As more and more people try their hand at a Greyhawk campaign, this is a term that invariably crops up when discussing the history and events of Greyhawk as compiled through modules, sourcebooks, Dragon articles, and the like.
So what exactly is the Greyhawk canon? How has it developed over the years? How will it affect your game, if at all?
You can view some of the changes I did in my campaign under the post Why it wasn't selling. Keep what you like disregard what you don't agree with that simple.
I've never entered into any personally. I've accidentally walked in on a few and hurriedly run out again, but that's about it.
At the end of the day, there is no solid consenus on what is and isn't canon. There are so many different viewpoints that I doubt there ever will be. There is, I believe, a majority who roughly agree that such modules as the joke Castle Greyhawk and Gargoyles and Puppets and I think one or two others are out, and I'm pretty sure the Rose Estes novels are out, but that's about it.
I like knowing what the official sources are but at the end of the day, I agree with Argon (although, I think he comes from a much more aggressive stance on this than I) that you choose what you want for your campaign.
If I understand correctly, Canonfire was developed to combat the notion that there was any such thing as a 'required' or 'mandatory' way in which Greyhawk could be run, or which materials you could or couldn't use for your game. I could be slightly off base on that but I think that's the general gist.
If you peruse the CF article archives and you REALLY know your GH canon, you'll find a lot of 'heretical' articles. Unlike some publications which are simply poorly researched tripe, these articles are usually by people who know everything about Greyhawk but have made up their own stuff anyway. Therein lies the spirit of Greyhawk, 'tis yours to do with as you wish
Making sure new GH product doesn't wreak havoc with prior product plotlines and events.
Providing a sort of benchmark fans can use while comparing their homebrews.
Otherwise, it's useless, use what you like from published GH, ignore the rest.
My general rule of thumb though is: GH specific books overrule conflicting core D&D books (or the odd alternate campaign setting that mentions a GH person or event, such as Azalin in Ravenloft stories) and when two gh specific books conflict, the earlier book takes favor, UNLESS the change is deliberate and explained.
There needs to be a recognized canon in order to advance the history of the world. You can't have something like the Greyhawk Wars happen and then ignore them in the next product release. Canon also helps define the setting. When two Greyhawk fans discuss Mordenkainen or Rary or Melf Brightflame, they ought to have the same personal details in mind. If you don't like the idea of Rary turning on the Circle of Eight, you're free to rewrite history in your campaign, but you should at least be aware of the "canon" version to know what you're departing from.
I've got nothing against making your own personal changes to the accepted canon in the context of your own game. I think everyone does it to some extent, and it's a great way to make the game more personal and enjoyable.
My personal complaint is how hard it has gotten to track down the details that have been set forth previously. (I've complained about this on these boards before.) Before I can decide what to keep and what to change, I need to know what's out there! That's why I'd love to see WotC make it easy on us and compile all of this information into a Greyhawk Encyclopedia or a really good sourcebook. I don't want to have to track it all down myself, downloading lousy PDFs or paying ungodly sums on eBay.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
There needs to be a recognized canon in order to advance the history of the world. You can't have something like the Greyhawk Wars happen and then ignore them in the next product release. Canon also helps define the setting. When two Greyhawk fans discuss Mordenkainen or Rary or Melf Brightflame, they ought to have the same personal details in mind. If you don't like the idea of Rary turning on the Circle of Eight, you're free to rewrite history in your campaign, but you should at least be aware of the "canon" version to know what you're departing from.
I don't disagree but what I do strongly disagree with is someone trying to tell me what canon is and isn't, all based on his own opinion and yet dismissing the opinion of everyone else on some vague basis that his version is the absolute, one true path which is undeniable and indegafatigable.... or however you spell it.
By his reckoning (Alrizius), the Rose Estes novels are canon and the Greyhawk Castle modules are canon, despite the fact that both these things are almost universally ignored by Greyhawk fans.
Who establishes canon is the question, not whether or not canon exists or should exist or whether it should or shouldn't be ignored.
It is my belief that the fans determine what canon is for Greyhawk. Other people's opinions may vary
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
My personal complaint is how hard it has gotten to track down the details that have been set forth previously. (I've complained about this on these boards before.) Before I can decide what to keep and what to change, I need to know what's out there! That's why I'd love to see WotC make it easy on us and compile all of this information into a Greyhawk Encyclopedia or a really good sourcebook. I don't want to have to track it all down myself, downloading lousy PDFs or paying ungodly sums on eBay.
Yeah, definitely.
I've often said the same thing myself, on these boards and in the GT chat. The LGG is great, but it's hardly all encompassing. There is some really great stuff in the original boxed set as well as GH Adventures and the various Carl Sargent works. All of which (except Ivid the Undying) is somewhat inaccessible to all but the most determined of fans.
A simple reprint, updated for 3rd ed, leaving the content intact, or even just a plain old reprint with the 1st ed or 2nd ed rules intact, would be a great thing, IMO.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
My personal complaint is how hard it has gotten to track down the details that have been set forth previously.
That is fair enough.
All of the good 1e/2e sourcebooks could be compiled on a single CD-ROM. With an index, even.
It wouldn't take too much effort and it would be great. Even if you have all the books it can be a hassle paging through them looking for details.
:D
Russell Bird wrote some good fan fiction on Greytalk which made an excellent use of WG7 (the joke version of Castle Greyhawk). That module fit his storyline perfectly, and I've had to seriously re-evaluate that module's potential use in a game ever since.
For my 175 CY game (sadly now on hiatus), most of the established GH canon is useless to me except as general inspiration, since there is very little canon that specifically addresses the 40 years between 175 CY and the commencement of the Age of Great Sorrow (c. 215 CY). I.e.: Zagig wasn't born, hence no Castle Greyhawk, no Zagyg god. Iggwilv (probably) wasn't born, hence no Iuz. Etc. That "freedom" was definitely a part of the allure that era holds for me, though I've never felt particluarly "constrained" by canon in more modern GH eras, either.
The initial process began with submissions from writers, which were in turn approved by TSR for publication. Once realized in print, these works were scrutinized by the fans. People took to certain plotlines more than others, while some were rejected outright.
This process has repeated itself over decades. It undergoes further scrutiny within the framework of the individual DM's camapign, where some, if any, of the canon's influences may be felt.
A newbie picking up the 3e Gazeteer may have some trouble distinguishing the currents of the Greyhawk canon, whereas an old-timer with the original supplement may barely recognize the setting in its present form. Each vantage point presents its own difficulties, but that isn't what Greyhawk is all about, is it?
We have the power to alter timelines as we see fit. History is rewritten at the whim of the reader, and some characters may have never existed whatsoever. But when altered to such a drastic degree, is the setting still quintessentially Greyhawk? Or is it a homebrew that echoes something else?
Gygax talks about his own Greyhawk in a drastically different light, one that reflects nothing of the last twenty years. For 1e fans, that Greyhawk ended in the mid-eighties, but as fans and consumers, our Greyhawk has stretched decades and may look quite different to its creator.
Which brings us back to the issue of the Greyhawk license: Does the license holder have the last word on the setting? Is it possible to influence the so-called 'canon' without being employed by Wotc?
There have been numerous modules and articles published over the years that, while devoid of the setting's names and locations, seek to take their place in the original world of D&D.
Even today, Gygax continues to publish material that would be considered canonic were it not for the fact that he is required to alter the geographical names in his work. He is even said to be preparing to develop the gargantuan Zagyg's Castle for release in a box set.
This would be considered a pinnacle for the setting. But how could such a work not be included in the Greyhawk canon?
And despite a smaller audience, sites like Canonfire seek to influence the direction of Greyhawk without the holy stamp of approval; a creative, well-thought out alternative while the setting languishes on the desks of Wotc executives.
To this you might be say: "What about Living Greyhawk?"
Unmentioned til now, Living Greyhawk is the most recent incarnation of the setting, one that seeks to draw together the faithful in one large campaign. While it succeeds in some repects, others would say it is a financially dried up alternative that limits the input of fans that cannot attend monthly or annual games. I admit that LG looks good on the back of a napkin, and perhaps the profit sheets of the Wotc, but what has it contributed to the broader fan base? Where are the published materials that we should have access to? How can a non-RPGA fan benefit from this productivity and implement it in his own campaign? I see no solution to this problem.
Despite its potential for success, Greyhawk's inclusion in the OGL may never come, and as such the setting functions in stasis. Without a sale of the Greyhawk license to another publisher, we may never see another sourcebook, and the individual fan will really have to do his homework to gain a broader sense of what the Greyhawk canon encompasses.
Unfortunately, the best resource we have right now is Ebay.
All of these different theories and such, even if I though they were crappy or didn't fit the setting, I still enjoyed because I could make up a rumor list. This list would have false and rediculous bits of information provided by those I didn't agree with, and true and sorta-true bits provided by the elements I thought worked well with greyhawk.
Halber
Contradiction need not interfere with the intrinsic value of a work as both interpretations are at play in any mythological system. Variation upon a particular theme (or myth) was the telling sign of a great storyteller and it was this talent which distinguished him from others. Homer, for example, was not the author of the Odyssey, but merely the most talented at conveying the story of Odysseus. There were other versions (which have been lost to history), but the Greek acceptance of his version was an example of early canon at work in western literature.
What this means to D&D, however, is that some works may survive while others will be lost or forgotten. The comment about Gygax creating Zagyg's castle heralds an event that may ultimately erase WG7 from the "accepted" works of the Greyhawk canon. Or it may not. Depends, really, on which will have more value (in terms of entertainment, playability, accuracy, etc.) over time.
Originally posted by monkeybone
The comment about Gygax creating Zagyg's castle heralds an event that may ultimately erase WG7 from the "accepted" works of the Greyhawk canon.
I honestly know of no serious Greyhawk fan that considers that module canon.
It was a joke. WGR1: Greyhawk Ruins was a far better interpretation of the castle, and IMO invalidated the nonsense in WG7.
Originally posted by chatdemon
I honestly know of no serious Greyhawk fan that considers that module canon.
It was a joke. WGR1: Greyhawk Ruins was a far better interpretation of the castle, and IMO invalidated the nonsense in WG7.
I agree... infact Greyhawk:the Adventure Begins, tells us that TSR/WotC felt the same way.
If not that, then the RPGA could simply start publishing the material they run in their living games. There's a ton of stuff out there gamers would love to get their hands on. Ever notice how the Living Greyhawk Journals get snapped up on Ebay?
Gygax-canon is everything Gygax wrote or approved for the world, including post-TSR like the Slayer's Guides to Dragons and Undead and Living Fantasy.
TSR-canon was last defined by Roger Moore c.1998 and was everything published by the company minus a few modules.
There is currently no WotC-canon for the World of Greyhawk. No future products are coming. Technically, the Living Greyhawk gazetteer and Journal and the Living Greyhawk modules both define Living Greyhawk canon only.
Beyond these, I don't think a fan consensus on what's part of authoritative Greyhawk is possible or desirable. Gygax was more interested in setting out a style of play and ideas to help DMs than defining everything in a tightly wrapped setting, and I think it's more helpful to discuss what material is interesting or authentic or fun than to misuse the "canon" term for the set of stuff you personally like.
I think it's more helpful to discuss what material is interesting or authentic or fun than to misuse the "canon" term for the set of stuff you personally like.
But thats exactly what the term denotes, a collection of writings of the highest quality which we value above all others. Aberrations, authentic writings, and enjoyment may carry some weight in the selection process, but they are secondary to the quality of writing that provides its own longevity. Even though I agree with your assessment of what might "create" canon in the matter of RPGs, I'm sticking to the specific definition of the word. Barring that, a new term might be more applicable.
Originally posted by Lios_Paladin_of_Tyr
Thats why I swiched to the Forgotten realms.
Wizards.COMmunity Boards > Other Roleplaying Worlds > Other Roleplaying Worlds HQ > Greyhawk > The Greyhawk Canon
Lost? :D
Seriously though, noone has said that Greyhawk has no canon background, it's just that there are parts that conflict, and the debates come from deciding what to use and what to ignore.
Originally posted by Lios_Paladin_of_Tyr
If a setting doesn't have a canon, your not really playing that setting, but a homebrew setting with the Greyhawk name.
I think this is how Gary intended Greyhawk to be.
Originally posted by Lios_Paladin_of_Tyr
I'm new to the campaign and Greyhawk's lack of Canon has always been confusing to me. I, like many other Dms (I think), Don't have time to Create an entire campaign setting (I've tried), and with hardly any reference, It's difficut to make adventures for that setting. It's like trying to solve a jigsaw puzzle without any pictures on the pieces. If a setting doesn't have a canon, your not really playing that setting, but a homebrew setting with the Greyhawk name. Thats why I swiched to the Forgotten realms.
There is plenty of canon material; you're just too lazy to dig for it.
You can pick up pretty much every module and sourcebook ever made for Greyhawk as a PDF these days, and at bargain basement prices.
There are also hundreds of websites online that detail thousands of aspects of Greyhawkania. If you can't find what you're looking for... eh, so what? If you want everything handed to you on a silver platter, then you're right, Forgotten Realms is better for you.
Personally, I like a bit of room for my imagination to move but also like having many spurs along the way. Which is exactly what Greyhawk has and does and allows for.
Greyhawk has only been updated, what, once? Add to that a Players Guide to Greyhawk and a Gazetteer (which I enjoyed but aren't sure if it's official). Oh yeah, also a City of Greyhawk set.
Did I miss any?
Compare that to how many box sets, setting books, modules, novels, etc. are out for Forgotten Realms. IMHO it is so over developed it seems, to me, like their isn't anywhere "fresh" to discover or create as my own.
Canon, as I see it, is unofficial and should stay that way. It's a great tool for DM's stuck for an idea. I've used them twice just in the past month. Like all D&D rules, they are optional!
WotC would do well to look to Canonfire for ideas if they decided to do another update. But by all that is right and holy in the world of Oerth, it should never be as over developed as Toril.
IMHO - Greyhawk is more for players who take the game more serious. FR is for more weekend warrior types.
Originally posted by Darth Binky
I think this [a homebrew setting with the Greyhawk name] is how Gary intended Greyhawk to be.
But wasn't Greyhawk Gygax's homebrew?
In following this thread, one thing is clear: nobody agrees on what "canon" means. Most definitions seem to boil down to individual preference, and IMHO, that's not "canon." If you look the word up in the dictionary, you'll invariably it defined as "an authoritative list" or in the case of the Bible, "the books of the Bible officially recognized by the Church." Authoritative. Officially recognized. If I can throw my support behind a definition previously posted it would be this: that Greyhawk canon represents what subsequent products should not contradict. (No problem if there are no subsequent products, I suppose.)
Another recurring theme seems to be that, whatever canon is, the less of it the better (and if you disagree, then why don't you just start using Forgotten Realms). I'm going to disagree here, too. I like Greyhawk, and prefer to play in Greyhawk than in FR. And while a certain level of freedom is nice, I don't want to have to make everything up; if I did, I'd play a homebrew of my own. I'm not asking for Greyhawk to be as overdeveloped as FR; it would just be nice if it didn't seem so abandoned by WotC.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
I'm not asking for Greyhawk to be as overdeveloped as FR; it would just be nice if it didn't seem so abandoned by WotC.
I'm hoping that ToEE will be successful enough to jumpstart the Greyhawk development engine up. I too, do not want Greyhawk to become as developed as FR, but a new product of good quality would be satisfying.
Throw us a bone here...
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
In following this thread, one thing is clear: nobody agrees on what "canon" means.
I swear I've said this half a dozen times on these boards so far... nobody ever listens to me...
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
Most definitions seem to boil down to individual preference, and IMHO, that's not "canon." If you look the word up in the dictionary, you'll invariably it defined as "an authoritative list" or in the case of the Bible, "the books of the Bible officially recognized by the Church." Authoritative. Officially recognized.
See, herein lies the real problem. Just who is the authority on this matter? Many people automatically stand-up and say TSR/WotC but at the end of the day, who are they but a company pumping out any old crap to make a profit? Therefore, shouldn't it be the fans of the setting who decide what is and isn't canon based on the merits of each work? After all, the definition of canon also includes the cavaet that the works must be of the highest standard. Many, many, many Greyhawk fans agree on one thing (which is exceptionally rare so should be taken with the utmost sincerity) and that is that the Rose Estes novels and the 'joke' Castle Greyhawk are crap. Therefore, just because they're published by TSR/WotC, should they be included as canon when they're not of the highest quality?
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
Another recurring theme seems to be that, whatever canon is, the less of it the better (and if you disagree, then why don't you just start using Forgotten Realms). I'm going to disagree here, too. I like Greyhawk, and prefer to play in Greyhawk than in FR. And while a certain level of freedom is nice, I don't want to have to make everything up; if I did, I'd play a homebrew of my own. I'm not asking for Greyhawk to be as overdeveloped as FR; it would just be nice if it didn't seem so abandoned by WotC.
About the only concession you're going to get as to what is and isn't Greyhawk canon, is that most Greyhawk fans feel that Gygax's (even though he didn't actually write most of it...) '83 boxed set with the Player's Guide and Glossography of Greyhawk are canon. Beyond that, even the works of Carl Sargent (who I personally think was the greatest contributor to the setting, in both quality of work and depth of work) are debatably canon.
In fact, if you ever bump into Gene Weigel, he'll argue that not even the boxed set should be considered canon. Give him my regards if you do and tell him to shove his... well, better not get too graphic, I'm sure you understand the sentiment regardless
And, to be honest, I've come to the conclusion that this is a good thing. I've kinda had to since that is the state of Greyhawk fandom. There are major splits and divisions in the fanbase and the strongest ones are down canon lines. Which comes back to why Canonfire was developed; at the end of the day, canon doesn't matter, it's your game, do with it what you will.
Originally posted by Delglath
at the end of the day, canon doesn't matter, it's your game, do with it what you will.
That really is the bottom line. Within the sphere of his or her own game, the DM has absolute power to define the game world - to define his or her own canon for purposes of that game.
Maybe it's not possible to define what is "canon" without also defining your purpose. If you are TSR/WotC and you're publishing a new Greyhawk product (please God, please!), then you are going to define canon in terms of the officially-recognized TSR/WotC products, regardless of whether it was written by Carl Sargent or Roger Moore or Gary Gygax himself; by the same token, you'll exclude Gygax's non-TSR work (as well as TSR products that are not officially recognized, like the joke version of Castle Greyhawk).
Similarly, some fans may want to stick as close to this official TSR/WotC definition in setting their own canon - that is their purpose. Others may choose to include only Gygax's work, regardless of whether it was for TSR or not. Either way, it is a question of preference, and it is not something that can be imposed on anyone else. At most, it should be a topic of discussion, with reasons given for why one thing should be included and another should not.
Originally posted by Delglath
nobody ever listens to me...
What? Who said that?
:D
Originally posted by frog on log in bog
Zagyg's Castle is a super module based on the original (unpublished) Castle Greyhawk that Gygax is considering publishing. Hackmaster made an offer to publish it but it was wasn't up to scratch, apparently. Due to time constraints, Gary's trying to get Rob Kuntz to go in on it with him but since Kuntz is recovering from an injury, that may never happen. It could be one of the largest selling modules of all time, or it may just stay in Gary's closet. Let's hope the former and not the latter.
If folks are curious for more info about this project, check out Rob Kuntz's Pied Piper Messageboards at http://pub175.ezboard.com/bpiedpiperpublishing. In the forum entitled The Colonel's Corner (Gary's personal forum there) you'll find the Status of Original Castle Greyhawk Project thread at
http://pub175.ezboard.com/fpiedpiperpublishingfrm11.showMessage?topicID=30.topic
Enjoy! :D
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
But wasn't Greyhawk Gygax's homebrew?
Yes, but Gygax's home version of Greyhawk differs from the published version we all know and love.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge In following this thread, one thing is clear: nobody agrees on what "canon" means. Most definitions seem to boil down to individual preference, and IMHO, that's not "canon." If you look the word up in the dictionary, you'll invariably it defined as "an authoritative list" or in the case of the Bible, "the books of the Bible officially recognized by the Church." Authoritative. Officially recognized. If I can throw my support behind a definition previously posted it would be this: that Greyhawk canon represents what subsequent products should not contradict. (No problem if there are no subsequent products, I suppose.)
You've got solid reasoning here, but personal preference has to play a role in Greyhawk canon, due to the nature of the multitiude of contradictions within canon sources. The DM must exercise fiat in order to build certain baseline assumptions from within canon in order to proceed with a game. On some level, someone, somewhere has to determine which sources have authority. In Greyhawk's case, that tends to fall to the DM rather than the Pope ;)
Example (from the ToEE): Thrommel is a LG paladin. Thrommel wields a CG holy sword. How you resolve this conflict will impact any GH campaign in which Thrommel has any role whatsoever.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge I like Greyhawk, and prefer to play in Greyhawk than in FR. And while a certain level of freedom is nice, I don't want to have to make everything up; if I did, I'd play a homebrew of my own. I'm not asking for Greyhawk to be as overdeveloped as FR; it would just be nice if it didn't seem so abandoned by WotC.
Ah, but just because WotC created new products, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be treated as canonical (see others' comments about the 3e D&D Gazetteer, the LGG, and the LGJ, for example).
Originally posted by grodog
. . . personal preference has to play a role in Greyhawk canon, due to the nature of the multitiude of contradictions within canon sources. The DM must exercise fiat in order to build certain baseline assumptions from within canon in order to proceed with a game. On some level, someone, somewhere has to determine which sources have authority. In Greyhawk's case, that tends to fall to the DM rather than the Pope ;)
But again, this gets back to the purpose for which you are defining canon. And unraveling contradictions boils down to DM's preference as much as deciding whether to accept or reject materials in their entirety.
Originally posted by grodog
Ah, but just because WotC created new products, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would be treated as canonical (see others' comments about the 3e D&D Gazetteer, the LGG, and the LGJ, for example).
Too true. This just proves that nothing is guaranteed to be included as canonical. There may be wide areas of consensus, but there is bound to be someone who would disagree about including anything you could identify as related to Greyhawk.
In fact, I would say that there is no such thing as The Greyhawk Canon, in the sense of a single, monolithic entity. Any discussion of canon must necessarily involve consideration of your purpose and your preferences. There is no one Canon; there are as many canons are there are DMs running Greyhawk campaigns - and perhaps even multiple canons per DM, if the DM makes different choices for a different campaign. And that is all to the good. No one should feel compelled to accept anything merely on the basis that someone has identified it as canonical.
Originally posted by bogomil
Worth a bump considering the condition of the other thread.
No... no it really wasn't worth it...
It seems that many of us agree that the so-called "humorous" Castle Greyhawk should be forgotten.
I personally choose to ignore the implications of space-faring vessels and creatures in some Greyhawk products, such as Expedition to the Barrier Peaks (neat idea, but I hate mixing my genres - I guess I'm a fantasy purist), and the metal cairn in the Cairn Hills (obviously a crashed UFO).
I'm on the fence about Murlynd, the six-gun toting cowboy/wizard; on one hand, it is unique and interesting, on the other it is kind of stupid. What do y'all think?
Cosmology is another shady area. Do Orcus, Demogorgon, Dispater, Asmodeus, Beelzebul and Mephistopheles exist in your Greyhawk campaign? After all, these were entities believed in by our own European and Middle Eastern societies in the old days (and by many folks today even).
The kind of character able to ruin years of campaign in one apparation... But that's only my opinion. Concerning prince demons like Orcus etc.. i really enjoy them. I don't know if you ve already read the old "manual of the plane" from tsr, but it was one of the most interesting (and useful!) extension of add 1st.
And it really gives you reason to send your players in extra-planar adventure by keeping in the same time the fantasy "atmosphere".
Originally posted by nezbangi
Canon is more than just licensing rights. It should go beyond what has been labeled official.
How so? If you think "canon" should be more than "what has been labeled official," then what do you think it should be?
There's been a lot of discussion in this thread and in the other canon thread about what "canon" means. (If you haven't perused the other thread, you should take a look. I know it's longer than this one, but there's some good stuff in there.) One thing that came out in the other thread was a recognition that "canon" is something other than personal preference (which is what a lot of people tend to use "canon" for). There was a suggestion that the term "paradigm" be used for the various personal preferences, and I think it's a good idea. I also think that's what you're referring to in your post, nezbangi.
As far as what is official and what is not at this point is a decision for the managing editor of the line. From everything I have seen and heard Greyhawk is pretty much become a hands-off setting with most anything interesting coming from outside of the defined Triad based campaigns of Living Greyhawk. I would love to write up some of my scenarios and submit them to Dungeon but I doubt this would be accepted because of some sort of infringement on the RPGA.
Not the most original or clear cut - but trying to describe canon is akin to picking quicksilver up with a fork.
While making the call on what is an isn't Canon inevitably involves some subjectivity, there should be a goodly measure of objective judgement on whether something fits with everything else. If you want to know why consistency is important, then just imagine what would happen if Erik M. took a fit of madness and allowed an article in the LGJ on the Wolf Nomads based on the events of the Rose Estes books (heavens forefend). Thousands of people would read that. It'd be professionally produced. It'd be official - a load of garbage, yes - but an official load of garbage. Just the kind of thing that could really kill a setting off. The credibility of Greyhawk as a rich and believable environment would be seriously dented, if not destroyed. Once you start to lose even the appearance of consistency in a world, the credibility you need to sustain suspension of disbelief goes with it and the whole setting unravels and falls apart.
So perhaps a more concise definition of Canon is those constant facts upon which the credibility of the setting rests.