| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
 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.
|
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 18:50:20
|
I've started leaning heavily into the idea that there should be no Canon to debate. Some campaigns are going to have different "truths" than others; but over all, it is nearly a futile gesture to hammer out canon for the Forgotten Realms because it nearly invariably is overturned later by some other writing.
That is why I mostly just stick to the OGB and a couple of other supplements. |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 19:00:18
|
Well there are source books, that confirm often what a narrative was. Ed has indicated he used the unreliable narrator for things like Volo's guides because so much material was to be covered, however not allowed to get into the details. That he was limited in what would see print and not full and complete as he would have wanted. That also was to allow for some changes being made possible for the DM, much like false rumors being planted in modules.
Each can do as they like with the information presented. Sooner or later facts on the ground will change because of characters choices, successes and failures.
Some lore clearly should indeed be accepted as fact, however not sure there can be a full agreement on where the defining guidance would be.
60 Lichs followers or maybe 58 (or 8) type of debates do not make much sense as to what is canon. However clearly that is one recent time the unreliable narrator was invoked. That type of thing should be more treated as you can home rule that the number is lower in your game, as opposed to claiming any number can be canon.
Just my thoughts. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7969 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 19:14:54
|
| I always read the unreliable narrator as the author's way of suggesting things which may be facts or fictions. Maybe exaggerations, elaborations, fabrications. Maybe digressions and directions speculating away from the core topic. Written in such a way that the reader could choose which "facts" are preferred. Written in such a way that a DM could present all the other "facts" are rumours and red-herrings which confuse players. Indeed, written in such a way that it might represent all the differing informed/uninformed/misinformed/disinformed knowledge possessed by many other characters in the setting. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Delnyn
Senior Scribe
USA
889 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 19:19:06
|
| Maybe we should consider when we are dealing with an unreliable narrator versus an unreliable writer/designer. You all may apply this question to worlds outside Forgotten Realms. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 19:51:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I've started leaning heavily into the idea that there should be no Canon to debate. Some campaigns are going to have different "truths" than others; but over all, it is nearly a futile gesture to hammer out canon for the Forgotten Realms because it nearly invariably is overturned later by some other writing.
That is why I mostly just stick to the OGB and a couple of other supplements.
So while saying we shouldn't have canon, you establish the canon that you yourself choose?
If we don't have any canon, though, if everything is up in the air and we have to decide if every single thing is a fact or not -- then why bother with a shared setting?
Part of why I prefer shared settings is that I know I'm not up to world-building. Part of it is because I delight in those grey areas between what is written and what isn't -- I think working in those areas is more challenging, and more rewarding, than making up my own thing from scratch. And lastly, part of why I prefer a shared setting is because of something that Ed said: shared settings can surprise you.
I get the whole "make the setting your own" thing, and if I was DM'ing, I'd stick to the 2E era, myself. I'd pick and choose from later material, but I think the Golden Age of the Realms ended when 3E came out.
I don't think that making it your own, though, means disregarding all canon, regardless of when you choose to do it. Sure, you're going to deviate from published canon, at some point, but even that's really not that much a thing - because if something isn't addressed in canon, are you really deviating from it? For example, there have always been unnamed Hidden Lords of Waterdeep. Making your own doesn't contradict anything at all, unless you entirely replace canon ones. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 30 Jan 2021 20:29:04 |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 21:19:39
|
| For me, I use the unreliable narrator mainly as a way to handle contradictions in canon. If it would take too much handwaving for both to be true, one of the sources has to be an unreliable narrator. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 21:54:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I've started leaning heavily into the idea that there should be no Canon to debate. Some campaigns are going to have different "truths" than others; but over all, it is nearly a futile gesture to hammer out canon for the Forgotten Realms because it nearly invariably is overturned later by some other writing.
That is why I mostly just stick to the OGB and a couple of other supplements.
So while saying we shouldn't have canon, you establish the canon that you yourself choose?
If we don't have any canon, though, if everything is up in the air and we have to decide if every single thing is a fact or not -- then why bother with a shared setting?
Part of why I prefer shared settings is that I know I'm not up to world-building. Part of it is because I delight in those grey areas between what is written and what isn't -- I think working in those areas is more challenging, and more rewarding, than making up my own thing from scratch. And lastly, part of why I prefer a shared setting is because of something that Ed said: shared settings can surprise you.
I get the whole "make the setting your own" thing, and if I was DM'ing, I'd stick to the 2E era, myself. I'd pick and choose from later material, but I think the Golden Age of the Realms ended when 3E came out.
I don't think that making it your own, though, means disregarding all canon, regardless of when you choose to do it. Sure, you're going to deviate from published canon, at some point, but even that's really not that much a thing - because if something isn't addressed in canon, are you really deviating from it? For example, there have always been unnamed Hidden Lords of Waterdeep. Making your own doesn't contradict anything at all, unless you entirely replace canon ones.
Really I'm just saying I'm tired of debating canon. 
I understand that we need some "basic truths" for the Forgotten Realms; but I just don't feel like going further "into the future" than the OGB really.
I'm tired.  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3737 Posts |
Posted - 30 Jan 2021 : 22:32:49
|
| -Was never a fan. If you want to change something in your game, that's always been your prerogative. Not having a game, I want the cold, hard facts. I do enjoy the gray area that has arisen with certain things, but I feel those things can be included while ultimately giving us the black-and-white answer. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 01:57:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
For me, I use the unreliable narrator mainly as a way to handle contradictions in canon. If it would take too much handwaving for both to be true, one of the sources has to be an unreliable narrator.
That's a fair way of doing it. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 01:58:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Really I'm just saying I'm tired of debating canon.
I understand that we need some "basic truths" for the Forgotten Realms; but I just don't feel like going further "into the future" than the OGB really.
I'm tired.
Fair enough.  |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1286 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 03:08:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
There are folks who consider only the original Star Wars trilogy canon, so...you're in good company.
Star Wars canon was a mess, before all the Expanded Universe stuff got chucked out. You had different levels of canon with the movies and novels and comics and RPG stuff, which meant some stuff was more canon than other stuff, and then there was canon material that lost canon status because Lucas decided he liked some later thing more...
Even with the classic Trilogy, there's still at least one question of which is canon: the original release with Han shooting first, or the rerelease with a professional bounty hunter somehow missing a stationary target three feet away? (Yes, the phrasing of the question does indicate my thoughts on the matter!) |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 31 Jan 2021 03:09:29 |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
Posted - 31 Jan 2021 : 03:51:42
|
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. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6645 Posts |
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 |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
Edited by - George Krashos on 31 Jan 2021 11:07:06 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
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. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 31 Jan 2021 17:05:50 |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Delnyn
Senior Scribe
USA
889 Posts |
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]
|
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
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!" |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
AJA
Senior Scribe
USA
747 Posts |
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).
|
AJA
YAFRP
|
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
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.... |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
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? |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
Edited by - TheIriaeban on 01 Feb 2021 14:44:07 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11695 Posts |
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.... |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
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 |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
Edited by - Dalor Darden on 01 Feb 2021 16:52:00 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
My thoughts on the unreliable narrator
