Originally posted by bushfire over in the Real Castle Greyhawk is Coming! thread at http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122109
So, how hard is it going to be to convert to D20? It's one thing to have EGG write stuff for D20, another thing if
- it can't really use *any* Greyhawk references
- it's for another game system entirely
- isn't really Castle Greyhawk but a new town, countryside, etc. contained in what, 8 books spread out over two years.
Scott
Scott
Grodog, I think you missed one important definition of "canon", that being the one WotC uses, (although it doesn't directly match any of the dictionary definitions, this definition came from more a designer on the FR boards IIRC Rich Baker).
according to WotC "Canon" is the written body of work concerning the setting, as published by WotC and TSR before them... everything in that body is canon (although it can be superceded by later products such as greyhawk ruins replacing castle greyhawk etc.) and nothing that is written by anybody else (including the Gord books that G.G. wrote after leaving TSR, etc.)
Incidently, that's also my technical definition of what 'canon' is in reference to published material. Of course, with the very large caveat that, as individual DMs, we are more than welcome to add or remove material from that subset as we see fit for our own campaigns.
Originally posted by grodog
I believe that out of our fractious, diverse, and divisive points-of-view as Greyhawk fans that we could identify the key tenets that we individually and collectively call Greyhawk canon. Using those tenets as baselines---if we chose to overcome our derision for various authors, eras, and sometimes each other---we could come to a collective and collaborative agreement and understanding of what sources best define Greyhawk, throughout its entire publishing history.
Anyone want to start? [/b]
Allan, you should know that trying to quantify what is and isn't Greyhawk canon is an exercise in futility, and I think those sources that we, individually and collectively, use as a basis for canon are already fairly well known.
Scott
Originally posted by ScottyG
Allan, you should know that trying to quantify what is and isn't Greyhawk canon is an exercise in futility, and I think those sources that we, individually and collectively, use as a basis for canon are already fairly well known.
Scott
Sure, we've had canon discussions back on Greytalk, Scott, but for the most part we've failed to come to any kind of consensus definitions. I'm curious to see what folks here (who lack that Greytalk baggage) think about this.
It may not work, but bushfire's thoughts sparked the idea in my head, and perhaps the folks here can succeed where the "old hands" failed ;)
-- Gygax canon -- his original materials plus post-TSR implicit-Greyhawk
-- TSR/Wizards canon, as defined by the 1998 products or the LGG (which future Greyhawk-labelled products will use as dictated by the legal IP holder, and in that sense the most pragmatic sort of 'canon')
-- Living Greyhawk canon
What sources you think best define Greyhawk depends on the perspective, experiences, and priorities you're starting from:
-- what material you read first
-- what material you had fun playing with
-- what material is closest to your own sensibility of worldbuilding and roleplaying
-- the emphasis you put on the vision of original creators vs the IP holder vs bulk of material, etc.
-- how much you value sensibility and underlying principles compared to continuity and 'facts'
As long as our outlooks differ in those ways, and as long as different WoG eras differ in tone and approach, I can't see how a general consensus is going to be reached on the sources that best define the world (though it would be odd to exclude the 1980 or 1983 setting product). But thumbs up to Allan for the effort. Those who're picky about what they like can at least find better-than-usual examples among their less-favoured sources.
I'm not really sure that's possible. The term 'canon,' when used in the context as it is being used here, is completely subjective. Each person is going to have their own ideas of what should or should not be included. I'm not sure a consensus can be achieved on this sort of opinion.
The most important ground rule to establish if we are going to try to define the Greyhawk canon is to separate personal preferences from "canon." The last thread was full of definitions of "canon" based on personal preferences. If it is to mean anything, "canon" must mean more than simply "what I prefer to use in my campaign."
The word "canon" implies something official, and officially-recognized. That, of course, begs the question of who does the recognizing. Is it Gygax, as creator of the setting? Is it TSR/WotC, as the owner of the IP? Is it the fans? I think the answer has to be that "canon" is defined by the owner of the IP. Gygax's post-TSR work may be considered apocryphal (or heretical), as may the fan-created work on sites like Canonfire, but none of it is officially recognized. Many people may prefer the cult of Gygax or the Canonfire writings, but that does not make them canon.
I apologize for butting in here because I'm fairly new to the Greyhawk setting, but I do have the advantage of a fresh, relatively unbiased perspective on the issue. ;)
-wn
Please forgive me if I sound like a ruleslawyer, because that is NOT my intent at all. Rule zero all the way! It is simply to say that the changes you or I decide to make are not "official," and do not carry the same weight as something published in an official work, like a new Greyhawk module for instance. (And wouldn't it be nice to see one of those some time soon....)
Goodness knows, in our home games, my friends and I take bits and pieces from many settings sometimes and string them together in interesting ways. Yet, sometimes it's just refreshing to come back to the source and play the "right" way. ;)
-wn
But with that said I have my own canon in my campaign. What anyone else has to say about it is mute at best. I understand what grodog is trying to do. But I believe in the saying "you can please some of the people all of the time, But you can't please all of the people some of the time".
With that said my canon rules!
But with that said I have my own canon in my campaign. What anyone else has to say about it is mute at best. I understand what grodog is trying to do. But I believe in the saying "you can please some of the people all of the time, But you can't please all of the people some of the time".
With that said my canon rules!
Read thoroughly, as there will be a test tomorrow...
>>>>>
That's one of the often overlooked keys to canon---that canon requires a shared definition and agreement to baseline standards that are accepted within a community.
<<<<<
This is why I believe that we can define canon. When I first visited the AOL Greyhawk folder, I found a group of people who generally agreed on many fundamentals and also consciously distinguished their personal changes to the setting, e.g. GreekHawk, Aria's Plague Years, or the poster who had the Flanaess be the easternmost lands of Middle Earth.
Later, when I joined GreyTalk, I found some agreement as to fundamentals, but "heresy" was gaining in popularity, so there was a greater variety in the basic components of the setting that most DMs reported using.
Eventually, Canonfire! was started. The riddle of its name refers to the sense that fans of the setting are in a "post-canon" era where it makes more sense to ignite canon, gaining inspiration to create one's Alternate Oerth -- rather than to engage in meticulous hermeneutics, purportedly the result of careful deductive and inductive logics.
Despite being in this "era," fans may still form community and agree upon fundamentals. Rather than the legal owners of the setting, I believe that the pertinent actors are the online fans of the World of Greyhawk.
Peace!
That works fine until WotC puts out a new product (and being the optimist that I am, I'm sure they will put out a new GH product someday), which could conflict with whatever changes those DMs and players made. It's all a part of the game, I suppose. :D
-wn
Originally posted by Tizoc
Despite being in this "era," fans may still form community and agree upon fundamentals. Rather than the legal owners of the setting, I believe that the pertinent actors are the online fans of the World of Greyhawk.
I'll agree that Greyhawk fans are practically the only "actors" as far as developing Greyhawk is concerned (notwithstanding what Erik Mona has been doing with Dungeon magazine lately), and I will also agree that some of the work that fans have produced is very good and well worth using. I have used things from Canonfire in my own campaign. However, this kind of bottom-up method of defining canon lacks any kind of official imprimatur; in the end, it can only define what is popular, not what is official. That is why I believe that only the IP holder can define canon: only the IP holder has the authority to say what is official.
I am curious, though, how different this would be. Is there anything published by TSR/WotC that is rejected as canon (other than the "joke" Castle Greyhawk, which has been officially rejected as canon by TSR/WotC)? Is there anything not published by TSR/WotC that fans would generally agree should be considered canon? (And when I refer to fans in general, I don't mean just the cult of Gygax.) Where are our areas of agreement?
Originally posted by Yamo
My personal opinion probably isn't worth much around here, but I find the notion of "canon" in a game world silly. My canon is whatever seems like a good idea at the time.
Although I agree, I think it's important for a writer of setting material to understand what does and doesn't constitute canon in the eyes of the fans, since they're his audience.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
[Is there anything published by TSR/WotC that is rejected as canon (other than the "joke" Castle Greyhawk, which has been officially rejected as canon by TSR/WotC)? [/b]
My vote goes to the books about a Wolf Nomad fellow by Rose Estes, I think thats the name anyway. Woeful.
Add Childs play & gargoyle too if you feel like it.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge Is there anything published by TSR/WotC that is rejected as canon (other than the "joke" Castle Greyhawk, which has been officially rejected as canon by TSR/WotC)? Is there anything not published by TSR/WotC that fans would generally agree should be considered canon? (And when I refer to fans in general, I don't mean just the cult of Gygax.) Where are our areas of agreement? [/b]
I will hazard that many or even most of the following products tend to be considered non-canon by most Greyhawk fans:
- The Lost Caverns of Tsojconth (sic; the original 1976 tourney which lists Iggwilv as a male and places her lair in the Hellfurnaces)
- Quag Keep [Novel, Andre Norton]
- Dungeons and Dragons coloring book (by Gygax)
- R1-4 by Frank Menzer (set in Aquaria, ostensibly a eastern continent of Greyhawk)
- EQ10 Circus of Fear [novel, Rose Estes] -- Endless Quest book (and anything else by Rose Estes)
- T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (T1 is badly edited and encounter descriptions are truncated in various places in this edition; T2 is fine as-is, one hopes)
- SEQ2 The Ghost Tower [Jean Blashfield], Super Endless Quest
- HC1 The Ice Dragon [novel, Gary Gygax, Sagard book 1] (and perhaps the entire Sagard saga?)
- DA1 Adventures in Blackmoor (and the remaining three modules in this series of Dave Arneson/David Ritchie works perhaps?)
- S1-4 Realms of Horror (incomplete version of the S-series, although new additions to S4 exist only in this edition)
- Rob Kuntz's Creations Unlimited adventures (MoZ1-4 and Garden of the Plantmaster, recently reissued by Necromance Games and Kenzer & Company)
- WG7 Castle Greyhawk
- Greyhawk Adventures [hardcover] (this is one that many seem to disregard in whole or in part; this choice tends to follow those 1e/2e lines of demarcation)
- WG9 Gargoyle
- WG10 Child's Play
- WG11 Puppets (all three seem to be generally reviled)
- Nightwatch [novel, Robin Wayne Bailey] (the vision of magic-in-decay espoused in this near-future vision of Greyhawk may not sit well with most folks?)
- SJR6 Greyspace
- WGR7 Ivid the Undying (unpublished)
- Seige of the Tower [novel, Kem Antilles], End. Quest
- Bigby's Curse [novel, Anne Brown], Endless Quest
- The Rod of Seven Parts [boxed] (some may not like Miska the Spider)
- Dead Gods (perhaps some don't approve of the changes to the Vault of the Drow that occur in this book?)
- the recent GH novels (by Ru Emerson, Paul Kidd, Keith Strohm, etc.)
- The Fright at Tristor (GH as RPGA victim again?)
- 3e (and 3.5e) Player's Handbook (what alignment is St. Cuthbert again?)
I compiled the list using Russ Taylor's chronological GH product list as my baseline; neither my list nor Russ' is comprehensive.
I cherrypicked some of the above products based on their extreme obscurity in addition to the general level of derision that some of them inspire in the fan base. I certainly listed some sources that I would personally consider canon, and others that I would always choose to ignore.
If you want to see what I may not have included and you'd like to throw into the pot, you can check his list at http://www.cmc.net/~rtaylor/greyhawk/product_chron.html
Originally posted by grodog
- T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (T1 is badly edited and encounter descriptions are truncated in various places in this edition; T2 is fine as-is, one hopes)
T2 is just T1 re-edited? I always thought T1 to 4 were considered canon by the majority... at least by the majority I hang with :D
Originally posted by grodog
- Greyhawk Adventures [hardcover] (this is one that many seem to disregard in whole or in part; this choice tends to follow those 1e/2e lines of demarcation)
Wha? This is a great book! I can't recall anyone I know disregarding it. I think you've been hanging out around the anti-anything-not-done-by-gygax crowd too long!
Originally posted by grodog
- WGR7 Ivid the Undying (unpublished)
Ok, now this one is definitely not deserving of being on this list. The majority of Greyhawk fans I've encountered have considered it as good as published. Again, maybe you're opinion on this is coloured by all the anti-non-gygax crowd, although this time I'm not kidding. I'll admit that maybe my opinion is clouded by being in the opposite camp, but then I also think that camp is in the majority.
Originally posted by Greyhack
To be fair, I don't think Grodog was stating personal preference, but rather some of the obvious questionable canon pieces.
Just to clarify, I tried to state that I thought his choices were wrong based on my experiences of what fans like and dislike.
So I wasn't criticizing his choices as a matter of personal opinion on what he likes or dislikes, but rather on his personal opinion of what the majority of fans like or dislike.
Thanks,
Halber
T1-4 as a whole has some issues in terms of loot to go along with the editing. It also creates problems with a certain prince, as well as the various demons involved.
Ivid as an unpublished and unedited work is quite vulnerable to being ignored.
The Greyhawk Adventures Hardcover has a number of issues with the new material. It also came at a quirky point in the alignment of deities and their clerics. You might want to recheck the entry for Pholtus in there before embracing it wholesale Delglath.
People can find any reason to not want to use a product. Never underestimate the ability of people to be utterly reclacitrant.
I am not sure if it meets the lllooooonnnngggg definition you've posted elsewhere, Sam.
I am not sure if it meets the lllooooonnnngggg definition you've posted elsewhere, Sam.
Originally posted by rostoff
I am not sure if it meets the lllooooonnnngggg definition you've posted elsewhere, Sam.
It definitely meets that definition.
The problem is, most people don't want to recognize that definition. They think canon means whatever they like in released products. It doesn't. It means the established and accepted background that must be used by authors in a consistent manner for future published products.
As for that list, last I heard, the following were canon:
T1-4
Greyhawk Adventures Hardcover
Dead Gods
Players Handbook
Ivid the Undying is semi-cannon (because it was not officially published and is unedited)
The Fright at Tristor is canon for the LG campaign
S1-4 supermodule is canon only in its separate modules
The rest is not canon for Greyhawk.
For info, sections of Ivid are used by the Onnwal LG region as source material regarding the History of Aedri/GK etc. Not sure if that means that it is canon or not but at least shows that WotC think it's official for LG at least.
Originally posted by StevieS
Dead gods? What is this?
Dead Gods (by Monte Cook) is a Planescape adventure module. It includes an episode in the Vault of the Drow. I don't have it so I can't give details.
Regards,
Glorfinden
Wha? This is a great book! I can't recall anyone I know disregarding it. I think you've been hanging out around the anti-anything-not-done-by-gygax crowd too long!
LOL. Actually, I was trying to be inclusive of various folks' opinions, and not expressing my own per se in that post. I've heard folks rail against all sorts of stuff in GH, so that's what I included in the list. I may have been misemploying the words most and many, however wrt some of the entries ;)
FWIW, chunks of Ivid were published in Dragon Magazine issues in the early 200s (don't have the exact numbers handy). I imagine that they were edited for publication there, though you never know....
Also FWIW, Russell Bird's excellent Oerth Journal 14 article about the Drow Vault takes Dead Gods into account; download it from Canonfire! at http://www.canonfire.com/htmlnew/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=67
I like Sam's point about canon as established and accepted authors. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to subdivide GH canon, so that folks who espouse certain editions/authors/eras/etc. could do so wrt the canon that applies to each? This still feels like a cheat to me, though, since it's an easy out and the harder issue of working up a viable, common canon shared across all GH would still remain....
Originally posted by grodog
I like Sam's point about canon as established and accepted authors. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to subdivide GH canon, so that folks who espouse certain editions/authors/eras/etc. could do so wrt the canon that applies to each? This still feels like a cheat to me, though, since it's an easy out and the harder issue of working up a viable, common canon shared across all GH would still remain....
For the record, that comes from an essay explaining what canon is written by Jeff Zeitlin. I was paraphrasing him. His explanation, which I sent to GreyTALK, is much more in depth, and much better, than my short version.
Originally posted by Samwise
For the record, that comes from an essay explaining what canon is written by Jeff Zeitlin. I was paraphrasing him. His explanation, which I sent to GreyTALK, is much more in depth, and much better, than my short version.
If you want to read Samwise's entire post of Jeff's essay, here's the link to the post in the GreyTalk phorum interface:
http://canonfire.com/forum/read.php?f=2&i=7624&t=7607
Originally posted by grodog
What's the title and publication info for this essay, Sam? I'd be curious to see how it compares to some of the other literary definitions of canon I've read.
I think that it was just a post to TML ((the) Traveller (rpg) Mailing List). Jeff is the administrator of the Freelance Traveller fansite for that game.
Here's Jeff's post, as quoted by Samwise on GreyTalk:
Originally posted by Jeff Zeitlin
Canon is for Authors
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An Author is not an ordinary person; an Author is someone who is writing material that
will be Given the Imprimatur. Such people cannot with impunity go against What Has Been
Established, for the Imprimatur says to one and all, "This is part of What Has Been
Established.". Thus, all Authors need to be familiar with the material under the
Imprimatur, that is, the Canon.
Most of the people on the list are not Authors - although we are blessed with the presence
of some who _are_ Authors, and even with those who may Give the Imprimatur.
For players, all rôle-playing games are is an evolution of "Let's Pretend" - "Let's
pretend that I'm a cowboy and you're an indian and I'm gonna stop you from scalping the
women of the town and bang! bang! I shot you and you're dead -- " "Am not! You missed!"
"Did not! Cheater!" "Did too! Cheater yourself!"...
All that the funny dice do is provide an impartial arbiter of whether or not you missed.
All that the pages and pages of rules do is provide the information you need to understand
what the dice are telling you. And all that the pages and pages of source material do is
provide Imagination, collected and distilled, to establish the context in which to
interpret the dice to determine whether you really did miss...
And no, none of that is trivial, else we'd never have had the "You missed!" "Did not!"
arguments when we Pretended before we started RPGing. But it's still that simple.
What then does de-canonization of material mean? It simply means that the material in
question need not be considered when an Author writes to Receive the Imprimatur. If what
an Author writes has nothing to do with the de-canonized material (as in a Solomani Rim
sourcebook not needing to consider the astrography of the Glimmerdrift Reaches), then the
de-canonization of the material is of no moment. If the Author writes about what is
covered by the de-canonized material, however, it becomes important - for Canon must be
followed, and the Story shoehorned into the material that Has Gone Before - but if the
material is de-canonized, the Author need not fiddle with the Story to fit the material,
but may change the material to fit the Story, without fear of Losing the Imprimatur
thereby. If the Author chooses to write his Story such that the de-canonized material is
still accurate, then none will criticise him thusfor, nor if he choose otherwise, and
write the material anew and differently.
To a player (which includes the Referee, the arbiter of the reality of the Story), the
canon status of any material is Irrelevant. For the player, the first rule of the
Rôle-Playing Game is "An ye like it not, CHANGE IT!". Canon or not, the Referee is
Telling a Story, Interactively, and the Story is all. The conformance to Canon is a
convenience, not a necessity.
Then what purpose the discussion of Canon? "...Imagination, collected and distilled,..."
The discussion of which we partake on the list is part of the process of collection and
distillation, providing a common basis for sharing our Imagination. To do this without
reference to what has Received the Imprimatur would make our shared experience that much
more difficult to achieve; thus, the Canon provides that common base upon which to build -
and build we do, else would the formulation "IMTU" be devoid of meaning. Even so, Canon
must always defer to IMTU in the final analysis, for when we play, we make Traveller _our_
Game, and none shall gainsay us that power.
And here's another post by Jeff on the topic of canon in RPGs, a little more Traveller specific this time, but easily applied to Greyhawk, also from TML:
Originally posted by Jeff Zeitlin
[b]I consider Canon to be that which is called out as Canon in the Classic
Reprints.
All other materials are [a] Deuterocanonical (compatible with canon, but
without the official imprimatur), Apocryphal (not really compatible
with canon without some 'stretches', or [c] Heretical (explicitly declared
non-canonical, or contradicting Canon).
Thus, much of the DGP material is Deuterocanonical, some (such as the
Sparklers) is Apocryphal; the Judges Guild and Paranoia Press sectors are
Heretical; material from the original print JTAS and Challenge is largely
Deuterocanonical, and so on.
A special situation exists where two sources that are both individually
Deuterocanonical find themselves to be in contradiction with each other; an
example is the TNE material and the GURPS Traveller material. In such a
case, both sources are considered 'Schismatic', and either may be
Deuterocanonical, making the other Heretical, in specified contexts. Thus,
if a discussion is about TNE, the GURPS Traveller material is Heretical; in
a discussion about GURPS Traveller, TNE is Heretical.
Website material depends on the specific article, not the site as a whole;
using Freelance Traveller as an example, the Traveller:5641 Project is
Heretical; the various rules described in Doing It My Way largely likewise;
the material described in Kurishdam is largely Deuterocanonical or
Apocryphal, as are many of the stories in Raconteur's Rest. Robert
O'Connor's Medicine in Traveller series is probably Deuterocanonical, as
are the ship designs using the MT or CT ship design systems. Ship designs
under the TNE(FFS) or GURPS Traveller rules are considered Schismatic as
above.
Where indications exist in canon that alternatives to explicit material
might exist, material conformant to the parameters of the indication may be
considered Apocryphal rather than Heretical. Example: Since the canonical
Hivers Alien Module indicates that alternative theories for constructing
Jump Drives exist (they had a non-standard Jump Drive for a period), the
Lyman Drive at Freelance Traveller (Doing It My Way) can be considered
Apocryphal rather than Heretical.
As with any religion, there is a large Reform movement within the Traveller
community, which will, naturally, fracture in its own directions. These
sub-movements generally have their own definitions of what is
Deuterocanonical, Apocryphal, or Heretical, and may in fact disagree in
small ways about what is Canonical; a good signal that one is talking to a
Reformist is the use of the benediction "IMTU", "In My Traveller Universe".
>>>
kind of bottom-up method of defining canon lacks any kind of official imprimatur; in the end, it can only define what is popular, not what is official. That is why I believe that only the IP holder can define canon: only the IP holder has the authority to say what is official.
<<<
Logically, this is true. If one defines official to mean only what the copyright owner publishes and then defines canon to mean what is official, then the assertion that only Wizards can creat canon must follow.
Like several outspoken fans on Greytalk, I reject both this result. Call me a heretic.
If most people agree that canon should mean what is described above, then I proffer the word paradigm to describe the fundamentals of the setting upon which the online community of fans agrees.
I'm much more interested in learning about this paradigm (as established here in these message boards as well as in other fora) than in challenging others' definitions of canon.
Originally posted by Tizoc
Call me a heretic.
OK. You're a heretic.
If most people agree that canon should mean what is described above, then I proffer the word paradigm to describe the fundamentals of the setting upon which the online community of fans agrees.
I will agree that this is a much better word. Other terms that might serve would be "exemplar" or "archetype," although I don't think that either of these is quite as good. When most people talk about their own version of "canon," what they are really talking about is their model or example of the setting, their worldview - their paradigm. I just saw a post in another thread (and I'm sure there are examples in both this thread and the previous canon thread) that made mention of multiple canons. To some extent, this is a definitional problem, but under what I consider the most appropriate definition, there can be only one canon. However, there is absolutely no problem with multiple paradigms, nor is there any problem with a paradigm deriving its vitality from the collective will of the fan base.
I'm much more interested in learning about this paradigm (as established here in these message boards as well as in other fora) than in challenging others' definitions of canon.
I agree.
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge:
I agree.
By that, I mean it is more interesting to talk about the elements of the various Greyhawk paradigms than it is to try to define a word like "canon" in the context of the Greyhawk setting. It's pretty easy to define what WotC/TSR officially recognizes in the setting (or at least it should be, in theory), but where's the fire in that? Instead, what is it that drives the setting? What defines it - that is, what makes Greyhawk what it is? (If I may be permitted an awkward adjective, what is it that gives Greyhawk its Greyhawk-ness?) If I recall the original post correctly, I think that's what Grodog had in mind when he started this thread.
Originally posted by grodog
I believe that out of our fractious, diverse, and divisive points-of-view as Greyhawk fans that we could identify the key tenets that we individually and collectively call Greyhawk canon. Using those tenets as baselines---if we chose to overcome our derision for various authors, eras, and sometimes each other---we could come to a collective and collaborative agreement and understanding of what sources best define Greyhawk, throughout its entire publishing history.
Anyone want to start?
1. To serve as a baseline so that DM's/Player's can have a conversation about the same setting, and be pretty sure that they are referring more or less to the same thing. In individual campaigns, the concept of canon is less important (if important at all). The importance of canon is replaced by the rendition of the setting that is important to and governs the operation of the setting. This is the domain of the DM.
2. Canon is important for "official" designers, or more importantly, setting revisors. WotC/Hasbro has ultimately rejected this approach and suggested that whatever the writer writes or designer designs is "canon." This makes sense from the standpoint of a company that doesn't want to put the effort or money into keeping any kind of cohesion in settings, or make any more demands on a greatly reduced design staff. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of the audience who has been gaming in a setting for years to decades.
One of the goals of Team Greyhawk (as I've posted elsewhere) was to get a grip on "canon." That is, what material was going to predicate our design decisions. We needed to have a sense of the history of the setting (thus the GreyChrondex), and of major actors, forces, etc. in the setting. We needed to "know" what material we would mine, what "facts" about the setting were "true," what things were indeterminate (that we would leave indeterminate), and what things we would exclude. I thought, and think, that this kind of cohesiveness is paramount for a product from a particular setting. The problem is that WotC needs materials, but doesn't (necessarily) have a good knowledge of the setting. That, I think, is one of the primary reasons that Erik and I were asked to be on Team Greyhawk in the first place...we both knew the setting better than most that were at WotC at the time of the re-introduction of the Greyhawk setting. It is one of the reasons that I'm happy that Erik is still doing his "official" Greyhawk releases through Dungeon/Poly. He knows the setting.
I'm not sure I can say that about anyone remaining at WotC. (Although, there might be a few who played there extensively once, they don't have a grasp of the whole cloth of it too well).
If I, as a designer were to do a "Greyhawk" thing for WotC, and decided that Thromel from Farbeyondy actually could use his sword, Fragrork, and that he were attending the ballet academy in Almor (which contrary to popular belief hadn't been annihilated by the G.K., but actually was now being used as the chief producer of chocolate chip cookies for a kind and benevolent Overking Ibid)...it would be so.
Ergo, no research = acceptable product.
Imagine going to a Bond flick where instead of hearing "shaken, not stirred" he uttered, "Make mine dry," or instead of him saying, "Bond, James Bond," he said, "James, but you can call me Jimmy!" Sure he can say it, but it's not Bond.
I am a defender of canon based on the notion that you can't do a good product if you don't know the setting, and aren't willing to research things so you can do something that is "canonically" sound.
However, how that translates or doesn't translate into a home campaign is entirely up to the DM. And that is exactly how it should be.
If you want to call him "Jimmy" in your movie, it's all okay...but another person might not be able to recognize him as Bond., and you can't get ticked at them if they don't.
Steve
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
By that, I mean it is more interesting to talk about the elements of the various Greyhawk paradigms than it is to try to define a word like "canon" in the context of the Greyhawk setting. It's pretty easy to define what WotC/TSR officially recognizes in the setting (or at least it should be, in theory), but where's the fire in that? Instead, what is it that drives the setting? What defines it - that is, what makes Greyhawk what it is? (If I may be permitted an awkward adjective, what is it that gives Greyhawk its Greyhawk-ness?) If I recall the original post correctly, I think that's what Grodog had in mind when he started this thread.
Brom,
I agree. In the Team Greyhawk years one of our guiding documents, with some of our revisions, that NiteScreed, one of the noteworthy's of the old AOL boards, had penned, called "What puts Grey in the Hawk." (I think this was the original title, but I'm old and my mind is failing). It was a document that addresses exactly the questions you ask. Not everyone agreed with it, and it was the source of much questioning revisioning, etc. But it made a valiant effort at tackling what makes Greyhawk Greyhawk. (I don't know if any copy of this posting is still available on the web anywhere...and I probably wouldn't post it without the permission of its author anyway, and I have not seen hide nor hair of him for a few years.)
Steve
Steve
Originally posted by Steve Wilson
Canon, from my perspective, is only important for two things:
1. To serve as a baseline so that DM's/Player's can have a conversation about the same setting, and be pretty sure that they are referring more or less to the same thing. In individual campaigns, the concept of canon is less important (if important at all). The importance of canon is replaced by the rendition of the setting that is important to and governs the operation of the setting. This is the domain of the DM.
2. Canon is important for "official" designers, or more importantly, setting revisors. WotC/Hasbro has ultimately rejected this approach and suggested that whatever the writer writes or designer designs is "canon." This makes sense from the standpoint of a company that doesn't want to put the effort or money into keeping any kind of cohesion in settings, or make any more demands on a greatly reduced design staff. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of the audience who has been gaming in a setting for years to decades.
[ . . . ]
I am a defender of canon based on the notion that you can't do a good product if you don't know the setting, and aren't willing to research things so you can do something that is "canonically" sound.
However, how that translates or doesn't translate into a home campaign is entirely up to the DM. And that is exactly how it should be.
I agree. Canon need not have any effect on a home game (on one's personal paradigm of the setting, to borrow Tizoc's term). But it is important as a baseline for both players and designers. Or, rather, it should be important for designers, since as you noted, WotC does not seem to be concerned with maintaining a coherent and consistent continuity for the setting. This is a point that I had overlooked, but it is an important one to keep in mind. The IP holder's power to define canon should not be used carelessly.
Actually, it appears that it was posted over four years ago, and coincidently, it's still there. There's also commentary by you, Steve, although do to the formatting of the old posts (a carryover from when egroups turned into yahoogroups, apparently), I can't quite tell who originally posted it and who's commentary is who's. It (and commentary) are detailed here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/2618?source=1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Living_Greyhawk/message/2644?source=1
Originally posted by Greyhack
Sadly, what it all comes down to here is who someone wants to listen to for their canon definition. Roger Moore could say the exact same thing that Gary Gygax says, and people would trash it.
Case in point:
Well since she was agreeing with the definition I posted, it would only set certain people off if I went on about how someone agreed that I was right.
:P
But yes, it is quite amusing how people can say one person is right while ignoring another who said the same thing first. Or even more peciliar, paraphrase a person, then say they are right but the first person is wrong.
People are indeed strange.
Originally posted by Greyhack
As an aside....
Has it occured to anyone here that the ideas that "team greyhawk 2003"; the writers for LG, LGJ and Canonfire, might be a little more relevant and worthwhile to discuss than whatever went into Roger's work 5 years ago?
Maybe it's just me....
Oh, Blessed Pelor, no.
NO!
You can't do that Rich. If you did, you would be acknowledging someone else developing and advancing the setting for you. You can't do that. Only I (or you, or whoever is speaking) can do that these days. Everyone else is just a miserable heathen, sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. And nobody wants that, do we?
Of course, that's likely why my current campaign and development efforts are focused on a historical period of history, and why whatever I do after it will likely go even further back. That way I don't have any concerns about what is happening now or will be happening tomorrow that someone else writes up. My campaign is so far from it as to be completely immune to whatever they mess up.
You'll see some detailed deconstruction
I hate it when people misuse this term. I would suggest getting a dictionary, or better yet, anything that addresses contemporary literary criticism.
That should clear things up for you.
It was an analysis based on what I perceived the text to mean, based on my comprehension of the uses of languages, as well as a positing of the deeper meanings (primarily setting elitism and FR bashing, as well as ego indulgence, and a tool to indict authors who did not please him) of the text included by the author.
So either way, that piece of silliness was deconstructed.
Any individual statement depends for its meaning on its relationship with its surrounding system of language: it can only derive its meaning by its difference(read:differance) from all the other possible meanings, unlimited in number. No more than an illusory effect of meaning is possible in contact with these unlimited different possible readings: meaning it does not reside in the signifier. Interpretation of meaning is then an endless movement that can NEVER arrive at an absolute, ultimate signified. Thus the'play of signification' is endless. To 'deconstruct' a text is merely to show how texts deconstruct THEMSELVES because of this fundamental indeterminateness at the core of language. Even this statement (or argument) deconstructs itself.
There is a fundamental difference between deconstruction and critiquing another person 's arugment.
>>>
The Lost Caverns of Tsojconth (sic; the original 1976 tourney which lists Iggwilv as a male and places her lair in the Hellfurnaces)
>>>
This is essentially unpublished and unavailable, and was superceded by a version that is of sterling credibility, insofar as canon is concerned. It is thus non-canonical.
>>>
Quag Keep [Novel, Andre Norton]
>>>
This was not published by TSR and the world of Greyhawk presented therein is obviously not the same Greyhawk that eventually appeared in the published material (I suspect it looks a lot like Gary's original setting, however). It's non-canonical, although just for fun I've slipped a couple extremely vague references into some of the stuff I've written, more as a personal joke than anything else. Non-canonical.
>>>
Dungeons and Dragons coloring book (by Gygax)
>>>
I have a soft spot in my heart for this one. It's most likely non-canonical, but it did inspire me to kill off Serten (albiet under different circumstances than the death of a similiarly named character in the coloring book). Non-canonical, but I reserve the right to mine it for canon at a later date, mostly for the whimsey of it.
>>>
R1-4 by Frank Menzer (set in Aquaria, ostensibly a eastern continent of Greyhawk)
>>>
Non-canonical. Sorry.
>>>
EQ10 Circus of Fear [novel, Rose Estes] -- Endless Quest book (and anything else by Rose Estes)
>>>
This thing refers to a "king" of Greyhawk. Estes at her terrible best. Non-canonical, but it doesn't have much to do with Greyhawk anyway, so it's no big loss.
>>>
T1-4 The Temple of Elemental Evil (T1 is badly edited and encounter descriptions are truncated in various places in this edition; T2 is fine as-is, one hopes)
>>>
Not enough to make it non-canonical, in my opinion. Parts of the history are confusing, but let's not thow out the baby with the bathwater, eh?
>>>
SEQ2 The Ghost Tower [Jean Blashfield], Super Endless Quest
>>>
I glanced through this a couple years ago and came away with the impression that it had almost nothing to do with the actual Ghost Tower of Inverness module and even less to do with the world of Greyhawk. Non-canonical.
>>>
HC1 The Ice Dragon [novel, Gary Gygax, Sagard book 1] (and perhaps the entire Sagard saga?)
>>>
Non-canonical, but a wonderful curiosity. I actually wrote up a travellogue based in large part upon the nations in these four books, but I've completely lost it. I'm sure it's floating around the Web, somewhere. Again, non-canonical.
>>>
DA1 Adventures in Blackmoor (and the remaining three modules in this series of Dave Arneson/David Ritchie works perhaps?)
>>>
Not even remotely set in Oerth's version of Blackmoor. A-canonical.
>>>
S1-4 Realms of Horror (incomplete version of the S-series, although new additions to S4 exist only in this edition)
>>>
Not only is this "compilation" of classic adventures non-canonical, it's also a travesty perpetrated upon some of the setting's most treasured adventures. A blatant cash-grab and a shoddy compilation.
>>>
Rob Kuntz's Creations Unlimited adventures (MoZ1-4 and Garden of the Plantmaster, recently reissued by Necromance Games and Kenzer & Company)
>>>
Non-canonical. Not published by TSR, although there are some pretty blatant ties to Rob's "Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure" module that extremely pedantic fans might get a kick out of.
>>>
WG7 Castle Greyhawk
>>>
Overtly insulting, unfunny, and non-canonical.
>>>
Greyhawk Adventures [hardcover] (this is one that many seem to disregard in whole or in part; this choice tends to follow those 1e/2e lines of demarcation)
>>>
I agree with whoever said Allan's been hanging around the "anything not written by Gygax" crowd too much. Just because huge portions of a book are boring and regrettable doesn't mean it ain't canonical. Canon.
>>>
WG9 Gargoyle
WG10 Child's Play
WG11 Puppets (all three seem to be generally reviled)
>>>
They are hated for being terrible RPGA tournaments shoehorned into the setting. But for my money, Childsplay is really the only one that isn't canonical. It takes place in a "fictional kingdom of Oerth." Nice try. Note that Roger Moore incorporated some of the pregenerated characters from Puppets into his revised Dyvers history for GH98. It's a good thing he remained mum on Freddie MacKreuger.
>>>
Nightwatch [novel, Robin Wayne Bailey] (the vision of magic-in-decay espoused in this near-future vision of Greyhawk may not sit well with most folks?)
>>>
There's good stuff in the novel, however. It's sort of quasi-canon, being set in an alternate future. Pretty dumb decision, that. Had it been set in the present, it would have topped almost everyone's list of minable novels. Oh, well.
>>>
SJR6 Greyspace
>>>
I consider this one a-canonical, but see little reason why not to make the planets therein the official planets of the Greyhawk cosmology. Whether or not Oerth is at the center of the star system is somewhat debatable. I tend to think not, given the evidence outlined by Gary in "Saga of Old City."
>>>
WGR7 Ivid the Undying (unpublished)
>>>
But widely available. A world in which this masterpiece is not viewed as canonical is a sad, wretched one, and bears little resemblance to the modern published Greyhawk, which uses it as a primary source. It's canon.
>>>
Seige of the Tower [novel, Kem Antilles], End. Quest
Bigby's Curse [novel, Anne Brown], Endless Quest
>>>
Lame, but canonical.
>>>
The Rod of Seven Parts [boxed] (some may not like Miska the Spider)
>>>
Eh. Who cares?
>>>
Dead Gods (perhaps some don't approve of the changes to the Vault of the Drow that occur in this book?)
>>>
I'm not sure that "grognard approval" is a good measuring stick for canon. Fred Wiening's Vault of the Drow article in Dragon #298 incorporated many of the changes from this adventure, so for my money that makes it canonical. On the other hand, it isn't technically a Greyhawk product. . .
>>>
the recent GH novels (by Ru Emerson, Paul Kidd, Keith Strohm, etc.)
>>>
I've only read about half of these. I'd call the Emerson book canonical (but boring), the Kidd books a-canonical, and I haven't read the others. What I've heard reminds me of Rose Estes, however. . .
>>>
The Fright at Tristor (GH as RPGA victim again?)
>>>
"Victim"? Excuse me? It's more firmly rooted in Greyhawk than 90% of the other adventures everyone loves, including some of the Gygax classics. Why not just call the LGG non-canonical, too, Allan?
>>>
3e (and 3.5e) Player's Handbook (what alignment is St. Cuthbert again?)
>>>
After long consideration, I don't even think that argument is worthwhile, anymore.
Much like most Greyhawk arguments, in fact.
That's my take.
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon Magazine
Originally posted by sedrorovin murghurobag
Once again, you are mistaken...
Any individual statement depends for its meaning on its relationship with its surrounding system of language: it can only derive its meaning by its difference(read:differance) from all the other possible meanings, unlimited in number. No more than an illusory effect of meaning is possible in contact with these unlimited different possible readings: meaning it does not reside in the signifier. Interpretation of meaning is then an endless movement that can NEVER arrive at an absolute, ultimate signified. Thus the'play of signification' is endless. To 'deconstruct' a text is merely to show how texts deconstruct THEMSELVES because of this fundamental indeterminateness at the core of language. Even this statement (or argument) deconstructs itself.
There is a fundamental difference between deconstruction and critiquing another person 's arugment.
Once again, you are mistaken.
If you wish to deconstruct deconstruction, then my analysis most certainly does qualify. My critique was merely the engine of presenting its deconstruction, even as it deconstructed itself.
Of course, with that agglomeration of oxymoronic assertions and theories, anything is possible.
But it seems Rich is correct, and you have no intent to contribute anything here.
If you two want to cling to the weakest (if not incorrect) usage of a word, that's your business, just don't go diluting the interpretation of those pursuing the finer elements of language.
You may now resume your debate.
Unfortunately, Delglath is a priest and not a wizard
"Official" Greyhawk canon has, to a large extent, been split in two or three: the Living Greyhawk canon, and the Dungeon Magazine canon. Other WotC works, not being derived from even the base of existing canon - and paying Greyhawk only lip service at best - are mostly ignorable wrt "official" Greyhawk. This is not to say that elements from them aren't good, just that they are not being written with a view of "greyhawk" but more simply "generic D&D".
The basis of canon must come from works officially released as Greyhawk products by TSR and now WotC. Other works may have validity in the setting, but only as recognized by the current custodian of the line - who is Erik, at this current point. Greyhawk primarily exists as an ongoing product only in the form of the adventures presented in Dungeon magazine, and the odd Living Greyhawk Journal entry.
Other works may exist as the canon or basis of personal campaigns - for instance, aspects of the Gord the Rogue books have relevance in my own campaigns - but cannot be considered as canon.
To clarify: As a living, evolving setting, Greyhawk canon is determined by the articles and adventures in Dungeon and what they are based upon. Living Greyhawk canon is likely a different thing - although if WotC decided to start publish Greyhawk setting books based on LG material, this would change.
There also exist alternate branches of lore, such as the original Gygax-run campaign and related material. One can draw a line and declare "everything published after this date is not canon!" but such is only relevant for the people you are interacting with and continuing to create material with. As regards to official status such material is dubious.
Basically: everything Steve Wilson said.
One thing that is probably worth pointing out is this: Canon is not immutable! It is possible for aspects of the setting to change and develop, and previously elements considered canonical to be completely altered! This has already occured in Greyhawk, and is likely to do so again, even in the limited form it currently enjoys.
Cheers!
Even if you win, you're still. . .
Is there any reason to have a semantics debate in a Greyhawk folder?
Isn't it more interesting to talk about the setting?
--Erik
Originally posted by Greyhack
.AND AS USUAL, THE MODERATOR IS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN. WHAT EXACTLY DO THEY PAY YOU PEOPLE TO DO ANYWAY?
Did you click on the link to notify the moderator of a abusive post?
The moderators have a very limited amount of time to browse the boards. They generally don't bother reading discussions unless they're interested in them. They do, however, pay attention when people complain to them.
Always allow a day or so for the moderator to assess the situation.
Cheers!
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics.
Even if you win, you're still. . .
Is there any reason to have a semantics debate in a Greyhawk folder?
Isn't it more interesting to talk about the setting?
You would think so. Alas, for what a divided place Greyhawk has become!
Oh well... the Spear and Shield of Ulek have been found, the Fhoi Myore are possessing their Fomorian hosts, and my Friday Night campaign proceeds towards a climax.
Cheers!
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Isn't it more interesting to talk about the setting?
Hence me having mostly avoided this thread altogether and TRIED to encourage other discussion in other threads that are more creative.
Here's a thought... from now on, if nobody posts to this topic, and we all concentrate on posting to other topics that are more creative or have more potential for constructive discussion, it will die and be relegated to little more than a bad memory.
Of course, that would require the old guard dropping this tired old debate which has been recycled ad nauseum on every Greyhawk list, message board and chat room for the last ten or so years. If only it were possible...
MY Greyhawk doesn't need no steenkin' 'canon'...
Well, they don't pay them. Last I saw, mods are volunteers. Beyond that, however, there are thousands of new posts each day on these boards, and only a relatively small handful of moderators. They can't be everywhere, all the time. That's what the 'notify a moderator' buttons are there for.
Besides, if people would just police themselves a little better, and didn't whine and complain and shout and flame and insult others, there'd be no reason to involve the moderators to begin with...
Originally posted by emperor norton
Despite having two degrees in literature, Norton feels no need to prove himself to you or anyone else, nor should Sedrorovin, for a piece of paper is not the measure of a man's intellect.
If you two want to cling to the weakest (if not incorrect) usage of a word, that's your business, just don't go diluting the interpretation of those pursuing the finer elements of language.
You may now resume your debate.
If despite those two degrees, Norton feels no need to avoid referring to himself in the third person, it is obvious those papers are not a measure of his intellect.
And if he and others wishes to cling to the most supercilious, oxymoronic, and pedantic usage of a word, that is their business. They should just not go diluting the discussion on this list of those pursuing the finer elements of the setting.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Arguing on the Internet is like competing in the special olympics.
Even if you win, you're still. . .
Is there any reason to have a semantics debate in a Greyhawk folder?
Isn't it more interesting to talk about the setting?
--Erik
But aren't you arguing with us to get us to change our minds and do something else?
If you all still want to know why new people rarely post here, THIS thread is a good example of what drives folks away.
Thank you for your efforts at keeping things civil Erick, but I think they're wasted in this case. Go figure.
See you all in a different thread (hopefully one that stays on topic....)
-wn
So some of us old grognards pitch in and share our ideas on the topic, and all is well.
Not in this case.
In my first post (yes, I deleted all of them, because a certain three people in this thread have nothing better to do than deconstruct :D my every post and find some minor nitpick to harp on, rather than reply to the matter at hand), I pointed out that the forthcoming Castle Zagyg adventure mega-module from Gary Gygax, while perhaps not canon, per se, would be very easy for people to make use of since it's being done under the Castles & Crusades rpg from Troll Lord Games which is D20 lite, so no matter what they change, the foundation is there and adapting the material to your d20 or D&D system of choice should not be difficult.
Useless poster #1 shows up, irate, yelling and screaming about "C&C isn't d20!" He is wrong, 100%, completely wrong. Read the recent announcement from Troll Lord Games on the status of the project. It's d20 lite, released under the OGL so there won't be a d20 logo, but the foundation of the mechanics is the same either way. I pointed that out in reply. Useless poster #1 continues bellyaching my labelling of C&C as d20 lite, despite the fact that in this thread, I was not pointing that out as a bad thing. I get called a Gygax hater and "shameless self promoter", which is quite odd, since I have no published Greyhawk credits to my name. Useless poster #1 eventually gets bored and leaves.
Now, talk eventually turns to Nitescreed's infamous "Grey in the Hawk" treatise. The same treatise that was simultaneously being discussed in another thread, I linked to that thread, reiterated my dislike for the piece, and lamented the fact that one of the advisors to Roger Moore for Greyhawk: The Adventure Begins" claims that they used that document heavily when defining the reborn setting in 1998.
Along comes useless poster #2, who I'm guessing (but not sure, to be honest), didn't agree with the detailed, point/counterpoint critique Nitescreed's piece recieved in that other thread. Rather than explain whatever it was annoyed him though, he decides to make a completely trivial attack on my choice of words. I respond by posting the dictionary definition of the term, and showing how I was, in fact, correct in using it in the context that I did. He continues bellyaching anyway, claiming some vague authority on the english language but refusing, repeatedly, to requests that he cite his sources and/or qualifications for making such a (as Samwise put it) pedantic attack on the language used here.
Then, in the midst of that, leaps useless poster #3. Same basic line of pointless posts. Attacking the nuances of the language I used.
At that point, and for this I offer my apologies to those not on the intended recieving end, I became fed up and extremely annoyed and posted a rather inflammatory post (in all caps "yelling" nonetheless). After that, I thought about it and decided not to waste the time of the whole forum attempting to slap some sense into the 3 useless posters and deleted that post, as well as every other post I've made in this thread.
The point here is, it's often pointed out that the attitudes of the grognards are what ruin the conversations here. It's my opinion that this is not true, especially not in this thread. Grodog, Samwise, Steve WIlson, Erik Mona and myself were offering relevant and on topic replies to the discussion. The thread went south when the triad of useless posters decided they didn't like what we had to say and crashed the thread.
If anything is killing this forum's conversations, it's useless posters like these. They are the rot here, cut them out and perhaps we can have some constructive conversations, let them continue to eat away at otherwise interesting conversations and this forum will continue to be overrun by flamewars and once proud threads that are now painful to even browse.
Originally posted by Greyhack
If anything is killing this forum's conversations, it's useless posters like these. They are the rot here, cut them out and perhaps we can have some constructive conversations, let them continue to eat away at otherwise interesting conversations and this forum will continue to be overrun by flamewars and once proud threads that are now painful to even browse.
If there's one thing I've learned over the years of posting to message boards, it's that the 'rot' is best left ignored and, funnily enough, when it is, it really does go away!
So... it's not up to them to stop posting. That's what they will do, regardless and they will always be there, hanging at the edges, waiting, watching, baiting... it is up to the mature, responsible, intellectual posters to ignore them and simply keep posting on topic until they go away.
I've actually tested this theory and it works. I know I'm not the perfect example of this method, however I do try and when I try, it does work.
The fact is, canon is only important to the parent company of the Greyhawk line, i.e. Wizards of the Coast. It means nothing to the average gamer like myself. I have no need to keep continuity on creating future products, for I don't publish any for profit. Vecna was a hobgoblin, sure. Draconians prowl the Hellfurnaces, alright. Dwarven migrations occurred in sinc with the Oeridians, heck yea. Red Wizards of Thay, they are cool, put them in Rel Astra. If you are a game designer, sure use canon. If you simply enjoy a weekly game, do whatever seems fun.
Originally posted by OleOneEye
The fact is, canon is only important to the parent company of the Greyhawk line, i.e. Wizards of the Coast. It means nothing to the average gamer like myself. I have no need to keep continuity on creating future products, for I don't publish any for profit. Vecna was a hobgoblin, sure. Draconians prowl the Hellfurnaces, alright. Dwarven migrations occurred in sinc with the Oeridians, heck yea. Red Wizards of Thay, they are cool, put them in Rel Astra. If you are a game designer, sure use canon. If you simply enjoy a weekly game, do whatever seems fun.
Well, I think the reason that some people are interested in defining canon is that, as their personal preference for the paradigm of their home game, they want to stick as close to canon as possible. Maybe they are Lawful at heart and it somehow rubs them the wrong way to depart from canon. Or maybe they believe that you need to know the rules before you can bend or break them. There are probably as many reasons as there are DMs who run Greyhawk campaigns. Sure, the bottom line is that we are all perfectly free to depart from canon in our home games - but some people don't want to. That's why we continue to have this debate.
(Now, as for why we have debates on semantics in this thread, that I cannot answer.)
Originally posted by grodog
Sure, we've had canon discussions back on Greytalk, Scott, but for the most part we've failed to come to any kind of consensus definitions. I'm curious to see what folks here (who lack that Greytalk baggage) think about this.
It may not work, but bushfire's thoughts sparked the idea in my head, and perhaps the folks here can succeed where the "old hands" failed ;)
no one associated with Greyhawk lacks baggage. here or elsewhere.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
>>>
Greyhawk Adventures [hardcover] (this is one that many seem to disregard in whole or in part; this choice tends to follow those 1e/2e lines of demarcation)
>>>
I agree with whoever said Allan's been hanging around the "anything not written by Gygax" crowd too much. Just because huge portions of a book are boring and regrettable doesn't mean it ain't canonical. Canon.
you were doing so well up until this point. NONCANON.
>>>
WG9 Gargoyle
WG10 Child's Play
WG11 Puppets (all three seem to be generally reviled)
>>>
They are hated for being terrible RPGA tournaments shoehorned into the setting. But for my money, Childsplay is really the only one that isn't canonical. It takes place in a "fictional kingdom of Oerth." Nice try. Note that Roger Moore incorporated some of the pregenerated characters from Puppets into his revised Dyvers history for GH98. It's a good thing he remained mum on Freddie MacKreuger.
NONCANON
>>>
WGR7 Ivid the Undying (unpublished)
>>>
But widely available. A world in which this masterpiece is not viewed as canonical is a sad, wretched one, and bears little resemblance to the modern published Greyhawk, which uses it as a primary source. It's canon.
not only is it crap. it is NONCANON.
>>>
Dead Gods (perhaps some don't approve of the changes to the Vault of the Drow that occur in this book?)
>>>
I'm not sure that "grognard approval" is a good measuring stick for canon. Fred Wiening's Vault of the Drow article in Dragon #298 incorporated many of the changes from this adventure, so for my money that makes it canonical. On the other hand, it isn't technically a Greyhawk product. . .
NONCANON
>>>
The Fright at Tristor (GH as RPGA victim again?)
>>>
"Victim"? Excuse me? It's more firmly rooted in Greyhawk than 90% of the other adventures everyone loves, including some of the Gygax classics. Why not just call the LGG non-canonical, too, Allan?
--Erik Mona
Editor-in-Chief
Dungeon Magazine
no that is my job. imho all LGG is non-CANON. and a waste of trees.
Originally posted by diaglo
you were doing so well up until this point. NONCANON.
[ . . . ]
NONCANON
[ . . . ]
not only is it crap. it is NONCANON.
[ . . . ]
NONCANON
[ . . . ]
no that is my job. imho all LGG is non-CANON. and a waste of trees.
It's nice that you think so, but you didn't say why you think so. Your post is just begging to be ignored - that is, unless you're actually trying to provoke angry posts. If you're just going to share your opinion of what is or is not canon without any reasoning or explanation, you're really not adding anything to the discussion. (That is, after all, the point of a message board, isn't it?)
Originally posted by Brom Blackforge
It's nice that you think so, but you didn't say why you think so. Your post is just begging to be ignored - that is, unless you're actually trying to provoke angry posts. If you're just going to share your opinion of what is or is not canon without any reasoning or explanation, you're really not adding anything to the discussion. (That is, after all, the point of a message board, isn't it?)
and i could say the same of you.
my canon comes from everything before 1985. i stopped accepting TSR version when i bought T1-4.
I was trying to share my view of canon, from the "Currently published setting" point of view.
If you prefer only those things directly touched by Gygax, I'd agree with your contention that all of the quoted material is non-canon.
Since I don't live in that world, however, I can't very well speak to your standards. Only to mine.
--Erik
You preach harmony but don't seem to pull it off in practice, do you Delglath?
Originally posted by impy and chimpy
You preach harmony but don't seem to pull it off in practice, do you Delglath?
My nick is of one of the most evil villains in the Flanaess... I never claimed to be an angel
But then, I don't come here specifically to piddle in the pond so as to ruin everybody elses' experience of the board and in the last month or so have toned down my responses considerably in an effort to make the place more friendly.
Do I go over to Dragonsfoot and piddle in their pond? No.
I may not be thrilled with everything on that list, but I understand I am not the one who gets to decide what is canon.
As for calling the LGG a "waste of trees", that is just offensive. Particularly in the face of one of it's authors.
And people wonder why I say putting out another GH sourcebook would be a total waste of effort.
Comments here on the LGG have been positive enough to lead me to believe that there are lots of people interested in new Greyhawk material.
And that's a good thing, from my perspective.
--Erik
one of the things that makes this forum fun is that it hasn't become poisoned with partisanship and cynicism like many of the others (at least so far).
Comments here on the LGG have been positive enough to lead me to believe that there are lots of people interested in new Greyhawk material.
I whole-heartedly agree with that, Erik.
I think the potential for partisanship exists, but a great number of regulars have resisted the temptation to factionalize, and I think that stems from Greyhawk being a living product that continues to move forward in whatever form possible.
Sure, some may not care for the current incarnation, but there have always been down times for the setting, though I do not think this is one of them. We may not be getting our hardcover source book (yet), but there has been a decent amount of information published over the past few years to maintain the setting's relevancy.
This board has been a great addition for Greyhawk and buoys support for the setting that might go unnnoticed; I'm glad it's here.
Originally posted by jokamachi
This board has been a great addition for Greyhawk and buoys support for the setting that might go unnnoticed; I'm glad it's here.
Delglath wholeheartedly burrrrrps his support and would also like to thank his sponsor, Red Bear Pre-Mixed Vodka...
Originally posted by Erik Mona [b]As if it matters, here are some of my thoughts on what I view as "canonical" from Allan's list. Since I'm pretty much the only person affiliated with Wizards of the Coast who knows and/or cares one whit about any of this, and the only real "gatekeeper" in terms of what stuff gets published with an official Greyhawk imprimitur these days (vis a vis Dungeon Magazine and the Living Greyhawk Journal), this is as close to a view of what "official" canon includes as we're likely to get.
Thanks for your thoughts Erik---they'll be useful in mining for future submissions :D As I said in one of my later posts, I wasn't espousing any particular vision of canon, and I intentionally included works in the list of possible non-canon books that I personally employ as canon, as well as those that I do not: ones that grognards would and would not approve of, FWIW.
Anyway, I missed all the semantic debates and what-not. I doesn't look like anyone has jumped onto the idea of a discussion of Greyhawk paradigms, which seems to worth exploring further, so I'll start a new topic there in a few days if no one beats me to it.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Certainly to people like Diaglo, but one of the things that makes this forum fun is that it hasn't become poisoned with partisanship and cynicism like many of the others (at least so far).
--Erik
That is the great thing about this forum, as opposed to others like greytalk or dragonsfoot, but what I think Sam and Delglath were getting at, in a round about way ;) is that it is extremist, no comprimise attitudes like the post Diaglo made (I honestly haven't seen his other posts here yet, so I'm not passing juedgement on him yet, just that post) are what lead to those partisan and cynical attitudes.
Certainly, if you hold a more strict idea about what canon is, there are places to discuss those ideas with like minded fans, keeping this forum a nuetral ground is probably the best path to take tho.
edited to add: Let the record show that the "every-author's greyhawk is the only canon" zealot posts, like some of chatdemon/greyhack's may seem (I know him well enough to know he's not as fanatical as he comes off, but like I said about Diaglo, it's best to judge by words and not second guessed motives), are just as guilty of causing trouble as the "only rjk/egg are canon" posts. The answer for most people seems to lie somewhere in the middle ground.
Originally posted by grodog
Anyway, I missed all the semantic debates and what-not. I doesn't look like anyone has jumped onto the idea of a discussion of Greyhawk paradigms, which seems to worth exploring further, so I'll start a new topic there in a few days if no one beats me to it.
Nah, unfortunately, the English 101 argument derailed the thread, which has only barely recovered. There are at least two offshoot threads tho that look promising for those interested in continuing the debate.
Originally posted by Despotrix
That is the great thing about this forum, as opposed to others like greytalk or dragonsfoot, but what I think Sam and Delglath were getting at, in a round about way ;) is that it is extremist, no comprimise attitudes like the post Diaglo made (I honestly haven't seen his other posts here yet, so I'm not passing juedgement on him yet, just that post) are what lead to those partisan and cynical attitudes.
Well, if it is any consolation, I've been on the WotC boards for years, long before the Greyhawk board was started. Diaglo has long cultivated his reputation as a fanatic of the earliest of D&D iterations. I don't mean that to sound demeaning at all, many of the posts of his on the subject I've read a rather light-hearted tone or playfulness in them, almost like when he chimes in he knows he has said so much on it elsewhere that just his posting on it again is nearly like bringing up a long-running inside joke.
Regards,
Eric Anondson
Originally posted by diaglo
and i could say the same of you.
This thread has moved on since I last had a chance to check it, before Thanksgiving, so it hardly seems worthwhile to respond to your post. But I will.
You will note that nowhere in any of my previous posts did I offer an unsupported opinion about whether a particular product was or was not canon (which is what you did, Diaglo). Everything I posted before had to do with how "canon" should be defined.
my canon comes from everything before 1985. i stopped accepting TSR version when i bought T1-4.
See, this is the problem (as others have already noted). You are confusing personal preference with canon. Now, for what it is worth (and since you asked for it), this is how I view the items you remarked upon: it may be simplistic, but I think any materials produced by WotC/TSR for the game are canon. All of the items you listed are published (even "Ivid the Undying," which has been "published" via the internet). I know this differs somewhat from what Erik and others have said, and my reason for disagreeing doesn't have anything to do with my thoughts about the content of those items (because I haven't seen WG9-11, Dead Gods or Fright at Tristor, and don't know anything about them). It is simply that I think anything WotC/TSR produces for the game should be considered canon until WotC/TSR officially repudiates it (as they did with the joke Castle Greyhawk).
Also, to comment on some of the other materials that other people have mentioned, I don't think anything not produced for the game should be considered canon - that would exclude the coloring book, the novels, "The Scourge of Worlds" DVD, and anything in the ToEE video game that departs from the modules. None of these other kinds of materials are produced for the purpose of advancing the setting; they have their own goals and purposes. Trying to shoehorn any of these things into canon does both a disservice.
Originally posted by Erik Mona
Certainly to people like Diaglo, but one of the things that makes this forum fun is that it hasn't become poisoned with partisanship and cynicism like many of the others (at least so far).
Comments here on the LGG have been positive enough to lead me to believe that there are lots of people interested in new Greyhawk material.
And that's a good thing, from my perspective.
--Erik
hey, erik knows i buy all the stuff. i download all the stuff. i am a huge fan of D&D.
but he also knows as some of you probably don't. although, i'm not sure how you've missed it over the last 7 years here. my preference falls to Original D&D (1974)...the only true game.:D
yes, i will buy a new Greyhawk source book. heck i bought the 2edADnD one
i still use Supplement I Greyhawk.
Anyway...
Everyone is entitled to their own preference about canon, but as has been said here in this thread by more than one person, the "everything after gygax" sucks attitude is counterproductive and insulting. Save it for the forums out there where the zealots hang out and the moderators silence anyone who doesn't agree.