This is a big IMO but I think that certain franchises are easier to view as having _no_ canon, and D&D is one of them. It is way too transient not just at tables of players, but writing desks of authors to claim that books have any guarantee to agree with each other.
I don't think I've heard anything specific from Weis and Hickman but they have expressed frustration with their overlords several times in regards to canon. Lord Soth, the entire 5th age, the new trilogy, etc.
I ignore 4e and have the impression it purposefully contradicts earlier editions. 5e barely has any lore. The books are woefully thin and underdeveloped. I play 5e, but it needs a lot of material from 1-2-3e to make it work.
12:55 i think it comes from the legal documentation between Ed Greenwood and wizards of the coast or who he originally made his deal with he sorta alluded to it on a youtube video once
Its in his video about the new movie. Under the chapter named something like "pretty good for a dead woman". The novels are canon, Greenwood's licensing agreement for the Forgotten Realms says so, and Hasbro can't change it unless they renegotiate that agreement with him, which they have not done. I think a lot of that is why 5e version 2024 seems to be moving away from the setting. They would prefer there to be no canon and their lawyers likely told them they don't have that option if they keep using the Forgotten Realms. Bits and pieces of the agreement beyond that have been hinted at elsewhere but the licence agreement itself I don't believe has been published.
"Asmodeus ascension to godhood". Is a 4e thing. Pre-4e, he had already been established as being the avatar of the imprisoned overgod Jazirian who co-created the great-wheel cosmology. In Book of Hell? One of the first WotC books that IIRC was started when 2e was still owned by TSR. But Asmodeus had no reason to *try* to achieve godhood, because he was already actually one of the two strongest gods, just few people knew it. To do this contrivance 4e had to invent a whole contradictory alternate biography for him. Hasbro started breaking continuity more and more over the mid 2000s, until in 2008 4e broke *basically everything* , 'just because'.
I really like the Asmodue's lore, especially the 2e version (I think Jazirian was the good serpent, Ahriman was his twin and the one who fell to Baator). I find other versions of his lore interesting too. I think ( and this is just what I remember vaguely from non specific research) that there's something about gods only being as powerful in a specific crystal sphere as the worship for them in that specific area, and that's why Asmodeus had to ascend in the Realms. Which is how they tried to retcon that. I could be wrong, just wanted to add that little lore tidbit. I agree that it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and his 4th edition origin just changed everything.
@@nicthedm7650 You're right, Ahriman. I misremembered. And yes, inside of Realmspace, Deities' power is restricted by their worshippers. That was the realms' "shakeup" at the start of 2e, following the Time of Troubles. But, that wouldn't limit Ahriman outside of Realmspace, where Ao has no such power. And yeah, 4e broke everything. I try to just ignore all the 4e junk, and only pay attention to the 5e stuff written by Greenwood himself, and self-published on DM's Guild.
That’s odd , I remember his lore saying he was a fallen celestial who betrayed an old god and took some of his power? I never liked the snake story myself
"I'm not saying this is bad. I respect Chris Perkins and..." I'll say it then. The d&d department has been mismanaging the franchise more and more since 2006ish. This only flies because most people who run D&D homebrew a setting of their own, and those of us who reach for D&D because we like the settings they inherited from TSR are a minority and they're content to leave our business on the table to chase the people who just don't care about the fiction and focus on game mechanics instead.
I see what you mean. That's a big reason I was tearing into the official blog post more than the other opinions. I respect them for the work they do, as they at least give us new adventures, I just disagree with some of their stuff.
@@nicthedm7650 SKT was okay, and OoTA was mediocre; I didn't find the 5e adventures very good overall. I don't count Ravenloft or Yawning Portal or the like. They're fine, but those are just reprints from old editions with new art and 5e statblocks. IMO the best adventures are the 2e Waterdeep Boxed Set and the 3e Waterdeep city book. If you go on DMs Guild, they sell all the Adventurer's League adventures for a couple of dollars each though. Those can make some good short adventures to drop in to a campaign. Lost Tales of Myth Drannor was also pretty decent, but it never got a mass production run, just a GenCon release and then PoD. There's a couple good things from the past decade, but they're all minor niche sources most people haven't read, or they're selfpublished by /former/ Wizards/TSR Employees. Like, Keith Baker has a big Eberron sourcebook for 5e if Eberron is your thing. When I get asked which books to get started with FR, I still point people at the 3.0 FRCS and the three AD&D religions books as their best encyclopedic overview to skim, even if they're not going to run an earlier edition. It's a shame 5e D&D didn't do anything similar, but I understand that setting books don't sell as well, and Hasbro just won't bother making a book that only makes a modest profit.
@@nicthedm7650 As for the blog post - It seemed strange to me that they can even claim that, if Greenwood's license says what he says it does (and I'm inclined to believe the kooky old librarian over the soulless corporation).
This is a big IMO but I think that certain franchises are easier to view as having _no_ canon, and D&D is one of them. It is way too transient not just at tables of players, but writing desks of authors to claim that books have any guarantee to agree with each other.
I don't think I've heard anything specific from Weis and Hickman but they have expressed frustration with their overlords several times in regards to canon. Lord Soth, the entire 5th age, the new trilogy, etc.
What is canon or not is decided by the DM and his players.
An opinion I can respect! Until I have to sort through lore for a video, lol.
I ignore 4e and have the impression it purposefully contradicts earlier editions.
5e barely has any lore. The books are woefully thin and underdeveloped.
I play 5e, but it needs a lot of material from 1-2-3e to make it work.
12:55 i think it comes from the legal documentation between Ed Greenwood and wizards of the coast or who he originally made his deal with he sorta alluded to it on a youtube video once
Its in his video about the new movie. Under the chapter named something like "pretty good for a dead woman".
The novels are canon, Greenwood's licensing agreement for the Forgotten Realms says so, and Hasbro can't change it unless they renegotiate that agreement with him, which they have not done.
I think a lot of that is why 5e version 2024 seems to be moving away from the setting. They would prefer there to be no canon and their lawyers likely told them they don't have that option if they keep using the Forgotten Realms.
Bits and pieces of the agreement beyond that have been hinted at elsewhere but the licence agreement itself I don't believe has been published.
I like the idea of the books being separate from the games
Good video overall. 👍
Thank you!
"Asmodeus ascension to godhood".
Is a 4e thing.
Pre-4e, he had already been established as being the avatar of the imprisoned overgod Jazirian who co-created the great-wheel cosmology.
In Book of Hell? One of the first WotC books that IIRC was started when 2e was still owned by TSR.
But Asmodeus had no reason to *try* to achieve godhood, because he was already actually one of the two strongest gods, just few people knew it.
To do this contrivance 4e had to invent a whole contradictory alternate biography for him.
Hasbro started breaking continuity more and more over the mid 2000s, until in 2008 4e broke *basically everything* , 'just because'.
I really like the Asmodue's lore, especially the 2e version (I think Jazirian was the good serpent, Ahriman was his twin and the one who fell to Baator). I find other versions of his lore interesting too.
I think ( and this is just what I remember vaguely from non specific research) that there's something about gods only being as powerful in a specific crystal sphere as the worship for them in that specific area, and that's why Asmodeus had to ascend in the Realms. Which is how they tried to retcon that.
I could be wrong, just wanted to add that little lore tidbit. I agree that it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and his 4th edition origin just changed everything.
@@nicthedm7650 You're right, Ahriman. I misremembered. And yes, inside of Realmspace, Deities' power is restricted by their worshippers. That was the realms' "shakeup" at the start of 2e, following the Time of Troubles. But, that wouldn't limit Ahriman outside of Realmspace, where Ao has no such power.
And yeah, 4e broke everything. I try to just ignore all the 4e junk, and only pay attention to the 5e stuff written by Greenwood himself, and self-published on DM's Guild.
That’s odd , I remember his lore saying he was a fallen celestial who betrayed an old god and took some of his power? I never liked the snake story myself
@@jacobshelt01 pretty sure that's the 4e redesign. But maybe it showed up in another source and I'm wrong. I should check.
@@valasdarkholme6255 Thankyou I like the idea of honestly just picking what history of forgotten realms you want as a player
"I'm not saying this is bad. I respect Chris Perkins and..."
I'll say it then. The d&d department has been mismanaging the franchise more and more since 2006ish. This only flies because most people who run D&D homebrew a setting of their own, and those of us who reach for D&D because we like the settings they inherited from TSR are a minority and they're content to leave our business on the table to chase the people who just don't care about the fiction and focus on game mechanics instead.
I see what you mean. That's a big reason I was tearing into the official blog post more than the other opinions. I respect them for the work they do, as they at least give us new adventures, I just disagree with some of their stuff.
@@nicthedm7650 SKT was okay, and OoTA was mediocre; I didn't find the 5e adventures very good overall. I don't count Ravenloft or Yawning Portal or the like. They're fine, but those are just reprints from old editions with new art and 5e statblocks. IMO the best adventures are the 2e Waterdeep Boxed Set and the 3e Waterdeep city book.
If you go on DMs Guild, they sell all the Adventurer's League adventures for a couple of dollars each though. Those can make some good short adventures to drop in to a campaign. Lost Tales of Myth Drannor was also pretty decent, but it never got a mass production run, just a GenCon release and then PoD.
There's a couple good things from the past decade, but they're all minor niche sources most people haven't read, or they're selfpublished by /former/ Wizards/TSR Employees. Like, Keith Baker has a big Eberron sourcebook for 5e if Eberron is your thing.
When I get asked which books to get started with FR, I still point people at the 3.0 FRCS and the three AD&D religions books as their best encyclopedic overview to skim, even if they're not going to run an earlier edition. It's a shame 5e D&D didn't do anything similar, but I understand that setting books don't sell as well, and Hasbro just won't bother making a book that only makes a modest profit.
@@nicthedm7650 As for the blog post - It seemed strange to me that they can even claim that, if Greenwood's license says what he says it does (and I'm inclined to believe the kooky old librarian over the soulless corporation).
I DO NOT recognize 4.0 or 5.0 as cannon only as poorly done dumbed down garbage cash grabs
Fair enough. I like some of the lore on its own, but it's messy.