastrin the Delver was an embodiment of an avatar of Leira herself meant to disguise a spell that would drain away the power of a great weave anchor (like the athora) and feed it into a new demiplane which can be "regrown" or "adapted" or "linked" to Dweomerheart and feed said power into Mystra to restore her.... well, you kill two birds with one stone. Mystra's back and you get rid of this idea that Tam can totally remake the world to his own whim (remaking the world may be possible, but it should take a lot more effort than just casting a spell and choosing your new parameters). |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 05:20:43
quote:
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
The idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned is utterly ridiculous.
We must assume that anything published today is automatically "unreliable"?
Because it's possible that years from now WotC will publish something else (something equally unreliable) which contradicts it? Because the different people in charge of the company ten years from now might decide to publish different lore, written by different authors, for a different market, for different reasons, and that's part of what determines the reliability of things being written today?
That's like refusing to drive a car today because it doesn't have the safety features which will be built into next year's model. Refusing to use any computers or softwares today because anything you learn might be updated and obsolete (incompatible) next week. Refusing to be involved in politics or business, because today's urgent imperatives might always be completely changed or forgotten (by somebody else in charge of breaking promises) tomorrow.
The Realms is not some kind of grand project which is ever being refined and evolved towards some ultimate point of perfection and completion. It's an entertainment, meant to be enjoyed. It's a product, meant to be consumed. Today's Realms are "reliable" - they're already committed to ink. Tomorrow's Realms are "unreliable", tomorrow's problem - assuming they'll even exist at all.
And, in the end, even when a retcon does arrive tomorrow which overhauls the Realms you love today - like some kind of flaming apocalyptic tsunami which burns a path across the landscape while drowning a path across the history - you might finally decide WotC has gone too far, that their new lore is too objectionable, and that you choose to reject the retcons. Who knows? If you point at WotC's "unreliability" to support the viewpoint then you should also point at the many disenfranchised grognards who were (and maybe still are) passionate about their older Realmslores. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 03:04:15
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
Sometimes a retcon is done well... More often, it's cumbersome and breaks more things.
Retcons should never be used to just change something -- retcons should only be used to fix problems in earlier lore.
Retcons can cause the same issues as over-reliance on the unreliable narrator: if you can't trust basic facts, you can't build on them. You don't build a house on sand and expect it to stand for a long time. |
| Eilserus |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 18:06:20
I've always viewed canon as broad brush strokes and the unreliable narrator as the finer details. Elminster gives us a good look at the Realms from his perspective. The Ruins of Zhentil Keep has an interesting mini roll of the years in it from I believe the perspective of Manshoon: "1312 The Year of the Griffin - Since the Purple Dragons of Cormyr do not extend their protection to the people of the Tunlands, Manshoon leads the Zhentarim against the lich-queen of Darkhold. She is slain by Manshoon, and the Far Hills are freed from her evil. Zhentarim remain in Darkhold to ensure the safety of the region."
I would consider Manshoon's version of the seizing of Darkhold as canon too. Manshoon does horrible things, no question there, but I'd also find it a bit unrealistic if he didn't have any least a few redeeming qualities (not saying this was one of those moments, but you never know).
Multiple truths might be a better way to describe it. So plenty of wiggle room to build off such a foundation.
|
| Cards77 |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 17:31:17
I always thought that the unreliable narrator has always been meant as a mechanism to avoid "thou shalt" statements. It's a mechanism to allow everyone to take and leave each and every piece as they wish.
It's YOUR Realms not THE Realms. This was the intent from the beginning, probably to forestall this exact discussion about what "should be" cannon.
By injecting uncertainty with an in character RP statement it gives everyone the leeway to take or leave what they wish.
This is why El would chime in on any topic in any sourcebook from any author. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 16:29:38
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
Not exactly. My point is that few things are hard facts. As in absolutely true now and forever.
Most facts are soft: they are what is known and accepted by the general public at any one time. They are always subject to change, as what is known and accepted might not be the whole story or whole truth.
-I agree with this 100%, and it's always been the case and has happened from time to time in the various novels, sourcebooks and adventures over the years. I would say that that's a separate thing from a reliable vs unreliable narrator though. You can have facts changed in either presentation. A source using the reliable narrator POV could say "For centuries, Thauglor portrayed himself and acted like a dragon, but his lair was recently uncovered and journals there admit that he was a powerful human magician who enjoyed spending time polymorphed as a dragon, to the point he sometimes truly believed he was a dragon." A source using the unreliable narrator POV could say "Thauglor was believed to have been a powerful black dragon but recent discoveries suggest that he might've been something more, or perhaps something less." The unreliable narrator POV makes those kind of changes easier, but even in a no-BS just-the-facts narration, you still have room to make retcons that flow sensibly with the right presentation. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 16:22:58
See. We can't even agree to disagree on how to even look at a canon "debate" without a canon debate.
This is why I just gave up caring what others thought. lol |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 15:19:58
quote:
Originally posted by AJA
To me, the only thing that absolutely should not be subject to the "unreliable narrator" is the maps. That is the world foundation, that is the baseline. You want to put out a misleading hand-drawn "player's aid" map, fine, but if I read one more conversation where people are trying to justify map errors as "Ed said there were unreliable narrators, man," I'm going to scream.
Other than that, I tend to judge it on a case-by-case basis (quite frankly, "the Gods" should be largely unreliable. Not their portfolios, but everything else around them).
My initial tendency is to agree with you here, and I WANT to be able to agree with you. BUT after having to try to match up old maps to a newly created map personally, I have to disagree on this matter. Why? It is absolutely a pain in the ass. Sadly, the same thing happens in real life. There may be some things in real life that have gotten amazing amount of detail (such as a map of the US via advanced GPS satellites and computers). I honestly think that the reason for the map changes in between editions has less to do with "we wanted to make a change" and more of "yeah, it was getting too hard to duplicate something exactly as was done before". I'd also bet that whatever format the original maps were drawn in isn't compatible to whatever was being used 8 to 15 years later, or the original "file" was lost in between personnel moving in and out of the company or something. I'll also say its really easy for the FIRST guy to make a map... he doesn't care what his curve is like.... its the guys that come later and have to try and match that curve exactly that wind up driving themselves nuts. We've also all seen the really bad rescans that have been done. Someone might be able with a huge scanner nowadays to recreate it, but honestly, some of the work I've seen by people who have tried to recreate things has been way better looking than the originals, and I applaud and happily use theirs over official stuff at times. I've also seen people say "just use what's in the FR interactive Atlas", and well frankly that imagery is very old and dated looking as well. Plus, if you look at the different "sectional" maps of that, even they don't match up with each other. Then, sadly as I've come to realize, the map software they've used is becoming dated as well and whenever you size up to anything resembling a world scale with more detail it crashes. Note, I don't say this as anything approaching a "master map maker".... I'm a poor joe who has just learned from trying to fiddle with it myself... just as I've learned a lot of little things about computer art by tinkering and trying to teach myself. Sometimes I wish I could really draw, but that side of my brain is different.
That being said, I do specifically add onto my maps statements in text that say "this is an unreliable map meant to show where things roughly are", etc.... |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 14:37:20
quote:
Originally posted by AJA
To me, the only thing that absolutely should not be subject to the "unreliable narrator" is the maps. That is the world foundation, that is the baseline. You want to put out a misleading hand-drawn "player's aid" map, fine, but if I read one more conversation where people are trying to justify map errors as "Ed said there were unreliable narrators, man," I'm going to scream.
Other than that, I tend to judge it on a case-by-case basis (quite frankly, "the Gods" should be largely unreliable. Not their portfolios, but everything else around them).
Too late. Earlier canon maps (1e/2e) show a trail going from Eshpurta to the Chionthar through the Snakewood. Later maps are missing that trail. Was it destroyed? Was it just left off? Or, did Amn commission new maps and have that trail "accidently omitted" so that traders would think that all northbound trade would have to go through Crimmor? |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 02:35:31
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertSo your argument is that there are no facts, because there might possibly be a retcon... Since you don't think there are any facts, then, are you just making up everything as you go?
Not exactly. My point is that few things are hard facts. As in absolutely true now and forever.
Most facts are soft: they are what is known and accepted by the general public at any one time. They are always subject to change, as what is known and accepted might not be the whole story or whole truth.
Ed Greenwood has just about always presented the Realms as a real place that *he* is told about by (mostly) Elminster. So anything Ed writes is what one (fictional) character chooses to tell him. And as even a GLANCE at Realmslore will show you Elminster not only tells his bit biased version of things, omits things, chooses to not tell things...and likely lies or misleads about any 'fact'. And Old El is even nice enough to tell Ed when he does not know something or takes a guess.
But I'm not in any way advocating recons that change the fiction for beyond dumb reasons....like say 4E.
By the way, I'd point out that the text does even say the maps are not always reliable.... |
| AJA |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 02:13:55
To me, the only thing that absolutely should not be subject to the "unreliable narrator" is the maps. That is the world foundation, that is the baseline. You want to put out a misleading hand-drawn "player's aid" map, fine, but if I read one more conversation where people are trying to justify map errors as "Ed said there were unreliable narrators, man," I'm going to scream.
Other than that, I tend to judge it on a case-by-case basis (quite frankly, "the Gods" should be largely unreliable. Not their portfolios, but everything else around them).
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 01:32:37
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
At what point are we going from private game sessions projected homebrew logic onto other FR campaigns? This sounds less about certifying canon versus a code of conduct when going from one DM's FR campaign to another DM's FR campaign. At what point does a FR DM say, "I accept my homebrew is nothing more than that, and I will not insist upon my "set of facts" at Candlekeep."?
PS. Per Wooly's comment about Han or Greedo shooting first, [sarcasm]I postulate Greedo learned his markmanship as an Imperial Stormtrooper.[/sarcasm]
I'm not sweating what people do in homebrew... I've just seen too many discussions where someone essentially says "I know that 20+ years of published canon says this, but hey, unreliable narrator, so canon may be wrong!" |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 01:23:46
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But there are facts that are forever. Fact: Cormyr is a kingdom. Fact: Thauglor was a black dragon. Fact: Azoun IV had many bastard children, but only two heirs by marriage.
Well, "is" Cormyr a kingdom? It's a bit more of a Magocracy, as the all powerful War Wizards and Chosen of Mystra REALLY rule the country with the royalty as just figureheads. And just about any lore says this....sure Arzon IV is "king of Cormyr" UNDER the watchful eye and protection of Vandergast and Elminster. But sure if Arzon even thought a law that Old Vangy did not like he would never mind ream the king and change his mind....right...right...echo...
Sure Thauglor was a black dragon...as far as we know right now. But some future lore might "suddenly" say he was a ploymorphed human or elf or maybe a malaugrym(after all they are behind all plots...right?) And Arzon 4 only has two heirs by marriage...that we know of, so far.
So you see my point that any and all of the above lore might not be true right now...and might change at any time when new information comes out.
So your argument is that there are no facts, because there might possibly be a retcon... Since you don't think there are any facts, then, are you just making up everything as you go? |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 00:38:18
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But there are facts that are forever. Fact: Cormyr is a kingdom. Fact: Thauglor was a black dragon. Fact: Azoun IV had many bastard children, but only two heirs by marriage.
Well, "is" Cormyr a kingdom? It's a bit more of a Magocracy, as the all powerful War Wizards and Chosen of Mystra REALLY rule the country with the royalty as just figureheads. And just about any lore says this....sure Arzon IV is "king of Cormyr" UNDER the watchful eye and protection of Vandergast and Elminster. But sure if Arzon even thought a law that Old Vangy did not like he would never mind ream the king and change his mind....right...right...echo...
Sure Thauglor was a black dragon...as far as we know right now. But some future lore might "suddenly" say he was a ploymorphed human or elf or maybe a malaugrym(after all they are behind all plots...right?) And Arzon 4 only has two heirs by marriage...that we know of, so far.
So you see my point that any and all of the above lore might not be true right now...and might change at any time when new information comes out. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 23:53:55
At what point are we going from private game sessions projected homebrew logic onto other FR campaigns? This sounds less about certifying canon versus a code of conduct when going from one DM's FR campaign to another DM's FR campaign. At what point does a FR DM say, "I accept my homebrew is nothing more than that, and I will not insist upon my "set of facts" at Candlekeep."?
PS. Per Wooly's comment about Han or Greedo shooting first, [sarcasm]I postulate Greedo learned his markmanship as an Imperial Stormtrooper.[/sarcasm]
|
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 19:47:52
Well few would question Cormyr as a kingdom, although perhaps a year or two during a civil war where parts of Cormyr became individual city states could be argued.
But statements about the numbers of known children of monarchs can be altered as it may be a well guarded secret (lets face it we don't know the details of every one of Azoun's children). Particularly tumultuous times such as the civil war between the Red and Purple Dragons (Salembar i think) or the period when that evil woman secretly controlled the throne of Cormyr could have led to many records being lost or people escaping in secret etc.
As long as there is a well thought out story behind it that doesnt contradict any lore then i'd be happy for canon to change slightly as a result. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 18:29:40
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
quote:
[i]I would disagree. Much of what we know about the Realms is fact, as factual as something can be in a fictitious setting.
Facts exists, regardless of whether or not people believe them.
Except, how do you say that any fact is true? Exactly what 'facts' would you say can never, ever be changed, altered or wrong?
A fictional reality, exactly like reality, is only what we know at the moment.
You can read 'Sourcebook A' one hundred times where it says 'character B only has one child: a son. And you can hold that book up as an absolute fact. But then 'sourcebook B' will say 'oh look character B had a secret hidden daughter all along'.
And the above is NOT just an example of 'wacky soap opera fictional drama': this sort of things happens to real people all of the time. Not that things 'pop' out of nothing, but it's really common for people to have secret kids.
Few facts are forever.
But there are facts that are forever. Fact: Cormyr is a kingdom. Fact: Thauglor was a black dragon. Fact: Azoun IV had many bastard children, but only two heirs by marriage.
These are the kinds of things I'm talking about. These are the kind of facts that go into building a setting. You can't apply the unreliable narrator to every single fact, because if you decide that maybe Cormyr was a merchant oligarchy without any pretensions of being a kingdom, then you've got to rewrite everything about a large chunk of the setting.
This is why I reject the argument that you can't trust any information and that it's all questionable. This is why I don't question any lore that doesn't have reason to be questioned. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 17:13:14
As well as facts not remaining so forever, facts change depending upon the point of view and the context.
Does everyone remember their biology lessons where we are told bacteria reproduce asexually and eukaryotes reproduce sexually.
That's fact, but it's also not entirely accurate.
Imagine a statement where we say so and so was murdered by orcs because they did. If you ask the orcs, so and so committed suicide by walking into their cave and picking a fight.
Look at the world wars, the fact around who started what and why changes every few years as more information is uncovered or the context is changed.
Now more than ever we should be acutely aware of how context can be used to reshape a fact to mean something entirely different.
So when we read about Netherils 50+ flying cities have a think about what the netherese definition of a city might actually be (is it a population measure or perhaps you have to have a university of magic to be classed as a city). |
| bloodtide_the_red |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 16:35:08
quote:
[i]I would disagree. Much of what we know about the Realms is fact, as factual as something can be in a fictitious setting.
Facts exists, regardless of whether or not people believe them.
Except, how do you say that any fact is true? Exactly what 'facts' would you say can never, ever be changed, altered or wrong?
A fictional reality, exactly like reality, is only what we know at the moment.
You can read 'Sourcebook A' one hundred times where it says 'character B only has one child: a son. And you can hold that book up as an absolute fact. But then 'sourcebook B' will say 'oh look character B had a secret hidden daughter all along'.
And the above is NOT just an example of 'wacky soap opera fictional drama': this sort of things happens to real people all of the time. Not that things 'pop' out of nothing, but it's really common for people to have secret kids.
Few facts are forever. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 16:10:36
For me, unreliable narrator is automatically brought up when EXTREME facts are brought up. By that, I mean things that you read and as a DM you go "yeah, that sounds like someone making up BS in order to make something sound extremely important". For instance, if someone said that Halruaa has 20 archmages in every city, big or small.... or Larloch has a cubic ton of liches and untold other undead all hidden away in Warlock's Crypt, so don't anyone ever go there... or Elminster has some floating hideout near Coliar's center stocked with enough magic to choke a dragon.... If it makes you groan as a DM and just go "really", I don't care who says it. If it sounds like something way too munchkin, (and I allow for a lot of munchkin ideas), I will question it. Then if on top of ALL that there's never been any ACTUAL use within the game for said "munchkin" facts other than bluster, it becomes that much more questionable (i.e. having Elminster in some novel appear in his hidden place and it be some major plot point makes me more inclined to go "ok, I didn't like it, but I'll accept it now").
Also, I call in unreliable narrator when we see that X happened formulaicly over centuries and always in the same way. By that I mean things like "Raumathar was like X", when I feel that the battlemages of Raumathar that started and the ones at the end would be different. Similarly, like we're discussing in another thread, that all enclaves were flipped over mountains, when in theory a mythallar can "float" pretty much anything. I imagine that ideas change with time, and a repeated idea that spans centuries will definitely be changed and improved upon. As new generations are born, their societal mores will change as well (so for instance, my red wizards that I picture in the United Tharchs of Toril idea where they're spread all over the globe have a "disconnect" between the various groupings because some still believe in the "Mulan race is the greatest" and others have chosen to believe "we need numbers, so we should breed with as many females as we can"..... and some groups hold that all mages should be focused on making magic better, and others believe that all mages should pick up a sword in case magic fails them. I imagine that in the end for say Netheril, their society was being torn in fifty directions, and there may have been groups that left Netheril to go and join other groups like Jhaamdath, Imaskar, or seek their own territory.
Back in the day, I would have questioned less, but with way things have been rolling out and the contradictions within contradictions that have occurred, I'm more inclined to believe in unreliable narrator more and more. I find that by doing so I can actually come up with something at least believable for what the hell has happened this last hundred years. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 11:05:43
Are we talking about "facts" or are we talking about "history"? If the latter then everything up to 1385 DR is fairly well documented and since then there are patchy insights into what has occurred.
Notwithstanding that the Realms has always entertained "wiggle room" to a degree, if you want to play along the edges, you get along just fine. If you want to say, "The Time of Troubles never happened!", then you are playing in your own, separate and no doubt just as enjoyable campaign setting.
Canon for a home campaign is what you want it to be. Heck, for a home campaign there is no canon except the part you decide to incorporate into your game. I always considered canon lore to be important only from the point of view of official TSR/WotC products because to do otherwise did a disservice to the fans. The fans should be able to pick and choose from a coherent matrix of canon lore, and in its absence, there are difficulties. In addition, given the volume of canon lore since 1987, there is an element of the fan base who hesitate to riff off what is established lore. I see it here, I see it on various social media FR entities: fans asking if it is "right" to do X, Y or Z. They understand that they can do what they like, but they want to adhere as closely as possible to the published lore. That's why retcons and sloppy lore-wrangling in official products cause problems. When the official baseline lore becomes difficult to reconcile or incoherent/inconsistent that places the onus on the home DM to adjudge what is "right", knowing of course that there is no correct answer to such a conundrum. They might as well not play in the Realms if they have to deal with such issues.
I always say that anyone can go anywhere and do anything they want with the Realms. The problems begin when they seek "canon" validation for such forays. If you want to deviate, do so without the need for justification. Own it.
-- George Krashos |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 05:25:55
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
I would point out that there are very few facts. Really, really true facts. Most things are much more the soft fact: so far most things seem to say this is a fact, so we will call it a fact for now. Even when it comes to hard science "facts" there is still wiggle room.
All the Realmslore, much like Earthlore, is only what we..sort of...know, or even more so accept and want to be fact lore. If you know ANYTHING about history there are not a lot of facts. And for just about any historical fact, there will be at least a couple historians that say and think something else. And for a LOT of things you even have groups of historians, each with tons of evidence, saying something different....so we have no "true facts".
And this dose not even touch on facts people ignore or dismiss for whatever reason. You can have a bulk ton of evidence that says "X" and some people will still be "nope".
And that does not cover the...oh, HALF of the world that IS misleading or lying about facts.
So...as there are no facts, you don't really need to have facts.
I would disagree. Much of what we know about the Realms is fact, as factual as something can be in a fictitious setting.
Facts exists, regardless of whether or not people believe them. |
|
|
