I am somewhat puzzled by references to GH "canon" and I am wondering what others think.
I understand the idea of "canon." In my own mind, "canon" is material that -
1) Is published by the holder of the intellectual property rights;
2) In a medium that is widely available to the public (this would include print publications but also would allow for the net publication of material like Ivid the Undying, which was written for print publication, perhaps an additional criteria(?)); and
3) That is accepted as "true to the setting" or useful therein by a large body of consumers (hence, IMO, "funny" Castle GH is not canon).
When TSR-era GH materials were published, I could see an argument for "canon" material. The same would hold true for WotC-era GH materials up until 2000 and 3E.
In 2000 and with the advent of 3E, it seems to me the whole "canon vs non-canon" discussion became moot. At present we have -
1) Published GH material, chiefly through Dungeon/Dragon;
2) Living GH material, that speaks of GH to a very large audience but with a very particular intention different from the proto-typical home campaign; and
3) "Default" material.
Each of these sources satisfies my defination of "canon," and maybe I have defined canon incorrectly, yet each is so divergent as to make any reconciling of the divergent material highly problematic.
Is GH "canon" thus a moot point? Isn't "canon" now dead? Buried under 3 identifiably different iterations of GH.
GVD
PS - To be complete, I should note that EGGs Gords books published by New Infinities created a divergent GH back in the 80s. So, the canon issue may have been dead for far longer than I suppose. Yet, these books seem to have been reconciled by fans to align with the main stream of "canon" from that time.
In defense of Dungeon (IMO the best in new GH material) they tend to play within the boundaries of LG canon while at the same time appeasing non-LG players who may be old time Greyhawkers and still using 'Default' 3.x to stay contemporary. It's a delicate balance.
I agree that canon is a rather vague term, with various meanings to various people. All of your definitions are appropriate, and none. Greyhawk become something beyond a copyrighted product when We, ( we being the members of this forum and all the other Gamers out there who play in the WOGH) took the step to make it ours. When fan stories, histories, modules, tales and all the other wonderful material began, then We become canon.
I personally believe that this is the reason that WOTC chose to push FR and Eberron... they knew then, and know now that they cannot control GH. We may not go to the other sites and vote for it, we may not be the largest group out there, but we are a dedicated few. And we buy. Most of us are old enough to have a few dollars to spend.
I remember the days of being broke (most of my life) and looking longingly at the FR boxed set. It was new, and I could not afford it. When I finally could, I didn't like it as much, only playing one campaign there.
I think this is the motivator for Living Greyhawk. They can keep us invovled, keep us buying core stuff without stepping on our toes. They know that we love Greyhawk, and if they define it too much, they loose us. If they try to "Take it Back," to become the "Canon," we will stop buying. We will go OD&D, AD&D, 2nd Ed., and 3rd ed.
We all have our original Portfolios, the Boxed Sets, the GH Adventures books, all othe original moldules. If they try to take this from us, they will loose us. We will let WOTC and Dungeon toy with it, as long as they do not yank it around for fun. As long as the quality is high and it builds upon the qualities that We know and Love.
TSR, Gary, Dave and Robert K., thanks we Love and Appreciate Greyhawk.
It ours now.
We, the fans are Canon now. And if you do not like it, don't ask for anymore money.
1) EGG Canon: only GH material written by EGG or material written by other authors that *EGG has accepted* as GH canon.
This version of canon means that GH died circa 1986 when EGG left TSR.
2) WotC Canon: this is everything that WotC claims as *official* GH material.
-------------------------------
My GH is incorporates EGG and post-EGG material. I'm not too fussy. As long as lots of fun can be had.
And even though there were some real dogs released after EGG left (Fate of Istus; Castle Greyhawk; etc), it picked up after From the Ashes.
Canon doesn't really matter for most of us except in respect to our love of GH as a published setting available to the masses. In other words: It should be treated with dignity and respect (ie. no Fate of Istus and Castle Greyhawk debarkles!!!!).
Canon is what I, the DM, choose to include in my campaign. If I don't like it, it's not canon. If I do like it, it is canon. Other than for reasons of comparison and support (and borrowing), I see no reason why everyone should adventure in the exact same place.
Now all you guys get your hands off my canon! That thing might go off!
I think canon is important because it gives everyone a common language to speak about the setting. I really liked Rasgon's Bahomet article. Somebody else might not. If I adopt it and they dont, when we try to talk about demon prices, we will, by some measure, be speaking in different terms. Canon can provide a common ground.
This is the problen with "Fanon," fan works as canon or as a substitute for canon or as anything other than what they are - an individual's take on the setting that may be of interest or use to others. Canon, I think, is a necessary medium for fan works to prosper in because canon provides generally agreed on context of which the fan works will, by some measure, partake or comment upon. Canon is a common touch stone for fan works.
With three divergent GHs presently in play, each of which fits a, I think broad, defination of canon, it seems to me traditional notions of canon are obsolete. I overdramatize when I use the term "dead."
I don't think canon is or should be "dead." I do think a new defination is in order. I think a new understanding of canon could be useful. Unfortunately, I do not have one to propose.
I do think some amount of common sense should be applied. Default GH references in 3E products that reference GH, say the Pelorian prestige class in Complete Divine, will be hard to exclude from "canon," practically speaking, because so many people, perhaps not super-versed in GH or even so, will take it as such. A consideration.
I don't think canon is or should be "dead." I do think a new defination is in order. I think a new understanding of canon could be useful. Unfortunately, I do not have one to propose.GVD
I fullheartedly agree with you. (Prepare for the opposition that will be encountered though.) I hope that goodwill is on our side. A long time ago, I had read the definition of the Monatic approach posted by Gary Holian. I do not know if this approach is named after Eric Mona or if it is some particular school of thought. When I asked Holian about that, he did not answer. The Monatic approach asserts the primacy of canon by seeking the most consistent and ingenious method to satisfy all sources. I find the formulation of the Monatic approach acute and powerful to the end of defining the canon of the advanced gamer, the canon of the renegade designer. Once we discuss this approach as a potential basis, ground, to work on then we can proceed to the definition of canon.
So what we're talking about is attempting to define the commonalities that we share, while simultaneously defining the points at which divergence is expected?
That's going to take some work, and it's the kind of thing that needs input from a huge number of sources. Unless, of course, I'm misreading the whole thing.
Sounds like we need a software engineer's versioning system. "I'm running WoGH 3.02.1431. It's still in beta, but we're pretty firm on all the code."
So what we're talking about is attempting to define the commonalities that we share, while simultaneously defining the points at which divergence is expected?
That's going to take some work, and it's the kind of thing that needs input from a huge number of sources. Unless, of course, I'm misreading the whole thing.
Sounds like we need a software engineer's versioning system. "I'm running WoGH 3.02.1431. It's still in beta, but we're pretty firm on all the code."
Telas
Friend, irony is not the most effective way to contribute to a discussion. I suggested some ground guideline. What is your opinion, apart from irony, about the Monatic approach? I trust you can be more constructive and positive. _________________ "It is easier to milk a cow that stands still." Tzeliobas-Aristomenes, General Cleaning, Greyhawk Construction Company.
I plead guilty to the charge of "use of irony in the first degree". Thanks for not flaming me, but being constructive. I will attempt to return the favor.
Seriously, while I do applaud the construction of GH Canon, ultimately it's up to the DM to decide what's in his campaign (IMHO, one aspect of GH is the ability of the DM to change whole parts of the setting).
Now that GH is kind of left flapping in the wind by WotC, it's really going to take a concerted effort from many sources to agree on what the shared values (including characters, history, motivations, "flavor", and such) really are. This website goes a long way towards acheiving that goal.
There will be points of divergence from Canon. Personally, I just rewrote some of the "official" LG map of the Yeomanry. (FWIW, Abbeyvale is now north of the River Burn, where it meets the Wick. In its place is my created town of Rockford.) Have I violated Canon? (I really don't know, is LG Canonical? I don't believe so.) These are the details which will bog down an attempt to nail everything down.
So yes, there was irony in my posts, but the point remains that there needs to be agreement on what will be defined by Canon, and what will normally be left up the the DM. I believe that defining where the commonalities end is one of the first steps on defining what is and isn't Canon.
This is not unlike how some community-supported open-source software is written, by coming to a consesnsus on what should and shouldn't be included. Hence the joke (lame as it was to some).
If I'm misreading this, please let me know. Despite my occasionally sardonic attitude, I love Greyhawk, and would like to see it continue as a supported campaign setting (whether that support is official or community, or some unique combination of both).
[The Monatic approach asserts the primacy of canon by seeking the most consistent and ingenious method to satisfy all sources. I find the formulation of the Monatic approach acute and powerful to the end of defining the canon of the advanced gamer, the canon of the renegade designer. Once we discuss this approach as a potential basis, ground, to work on then we can proceed to the definition of canon.]
I am not familiar with this approach. It seems like it is a way to reconcile divergent sources into "canon," as opposed to a means to define canon itself. I'm not sure I have this right. As a means to reconcile divergent sources, I think this could work.
I am sorely tempted to begin by "thowing out" what seem to me to be obvious special cases, Living Greyhawk, and looking for a defination of canon within the remaining material, divergent as it may be. I hesitate because LG could, without default Greyhawk and without the present editorial policies of Dungeon and Dragon, be the sole, current source of things Greyhawk, other than fan works.
I think this may get me around to the Monatic method, if I am understanding it. Looking for the "natural" GH consistency among the inconsistencies would yeild canon material, which would then need to be solemnitized, by some measure, so that it was widely understood, particularly by the authors of new "official" GH materials, if such were to ever develop. Erik Mona will not always be around to fact check for GH published materials.
On the other hand, perhaps it would make sense to identify a scenario in which divergent GH facts could be equally "canon," assuming everything else is equal. For example, Source 1 says Hextor is Lawful Evil, while Source 2 says Hextor is Chaotic or Neutral Evil. Both can be "canon" if we allow for different perspectives on the type of evil but not the evilness itself. Put more bluntly, we make "excuses" or offer "explanations" for the divergences, in this case by focusing on the commonalities - Hextor is evil. Going further afield, in a multiverse, is the fact that Source 1 says its Lawful Evil and Source 2 says it Chaotic Evil really that inconsistent? Perhaps, we do not demand of "canon" a single, consistent answer, so long as any answer, consistent or not, is grounded, can be reasaonably grounded, in the setting - GH, to thine own self be true?
[Now that GH is kind of left flapping in the wind by WotC, it's really going to take a concerted effort from many sources to agree on what the shared values (including characters, history, motivations, "flavor", and such) really are. This website goes a long way towards acheiving that goal.]
This is a very good point. Ultimately, the details of GH are, IMO, a means to an end - the "flavor." Of course, those details are vital to that "flavor," change them too much and you change the flavor. Defining how to maintain GH flavor, via canon or any other means, is, to me, very important. I don't want to play a GH that "feels" like FR; I can play FR for that. So what puts the flavor in GH? I have read some very good definations of GH flavor but they applied before the common era where we have default GH, magazine GH and Living GH. Do they still apply? For example, a host of people will know GH only through Living GH. Are they to be summarily dismissed or consigned to GH re-education camps?
It seems to me that GH is like a pre-industrial nation undergoing industrialization. We don't really know how it will all work out. But it is progress, Luddites to one side. GH is gaining a greater audience than it has had in years from default GH, LG and the magazines. But there is a cost in questions of divergence and traditional notions of canon.
Certainly it is true that what we do in our home campaigns is our business. But "canon" is our common language. I agree that this website is invaluable in building and maintaining our GH ties in a rapidly changing GH universe.
Now, if we can just figure out how to make this new-fangled contraption stay between the ditches! Do I depress the velocitator or the locomotor before shifting gears?
Well, I have to say that I like the state of Greyhawk. The LGG was a good supplement for my game, and that is enough for now. I recieve Dungeon, and that plus this forum, and my own work give my players far more to do than my real time will allow.
I recently posted a forum on Isles of Woe, where I thought the triads had altered the world unintentionally but significantly. Apparently I am wrong (core vs. noncore.. I do not understand, but I think another forum member is going to clarify it all for me,).
But, I know this... I do not want any additional supplements if they are as poorly planned, poorly executed, and have any other end than GH fans enjoyment.
So, I have a suggestion. Canonfire should start a Canonfire WOGH Canon. This would NOT be some absolute list of what is good or bad, what TSR made or WOTC or anything else. I would suggest editorial review for consistency only, and not absolute consistancy. It is ok if two sources conflict... a close look at history books will reveal that this is a common problem.
This should include fan work, though of the local nature (ie not globe spanning decisions). Then, content should be voted upon, with maybe a 60% supporting vote required. If WOTC comes out with something new, then, lets adapt. But there are plenty of obvious choices.
As to the fan work... some of the stuff in these forums, in Oerth Journal and in articles is at least as good a some of the published material.
It is worth a thought... or we could just argue over it for ever. It is something to do.
I pretty much hate the term canon, because over the years this term became the holy symbol of all those Greyhawk zealots that you can see on all those D&D boards all over the world. They cry and wail at you at the tiniest attempt of changing the game world...blech...(Edited by Despotrix - 8-24-04). So instead of "canon" I would love to see people using the term "source" instead. About the same meaning but this word is not as emotions-heavy as "canon" :)
So, where was I...I do not think that GH "canon"/source is a moot thing which should be buried and forgotten.
It is like this: The GH campaign setting is the result of a DM's attempt to create a game world together with his group of players. Thus as long as the DM lives and continues to create adventures in that setting everything created by that DM has to be treated as source. And every darn bit which is released by that DM is source. So if said DM is to let the world fall apart and let it slide into chaos and oblivion then we have to deal with it. It's his world and he can do what the heck he wants with it :)
The next thing that has to be accepted as source is the work that was not done by the creator of the setting but by the company that has the rights to that setting. So when we look at GH then everything released by T$R or WotC has to be considered as source. But for me the inventor will always have preference over the company. That means that when there is a product that interferes with the material of the inventor, then the inventor will always have priority. Good examples are Rary the Traitor or how Robilard was treated in later adventures/source books.
What i certainly do not accept as source is everything that comes from LG. That group of players/DMs is too closed and everyone can go wild there with his vision of how GH could look and feel. It's a nice idea and it certainly is a creative thing, but it is not source in any way. Also fan created material is not to be considered as source. A fan can be as faithfull to the setting as he wants. But one single line from the creator on a board or in a new adventure/source book can put the fans work into oblivion and it will interfere with "canon"/source/whatever.
I don't think canon is or should be "dead." I do think a new defination is in order. I think a new understanding of canon could be useful. Unfortunately, I do not have one to propose.
Well said. I've made a proposal below.
Preface:
Unfortunately, to my mind, true WoG 'canon' died when its progenitor (EGG) stopped publishing in the mid-1980s. (Note: While other people most assuredly gave the setting creative impetus (e.g. Kuntz), they did not publish prolifically)
Still, if one assumes some 'behind-the-scenes' (behind-the-binders?) dialogue between said worthies and those who envisioned From the Ashes, canon can be continued at least through the 2nd Edition material. I don't know which person(s) 'dreamt up' the GH wars, but even if it wasn't EGG, if he approved of it, then, to me, that makes in canonical.
Which leaves us with what, exactly, since then?
The LGG is an excellent book, but from where do the events post 590CY originate? From whose mind? EGGs? Most likely not (although I don't know ... it's hard to know exactly what to make of credits unless one is involved in the publication).
Thus, the LGG is, despite it being a professional publication from WOTC, only 'fanon', not canon as defined above.
I suppose nothing lasts forever, and one progenitor must eventually give way to another, but there has been no clear succession of the (creative) throne, and until that happens, we'll just plain never know where exactly the original ideas stopped and the new ones began.
Propose the following definitions:
primary WoG canon - material to 1984/1985 (Unearthed Arcana, I believe, was the last EGG publication re: the WoG)
secondary WoG canon - Ward's Greyhawk Adventures to the last of WG and WGR series.
tertiary WoG canon ('fanon') - everything since, including the LGG and the LG campaign _________________ "... ,and the world was made brighter thereby."
[The Monatic approach asserts the primacy of canon by seeking the most consistent and ingenious method to satisfy all sources. I find the formulation of the Monatic approach acute and powerful to the end of defining the canon of the advanced gamer, the canon of the renegade designer. Once we discuss this approach as a potential basis, ground, to work on then we can proceed to the definition of canon.]
I am not familiar with this approach. It seems like it is a way to reconcile divergent sources into "canon," as opposed to a means to define canon itself. I'm not sure I have this right. As a means to reconcile divergent sources, I think this could work...GVD
GVD, I will return soon, you made some good points for discussion. _________________ "It is easier to milk a cow that stands still." Tzeliobas-Aristomenes, General Cleaning, Greyhawk Construction Company.
I don't think canon is or should be "dead." I do think a new defination is in order. I think a new understanding of canon could be useful. Unfortunately, I do not have one to propose.
Well said. I've made a proposal below.
Preface:
Unfortunately, to my mind, true WoG 'canon' died when its progenitor (EGG) stopped publishing in the mid-1980s. (Note: While other people most assuredly gave the setting creative impetus (e.g. Kuntz), they did not publish prolifically)
Still, if one assumes some 'behind-the-scenes' (behind-the-binders?) dialogue between said worthies and those who envisioned From the Ashes, canon can be continued at least through the 2nd Edition material. I don't know which person(s) 'dreamt up' the GH wars, but even if it wasn't EGG, if he approved of it, then, to me, that makes in canonical.
....
primary WoG canon - material to 1984/1985 (Unearthed Arcana, I believe, was the last EGG publication re: the WoG)
secondary WoG canon - Ward's Greyhawk Adventures to the last of WG and WGR series.
tertiary WoG canon ('fanon') - everything since, including the LGG and the LG campaign
Ware and were, friends.
I should preface it by stating I am (almost) a die-hard. I only "recently" came to the position that post-"TSR badging" material (that is, WotC material that has the TSR badge still on it) has any redeeming value. (OK, maybe not that harsh, but my first brush with post 2E material wasn't pleasant.) So, my take on GH cannon is precisely that - pre-3.xE material. It might include some real duds, but show me a canon that doesn't have some skeletons in it's closet.
Greyhawk waxed and waned under TSR - it was EGG's, as much as Realms is Ed Greenwood's, and was, in the early days, overlapped with Known World/Mystara until they were completely sundered.
I also agree with the "if I say it is, it is" approach to canon - and since I have very little 3.xE material, that means that 2E and before is Canon to me
In my opinion, the "core" of the Greyhawk setting that might most easily comprise "canon" would be the following:
World of Greyhawk - Gygax
From the Ashes - Sargent
The Adventure Begins - Moore
Living Greyhawk Gazateer - Mona
Various adventures and sourcebooks no doubt deserve due recognition but the above would be the irreducable "core" that might comprise "canon" I would think.
GVD, Anced_Math, Jupp, ecla (nice avatar!), and the rest,
You all made some good points. Let me share my thoughts now.
After collecting, categorizing, and studying the vast majority of products and electronically published works (like the ones belonging in the Apocrypha topic in canonfire!) I concluded to a definition of the reality in the world of Greyhawk. I do not claim to be an expert of the whole of the material, but certain few issues I scrutinized. This reality is usually called canon, and it certainly serves as reference to clarify and understand the sources. And yes this reality is unique within the infinity of the dimension of Probability. Every gamer and every designer of the industry wants to capture this reality. And no matter what part of this reality the designer of the industry captures, she always creates canon material, always contributes to the formation of the reality. The same is not true for the hobbyist. The hobbyist always, with much more limited means than the designer, struggles to understand what is going on, but never contributes to the formation of the reality. [Trivially, the inability of the hobbyist to contribute to the reality is proven by the fact that there exists no (to my knowledge) example of being taken into account by the designer the material of a hobbyist.] On the process, I will attempt to upturn the traverse and render the hobbyist potential producer of canon material.
Canon, to me the veteran hobbyist, and I believe to all designers working in the industry, is the exegesis that alleviates from contradictions and discontinuities in the sources. This exegesis should satisfy all sources (if possible), and should be elegant and as simple as possible. There are countless examples that this approach has been followed extensively. The use of the approach (referred quite long ago as Monatic by Holian) is sometimes automatic or instinctive. Deft designers are doing this intensively. Gygax has used the approach to detangle the abduction of Thrommel question. Kuntz has used it to put inline the real Robilar with the published Robilar (OJ, no. 7). Carl Sargent did it with Obmi’s hammer. Mona did it to conduct continuity to the Ghost Tower of Inverness. Everyone that uses this approach is a potential producer of canon material. If the user of the approach is a hobbyist there are some limitations. It is not fertile (to the ends of producing canon) to pick a location at random, that has never been described before, and design it from scratch. This kind of work has value only within the confines of the hobbyist’s campaign. However, in the case that there are a number of references, the hobbyist can gather the references. It is hard, research skills, time and money is necessary. These references will point to other references. A large part of the body of Greyhawk material may be needed. The hobbyist should posses a threshold of some minimal analytical, induction and deduction skills. Creativity and education will help. Time will help. While the designers of the industry have their deadlines, the hobbyist can take his time. Not much detail should be elaborated; in fact, all detail should be references to the canon sources. The interpretation is the novelty of the canon piece. Finally, verbal skills are necessary; they will make the piece attractive and convincing. Give me a reason why such an effort should not produce canon material; such material is canon, and the designers should take into account and certify it as canon.
At this point, I would like to make some notes on the sources. There is distinction between the term canon(ical) source and canon (= reality). All sources with Greyhawk reference are canonical sources. Their interpretation is the canon. Everything should be gathered together and be interpreted. It is a long process, by no means complete at the moment. Thus, even the designer of the industry does not know the canon yet. He puts some limitations; certain works are being put aside, but only to make his work easier. A stronger mind than the designer may use more sources if he has the access to them.
Moreover, the oral word of important contributors to the game (e.g., Gygax) is canon source. There is not much discussion about that, since it is a common practice interviews and statements of important people (say important poets, painters, etc) to be considered together with the products of those important people.
Crap material of industry designers that by no means can comply with the above requirements is still canon, but in an interesting and funny at the same time context. This low quality material still exists inside Greyhawk in a meta-text sense. However, it is discarded by redoubtable scholars (e.g., Estarius Roses works in LGJ, no. 4).
And those are my humble thoughts,
tzelios _________________ "It is easier to milk a cow that stands still." Tzeliobas-Aristomenes, General Cleaning, Greyhawk Construction Company.
Wow Tzelios, in Greece they must start with the Presocratics at birth and progress from there. I have only known one greek well in my life, and he had the same ability to parse something down to it's barest of features, examine and reassess as you have done here. It is quite effective, if not always clear.
However, I enjoyed the post, if I do not agree. Canon is an interesting concept, most certainly not created here. I do not know, but I suspect that discussions of canon began somewhere near you, in discussion of a group of disparate works which are today called the Bible.
A variety of religions would argue over which is actually part of the canon. There is a group that says that only the works of one small group of writers are canon; others claim it is that core, plus a few more who are to their liking. Yet another group would add to that the core, plus those to the general liking, plus those who they felt left out for illegitimate reasons.
Amazing how the discussions of the bible and of GH are so strikingly similar. Interestingly, many of these types of discussions were held in your part of the world Tzelios; my ancestors took to burning people at the stake and bashing them as infidels, but the philosophy part took a wee bit longer (by 1970 most of the family could spell philosophy).
Anyway, I enjoy the posts, but I think you are seeking a dream, a goal more mythical that GH itself.
Moreover, the oral word of important contributors to the game (e.g., Gygax) is canon source. There is not much discussion about that, since it is a common practice interviews and statements of important people (say important poets, painters, etc) to be considered together with the products of those important people.
Crap material of industry designers that by no means can comply with the above requirements is still canon, but in an interesting and funny at the same time context. This low quality material still exists inside Greyhawk in a meta-text sense. However, it is discarded by redoubtable scholars (e.g., Estarius Roses works in LGJ, no. 4).
And those are my humble thoughts,
tzelios
An excellent post. Thank you. I have had to think about the above quoted passages, however. On reflection, maybe not long enough, I disagree with the above quoted statements.
I do not believe that oral declarations in interviews or in online postings or in personal anecdotes are canon sources. I do not believe that they even usefully inform consideration of canon or canon sources. At best, IMO, they are interesting asides from authors who have contributed, or contributed to, canon and/or canon sources. I will illustrate with your example.
E. Gary Gygax ("EGG") created Greyhawk and his GH gaming products are, IMO, canon (though canon is, IMO, broader than just those products).
EGG also wrote the Gord novels in which EGG sees Oerth destroyed. This literary presentation and license is not canon, IMO. I think the Gord novels can usefully inform canon, as canon source, but are not themselves canon as the literary destruction of Oerth is at complete odds with Greyhawk's continuing viability as an ongoing gaming world. Had EGG not destroyed Oerth, the question would be, IMO, closer but that is a moot point.
In addition to his gaming products and his novels, EGG has given a number of interviews, has responded to people online and has had published recollections of his thinking in creating Greyhawk. None of these expressions, however interesting, have the solemnity or "dignity" of a published expression of the Greyhawk setting as intended for gaming; their intent is otherwise, being not gaming material but commentary on such, more or less casual in expression and more or less with or without consideration of other setting developments since EGG's setting work specifically for use in a game - such commentary is sui generis to the setting. As such, I find these "oral" sources neither canon or canon source. They are interesting, and useful to those who would wish to make use of them, but they are irrelevant to any greater consideration of the setting, as a gaming entity, IMO.
Moving on from strictly EGG and to wax colloquial, there is a certain "hash settling" quality to some of these "oral" sources - "See here is what I really meant; everyone whom came after me got it wrong; they should have just left it to me." I find these sometimes "sour grapes" obviously self-serving and inclined to foster a "cult of personality" that in no way helps the game; it helps only the author who, now the mystagogue, parts the thick velvet curtain and reveals the true secrets of initiation and enlightenment. Whatever gets you through the night, I suppose. But I'm not buying.
Worse, however, than this kind of savant-like posing is when these oral statements have a tendency, intended or unintended by the author, to establish the "final word" on a topic. Rob Kuntz' recollections of Tharizdun are the worst example. I don't think Mr. Kuntz intended to foreclose discussion of Tharizdun by sharing his thoughts but I have seen his "oral" statements have this effect. The problem is that such statements may or may not fit with the setting as it has developed since the author's day and may, by some turn, preclude people from development of setting details at odds with the author's recollection. This is particularly so among those who might style themselves "illuminated" by reference or relationship to the author.
To be clear, I am not ascribing any certain ulterior motives to either Mr. Kuntz or Mr. Gygax, but I find "oral" statements problematic in their application as it relates to any discussion of canon/canon source.
Accordingly, for my part, I will not accord "oral" statements status as either canon or canon source. They are interesting asides, perhaps useful at individual GMs discretion.
Conversely, I will not grant to the Rose Estes' of the world a moments consideration as canon or canon source. I would name these materials pastiche, poor or less poor. Such materials imitate what would otherwise be canon but are obviously distinguished from it by tone or haphazard approach.
An excellent post Tzelios but I must politely disagree to the above extent.
My basic argument is that we (hobbyist designers and DMs) should be granted the power to create canon, given that we use the same methods with the methods the industry designers use.
On the consideration of oral and/or unofficial (unpublished by the owner of the mental rights) word of important contributors to the game (e.g., Gygax) as canon sources, see what the designers are doing:
[ScottG wrote:
[Tzelios wrote:
It seems logical to me. Also, your interpretation is empowered by a reference inside T1-4 concerning the fact that the original location of ToEE was near (probably few horse ride days) the shores of Nyr Dyv. For unknown reasons, ToEE relocated near Hommlet later. It is quite likely that the temple was destroyed by St. Cuthbert and co, Iuz was trapped, and the whole project was on the hands of Zuggy.]
The truth behind the 'shores of the Nyr Dyv' reference is that some of EGG's notes that Frank M was using when throwing T1-4 together were written in 77-78 before the published version of the WoG was completed. Gary was using notes based on his home campaign.
There never was supposed to be any relocation, but that is a very creative way of tying things together.
Scott]
Then, bravo to Frank Mentzer for his creativity, as well as, for showing us (the hobbyist designers and DMs) the ways of world development. By using unpublished notes (thus, an unofficial or non-canon source) of Gygax he created canon. This is an example of the way the Monatic approach can be used to the ends of creating canon by a hobbyist. What Mentzer did on the above example is the most convenient, simple, and elegant way, characterized as "very creative" by Scott G, to satisfy all sources, i.e., to conduct continuity between Gygax's campaign and the new rendition of T1-4. It is clear that the designers of the industry are taking into account such supposedely non-canon sources. One of Mentzer's sources is Gygax's notes on his personal campaign. _________________ "It is easier to milk a cow that stands still." Tzeliobas-Aristomenes, General Cleaning, Greyhawk Construction Company.
I agree that canonical work can be created by non professionals. I think that there are a couple of issues with the discussion in general. The first is that there is not an firm definition of Canon. Even if there was a definition of Canon, we would then all argue the merits of material a, b, or c, and wheather or not they meet the definition.
As I suggested earlier, I think Canonfire should create a Canon list. The definition should be debated and veted, and then established. Then submission should be graded. The biggest Caveat should be that Canonfire, and the group of people working on it are simply trying to find common ground, not reorder the world of GH. This would establish a Definition, arbitrary yes, but a Definition of Canon nonetheless. The definition must be well crafted so that it does not a) restrict canon so much as to disallow growth in a nonstatic world; or b) allow in enormous amounts of low quality/poorly conceived material into the realm.
Then set up a system for vetting out which items and submissions are canon.
It would be my most sincere hope that I did not appear to lend support to the notion that "non-professionals" can create canon. I believe "canon" is only created with publication and wide distribution, and this usually entails some "professional" status, be it employee designer or freelance designer of the publisher, who is also the intellectual property holder (in most cases). No matter how good or well intentioned, anything created by a "fan" that does not see publication by the intellectual property holder cannot, IMO, be canon. That means every uniquely Canonfire and Oerth Journal submission is not, and cannot be, IMO canon.
On the off chance that the IP owner would choose to publish any of this material, only then would it be solemnitized into a candidate for canonization. Not going to happen.
For this same reason, I must principally object to Tzelios' suggestion that oral communications et al can be canon or canon source. There is no solemnitization or publication. Such could become canon if a designer utilizied these materials for the IP holder, who published them (the Mentzer example), but only then does the possibility possibly appear, IMO.
I think the issue is not creating canon but sorting out what we have that may be canon, of which we have at least three varieties as I inititially described. It is the presence of at least three species of arguable canon material that led me to postulate the possible death of canon as it had previously been understood.
I do not like the idea that canon cannot be fan created. That does not mean that I disagree with it. However, in the present, generally unsupported situation that GH finds itself in, I would argue that without allowing fans to create canon, then the world is, in and of itself , dead.
However, as I said in a previous post, that is a different argument. First a common definition of Canon must be arrived at, otherwise, the continuation of the disussion is a Gordian Knot. Arriving at a definition of canon is Alexander's Sword.
Once we have a common conception then we can decide on which side of the line it falls.
Hey all,
Intersesting thread.
Are their any theology majors out there?
IIRC, The Heirarchy runs Biblical, Canonical, Appophrical, Heretical
Biblical-
Has to be EGG and everything he published FOR GAMING in Greyhawk. Gord novels were not meant for gaming, they are novels and greyhawk is a backdrop to the artists storyline. Inconsistancies in his material for gaming simply doesn't matter, my veiw is that this shows how to many specifics can f**k-up a game- see rules lawyers.
Canonical-
Debate begins. The church has an unbelievable amount of wisdom that didn't rise to the level of biblical (universallly recognized, King James approved), but still has great value for those in the church. Their was an interenal vetting process at various councils to decide the status of these works and classification of others.
IMHO All works that were published for official Greyhawk gaming before the 'dark ages' rise to this level of scrutiny. d20 was after this period. Mags weren't official.
Appophrycal-
Those Catholic works that the vetting process saw as valued but regional, or too specific for one denomination or simply wasn't heretical falls here.
The cardinals did not want to dismiss good mens truths and insights and dedication to the church, and finds true value for their specific catholic niche.
Everything else that you can use in your game falls here. Gord novels, Dragon mag., LGG, Other adaptive worlds and rules used in your game.
Most importantly, here is everybodies home campains. All of it valued, as it springs from the origen of the biblical, none of it dogmatic as the authority of the Greyhawk church lapsed in the dark ages.
Heretical-
Universally judged as harmful, incompetent, ignorant, or evil Sadly the catholic church has some dubious history here, I will not go into it but it was ugly , fiendish even.
IMO Rose Estes novels top this list. the wacky castle greyhawk is probably here as well. I think you get the idea.
The Great Schism-
Long story short, there arose 2 popes they excommuted each other and their followers. Declared all sort of damnation and very nearly destroyed the church. They also lost an opputunity to spread and see rooted christianity throughout asia.
In Greyhawk, there was a dark age. Nothing official came out. Some sang of the day greyhawk died. Then boom. d20, new rules, and regs, ...different. IMO this is Greyhawks great schism. May we tread carefully and not destroy this wonderous world.
A long time ago, I had read the definition of the Monatic approach posted by Gary Holian. I do not know if this approach is named after Eric Mona or if it is some particular school of thought. When I asked Holian about that, he did not answer. The Monatic approach asserts the primacy of canon by seeking the most consistent and ingenious method to satisfy all sources. I find the formulation of the Monatic approach acute and powerful to the end of defining the canon of the advanced gamer, the canon of the renegade designer. Once we discuss this approach as a potential basis, ground, to work on then we can proceed to the definition of canon.
As the object of said comment, I felt it incumbent to respond. ;-)
The Monatic method would be a way of resolving _conflicts_ in canon and in expanding its horizons, but not in defining it per se. And one must be careful in defining "all sources" beyond the point of absurdity. There really is no point in trying to satisfy the collective works of say, Rose Estes, since the potential rewards are few indeed and the compromises possibly disastrous (Dramidja anyone?)
I prefer a different definition of canon than some of those tiered by era examples that have been offered here. IMHO, canon, in any field of endeavour has been defined by its most sacred texts (with lesser contributions from other less salient texts.) The sacred texts are not defined by age, but rather by importance or centrality.
Therefore to me, the rockbed foundation of Greyhawk lies in the following works:
1) The Greyhawk Folio, 2) 1983 Boxed Set, 3) From the Ashes Boxed Set, and 4) the LGG. Those four works are the foundation of this setting. AFAIK they do not conflict and present a consistent evolution of the setting over time.
Starting from his foundation, I would expand the definition of canon in terms of the sourcebooks and modules published for the setting. Not all of these are created equal and the discerning GH fan might reject some (WG7) or others (S2, WG 9-11) for falling outside their perceived notion of canon. Next come periodical entries and novels, and so on.
I strongly agree with GVD that only publication by a proper rights holder or his designee can ultimately define canon, since its the only method that resolves the question of a multiplicity of canons on the same topic, or indeed distribution and archiving. Fan created work (which might become canon) doesn't meet that test.
I feel your pain that GH might be a dead world. My thinking regularly swings from thinking that now is the best of times for GH and that now is the worst of times.
On the best side, thousands on new Greyhawkers are being minted by Living Greyhawk. The Dungeon/Dragon is providing a fairly regular flow of new GH material. And default Greyhawk gives us GH that is better than Rose Estes and Funny Castle Greyhawk, even if it is not perfect.
On the worst side, Living Greyhawk treats long standing Greyhawk material like a drunken frat boy going through his inheritance from daddy. Too much of the Dragon/Dungeon material feels "cold," with a temperance befitting Prohibition. And default Greyhawk has the capacity to horrify as quickly as it might ever satisfy.
I am torn.
That is why I wonder about the death of canon. It seems there is some sorting out to do.
Muscles and PSmedger both look to categorize canon and I think that is an approach that has immediate utility, even if we still have to figure out which category something goes into.
Ultimately, PSmedger is probably predicting the future when he notes that some future IP holder will do something more with GH and that will be "canon." A 236 page GH book that drives off of Living Greyhawk's development of the setting? Could be. Greyhawk pushed way into the future? Read Greyhawk 2000 in Dragon 277 ::SPOILER:: they had to nuke Iuz to get rid of him! We don't know what's coming but we will have to deal with it as canon.
While that thought is comforting (?) we still have to sort out what we have today. So we are back to cases.
Editorializing, I am disapointed LG hasn't adopted a more thoughtful approach to GH. Its more Micky Rooney, "Let's put on a show!" than I care for.
Am am equally disappointed in the Dragon/Dungeon. While I laud and appreciate the GH work being done there, you can drive a truck through the holes left by the opportunities being missed. I don't know if its a lack of imagination or will to do other than be very, very "safe." After the Invasion issue, the mini-games, and Maure Castle, I would not think a picture needed to be drawn. Yet, that "cold" feeing persists. Hey Dragon/Dungeon! "Let's put on a show!"
Only default Greyhawk lives up (?) to my expectations. In fact, I think people discount it too readily. Ever noticed the prevalence of standing stones in the Flanaess? Default Greyhawk can help fill out the picture.
As I read back over this thread, we have discussed many things. The most prevelent discussion centered around what is canon.
I come away with three thoughts-
1) Canon, even in the strictest legal sense, is not dead. The Intellectual Property Rights are too valuable, and the readership too broad. I believe that eventually someone will either dust off GH at WOTC and decide that it has been too long since we all received attention, or it will be sold to a third party.
2) Like the Bible, this is going through struggles over canon, and it will continue to be debated. However, unlike the bible, each of us likes to sit down and pen new chapters for the world. I know many faithful, and they will sit down and write commentaries on the bible, but they do not attempt to pen additional chapters (with a few odd exceptions).
3) Even before Living GH, this is a living entity. It will continue, and this site is proof of that. My characters, who are currently in the 12th-15th level range. It will take them several years, if not a decade, to make 20th. We are currently in 593, almost 594. So someone, me or otherwise, must continue writing.
In the long run (say, 15 years from now) there will be many additions to Greyhawk. I believe that the definition of Canon will be expanded, or WOTC will start publishing again. This is not absolute, but they are in business, and we are the customers.
So, I guess my final answer is that Canon is not dead, just stalled... it just may not be Canon the way it is thought of today.
Outstanding Post Muscles. This is a easy catorization that I like, thought there are certainly other systems. Regardless, this goes a long way to establishing a definition, if everyone wishes to agree on it all.
Now, only one qualm, and I do not wish to stir up any non-GH debates here; but history tells us that there was a fair amount of debate as to which works would become Biblical. Unfortunately for those early works that did not become biblical, they often went immediately to the heretical pile.
In the Greyhawk setting, I think we are at this stage. As you stated, there is some works that are just so silly or poorly conceived, that they go to this pile. But there are many that would place things they do not like on this pile, which is a whole different debat.
Actually, I find that in a lot of life, though I do not know if this is recent or not. It seems that our founding fathers understood the difference between what they did not like and what was a danger to them.
Thanks for the comment Anced_Math. It turned out rather clever IMHO. The correlations all seem relevent to the topic. I hope I didn't lose anyone with references to the church.
Yes, there was RW debate on what is biblical, and what falls to canon. The secular powers (king James') sensitivities and sensibilities were given IMO to much consideration. But the church was declining and needed yet another protector/ progenitor. I make the comparison to modern day market forces to King James.
I was not a theology major, which was why I asked.
One of the things I was trying to show was the reverence for less than biblical. Canonical material was thereafter known mostly to the church, and rarely outside of it. Even as DM's know and study far more than the lay player. Dead Sea scrolls renewed interest in the canonical books of the church, but the bible wasn't touched.
I put EGGS works for gaming as the sole biblical source because I hear no one contesting them. (In the comparison EGGS non gaming works would be like Pauls letters to a merchant to purchase food- just not relevent) I am long time gamer, and have played in greyhawk in many a home campain(like many of you out there). They were mostly all based on the early EGG. What else was needed? This doesn't take away many esteemed contributors to later visions of Gary's world. Even as the church didn't burn canonical books but they are still alive and studied by scholors and priests as sacred texts. Even the house rules of the vatican are canon, the house rules to the lateran IIRC is appophrial.
GVD I don't think canon is dead. But I see your point. The lively debate shows us how each of us views the issue, clearly keeping it alive.
I agree with the sentiments of (seemingly) all of us that our home campains will take precedence over all(even EGG). But I do look forward with some trepidation at the next generation of 'hawk, version 4.0 cy605 where Greyhawk changes so far to be unrecognizable.
So let us debate canon, but please let us recognize the biblical source that started all home gaming.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
We don't know what's coming but we will have to deal with it as canon.
