Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 18:58:31	Though I find Gygax a long-winded, incidental novelist, I enjoyed these stories simply for the life they breathed into Greyhawk. They offer so much in the way of cultural and geographical detail, how can we ignore the information they provide? Do you consider these works canon?
#2 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 20:01:58	Besides the contradictions present, like the different version of the Mage of the Vale, there is the major issue of Tharizdun destroying the world. I wouldn't consider any of the novel material as canon until it appears in another product written with the ongoing game campaign world in mind. Scott
#3 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 20:24:23	Originally posted by ScottyG I wouldn't consider any of the novel material as canon until it appears in another product written with the ongoing game campaign world in mind. Although I haven't done my own examination of the books (too painful to read) and comparisons to Greyhawk canon, I do believe that Carl Sargent drew upon many things within the books in order to write From the Ashes, Marklands, Iuz the Evil and Ivid the Undying. At least, that's what I've been told. I also seem to recall being told a similiar thing about the LGG, but I may be mixing up my memories.
#4 zombiegleemax Dec 19, 2003 20:58:04	Originally posted by monkeybone Though I find Gygax a long-winded, incidental novelist, I enjoyed these stories simply for the life they breathed into Greyhawk. They offer so much in the way of cultural and geographical detail, how can we ignore the information they provide? Do you consider these works canon? Published Greyhawk material outside of the novels is often contradictory, not only from sourcebook to sourcebook but often times within the sourcebook or module itself. The 'Tharizdun destroys the world' problem within the last few novels is outweighed for me by the wealth of information provided on the Abyss and extra-planar realms. I started with the G and D modules, then the Gazetteer, then the boxed set. Gygax's vision of Greyhawk is what I find inspiring, so for my own campaign I draw heavily upon material from his novels. I cannot ignore them as source material and in my heart the version of Greyhawk from the Gygax years is the real Greyhawk and all else is only shadow. But for me canon does not mean consistancy. There are too many different versions for consistency, too much material thrown under the Greyhawk banner that did not belong, or authors who wrote but knew nothing of the setting, writers who know nothing of the game. Greyhawk was meant to be sparse, but it has become detailed. It was Gygax's but was tossed to the wolves, then tossed away, to be picked up by the people who love the campaign, but are not its creator. Canon is, simply, all that has been published. Each of us has to refine it from that point. Picking and choosing what to leave in or what to leave out from our personal Greyhawk 'canon'.
#5 Greyson Dec 20, 2003 0:18:41	What is and what is not canon is subjective. Given the myriad perceptions, experiences and personalities, I don't think we will ever establish universal canon for GH. My opinion of the Gord books is opposite that of Mr. Zavoda. I found them trite, exceedingly nebulus and too singular in view. We keep information and innuendo from the Gord novels out of our GH setting. If issues from the books creep in, we treat references from them as gossip and enemations of how events and people really are or were. This is just one point of view of the novels from GH's esteemed creator. I hope you read this in contrast to Mr. Zavoda's comments, not as a rebuttal, becasue it is certainly not the latter. Just a different opinion. Last, he said it best when he wrote "personal canon". Regrettably, that's all we have, given the afore mentioned subjectivity of what constitutes canon in each of our myriad conceptions of GH. Are the Gord novels canon? It's up to you, as an individual. The only people you will ever really have to reconcile issues of canon with are the players at the edge of your table.
#6 omote Dec 22, 2003 18:45:18	I personally don't use the GORD novels as canon... while I don't neccessarily dislike Gygax's vision of GH, I find the material produced by Carl Sergent to be (obviously) more in depth, and "real" in feeling as a living and breathing real world. Gygax's novels just weren't deep enough to describe the GH world for me (although tere were moments) ...........................Omote
#7 samwise Dec 22, 2003 19:27:09	I do not use them as canon in relation to their outcome. That is, Greyhawk has not been destroyed. I do use a good deal of the background as background, simply because I want to. Names and concepts and the like. As for additional information added to the campaign by anyone, I use what I like, alter what I don't, and add what extra I want. But given the quality of FtA and the LGG, I would hardly dismiss all such as "thrown to the wolves".
#8 zombiegleemax Dec 22, 2003 21:53:37	Such splendid answers, Emperor Norton feels anything else would be superfluous.
#9 zombiegleemax Dec 24, 2003 11:45:24
#10 zombiegleemax Dec 24, 2003 11:45:51	They are canon in thier depictions and details, but not in outcome. Novels and thier stories shouldn't be canon in any setting. The addition of novels that add to the ongoing metaplot of a setting are always a bad thing IMO. They are excellent novels!