Talk:Sons of Gruumsh

Okay. So why has this article been deemed non-canonical? It's been published and that's the only real criteria needed to be met. -hash


 * I've removed that template. Fw190a8 15:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have to put the non-canon template back on this page. Why? Look at Wookieepedia canon information for my reasons. In a word (or so) canon means it actually happened in the Realms and "real" characters as in characters that have been published are involved. If the main goodguy is someone invented, which is Sons of Gruumsh's purpose, then it is not canon. Cell4 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with that reasoning, as much of Forgotten Realms information is published in an "adventure" type setting, that obviously won't star the PCs. This adventure module covers NPCs and brings into existance a ruined keep near the borders of Thar.  The existance of a "goodguy" within the product, shouldn't be any kind of litmus test for determining something to be canon. Such a division within the Star Wars community is likely from the two types of fans.  One side being all about the books and movies, while the other are those that embrace the d20 Star Wars system.  Forgotten Realms doesn't have such an environment.  Wenin 05:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Wenin and Hash here. Hell even those god-awful novelizations of the BG series are considered canon. Johnnyriot999 05:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I just gave the adventure module a once over, and there is a lot material within the module that discusses families that live within Melvaunt. It establishes an orc horde that is building north of Melvaunt.  Confirms the existance of an Orc Kingdom that existed in the past of Thar.  Goes as far as to name the orc king, King Kursk One-Tusk.  I'm asking that the tag be removed by an admin again. Wenin 06:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Upon reading "Mysteries of the Moonsea" and "Sons of Gruumsh" the descriptions of the families the scions are part of seem different.--76.28.194.164 10:45, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * It does make sense if the adventure takes place chronologically after Mysteries of the Moonsea is published. Some of the names are the same, just not...most of them. It was released only a couple of months before Mysteries and DnD has a long history of sourcebooks dealing with history being in drastic conflict with each other when the release dates are close. hashtalk 14:41, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Realms Years and clashes with Mysteries of the Moonsea
So the seeming contradictions between Sons of Gruumsh and the Mysteries of the Moonsea have been a curious bugbear for awhile and thought it might be a good idea to hash out some thoughts on the matter.

The broad brush approach that we generally use is that the most 'recent' publication (mysteries of the Moonsea) is the most accurate and that the publishing year roughly corresponds with the realms year. However, in this case, placing Sons of Gruumsh first creates a number bumps between older canon (e.g. The Moonsea) and the Mysteries of the Moonsea, partly because suddenly we have a bunch of characters/governing bodies/etc. that disappear and then reappear. The way of solving this lore wrinkle that has been proposed is to simply set the events of Sons of Gruumsh after Mysteries of Moonsea. While this works, in a way, it kinda just kicks the can down the road and doesn't seem to be supported by much else.

The reason I am musing on this is after I found a post from The Hooded One on Candlekeep the discrepency arose because there had been a planned fiction story, explaining the intrigue around the Council of Iron and various houses, but wasn't ultimately published/written. My suggestion would be to keep the events Sons of Gruumsh and Mysteries of the Moonsea as occuring roughly concurrently (i.e. 1373 DR) and leave ambigious the timing of exact occurrance of the 'intrigue'. What do others think? Eli the Tanner (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)