Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 How should the FR Community handle the canon?
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 6

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  00:10:17  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Poll Question:
Okay, even though the other poll dealing with the Wiki is still on-going, I decided to make this poll in advance. This is an issue that has come up repeatedly, and will continue to loom until it is solved. So, it needs to be dealt with before moving forward. That is the issue of existing canon, the timeline, and the changes made with the various editions.

This is obviously a touchy topic for everyone, because most of us have very strong opinions on the matter. I am going to ask that everyone be respectful (we usually are!) of different points of view, but also keep in mind that the solution to this problem is not one merely of personal preference. It needs to be a solution that can get majority support and be sustainable over the long haul. So, when I thought about ways to solve this problem, this is what I came up with.

Proposal: We build the fanon (or ‘Candlekanan’ as it may come to be called) in stages. Each subsequent stage will depart us further and further away from the established Realms.

Stage 1: Establish the Base Realms
There is a great deal written about the Realms. The Grand History of the Realms alone spans 36,385 years, and that does not include everything after 4th Edition. This history is a strong base to work with and it should be the first thing that we write into the Candlekanan/Fanon.

While in this stage the year will be frozen at 1336 DR the Year of the Highmantle. This is a little more than a decade before the date of release of the Greybox 1st Edition Realms. It is before all of the major RSE’s of the Realms, and this is by design. In this year King Azoun IV takes the throne, so this is well into the ‘current mainstream era’ of the Realms. However, the focus at this stage is ironing out the history, canonical inconsistencies, and the base Realms while still staying as close to canon as possible.

There are a lot of things that need to be established at this point, because it influences how things play out later. We need to determine the Candlekanan cosmology, how deities work, how magic works, fix things like the Realmslore around the Giants… there is a lot to do. There is also a lot to fill out and expand upon. A lot of what we talk about here on these forums takes place before this era, and this is an opportunity to flesh some of that out. What were the various tribes of humans that originally inhabited Faerűn? How did the common tongue spread? What were the various human pantheons prior to the Dawn Cataclysm? There is a lot of lore that can be added and shifted around here.

At the core though, the things that need to be immediately established is stuff with the cosmology, how deities work, and how magic works. The cosmology has been retconned practically with every edition, and this creates inconsistantcies within the lore that needs to be ironed out. We need to discuss both how we want to handle deities, as well as how they work within the lore. This has all sorts of implications, and it also ties into the cosmology discussion. We need to determine how magic works, because there have been several different canon explanations, many of them inconsistent. There are also lore problems, for example, if Mystryl was a Netherese deity and she physically embodies the Weave, who/what incarnation did she have prior to Netheril?

All this basic stuff needs to be decided before we move forward and tackle the next stage.

Stage 2: Deal with the RSE’s
Immediately one year after the Greybox 1st Edition Realms the Time of Troubles happens. There are major intermittent RSE’s after that and canon problems as well that need to be solved. By the time 3rd Edition starts in 1372 DR there is a major RSE just about every single year thereafter until the Spellplague in 1385 DR, and after that there is 4th Edition.

While in this stage the timeline will move forward to 1380 DR the Year of the Blazing Hand. While we can still focus on things in a historical sense, one of the main objectives in this stage is to deal with the RSE’s and other major events of the period. This stops the timeline just shy of the killing of numerous deities in 1384 DR and the Spellplague.

A summary of each RSE will be put forward, discussed, and then voted on to be added to the Candlekanan. We may even opt to move some of the RSE’s backward in the timeline to space things out a bit.

What happens if a RSE gets voted down, but you like aspects of the events that happened? For example, let us say the Candlekanan rejects the Time of Troubles or the events of the Lady Penitent Trilogy which result in the death of numerous Drow deities including Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, but you happen to support and like some of the events that take place. What then do you do? Well, there is the option of adding alternative explanations for the elements that you like to the Candlekanan. So, let us say that you like the concept of the Masked Lady. You could create a heresy that is embraced by some followers of Eilistraee and Vhaeraun, and incorporate the Masked Lady into the Realms this way. Let us say you like Kelemvor and Cyric, but the Time of Troubles gets rejected. You could propose an alternative way to incorporate them into the Candlekanan.

Because of this process, certain canon events may be changed or modified, but the ultimate look of the Realms by 1380 DR the Year of the Blazing Hand will not look radically different than the established Realms at the same point.

Stage 3: Complete Candlekanan
In this final stage the timeline begins to advance forward beyond 1380 DR in a set fashion (perhaps one in game year for one real life year as this was roughly the normal pace of canon prior to 4th Edition). Everything after this point becomes complete Candlekanan and should be considered a complete deviation from the Realms canon. This means that the events of the Spellplague and other such things will not happen unless people vote it into existence.

However, people who support elements from 4th Edition and beyond should have the option of trying to incorporate them into the Candlekanan. For example, if someone likes the Warlocks of Vaasa, they could find an alternative means of incorporating them into the Candlekanan. The goal is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but instead find ways of properly incorporating popular elements from 4th Edition and beyond into the Realms. Do you like Dragonborn as a race? Find a way to incorporate them into the established Candlekanan. Many of these elements can even be proposed prior to this stage, for example, elements of 4th Edition cosmology could be proposed in stage one, along with explanations on how to incorporate the dragonborn that does not involve Returned Abeir.

By allowing and encouraging people to do this it brings the Realms very close to the established canon, while maintaining the settings integrity. It also allows us to settle disputes and dislikes involving various changes to the Realms by allowing people to propose alternative explanations.

To me this seems the fairest way of handling disputes and issues people have with the canon Realms. No one will be pleased completely by this, however, it gets us close to canon without dividing the community between editions, RSE's, and time jumps.

So, with all of this said, here is the poll question:
Should the fanon a.k.a. ‘Candlekanan’ Realms be rolled out in stages as just described?

Choices:

Yes, the Candlekanan should be rolled out in stages as described.
No, the Candlekanan should function in a radically different way regarding canon.
I am undecided.

(Anonymous Vote)

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2008 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  00:40:21  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
First of all, thanks for writing all this out.

I would like to contribute (as I am sure many scribes here would). I may not always have the time, but I would certainly like to help where I can (especially in regards to the deities and elven lore). I do agree that it would help to do it in stages, otherwise we risk getting stuff from all periods, and it would be hard to sort it all out and keep a smooth, consistent timeline.

Sweet water and light laughter
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30203 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  01:07:30  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I see this approach as problematic.

I, myself, would freeze my personal Realms at around 1375ish -- but we all have different points we would pick, and saying we're going in a new direction at 1380 leaves out everyone who likes what has happened since then. If I liked the Spellplague, I wouldn't be keen on being told I had to work it into someone else's alt version of the Realms -- I'd say the heck with it, and ignore that Candlekanon that is specifically excluding me.

I think the best course would be to stick with the latest published Realms material, and go forward from that point, with the allowance that some of the blanks in the timejump could be filled in by common consensus.

With the timejump and the Spellplague and all, you're really not going to be able to make everyone happy -- but I think that building on ALL existing Realmslore is better than deliberately excluding those who embrace the more recent material.

If I was participating in this, I'd be damned uncomfortable leaving people like Diffan and other post-3E fans out in the cold. I WILL NOT support anything that divides us by the era(s) we like.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  01:17:05  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

First of all, thanks for writing all this out.

I would like to contribute (as I am sure many scribes here would). I may not always have the time, but I would certainly like to help where I can (especially in regards to the deities and elven lore). I do agree that it would help to do it in stages, otherwise we risk getting stuff from all periods, and it would be hard to sort it all out and keep a smooth, consistent timeline.


Well, contributing does not mean just writing articles. We need people doing what we already do here on Candlekeep--catching lore issues and discussing canon. The knowledge we have here is tremendous, and if you take that knowledge and combine it with a Wiki--well, that's really powerful.

Anyway, there are lots of things that need to be straightened out in the lore. The lore for Giants is a huge mess that needs to be tackled. There is even some Elven lore that needs cleaning up. For example, according to the canon Realms in 1355 DR the Retreat of the Elves to Evermeet is reaching its peak. Yet, in just two decades time, in 1377 DR, the Retreat is ended and the Return begins when the Tree of Souls is planted in Myth Drannor by Ilsevele Miritar. This is crazy as the Elves would never act this hastily. This is less than a blink of an eye in Elven years. To have this make proper sense we would have to push back the date the Retreat reaches its peak. This is just an example of how we might have to move things around in the canon timeline.

Another issue that needs to be solved is how magic works. We have this view of the Weave being connected to Mystra/Mystryl. Yet, we know there was a time in the Realms before this deity existed... did the Weave exist before then? Do we misunderstand the Weave? What about Psionics and other types of magic? Does it use the Weave? Does divine magic work through the Weave? Okay, then there is the issue of the Shadow Weave, which has several inconsistent explanations in the canon. The stuff with the Shadow Weave needs to be ironed out and understood before Returned Netheril is introduced (if we decide to introduce it).

All of this stuff needs to be ironed out. Once that is done, we have a really strong base to build on, and that allows us to more easily tackle the issues of the RSE's, to which there is much disagreement. However, by tackling them individually, it allows everyone an opportunity to comment and vote. If something gets voted down, as I said in my OP, things can be added through alternative means which allows us to not only stick closer to canon, but provides everyone an opportunity to contribute things that they like to the Realms.
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2008 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  01:32:27  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I know there are number ways to contribute

I still agree about doing it in stages (however we end up doing it), and establishing the "base" (like cosmology, how deities work, how magic works, etc). However, I can also understand the issues Wooly raised. It would be all too easy for people to feel excluded, and many probably wouldn't like their ideas being put in the "alternate" section.

My original thought would be working from 5e-onwards, since we aren't seeing any forthcoming "official" material from WotC, or at least not like we used to. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't address the lore issues from previous editions. Of course, we could take Wooly's approach to this, too. Fill in the most glaring holes, then move onwards *shrugs*.

Because otherwise, in a way, we are basically establishing a whole new Realms, even if we did start at 1380.

Sweet water and light laughter

Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 10 Jul 2017 01:41:36
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  01:41:47  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I see this approach as problematic.

I, myself, would freeze my personal Realms at around 1375ish -- but we all have different points we would pick, and saying we're going in a new direction at 1380 leaves out everyone who likes what has happened since then. If I liked the Spellplague, I wouldn't be keen on being told I had to work it into someone else's alt version of the Realms -- I'd say the heck with it, and ignore that Candlekanon that is specifically excluding me.

I think the best course would be to stick with the latest published Realms material, and go forward from that point, with the allowance that some of the blanks in the time jump could be filled in by common consensus.

With the time jump and the Spellplague and all, you're really not going to be able to make everyone happy -- but I think that building on ALL existing Realmslore is better than deliberately excluding those who embrace the more recent material.

If I was participating in this, I'd be damned uncomfortable leaving people like Diffan and other post-3E fans out in the cold. I WILL NOT support anything that divides us by the era(s) we like.


It is obviously not my intent to leave anyone out in the cold.

First, there is not a ton of post-3E lore, especially when compared to what existed prior. This is one of the issues the time jump created. If we jump that far ahead the established canon becomes radically out of date.

Second, the bulk of the post 4th Edition lore is easily backward compatible. Dragonborn? They can easily be included into the lore. Returned Abeir stuff? Easily included. The Realms has always been connected to many other worlds. Warlocks of Vaasa? The rise of the cult of Amaunator? The Abolethic Sovereignty? Really, you name the post 4E lore and we can easily work it into the canon without the massive time jump.

You know as well as I do that scores upon scores of people will not touch a Wiki with a 4E like time jump. This is about finding compromise and middle ground. We are never going to please everyone, but the goal is to try and find a way to include the most people possible.

So, this was the solution that I came up with, the middle ground compromise. If someone else can come up with a better compromise, I encourage them to share it. However, you know Candlekeep as well as I do, and you also know that the vast majority of people here would be against the time jump. There may even be some who refuse to participate simply by offering to include -ANY- element from 4th Edition, no matter how minor.

As I said, this was the middle ground compromise. I cannot think of a better solution that will be fairer to everyone and their personal desires.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  01:53:58  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

I still agree about doing it in stages (however we end up doing it), and establishing the "base" (like cosmology, how deities work, how magic works, etc). However, I can also understand the issues Wooly raised. It would be all too easy for people to feel excluded, and many probably wouldn't like their ideas being put in the "alternate" section.

My original thought would be working from 5e-onwards, since we aren't seeing any forthcoming "official" material from WotC, or at least not like we used to. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't address the lore issues from previous editions. Of course, we could take Wooly's approach to this, too. Fill in the most glaring holes, then move onwards *shrugs*.

Because otherwise, in a way, we are basically establishing a whole new Realms, even if we did start at 1380.


It is not about creating special segregated sections. It is all one Candlekanan. The 4th Edition stuff is not being treated any differently than the other RSE stuff. It is inevitable that some of the RSE's are going to be voted down. If that happens we will have to come up with alternative explanations for some things.

The end result, no matter what we choose to do, is basically establishing a whole new Realms. It does not matter what date we start at the moment we add a single non-canon element to the setting is the moment the Candlekanan deviates from the canon. That is really the point. We are unshackled from WotC and whatever decisions they choose to make. If they decide to nuke the Realms a thousand times over we can just ignore it. If they create something interesting and awesome, we can find a way to incorporate it.

In the end, there is no such thing as an "alternate" Candlekanan. There is only one Candlekanan, and it is an alternate canon to the established Realms. The Candlekanan will hopefully fix the lore inconsistencies, iron out some of the RSE bumps, bring the community together (as much as possible) and then move the setting forward.
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2008 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  02:23:01  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I understand, I am just throwing out my thoughts and concerns. What I meant by "alternate" was the homebrew section we discussed in the other thread (some people might feel excluded by their material ending up there because it didn't earn majority). However, as you said, we can't please everyone. It's going to be majority, and about compromise. I brought that up because I both agree with dividing it up in stages, and because I could understand Wooly's concerns.

Some things regarding later lore in the original Realms would probably have to be addressed in Stage I. For example, the dragonborn. If there is enough support to keep them, that should probably be discussed when the topic of Abeir comes up (especially in regards to primordials and cosmology). So we may have to decide which RSEs we want to keep (or what parts of them, if any) early on. Same with the ToT (I know many didn't like it, but I'm just using it as example).

Sweet water and light laughter
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
742 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:08:36  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Advancing one year per RW-year means we'll all be dead before we get to the period I'm interested in. I'm afraid I would be totally out of such an endeavour, I simply don't have the time to work on stuff that won't benefit my game.

I think forcing users to work in a particular year is going to be problematic in any case. People gonna wanna work on what they wanna work on - why not leave it more open, decide on issues as they come up?

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:27:18  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

I understand, I am just throwing out my thoughts and concerns. What I meant by "alternate" was the homebrew section we discussed in the other thread (some people might feel excluded by their material ending up there because it didn't earn majority). However, as you said, we can't please everyone. It's going to be majority, and about compromise. I brought that up because I both agree with dividing it up in stages, and because I could understand Wooly's concerns.


Ah, I see. I misunderstood. When you used the word alternate, I took it to mean that you thought that 4E stuff would be shoved off into some segregated space within the Candlekanan. All submitted lore will be treated equally, obviously, so if someone submits some stuff that appeared in 4E lore, it fits with already established Candlekanan, and people embrace it then it becomes a part of the Candlekanan--the same as everything else.

Heck, I plan to make submissions using some 4E lore and terminology. Right now I am sketching out ideas for a proposed Cosmology that uses the concepts of things like the Feywild and Shadowfell within a Great Wheel framework. I am not personally hostile to post 3E Lore, and if not for the time jump I would continue the timeline forward. I would have treated the 4th Edition stuff the same as the 3rd Edition stuff, and we could have tackled each RSE introduced individually. The problem, though, is the time jump. It makes it unworkable. Not only would we have to fill a 100 year time gap, but we would also have to go back and rewrite tons of regional lore as everything has changed. It also adds a whole additional layer of inconsistencies we have to contend with due to retcons, as well as the 5th Edition stuff which essentially un-retcons the retcons. It's a lore mess.

It is much easier to take existing material and incorporate it into the Candlekanan either directly from canon or with some alterations.

Wooly's concerns are legitimate. There may be people who refuse to work on the project if we do not immediately start at the canon date of the Realms. There are also those who like 4th Edition and hate 5th Edition because they see it as backsliding into the old Realms. There are also those--and they are most numerous here--that hate 4th Edition altogether. It is impossible to please everyone. We can only try and find a happy middle ground that the majority of people can support.

quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Some things regarding later lore in the original Realms would probably have to be addressed in Stage I. For example, the dragonborn. If there is enough support to keep them, that should probably be discussed when the topic of Abeir comes up (especially in regards to primordials and cosmology). So we may have to decide which RSEs we want to keep (or what parts of them, if any) early on. Same with the ToT (I know many didn't like it, but I'm just using it as example).


Yes, this stuff will be forced upon us early. Especially with the cosmology. The Realms has always been connected to other worlds, and many of the races that currently call the Realms home came from elsewhere. The Dragonborn could have easily come from another world. Alternatively, they could somehow have a connection to the Sarrukh, as many other similar races do. Those are two very plausible explanations for Dragonborn. As for Abeir it could be another prime material world rather than Toril's twin, this way we avoid retconning established lore like they did with the creation of Abeir in the first place.

As for Primordials, I'd adopt that concept to be the terminology used for Outsiders, Fey, and Elementals--basically beings and creatures of supernatural origin, connected with the planes, and not of the Prime Material Worlds.

All of these concepts and ideas are easily adopted and incorporated.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30203 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:31:24  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I see this approach as problematic.

I, myself, would freeze my personal Realms at around 1375ish -- but we all have different points we would pick, and saying we're going in a new direction at 1380 leaves out everyone who likes what has happened since then. If I liked the Spellplague, I wouldn't be keen on being told I had to work it into someone else's alt version of the Realms -- I'd say the heck with it, and ignore that Candlekanon that is specifically excluding me.

I think the best course would be to stick with the latest published Realms material, and go forward from that point, with the allowance that some of the blanks in the time jump could be filled in by common consensus.

With the time jump and the Spellplague and all, you're really not going to be able to make everyone happy -- but I think that building on ALL existing Realmslore is better than deliberately excluding those who embrace the more recent material.

If I was participating in this, I'd be damned uncomfortable leaving people like Diffan and other post-3E fans out in the cold. I WILL NOT support anything that divides us by the era(s) we like.


It is obviously not my intent to leave anyone out in the cold.

First, there is not a ton of post-3E lore, especially when compared to what existed prior. This is one of the issues the time jump created. If we jump that far ahead the established canon becomes radically out of date.

Second, the bulk of the post 4th Edition lore is easily backward compatible. Dragonborn? They can easily be included into the lore. Returned Abeir stuff? Easily included. The Realms has always been connected to many other worlds. Warlocks of Vaasa? The rise of the cult of Amaunator? The Abolethic Sovereignty? Really, you name the post 4E lore and we can easily work it into the canon without the massive time jump.

You know as well as I do that scores upon scores of people will not touch a Wiki with a 4E like time jump. This is about finding compromise and middle ground. We are never going to please everyone, but the goal is to try and find a way to include the most people possible.

So, this was the solution that I came up with, the middle ground compromise. If someone else can come up with a better compromise, I encourage them to share it. However, you know Candlekeep as well as I do, and you also know that the vast majority of people here would be against the time jump. There may even be some who refuse to participate simply by offering to include -ANY- element from 4th Edition, no matter how minor.

As I said, this was the middle ground compromise. I cannot think of a better solution that will be fairer to everyone and their personal desires.



While animosity to the changes of 4E still exists, I think there are fewer who would refuse to participate because of its inclusion than there would be who couldn't participate because of its exclusion.

Hells, I was one of the biggest naysayers of the 4E changes, and I did once say I'd not participate in anything that included 4E material. But even then, that was a choice I made only for myself, and even then, I still fought against those who would exclude the 4E fans. I've since mellowed on the former topic, but I still refuse to support anything that tells someone they're not welcome because of their preferred edition.

Inclusion doesn't mean leaving people out. It means you invite in everyone, and if they don't want to join, that's their business.

Also, you need to think of who your target audience is. If you don't want to include newcomers to the Realms, that's your call -- and it's one I won't support in any way. You do that, I'll not even publicly acknowledge the existence of your site, much less direct people your way.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 10 Jul 2017 03:32:20
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2008 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:41:14  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Sorry, alternative was a poor word choice on my part ^^;

I wasn't happy about the time jump, either. For one thing, as a novel reader, I didn't like the stories that got left behind, or were forced to make the jump. And of course, I didn't like the death of some of the gods.I kind of like the dragonborn, though.

This will be addressed later, but I will say it here, just as food for thought: many people don't like the ToT, but one thing good thing I think (and I am sure some others feel similarly), is that Kelemvor is a better god of death than Jergal and Myrkul, because I think the god of death or the dead should be nuetral. This issue would also have to be addreased in the beginning. I just brought it up because, since we started this discussion, certain things have been on my mind.

EDIT: though I actually kind of like what 5e did with the three "death" gods. We could use that concept, as it would be a compromise in case people di prefer Jergal or Myrkul.

Sweet water and light laughter

Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 10 Jul 2017 04:11:48
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:43:16  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

Advancing one year per RW-year means we'll all be dead before we get to the period I'm interested in. I'm afraid I would be totally out of such an endeavour, I simply don't have the time to work on stuff that won't benefit my game.

I think forcing users to work in a particular year is going to be problematic in any case. People gonna wanna work on what they wanna work on - why not leave it more open, decide on issues as they come up?


I did not mean to pose the 1 year per real life year timeline as something hard and fast. I was merely offering that as a suggestion. It could easily be 5 years per real life year or even slower.

As I wrote to CorellonsDevout the problem is the time jump. If not for the 100 year gap, I would have treated the 4th Edition stuff the same as the post 1st Edition stuff. However, in all of these cases, it is difficult for me to imagine people voting in favor or allowing an event like the Spellplague coming to pass in the Realms. Maybe in a much more limited scope, perhaps, but the re-working of the entire magic system and the 'death' of Mystra? Don't see it happening. This would radically alter the events post-year of Blue Fire. This means that everything beyond 1385 DR would look radically different than it does by the time it hits the start date of 4th Edition. Again. Due to the time jump.

Opening up the timeline entirely is possible and saying write at any date you like, but then we run into other problems. If you are writing 100 years in the future, for example, then how is the stuff being produced backward compatible? It forces everyone to write 'toward' a set canon state in the Realms.

Basically, the time jump breaks everything. That is the problem. The moment 1385 DR is hit everything filling in the 100 year time gap is going to have to match the already established 4th Edition lore for those regions. Of course, telling people that it is mandatory that everything in 4th Edition is canon is going to make many people abandon the project. Too many people reject the 4th Edition changes.

There are even people who like 4th Edition and hate 5th Edition because 5E attempts to retcon things back to be similar to how they were in the previous editions of the Realms... and if the Realms is being altered to look like previous editions by the time of 5th Edition lore, why bother with the time jump at all?

Honestly, there is no way to solve the issue of the time jump except not to do it at all. The only real alternative is to force the canonization of all things 4th Edition, and that will never fly.
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
742 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  03:47:23  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

Honestly, there is no way to solve the issue of the time jump except not to do it at all. The only real alternative is to force the canonization of all things 4th Edition, and that will never fly.


Or, you could accept the 4th edition lore and fill in the blanks. I agree with Wooly, despite there being a lot of pushback about the Spellplague, I think there's more people that accept its existence than not.

Either way, any project that totally gets rid of the canon that's been established for ten years now is something I'm not interested in being involved in. I'm interested in filling gaps in the canon, not dumping the canon and rewriting the setting.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  04:12:55  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I've since mellowed on the former topic, but I still refuse to support anything that tells someone they're not welcome because of their preferred edition.

Inclusion doesn't mean leaving people out. It means you invite in everyone, and if they don't want to join, that's their business.

Also, you need to think of who your target audience is. If you don't want to include newcomers to the Realms, that's your call -- and it's one I won't support in any way. You do that, I'll not even publicly acknowledge the existence of your site, much less direct people your way.


I honestly do not know where you are getting any of this from in anything that I wrote. Where did I ever mention, directly or indirectly, that anyone was "not welcome because of their preferred edition." Go back and literally quote me. What you will find is that I went out of my way try and to include EVERYONE regardless of edition.

I even specifically thought of you personally, because I knew how much you prefer Kelemvor over Myrkul as the deity of the dead in the Realms. I knew there could be a possibility of the Time of Troubles being greatly altered or voted down entirely, and when I wrote the following I was thinking about you specifically, "Let us say you like Kelemvor and Cyric, but the Time of Troubles gets rejected. You could propose an alternative way to incorporate them into the Candlekanan."

So, I do not know where you are picking up that I was trying to exclude anyone. I was doing the exact opposite.

As for excluding new people to the Realms, that is also entirely the opposite of what I intend. If the Candlekanan is successful then it is my hope that it is the entry point for new players into the Realms. WotC has pretty much made it clear that they are no longer going to be producing canon for the Realms--at least not enough to sustain the setting. If this holds true in five years time or so, what WotC puts out will be meager offerings next to what could be found on the Candlekanan.

But hey, look, if you can find a way to make the time jump work without forcing us to canonize everything in 4th Edition then I am open to it. The problem is the time jump. Not the 4th Edition lore.

I really do not know how to make this more clear. Any deviations that we make from the established canon prior to the Year of Blue Fire--1385 DR--is going to grow as we fill in the time gap. What happens if the Spellplague gets voted down? What happens if the Spellplague is voted in but is radically different than canon?
That is going to radically change what happens over the course of events over 100 years. This. Is. Unavoidable. There is no way to fix this problem, aside from mandating that no changes be made that conflict with 4th Edition because we would all have to write toward that point.

So, let me ask you Wooly, are you going to participate in a project that requires you to accept every major change of 4th Edition wholesale without major alteration? Are you willing to remain part of this project if people decide that they do not like the fact that Mystra returns and decide to keep her dead?

I think you are putting yourself in a position that means that no matter what is decided, one way or another, that you will not participate. In order to make the time jump work, you are not going to like some of the things forced upon you. Of course, you also say if the time jump does not occur that it angers you. There is literally no solution that is going to make you happy.

So, my challenge to you is twofold:
1. Directly quote me where I state or imply that anyone was "not welcome because of their preferred edition."

2. Come up with a solution to the time jump.

Maybe I am not creative enough to solve the time jump issue. So, I am open to solutions that I have not though about already.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  04:20:59  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

Honestly, there is no way to solve the issue of the time jump except not to do it at all. The only real alternative is to force the canonization of all things 4th Edition, and that will never fly.


Or, you could accept the 4th edition lore and fill in the blanks. I agree with Wooly, despite there being a lot of pushback about the Spellplague, I think there's more people that accept its existence than not.

Either way, any project that totally gets rid of the canon that's been established for ten years now is something I'm not interested in being involved in. I'm interested in filling gaps in the canon, not dumping the canon and rewriting the setting.


I am sorry you feel that way KanzenAU. However, there are people on the other side who feel just as strongly. That is the problem. That is why I put forward this as the compromise. Also, it is not rewriting the setting. All of the published lore post 4th Edition makes up around 5% or less of the total lore written about the Realms. A huge chunk of it is rehashed. When you take 5th edition into account, a lot of that is retconning away the 4th Edition retcons and changes. As a result a 5th Edition Realms looks very similar to a 3rd Edition Realms, just with a massive time jump and changes that WotC itself considers a mistake (which is why they retconned them with the Sundering).

There is also no real filling in the gaps of the 100 year time jump. What are you filling in, exactly? What would you add that would not immediately get swept away with the Sundering?

I mean, for crying out loud, they even actively resurrected tons of NPC's who had been dead for well over a hundred years in game time.
Go to Top of Page

Adhriva
Learned Scribe

USA
134 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  04:25:14  Show Profile  Visit Adhriva's Homepage  Send Adhriva an AOL message  Send Adhriva a Yahoo! Message Send Adhriva a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Personally, I think that everything currently canon should be kept so in regards to a project like this. No voting, just keep it. Problems and all; filling in neglected areas instead of replacing. A retcon doesn't actual replace content, it adds to it so that content is now in a different light and context. It's an additive process. If someone doesn't like the 4e stuff, they need not touch the 4e era themself. Acknowledge that part of the timeline as their project requires (e.g. if it's building up to it) and simply make the best of it because at the end of the day, there is someone else who can do plenty with 4e material as is too. When you start making elements of canon no longer part of the fanon, you alienate many people coming in to the fanon. The canon, as is in its current form, is the one common ground everyone coming to any FR website usually will have in common. Best not to remove it or wildly change it for that reason. Not to mention invalidating parts of it can also very quickly can squash elements of lore for ideas in the current time.

Edited: Clarity and coherancy.

Professional illustrator and comic book artist.

Edited by - Adhriva on 10 Jul 2017 06:13:42
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
742 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  04:25:24  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick


I really do not know how to make this more clear. Any deviations that we make from the established canon prior to the Year of Blue Fire--1385 DR--is going to grow as we fill in the time gap. What happens if the Spellplague gets voted down? What happens if the Spellplague is voted in but is radically different than canon?
That is going to radically change what happens over the course of events over 100 years. This. Is. Unavoidable. There is no way to fix this problem, aside from mandating that no changes be made that conflict with 4th Edition because we would all have to write toward that point.

Or, you just don't vote on the Spellplague. Don't drop all the 4th and 5th edition lore. It's established canon. Write for the Wailing Years. Write for the period after it. Keep them, build towards them. Let's be honest, if the project even got to 1385 from the 1330s, that would be an incredible achievement.

I think what Wooly is saying is that you're essentially telling people 4th edition and post that their time period doesn't matter by saying the Spellplague and everything post doesn't happen. So you're excluding people invested in the later eras through what you want the project to be about.

Which is fine for what you want to do. I think your project sounds great for people still playing in the 1300s! However, it's immediately divisive to the community because it says a lot of established canon didn't happen, and it's abandonment of that canon means it's useless to my game, which is set in the 1490s, post-Spellplague.

However, I wish you the best of luck with whatever you decide to do.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

George Krashos
Master of Realmslore

Australia
4883 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  05:32:17  Show Profile Send George Krashos a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Like I said: group work is tough.

-- George Krashos

"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2008 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  05:59:52  Show Profile  Send CorellonsDevout an AOL message Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Disagreements are bound to happen, especially with so many people invested (though of course we don't know the actual turnout yet). Everyone has posted legit concerns and possible ways to deal with them. My worry is that, even with the agreement of a vote, this could lead to a lot of fighting and hurt feelings, even though we and all go in with the intent of being respectful and working out a compromise if there are certain factors people have varying ideas about (ex: keeping Kel as god of death but removing or changing the ToT).

Adhriva also brings up a good point. We could work from 1380 (a lot happened that year) from the beginning, working out 4e stuff. Of course certain things would still have to be worked out (like what cosmology we want to go with, etc), but it wouldn't get rid of previously established lore. We could--for the most part--keep things as they are.

Or, we start around the ToT (I am blanking on what year that was. I think it was the late 1350s), and hash things out from there. Both thsee ideas are just that, ideas.

Sweet water and light laughter

Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 10 Jul 2017 06:17:47
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  07:26:35  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by CorellonsDevout

Adhriva also brings up a good point. We could work from 1380 (a lot happened that year) from the beginning, working out 4e stuff. Of course certain things would still have to be worked out (like what cosmology we want to go with, etc), but it wouldn't get rid of previously established lore. We could--for the most part--keep things as they are.

Or, we start around the ToT (I am blanking on what year that was. I think it was the late 1350s), and hash things out from there. Both thsee ideas are just that, ideas.


I always knew this would be one of the most contentious aspects of the proposal. So, the response does not shock me. Well, no response aside from Wooly's. He has always been openly anti-4E, and opposed to having it involved in any of his work. As he mentions in his own post, this is a 180 degree turn for him. So, that is shocking.

However, I always knew this would be one of the biggest hurdles we faced with this project. I was hoping, though, that people would see this in the spirit that it was suggested: as a compromise to try and bring as many people to the table as possible. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that people would come to the table and try and find a solution to the edition division among the fans.

I am not sure if you understand what they are asking, CorellonsDevout. Basically, Adhriva and KanzenAU (and I suppose Wooly as well) are arguing that we should accept everything that is currently published as canon without changes. I suppose people could tolerate tweaks to iron out inconsistencies in the canon, but it would basically force us to begin around the 1490's. It would require us, by default, to accept all the previous RSE's--including everything in 4th Edition and the Sundering--without change.

One of the problems in doing this is that it invalidates the older source material. I mean, it is still good for historical lore. However, for use in the game? It's worthless. For example, I randomly open my Cormyr sourcebook here, and it falls to page 43. This entire section deals with the prominent noble families, the royal family, and prominent nobles, etc. All of this is outdated. Most of it is outdated even by mid-1370's standards since King Azoun IV dies. However, throw a 100 year time jump in there and you might as well toss the entire book out. It is interesting and useful as a historical text, but it tells you diddly squat about what Cormyr is like 120+ years in the future. All of that lore would have to be largely rewritten from scratch.

That is the problem with a major time jump. Not only do we have to literally re-write all of the well-established lore, we have the burden of coming up with entirely new lore as well.

...and for what reason? If the argument is that we should stay close to canon, then what happens when people start writing stuff into the Candlekanan that invalidates yet to be published canon Realmslore? All of their arguments are still valid against that. The cries of 'you're shutting out fans of the canon lore' are equally as valid to lore that becomes invalidated in 1495 DR as in 1385 DR. The further the Realms timeline moves forward from the time we start writing the more valid that argument becomes. Now picture the Realms 10 to 15 years in the future, assuming WotC is still around and occasionally publishing this or that Realms related thing, and suddenly the fans of that new material are in the same position as KanzenAU and Adhriva are today.

What will we say then? Will we toss out all of our work to make the Candlekanan to conform to the established canon? If so, what is the point of having an alternative canon in the first place?

This is what drives me crazy about this argument. The entire purpose of the Candlekanan is to build an alternative canon. First, because WotC is not producing Realmslore at the rate they did in the past. Second, because the community has become divided due to edition changes. Third, because we want to prevent more horrible things happening to the Realms that long time fans (like us) hated. Fourth, so that new players will be able to immediately become immersed in the Realms without having to purchase a trillion sourcebooks that are now out of print. All of this also hedges against WotC folding up shop, and stopping the publication of FR material altogether.

So, we'd have the Candlekanan, an alternative Realms canon to turn new players onto, regardless of what happens to WotC or what WotC decides to do with the Realms. The community continues to grow and the Realms does not shrivel up and die from lack of support. That's the goal of the Candlekanan.
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
742 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  07:35:59  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

This is what drives me crazy about this argument. The entire purpose of the Candlekanan is to build an alternative canon.

That's your purpose, fair enough. Building an alternative canon rather than gap-filling is just not a purpose all of us are going to be interested in. We just want different things, that's all - best of luck.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  07:57:37  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by KanzenAU

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

This is what drives me crazy about this argument. The entire purpose of the Candlekanan is to build an alternative canon.

That's your purpose, fair enough. Building an alternative canon rather than gap-filling is just not a purpose all of us are going to be interested in. We just want different things, that's all - best of luck.


Thanks. However, I do not understand how 'gap-filling' will work with the limitations you are setting. What happens if something that fills in the 'gaps' gets contradicted by future (as yet unpublished) canon?

It is at least better to know what you envisioned and why our minds differed. It's better than trying to persuade someone that a 120+ year time jump is a really bad idea because it invalidates around 75% of the published Realmslore. (Aside from historical usage.)

It is a huge burden to have to literally recreate, practically from scratch, literally decades of work from multiple authors. It is far easier to summarize, adopt what can be agreed upon, tweak what needs tweaking, smooth out problems with the canon, and then move forward with literally decades of well-established lore at our backs.
Go to Top of Page

KanzenAU
Senior Scribe

Australia
742 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  08:20:25  Show Profile Send KanzenAU a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick
Thanks. However, I do not understand how 'gap-filling' will work with the limitations you are setting. What happens if something that fills in the 'gaps' gets contradicted by future (as yet unpublished) canon?

My idea would be to leave all canon in place, and just get people to write what they want for the time periods they want, inserting their pieces into gaps in the canon. For instance, in that other thread I started about getting people together, there's some gaps around the return of some gods to Faerun in the Second Sundering. So I'd write about that. Other people might be more interested in shifts of power in Damara around 1365, so they would write about that.

If something is later contradicted, we acknowledge the update and change that piece from "candlekanon" to "alternate history". No big fuss. This caters to both people that want to stick to published canon, as well as stick to Candlekeep created stuff. However, I don't think that many pieces we write about anything before 1490 are likely to be contradicted - WotC have never displayed much interest in visiting the past.

As the FR wiki also assumes that the Spellplague and all that is canon, it also makes linking the two services easier, if that was to be desired. References in the Candlekanon wiki to events in the published canon (previous or future) could refer people to the FR wiki without having to worry that the FR wiki will contain 4e/5e references that could confuse them - because the post-Spellplague time period is integrated into Candlekanon too.

I personally think that a Candlekanon focusing entirely on the past will, for better or worse, eventually be relegated to the past. All the new blood coming into FR has been coming into a post-Spellplague period for a decade now, and that's not changing. In another decade, the people still playing in the 1300s will be an even smaller fraction of the wider community - even if this forum continues to mostly be a holdout of the olde guarde. So I think it's a better idea to embrace the future and become a part of it.

If you disagree, that is totally fair enough! I respect your Realms-knowledge greatly, and have always appreciated your writings here on the boards. So I wish you good luck with whatever path you go down. A 1300s-focused Candlekanon will likely be deeper and more intricate, because it's less spread out over time. So there are pros and cons in my mind too. It's just that for me, the 1300s are only a small part of a huge part of Faerun's history, and my game's future, at least for now, is in the 1490s.

Regional maps for Waterdeep, Triboar, Ardeep Forest, and Cormyr on DM's Guild, plus a campaign sized map for the North
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
30203 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  10:21:39  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I've since mellowed on the former topic, but I still refuse to support anything that tells someone they're not welcome because of their preferred edition.

Inclusion doesn't mean leaving people out. It means you invite in everyone, and if they don't want to join, that's their business.

Also, you need to think of who your target audience is. If you don't want to include newcomers to the Realms, that's your call -- and it's one I won't support in any way. You do that, I'll not even publicly acknowledge the existence of your site, much less direct people your way.


I honestly do not know where you are getting any of this from in anything that I wrote. Where did I ever mention, directly or indirectly, that anyone was "not welcome because of their preferred edition." Go back and literally quote me. What you will find is that I went out of my way try and to include EVERYONE regardless of edition.


It does not include everyone if they prefer the current published era of the Realms and your project is to get rid of that.

quote:
Originally posted by Aldrick

So, let me ask you Wooly, are you going to participate in a project that requires you to accept every major change of 4th Edition wholesale without major alteration? Are you willing to remain part of this project if people decide that they do not like the fact that Mystra returns and decide to keep her dead?


I'm not willing to be part of re-writing the Realms as a group project. If it doesn't start by incorporating ALL canon -- even the stuff I despise -- then I've no interest at all in it and will not in any way support it.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 10 Jul 2017 :  11:22:03  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

It does not include everyone if they prefer the current published era of the Realms and your project is to get rid of that.


You talk about "including everyone" but then you actively ignore everyone who will refuse to work on the project if it does not conform to your ultimatums. You reach out your hand to a handful of people while ignoring a crowd of others.

quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I'm not willing to be part of re-writing the Realms as a group project. If it doesn't start by incorporating ALL canon -- even the stuff I despise -- then I've no interest at all in it and will not in any way support it.


...and this makes no sense. By embracing the time jump we literally are re-writing the Realms. That becomes necessary, in fact, due to the lack of updated canon lore.

What exactly are you expecting? Something akin to what KanzenAU assumed--that the main purpose of the Candlekanon is to 'fill in the gaps'? That once we have established lore and other things all set up, that we will change the Candlekanon if WotC publishes anything that contradicts it?

I cannot imagine why anyone would support that project. All the effort someone would put into getting something accepted into the Candlekanon, the lore research, the writing, the editing, having to get it voted on... only to have WotC randomly invalidate their work in the official lore, and thus have it stripped from the Candlekanon. That. Is. Awful.

If you do not embrace this scenario, then you are simply passing the same argument you are making now forward into the future. Ten or fifteen years down the line, the Candlekanon will have deviated significantly from the established canon. (Assuming there is still FR stuff being published at all, which may be doubtful.) All of the arguments you make here remain valid. What about -THOSE- people? Don't they deserve to have their era of the Realms included as well? Everything you said applies to them as well.

The moment one unofficial thing is posted and proclaimed Candlekanon, then we are already dealing with an alternative canon. It does not matter where we start at--whether it is 1340 DR, 1385 DR, or 1490 DR. No matter what we will eventually end up in the same place.

Anyway, if that is how you feel, then I guess I wish you well. I knew going into this that not everyone would be won over. It is unfortunate that you feel the way that you do, but you are not offering a solution to any of the problems--only giving ultimatums.

Frankly speaking, since this is done by majority vote, I suppose it is best to identify everyone who starts laying down hard 'my way or the highway' lines early. It is certain to end poorly in the end otherwise.

I wish you luck on whatever it is you want to do.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 6 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2017 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000