| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lord Karsus
Great Reader
USA
3738 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 16:29:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by bloodtide_the_red
Not exactly. My point is that few things are hard facts. As in absolutely true now and forever.
Most facts are soft: they are what is known and accepted by the general public at any one time. They are always subject to change, as what is known and accepted might not be the whole story or whole truth.
-I agree with this 100%, and it's always been the case and has happened from time to time in the various novels, sourcebooks and adventures over the years. I would say that that's a separate thing from a reliable vs unreliable narrator though. You can have facts changed in either presentation. A source using the reliable narrator POV could say "For centuries, Thauglor portrayed himself and acted like a dragon, but his lair was recently uncovered and journals there admit that he was a powerful human magician who enjoyed spending time polymorphed as a dragon, to the point he sometimes truly believed he was a dragon." A source using the unreliable narrator POV could say "Thauglor was believed to have been a powerful black dragon but recent discoveries suggest that he might've been something more, or perhaps something less." The unreliable narrator POV makes those kind of changes easier, but even in a no-BS just-the-facts narration, you still have room to make retcons that flow sensibly with the right presentation. |
(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)
Elves of Faerûn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerûn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium |
 |
|
|
Cards77
Senior Scribe
USA
745 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 17:31:17
|
I always thought that the unreliable narrator has always been meant as a mechanism to avoid "thou shalt" statements. It's a mechanism to allow everyone to take and leave each and every piece as they wish.
It's YOUR Realms not THE Realms. This was the intent from the beginning, probably to forestall this exact discussion about what "should be" cannon.
By injecting uncertainty with an in character RP statement it gives everyone the leeway to take or leave what they wish.
This is why El would chime in on any topic in any sourcebook from any author. |
|
|
|
Eilserus
Master of Realmslore
USA
1446 Posts |
Posted - 01 Feb 2021 : 18:06:20
|
I've always viewed canon as broad brush strokes and the unreliable narrator as the finer details. Elminster gives us a good look at the Realms from his perspective. The Ruins of Zhentil Keep has an interesting mini roll of the years in it from I believe the perspective of Manshoon: "1312 The Year of the Griffin - Since the Purple Dragons of Cormyr do not extend their protection to the people of the Tunlands, Manshoon leads the Zhentarim against the lich-queen of Darkhold. She is slain by Manshoon, and the Far Hills are freed from her evil. Zhentarim remain in Darkhold to ensure the safety of the region."
I would consider Manshoon's version of the seizing of Darkhold as canon too. Manshoon does horrible things, no question there, but I'd also find it a bit unrealistic if he didn't have any least a few redeeming qualities (not saying this was one of those moments, but you never know).
Multiple truths might be a better way to describe it. So plenty of wiggle room to build off such a foundation.
|
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 03:04:15
|
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
Sometimes a retcon is done well... More often, it's cumbersome and breaks more things.
Retcons should never be used to just change something -- retcons should only be used to fix problems in earlier lore.
Retcons can cause the same issues as over-reliance on the unreliable narrator: if you can't trust basic facts, you can't build on them. You don't build a house on sand and expect it to stand for a long time. |
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 02 Feb 2021 03:06:19 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7970 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 05:20:43
|
quote:
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
The idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned is utterly ridiculous.
We must assume that anything published today is automatically "unreliable"?
Because it's possible that years from now WotC will publish something else (something equally unreliable) which contradicts it? Because the different people in charge of the company ten years from now might decide to publish different lore, written by different authors, for a different market, for different reasons, and that's part of what determines the reliability of things being written today?
That's like refusing to drive a car today because it doesn't have the safety features which will be built into next year's model. Refusing to use any computers or softwares today because anything you learn might be updated and obsolete (incompatible) next week. Refusing to be involved in politics or business, because today's urgent imperatives might always be completely changed or forgotten (by somebody else in charge of breaking promises) tomorrow.
The Realms is not some kind of grand project which is ever being refined and evolved towards some ultimate point of perfection and completion. It's an entertainment, meant to be enjoyed. It's a product, meant to be consumed. Today's Realms are "reliable" - they're already committed to ink. Tomorrow's Realms are "unreliable", tomorrow's problem - assuming they'll even exist at all.
And, in the end, even when a retcon does arrive tomorrow which overhauls the Realms you love today - like some kind of flaming apocalyptic tsunami which burns a path across the landscape while drowning a path across the history - you might finally decide WotC has gone too far, that their new lore is too objectionable, and that you choose to reject the retcons. Who knows? If you point at WotC's "unreliability" to support the viewpoint then you should also point at the many disenfranchised grognards who were (and maybe still are) passionate about their older Realmslores. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 02 Feb 2021 05:53:44 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11701 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 15:49:05
|
Ultimately, the question comes down for what is canon.... will you be absolutely and totally upset if X fact is changed. That's what I see as the argument here. Honestly, I'm so used to change that very little phases me anymore. At least, not like it used to when I was younger. To a degree my idea of the realms is changing to keep up with the modern interpretation. To point, the time of troubles happened, the spellplague happened, the second sundering happened. Now, where are we today?
That being said, there are ideas in the modern interpretation that I consider foolish, and despite they're now being "canon" .... I toss them aside OR I come up with a better explanation to keep it more believable (and I try to use the latter). For instance, its now canon that Auril's priests all over the world will lose their spellcasting for a year if some mid level adventurers find a way to kill what is in essence an avatar of hers. I don't accept this idea of all priests losing spellcasting, but I do like the idea that Auril is affected for a year. Maybe she can't send an avatar back to the prime for a year, and thus she cannot enact the ritual that makes the sky dark over the icewind dales area. Problem solved with only a minor change to the storyline. Similarly, in the same book, one plot means of stopping Auril is "killing her pet Roc"... because she'll have to find a new one to hatch and raise over centuries. Honestly, I find this one entirely just silly. Now, if that particular roc were infused with the spirit of some frost giant follower of hers (wasn't there some endless quest book way back when about a frost giant wizard riding a roc) and therefore some wonkiness needs to occur in order for her to use a particular roc with some particular specialness to it..... hey, we adapt the idea and make it more believable and then I can accept it.
Also, anything that's written in some ruleset or loreset that feels extremely munchkin to me now, and which was only seemingly added to create a shock and awe factor but then never effectively used in the world as a plot point.... I feel that that "fact" is open to interpretation (or assumptions that its an out and out lie), and especially if its something very powerful, then if we can tweak the power level of it downwards and still keep the core concept in play, then we should attempt to do so. I say this knowing that we ALL sometimes get "a little big for our britches" and write something for the fun of the idea, and we may not exactly think it through all the way... then later we'd like to change it a bit. Once its used though, its better to "adapt the narrative". For instance, the idea that Szass Tam had a ritual that could literally remake the entire world to his own whim and set himself as basically the god over it.... so munchkin. However, if we adapt this into an idea that the Tome of Fastrin the Delver was an embodiment of an avatar of Leira herself meant to disguise a spell that would drain away the power of a great weave anchor (like the athora) and feed it into a new demiplane which can be "regrown" or "adapted" or "linked" to Dweomerheart and feed said power into Mystra to restore her.... well, you kill two birds with one stone. Mystra's back and you get rid of this idea that Tam can totally remake the world to his own whim (remaking the world may be possible, but it should take a lot more effort than just casting a spell and choosing your new parameters). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 20:29:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Ultimately, the question comes down for what is canon.... will you be absolutely and totally upset if X fact is changed.
I don't want any facts changed unless it's adding to the setting and doesn't contradict any existing information.
Basically, fix any inadvertent issues or add new layers -- but none of the "oh, it's always been that way but no one knew!" crap that WotC pulled earlier, or the massive retcon of "Yeah, it's not one world named Abeir-Toril, it's two worlds, Abeir and Toril!" |
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! |
|
|
|
bloodtide_the_red
Learned Scribe
USA
297 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2021 : 22:22:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I really dislike the idea that nothing is a fact because it can be retconned.
Sometimes a retcon is done well... More often, it's cumbersome and breaks more things.
Retcons should never be used to just change something -- retcons should only be used to fix problems in earlier lore.
Retcons can cause the same issues as over-reliance on the unreliable narrator: if you can't trust basic facts, you can't build on them. You don't build a house on sand and expect it to stand for a long time.
Retcons are really a whole other topic though.
Really I go as far to say Retcons are nearly always bad. They are when a person who HATES the fiction and/or has some type of political agenda and/or whats to make things "cool and hip" for the kidz.
Soft facts are not retcons, they are just facts that are not 100% absolute.
It might be true that you "can't trust facts", but it's not such a big deal not to trust facts.
And if you build a whole world on a lie....so what?
A lot of lore should never really change much....even more so lore that is 'confirmed' over and over again. But plenty of lore does change often.
Ed's own Realmslore is full of stuff..secrets...Elminster knows, but few others know. Zeldra is a kindly old human that bakes pies,,,oh, and she is a 20th level radiant dragon. But few know that. So many people in the Realms.....and even real life people that don't have book X..don't know the secret. So it does not change anything when you find out the secret.
The same way if there was no published secret...ad then one day there was, that still does not change anything. |
|
|
|
CorellonsDevout
Great Reader
USA
2708 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 02:12:27
|
I know there is a lot of debate about what “canon” is. This scroll is proof of that. D&D is designed to be something for people to “make their own”. But established settings are also clearly a thing, and people have settings they love, and others they don’t really use. This doesn’t mean they also don’t completely homebrew, but my point is, if we’re going to have established settings, such as Forgotten Realms, then there are certain facts (as much as a fictionalized setting can be factual) of the setting. Sure, Ed has gotten his information from Elminster, which means most/all the information is from El’s perspective, and thus colored by his views/biases, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t truths within that. Just like the “myths” in the Realms, certain truths can still be discerned.
But that does not mean we have to disregard everything or label it unreliable. We have official source books detailing various aspects of the Realms. Much like world history, which is colored by the views of those who recorded them, and especially the farther back you go, it gets harder to know what really happened, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study history. The Realms is the same to me. Sure, to an extent, there is going to be the unreliable narrator element, but I think there also comes a point when the author takes this approach too far, and it just becomes lazy writing and a way of avoiding having to follow what has been established (note that I am only talking about material/novels officially published for the Realms, not what DMs do at their tables. Homebrew away).
To me, if everything is so unreliable that we can’t trust any of of it, then there is little point in having an established setting. The Realms has a history, cultures, lore. If none of that really matters, then D&D, as I have said before, should just be a pamphlet with rules, a few races to choose from, and monsters to fight. No lore, no established settings. Even though it is designed for people to pick and choose what they want out of a given setting, either follow the canon, change, or disregard it completely, even those who homebrew and design their own worlds still design that world. Just like any author. There are rules (and I’m not talking about mechanics) for that world, a “vibe”, if you will, with lore, worldbuilding, etc. There has been much worldbuilding in the Realms (and yes, retcons and inconsistences) over the decades.
There is unreliable narrator, but I don’t think it should be taken to the point where we question every single bit of info given to us, and I certainly don’t think it should be used by authors/designers as an excuse to avoid following lore (again, I’m talking about material officially published for the setting only). Others may disagree, but that's my stance.
|
Sweet water and light laughter |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2443 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 02:56:48
|
Personally, I dislike the unreliable narrator because in the end it means more work for me to flesh out the world. I'm one of that group of DMs who buys sourcebooks because I lack the time/creativity to homebrew my world from scratch. So, I need hard facts, not maybes. The unreliable narrator makes me actually take the time to flesh out things, which beats my necessity for buying the books. Why should buy that book if in the end, I'll have to do all the work?
If I dislike something from the canon, I will change it regardless of if the narrator is the most reliable of the multiverse or not. I don't need the authors' help for that. I need their help with a full fleshed world with hard facts I can choose from. Not half-truths and untrustworthy lore. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
Edited by - Zeromaru X on 25 Feb 2021 03:04:26 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 03:47:34
|
^ I personally agree on that, because sourcebooks aren't novels and don't read like novels. Besides, sourcebooks have "current clack" and "rumors" sections for a reason. Unreliable info that exists to offer some input for creativity goes in those sections, and/or in the description of the beliefs/opinions/knowledge of the various characters, nations, and organizations. But even if two organizations have an entirely different version of how a certain historical event went down, IMO the sourcebook should provide a "what really happened" version as well. That way, a DM who wants to change it would still be able to do so, and DMs who just want to have canon ready for use can also have what they wanted to buy.
Even in novels, the unreliable narrator only makes sense if you don't arbitrarily withhold or mud info because you want to "create mystery/uncertainty" (that's just incompetent writing). In fact, "unreliable narrator" is quite the misleading term, because it just means that you're filtering stuff from the character's perspective--i.e. the character either doesn't know the full details, or has an opinion or subjective perception of a certain situation, and will therefore see things through their filter. But if your PoV character knows of something, then the reader should too--that's part of the basics of building empathy with the character (unless you're going for a light focus 3rd person PoV, in which case the reader should never get access to the character's filter and thought, tho. Otherwise, if you switch between 3rd light and 3rd deep as you please, you're just withholding info without a valid reason). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 25 Feb 2021 04:00:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2388 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 14:08:53
|
| Ed wrote articles explicitly built around it: Trusting in Lore and Mintiper's Chapbook. |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Zeromaru X
Great Reader
Colombia
2443 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2021 : 19:25:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by TBeholder
Ed wrote articles explicitly built around it: Trusting in Lore and Mintiper's Chapbook.
Oh, sure. But this isn't about unreliable info you must flesh out to find the truth, this gives you the unreliable version vs the actual truth. Unlike most books that use the unreliable narrator. |
Instead of seeking change, you prefer a void, merciless abyss of a world... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
My thoughts on the unreliable narrator
