Arelith

Sartain wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:51 amNo need to reveal the secrets of the server but relevant, somewhat commonly known stuff like "this guy is the current king of Cordor", "Team Evil has a known base here and here", "Wharftown was destroyed by an angry old man and a timid young boy that came through a portal" and other things like that.

Commonly know stuff becomes uncommonly known and then history given enough time on Arelith. 99% of characters made are not native to the island, and there's really no purpose anyone outside the island would know the intricate goings on with such familiarity that they're able to recall in detail what occurred 10 years ago AR.

I'm cautioning that writing established lore from an OOC context will mean this lore will always be in the conscious of Arelith players forever.

There is something powerful about stumbling upon the Wharftown ruins (or any unknown lore site) and asking yourself, "what happened here?" If that question is answered OOC, that provides less incentive for a character to seek that information IG.

I think Dreams has it right we are in FR but nothing says you have to be 100% pure to the setting, The problem only occurs if you try to make major changes to the setting. For me something like trying to change the history of Thay simply so someone who wants to play a red wizard will have an easier time , trying to change a gods dogma, or making drow a lovey cuddley race would be bad. I think the core needs to stay in place.

As for history of Arelith making it way to the mainland. Amn plays a big part in Arelith, who can say what events might make it's way back to Amn. Would an Amn fleet bombing Wharftown be a big deal in Amn? Would an Amn version of the Guld/Grove fight where Amn builds a dock and gets lumber be told in Amn? Again if so you would expect it to be told from an Amn point a view. Would any of these events make it to another land, probably not. But maybe a nation that hates Amn might pass stories on evil Amn murdering poor fisherman. So maybe some players do come on island knowing some of what may of happened but have a biased view. Since anyone from Amn would hear the Amn version etc..


Something such as Wharftown books and that should be from a characters pov. if Rhaeg wrote a book I would it expect it to contain his version. His version of what he thinks the truth is. Most of stuff should be learned IG, but I also think too much of Areliths past has been lost. it wouldn't be bad if there was a cache of important arelith history/events. Even if unbiased just from a historian pov of the basic facts.

JubJub wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:08 pm I think Dreams has it right we are in FR but nothing says you have to be 100% pure to the setting, The problem only occurs if you try to make major changes to the setting. For me something like trying to change the history of Thay simply so someone who wants to play a red wizard will have an easier time , trying to change a gods dogma, or making drow a lovey cuddley race would be bad. I think the core needs to stay in place.

As for history of Arelith making it way to the mainland. Amn plays a big part in Arelith, who can say what events might make it's way back to Amn. Would an Amn fleet bombing Wharftown be a big deal in Amn? Would an Amn version of the Guld/Grove fight where Amn builds a dock and gets lumber be told in Amn? Again if so you would expect it to be told from an Amn point a view. Would any of these events make it to another land, probably not. But maybe a nation that hates Amn might pass stories on evil Amn murdering poor fisherman. So maybe some players do come on island knowing some of what may of happened but have a biased view. Since anyone from Amn would hear the Amn version etc..


Something such as Wharftown books and that should be from a characters pov. if Rhaeg wrote a book I would it expect it to contain his version. His version of what he thinks the truth is. Most of stuff should be learned IG, but I also think too much of Areliths past has been lost. it wouldn't be bad if there was a cache of important arelith history/events. Even if unbiased just from a historian pov of the basic facts.

I'm sure Amn has a number of rival states who are all very interested in what exactly they are up to on that distant island. And thus, the word spreads. Also, Amn might very well use any military victories to tout their own horn, maybe throw party and proclaim how the mighty Amnish armies have earned another glorious victory for the country. Isn't that what Renaissance-y high fantasy countries do?

You can have your character write records IG and even submit them to the DEVs for consideration of adding them into the loot matrix as a bookshelf "lootable" book item.

If the real reason behind these threads is establishing some sort of objective Arelith lore to have for referencing, please don't. Such sources only serve as a tool of nefarious ruleslawyers to have their way and be obnoxious about it more often than not.

Ork wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 3:12 pm I disagree primarily because of the nature in lore objectivity. If we provide lore for Arelith in an objective manner, we lose the nuance of subjective roleplay. Consider FR lore. Ann has invaded Maztica and slaughtered a lot of her people. If you asked players in game about this you'd find that they all unanimously agree this happened. Why? Because it's objectively presented in lore. There is no counter-play with maybe Amn never did those terrible things, etc.

A lot of events on Arelith are highly subjective. It depends on who you ask on what sort of tale you're told. A cordorian during the Wharftown destruction might say Wharftown was a harbor of evil and deserved it, but an older wharftowner might say Cordor slaughtered innocents.

Now if you present that event subjectively, you remove a lot of the nuance in counter-play. All the sudden everyone knows what happened and exactly how it happened.

Arelith is an organic world, and even the Arelith EA does a good job presenting events in a manner that doesn't remove their subjective nature. That's at least my thought on the matter.

Ironically, while I can see the logic you have here, it is exactly this logic that makes me approach it from the other point of view. We are big on player choice here. Your character can't die unless you say so, your character can't be a slave unless you say so, your character can't be captured unless you say so.

Following this trend, while I am all for organic discovery of events and enjoy learning new things IC, character ignorance should be your choice, not something forced upon you by a lack of available source material. It would, in my personal opinion, be very unsatisfying to say, make a historian, or a scholar who's been studying some facet of FR, otherwise, and worse still if you were to attempt to spread that knowledge IC and met with a flat "Surprise, this isn't FR, and we're not doing that here!"

The Banite faith and the unfortunate circumstances some players wind up facing is just one example of many.

I find it hard to think I'm the only person bothered by this concept that Arelith is in a constant state of existential undefined flux, where at a whim we (as players) will in the future just toss out FR lore that could invalidate aspects of pre-existing characters that are already based on it. I don't approve of the notion that because a player (any player) doesn't like a particular piece of lore, that they can ignore it and everyone else around them following that established lore has to alter their character's story or risk breaking the Be Nice rule.

Supplementing the lore with things that aren't discussed (and there's plenty of room for that despite the prolific writing of FR) is far different than flagrantly doing the opposite of what the established lore is because you feel like it- one can be incorporated without disrupting other people's stories, while the other is guaranteed to disrupt someone's story, and you're forcing that upon them or forcing them to ignore that part of any interaction your character presents without ever getting the chance to ask them, "Hey, was this important to your character?"


TL;DR

Arelith is not FR is meant in the spirit of enabling newer players to find their way within a system they may not have source lore on. (Edit: And a certain amount of creative license for outlying circumstances).

I really believe this is a dividing line that needs to be drawn - we hate telling people they're doing it wrong, but at a certain point, they are. When you're making decisions that invalidate the world for the players around you without discussing whether or not they've already used those existing story points, not because you don't know, but because "I don't like that part of the lore," you're doing it wrong, because you're not being considerate of the stories of others who have shaped theirs by the rules of the accepted community sandbox.

It's not the place of the players to tell other players that they're doing something wrong. Whether they are correct or incorrect is irrelevant.

-XXX- wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:02 pm It's not the place of the players to tell other players that they're doing something wrong. Whether they are correct or incorrect is irrelevant.

The person playing (edit: INTENTIONALLY) counter to established lore is automatically telling everyone else around them abiding by it that they're wrong and everything their character understands about the universe is flawed.

There is no other decision a player can make that is more selfish in a shared writing setting. It's an active decision, made without even discussing the notion with the dozens or hundreds of players whose own preexisting concepts may be invalidated or excluded because someone didn't like the lore that day.

If someone else's roleplay ruins your your enjoyment of the game, that's on you.
Arelith doesn't really offer many options for players to affect the roleplay of other in an undesired way.

Players aren't the custodians of the setting. That's what the DMs are for.
If you're having an issue with someone having too much fun, you as a player are always at the liberty to just ignore them and go look for fun that's more up your alley elsewhere.

tl;dr: the players clearly aren't the ones deciding the parameters of "RP standards" nor are they equipped with any means to enforce them. The vast majority of attempts to "correct" the RP of players by players turns out to be less than productive. You see something you don't like, report.

-XXX- wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 6:23 pm If someone else's roleplay ruins your your enjoyment of the game, that's on you.
Arelith doesn't really offer many options for players to affect the roleplay of other in an undesired way.

Players aren't the custodians of the setting. That's what the DMs are for.
If you're having an issue with someone having too much fun, you as a player are always at the liberty to just ignore them and go look for fun that's more up your alley elsewhere.

tl;dr: the players clearly aren't the ones deciding the parameters of "RP standards" nor are they equipped with any means to enforce them. The vast majority of attempts to "correct" the RP of players by players turns out to be less than productive. You see something you don't like, report.

No one is really debating this- although I am certainly trying to alter the viewpoint that it's not disruptive to engage in, as I feel that most people do it out of a lack of forethought than any active sense of malice.

However, I don't have to try to "enforce" my views as some kind of in-game authority to have a civil discussion about how I feel this course of action is less than ideal, and why. I know I'm not a DM, but I'm positive I have something to contribute to the discussion, and I'm sorry if I've somehow given the impression that I'm an authority- I'm not. What I am is very into FR and its lore, and that's part of why I play here.

I presume it's a big part of why we all play here, and not, say, Ravenloft, or Sigil, (Edit: Or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Moral Relativism) instead. Not that there's anything wrong with those servers or realms, but they're different kinds of stories than the ones we're looking for.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:55 pm in my personal opinion, be very unsatisfying to say, make a historian, or a scholar who's been studying some facet of FR, otherwise, and worse still if you were to attempt to spread that knowledge IC and met with a flat "Surprise, this isn't FR, and we're not doing that here!"

I disagree once again with pretty much every point here. What happens in lore and what happens IG is identical to the distinction of the subjective vs. the objective.

First, how dull a character must be to know all lore and is 100% correct in every assumption they have on the world. Second, all lore IG should have the freedom to be reinterpreted. It would be dull to always have the same interpretation of Bane or Tyr or Helm. What validates reinterpretation? Roleplay, and damn good roleplay at that.

There is nothing stopping players from refusing or refuting any players "push" into this world and players always have agency to agree or disagree with lore interpretations.

There is no line to draw. If you'd like to draw a line do it in game & support it with badass roleplay.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:09 pm
I presume it's a big part of why we all play here, and not, say, Ravenloft, or Sigil, (Edit: Or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Moral Relativism) instead. Not that there's anything wrong with those servers or realms, but they're different kinds of stories than the ones we're looking for.

I play here because it was the most active server when I joined. I don't have any inherent love for Forgotten Realms other than it's a setting that supports the D&D vibe I like and it's consistent across a few different games I've played whether it's NWN servers or Baldurs Gate 2 or PnP or whatever. If it was Greyhawk or some other world that had the same flavor I like then that would be cool too. No Harry Potter though, I have to draw the line somewhere.

I'm sure there are quite a few of us who just want to play D&D and consider the setting arbitrary as long as it hits the right notes. I respect the lore but don't study it unless it pertains to what my character is involved in and always let an interesting story override whatever a book says. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, just bringing up a different point of view on the topic.

I just want plot hooks from the local setting

Ork wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:09 pm

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 5:55 pm in my personal opinion, be very unsatisfying to say, make a historian, or a scholar who's been studying some facet of FR, otherwise, and worse still if you were to attempt to spread that knowledge IC and met with a flat "Surprise, this isn't FR, and we're not doing that here!"

I disagree once again with pretty much every point here. What happens in lore and what happens IG is identical to the distinction of the subjective vs. the objective.

First, how dull a character must be to know all lore and is 100% correct in every assumption they have on the world. Second, all lore IG should have the freedom to be reinterpreted. It would be dull to always have the same interpretation of Bane or Tyr or Helm. What validates reinterpretation? Roleplay, and damn good roleplay at that.

There is nothing stopping players from refusing or refuting any players "push" into this world and players always have agency to agree or disagree with lore interpretations.

There is no line to draw. If you'd like to draw a line do it in game & support it with badass roleplay.

Changing things in the world with RP is fine, but no matter how convincingly your character persuades everyone on the island that demons really just want to hug you, when those demons "hug" you, outside of a dm event your character is wrong and they're going to eat you.

I'm not talking about someone's ability to build up and change a reputation through good RP. This notion that a concept must be acknowledged as valid because this isn't FR and people are just being mean otherwise is deeply flawed and self-entitled, though, and I believe it hurts the story and the overall atmosphere of the server's narrative.

I'm deeply bothered by the repeated tone that suggests that my preferred experience based in exploring the lore of the world rather than ignoring it must be boring and stemmed in a desire to control other people's stories, rather than it being taken for the fact that I find this type of behavior disturbs my story and the stories of many others around those who do it.

Sea Shanties wrote:
I play here because it was the most active server when I joined. I don't have any inherent love for Forgotten Realms other than it's a setting that supports the D&D vibe I like and it's consistent across a few different games I've played whether it's NWN servers or Baldurs Gate 2 or PnP or whatever. If it was Greyhawk or some other world that had the same flavor I like then that would be cool too. No Harry Potter though, I have to draw the line somewhere.

I'm sure there are quite a few of us who just want to play D&D and consider the setting arbitrary as long as it hits the right notes. I respect the lore but don't study it unless it pertains to what my character is involved in and always let an interesting story override whatever a book says. I'm not saying this to be argumentative, just bringing up a different point of view on the topic.

This is a perfectly respectable view to have. I'm down for allowing people to work within the framework a bit, but what happens when you're RP'ing with two people who are on the opposite side of the lore difference IC? Let's say, for example, that your character is accompanied by elves, both who hail from Evereska. One says Evereska no longer exists- X figure in his past tragically died when the city was destroyed during the Time of Troubles. The other says he just arrived from there yesterday.

In a normal table-top story setting, this isn't a concern, because you're playing with your friends, and it's a small group. On Arelith, you're playing with thousands of other people, many of whom you can presume will be invested in the lore that pertains, at least, to their own character, in the same way you do a bit of research for your own. This means variations and deviations from these established norms will inevitably impact the narrative in a way that is typically unsatisfying for one side or the other.

I have never seen "Arelith isn't FR" used to justify divergences that have happened due to IC events on the server in conversation. I've only ever seen it used in defense of not following the lore and causing narrative dissonance in other people's stories.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:46 pm I'm deeply bothered by the repeated tone that suggests that my preferred experience based in exploring the lore of the world rather than ignoring it must be boring and stemmed in a desire to control other people's stories, rather than it being taken for the fact that I find this type of behavior disturbs my story and the stories of many others around those who do it.

I hadn't know the example you gave was literally your character, and had thought it a construct to talk about your meaning.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:46 pmI have never seen "Arelith isn't FR" used to justify divergences that have happened due to IC events on the server in conversation. I've only ever seen it used in defense of not following the lore and causing narrative dissonance in other people's stories.

If someone's using that justification in game, that's as shallow as prescribing Arelith follows 100% FR lore in its entirety. I think by and large the player-base should be accommodating to divergences in FR lore primarily because a good majority of the players don't have a solid grasp of FR lore and shouldn't be expected to conform with everything presented there.

No one is under any responsibility to acknowledge anyone elses roleplay as valid in game. Your character is your own and you have complete agency in determining if they believe something or they don't within the limitations in the system or otherwise prescribed by the development team (see: warlocks, PMs).

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:46 pm This is a perfectly respectable view to have. I'm down for allowing people to work within the framework a bit, but what happens when you're RP'ing with two people who are on the opposite side of the lore difference IC? Let's say, for example, that your character is accompanied by elves, both who hail from Evereska. One says Evereska no longer exists- X figure in his past tragically died when the city was destroyed during the Time of Troubles. The other says he just arrived from there yesterday.

In a normal table-top story setting, this isn't a concern, because you're playing with your friends, and it's a small group. On Arelith, you're playing with thousands of other people, many of whom you can presume will be invested in the lore that pertains, at least, to their own character, in the same way you do a bit of research for your own. This means variations and deviations from these established norms will inevitably impact the narrative in a way that is typically unsatisfying for one side or the other.

I have never seen "Arelith isn't FR" used to justify divergences that have happened due to IC events on the server in conversation. I've only ever seen it used in defense of not following the lore and causing narrative dissonance in other people's stories.

I can't answer that. In general my character would do what my character would do which is likely believe whoever made the strongest case in the moment and let it sort itself out later. I think in my experience the person who is backing up their RP with solid research is probably going to win out in the long run for various reasons, including more people will back them up and if it comes down to going to DMs for some reason they'll probably side with the person who's not full of BS.

I'm not saying "throw out lore" at all, it's just not as important to me as whatever is going on right now--I tend to think of the setting in the rulebooks as background and a way to solve arguments. Anyway, my point is really more that we aren't all here because we love Forgotten Realms. Some people just buy the game and want to play D&D, some people read the Drizzt books first and want to recreate that more than they care about gaming, we're all on different paths. I respect that you go the distance with it though, don't take this as trying to talk you out of that.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:46 pm This is a perfectly respectable view to have. I'm down for allowing people to work within the framework a bit, but what happens when you're RP'ing with two people who are on the opposite side of the lore difference IC? Let's say, for example, that your character is accompanied by elves, both who hail from Evereska. One says Evereska no longer exists- X figure in his past tragically died when the city was destroyed during the Time of Troubles. The other says he just arrived from there yesterday.

Mental conditions, misinformation, amnesia, magical illusions, planar travel, fake pocket plane, etc. ~ these are but a few of viable explanations of the aforementioned situation.
Dissolving differences through confronting subjective narratives is much more imaginative than referencing an objective one to rule the outcome of the situation. It's also much more practical as it does not seem as condescending to other players and can be incorporated into any ongoing RP event in a much more fluid and seamless fashion.

For instance, you could step OOC and start explaining to everyone in tells how the guy who says Evereska no longer exists is objectively incorrect as Arelith's setting is frozen in the year 1372 DR, which means the time of troubles would not have happened yet, etc.
But ask yourself who's being more disruptive to the RP at that point ~ the player who's "doing it wrong" or the nitpicky OOC ruleslawyer?

-XXX- wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 12:43 pm

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Fri Mar 29, 2019 7:46 pm This is a perfectly respectable view to have. I'm down for allowing people to work within the framework a bit, but what happens when you're RP'ing with two people who are on the opposite side of the lore difference IC? Let's say, for example, that your character is accompanied by elves, both who hail from Evereska. One says Evereska no longer exists- X figure in his past tragically died when the city was destroyed during the Time of Troubles. The other says he just arrived from there yesterday.

Mental conditions, misinformation, amnesia, magical illusions, planar travel, fake pocket plane, etc. ~ these are but a few of viable explanations of the aforementioned situation.
Dissolving differences through confronting subjective narratives is much more imaginative than referencing an objective one to rule the outcome of the situation. It's also much more practical as it does not seem as condescending to other players and can be incorporated into any ongoing RP event in a much more fluid and seamless fashion.

For instance, you could step OOC and start explaining to everyone in tells how the guy who says Evereska no longer exists is objectively incorrect as Arelith's setting is frozen in the year 1372 DR, which means the time of troubles would not have happened yet, etc.
But ask yourself who's being more disruptive to the RP at that point ~ the player who's "doing it wrong" or the nitpicky OOC ruleslawyer?

But if we had an OOC source of information to access you wouldn't need to encounter that particular narrative dissonance in the first place, since the two elves would both likely be in agreement about what state Evereska is in and could thus spend their time on more productive RP than having an in-game word-fight about who is right and who is crazy

The described narrative dissonance regards one of the few bits of OOC sourced information that's quite easy to access at the New player guide - Arelith Wiki, yet it seems to have taken place regardless.
Furthermore, having an in-game word-fight about who is right and who is crazy is equally as valid and productive RP as any other, wouldn't you agree?

For reference :

New player guide - Arelith Wiki wrote: The Setting

Arelith is a small isle off the Sword Coast, closest to Luskan and somewhat close to Ruathym. It takes place in the Forgotten Realms setting, 3.0-3.5 which is after the Time of Troubles but before the Spellplague. Specifically, the Arelith timeline diverges in early 1372 DR: Bane has been resurrected, but Lolth has never gone silent.

Time goes forward, but events that may have happened in the lorebooks past this age may or may not happen in the universe of Arelith at all at discretion of the developer team.

-XXX- wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 4:45 pm The described narrative dissonance regards one of the few bits of OOC sourced information that's quite easy to access at the New player guide - Arelith Wiki, yet it seems to have taken place regardless.
Furthermore, having an in-game word-fight about who is right and who is crazy is equally as valid and productive RP as any other, wouldn't you agree?

No, I don't think having to in-game suss out who created an nonsense back-story is valid RP. How would you like it if you built up a background about being from say, Waterdeep and there you have a network of friends, family and relations only for someone to roll out and say "oh but Waterdeep was destroyed decades ago" and then other characters roll with it as well, completely invalidating your background simply because somebody decided to ignore established FR canon?

Not to mention that its annoying, it is also a potential OOC tool for IC character assassination, as you can easily make decide to make up stuff that contradicts an enemy's RP and just try to proliferate that as much as possible.

Sartain wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:45 pm No, I don't think having to in-game suss out who created an nonsense back-story is valid RP. How would you like it if you built up a background about being from say, Waterdeep and there you have a network of friends, family and relations only for someone to roll out and say "oh but Waterdeep was destroyed decades ago" and then other characters roll with it as well, completely invalidating your background simply because somebody decided to ignore established FR canon?

Some of my characters would probably be confused and then mourn the loss of their home town as they clearly don't have any means of verifying the information, others might refuse to believe it and call the messenger a liar.
It doesn't matter whether it is correct or incorrect from the objective lore perspective as the characters don't know the objective truth.
Our characters live on a fantasy island full of magic and mystical creatures. Portraying how they react to ridiculous situations is probably the most important part of RP as that's where their character and personality can truly show.

Sartain wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:45 pm Not to mention that its annoying, it is also a potential OOC tool for IC character assassination, as you can easily make decide to make up stuff that contradicts an enemy's RP and just try to proliferate that as much as possible.

Characters with such strong emphasis on their backstory tend to be rather one-dimensional. Furthermore, I am having a hard time imagining any element of a character's background so integral to their being, that when removed or put in question would result in the character becoming unplayable.

Making stuff up about an enemy and spreading lies IC is one of the major driving forces of conflict and narrative on Arelith. There's not much difference between "that man's crazy, he claims to be from a non-existing place" and "that man's crazy, he worships Asmodeus". Using some "sourcebook" to combat the first statement equals using bard song to combat the latter one in my book.

-XXX- wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:26 am

Sartain wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:45 pm No, I don't think having to in-game suss out who created an nonsense back-story is valid RP. How would you like it if you built up a background about being from say, Waterdeep and there you have a network of friends, family and relations only for someone to roll out and say "oh but Waterdeep was destroyed decades ago" and then other characters roll with it as well, completely invalidating your background simply because somebody decided to ignore established FR canon?

Some of my characters would probably be confused and then mourn the loss of their home town as they clearly don't have any means of verifying the information, others might refuse to believe it and call the messenger a liar.
It doesn't matter whether it is correct or incorrect from the objective lore perspective as the characters don't know the objective truth.
Our characters live on a fantasy island full of magic and mystical creatures. Portraying how they react to ridiculous situations is probably the most important part of RP as that's where their character and personality can truly show.

Sartain wrote: Sat Mar 30, 2019 5:45 pm Not to mention that its annoying, it is also a potential OOC tool for IC character assassination, as you can easily make decide to make up stuff that contradicts an enemy's RP and just try to proliferate that as much as possible.

Characters with such strong emphasis on their backstory tend to be rather one-dimensional. Furthermore, I am having a hard time imagining any element of a character's background so integral to their being, that when removed or put in question would result in the character becoming unplayable.

Making stuff up about an enemy and spreading lies IC is one of the major driving forces of conflict and narrative on Arelith. There's not much difference between "that man's crazy, he claims to be from a non-existing place" and "that man's crazy, he worships Asmodeus". Using some "sourcebook" to combat the first statement equals using bard song to combat the latter one in my book.

Well my issue is that if you have no frame of reference to work from, anyone can just make up anything on the fly. Which is generally great in roleplaying but no so much if it invalidates other people's RP/background/character.
So as I see it we at least need at baseline and using FR as canon is a pretty well documented baseline readily accessible for anyone, with lots of cool stuff you can work into your character, so adhering to FR canon as much as possible seems the only real way to establish any sort of common narrative frameworks, to me.

We're obviously not on the same page here and I don't think either of us is going to change their minds, so I'll just say thanks for the civil debate