With the name Canonfire, I was wondering, have we ever come up with a list of undisputed Canon documents? I am not looking for a fight, but rather, what documents can everyone agree is a canon document?
My list is fairly short....
79 Folio
World of Greyhawk Boxed Set
Greyhawk Adventures
Greyhawk Wars
From The Ashes
The Adventure Begins
The Living Greyhawk Gazateer
Can we add to this and come up with a comprehensive list?
First off, I'm pretty sure the name "Canonfire!" is intended ironically. This site contains articles that proudly defy canon.
I think most of us would agree that all the sourcebooks, Greyhawk-specific magazine articles, and modules that were published by TSR under the supervision of Gary Gygax, for the AD&D game, are canonical. Except Oriental Adventures, possibly, since it was retconned into another world. I may be forgetting something else that is clearly not Greyhawk, but if it's that clear it probably doesn't need to be called out specifically. My point is that, for example, the artifacts section in the 1e DMG is at least partly Greyhawk canon. We'd get into a fight over whether the demihuman deities described in Unearthed Arcana are Greyhawk-canon, however - but at the same time, most would recognize the magic items and artifacts in that book as existing in the Flanaess somewhere.
At least one person here disputed that anything written by Carl Sargent qualified as "canon," citing sales figures at Paizo as evidence.
A few of us might argue that the first two Gord novels are canon of one kind or another, and it's indisputable that they've had an influence on later development of Greyhawk City, but it's hard to argue that the particular events they describe are recognized in later sources, primarily because Gygax still owns the rights to them.
If we define "canon" rigidly as "recognized by the current IP holder," there's a case to be made that Q1 isn't completely canonical - certainly, Lolth's stats as defined there aren't currently considered canon. But at the same time, many of the events of that module definitely happened on Oerth, if not the final confrontation between Lolth's true form and a party of adventurers.
We know that Fate of Istus has been partly retconned, and part or all of WG12: Vale of the Mage is likely to be disregarded in the future.
What I am looking for, and you started providing, are all those items that no one (or nearly no one, there are some of us who just like to argue) would argue is canon. Clearly, the 1st ed DMG falls into this category, and so on. I want to list it out, and thus asked for input.
The Greyhawk City Boxed set
Iuz the Evil
The Marklands
Ivid the Undying
Rary the Traitor
City of Skulls
The Adventure Begins
Players Guide to Greyhawk
The Scarlet Brotherhood
Slavers
Howl From the North
Five Shall Be One
Greyhawk Ruins
TOEE
RtOEE
The Giants Series
The Slavers Series
The Lost Tombs Series
(all the other classic GH mods bar Castle Greyhawk, Puppets and the other awful one I can't recall).
Most Living Greyhawk stuff probably won't become cannon. The Gazeteer and Journals are other publicly published materials I'd call cannonal but the actual adventures, plot arcs, and regional developments I wouldn't since they aren't readily available to the public and don't have the editing control of an actual published adventure or suppliment.
Fate of Istus is another one that is iffy. One of its primary purposes was to explain the conversion from 1st to 2nd edition and a lot of its material doesn't make sense once we moved beyond that point.
I'm not positive, but didn't they publish some Planescape/Greyhawk materials? I've never heard of it being considered cannon either.
It is now!
See the current Core Beliefs: Vecna article in Dragon #348.
Sam canonized Die, Vecna, Die! in "Core Beliefs," and Fred Weining at least partially canonized Dead Gods in his Vault of the Drow article in Dragon #298.
All this assumes you're interested in published Greyhawk canon. There is also the smaller camp that believes only the material Gygax wrote for the original Greyhawk campaign from 1972 to 1975 is canonical, and anything past that is decreasingly canonical the farther you get from it.
Of course, we have only had glimpses into those campaign notes over the years and many have fantasized about them (or a reasonable fascimile) becoming available someday -- hence all the excitement about Gygax and Kuntz releasing a version of Castle Greyhawk, until it became clear that Gygax was actually creating something new instead.
To mass fires, yes! One hundred stories high. People gettin' loose y’all gettin' down on the roof - Do you hear? (the folks are flaming) Folks were screamin' - out of control
It was so entertainin ' - when the boogie started to explode. I heard somebody say Burn baby burn! - Canon inferno!
Gotta repeat this, I just love it:
Mtg/Tizoc: “The riddle of [Canonfire!’s] 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.”
For what it is worth, I started a draft article called Restatement of Canon. You can find the notes here:
There will probably never be agreement as to what is canon and the issue is really beside the point. It is too tied up with variable objective and subjective factors and a gawd awful amount of canon inconsistency.
Taking an inclusive approach, here is the principle that I was able to develop after researching this issue:
For Greyhawk, unless otherwise agreed, “canon” means any role play gaming material published in an open forum by a holder of the intellectual property rights for the Greyhawk setting or its constituent parts. “Apocrypha” means non-canon that is consistent with canon. “Heresy” means non-canon that is inconsistent with canon. Each should be judged by rationalized systems of evaluation that describe why they are to be valued for Greyhawk.
“a list of undisputed Canon documents”?
I would counter with, what is the point? Not that there could not be a good point, just that the point of having a list would be very important to two part of the principle- “unless otherwise agreed” and “why they are to be valued”. Thus, if you are looking for a list of docs to include as recommend reading, or rule setting, for a 3.5E GM campaign that is very doable.
All this assumes you're interested in published Greyhawk canon.
No, all that assumes you are interested in the Greyhawk canon materials, since the very definition of the word refers to the published materials.
Being interested in anything else is either wanting to hear stories from someone's home campaign, or deciding to ignore the published canon in favor of a static setting that is nothing more than a bunch of names and some ideas taken from a home campaign and turned into a one-shot product.
And while I am sure that is something, it certainly isn't Greyhawk.
All this assumes you're interested in published Greyhawk canon.
Since I posted thread asking about this very thing, yes it would assume that I am interested.
Wolfsire wrote:
Quote:
I would counter with, what is the point
The point is actually quite simple. I am starting to go back and edit all of the articles provided to the Gran March Project by various author's (including yourself Wolfsire). I am trying to restrict editorial license to two areas: 1) written within the constraints of a common "canon." 2) resolution of conflicts within the various articles. For the entirety of the project, we (the general community) has agreed that "canon," was to be the published TSR/WOTC material, Dungeon & Dragon material, Sams Grand Sheldomar Timeline (but not the numerous other articles provided by sam) and Kirk's article on Protonations in OJ 16 (including appendicies).
Conflicts will be allowed to remain if they are conflicting perceptions of NPCs or personabgeswiting the world. If they create an intrinsic problem witing the game the campaign setting then they will be resolved, hopefully with the input of the original author.
The reason for this is simple... to create a coherent setting in which a DM new to Greyhawk can jump right in, without conflict, and with a simple list that tells him or her what the authors were depending on.
There is no broader agenda. There is no desire to dictate to the world what canon is or is not. I am looking for a coherent list for consistency.
At this time, the primary hold up on the Gran March project is the ability to post to the website. Yabusama has had to
The point is actually quite simple. I am starting to go back and edit all of the articles provided to the Gran March Project by various author's (including yourself Wolfsire). I am trying to restrict editorial license to two areas: 1) written within the constraints of a common "canon." 2) resolution of conflicts within the various articles.
Ah! I thought this was a purely intellectual exercise.
In that case, stick with the published sources written specifically for Greyhawk and you should be fine. Dungeon and Dragon articles, LGJ articles, articles on WotC's website - these all pass muster pretty well. The kinds of things that appear in Steve Wilson's GreyChrondex.
As Scottenkainen proved, though, even the most basic materials are disputed by someone.
If you are looking for canon everyone agrees to, it should be treated like a book I read as a child El Caldo con Piedras (Stone Soup) where the abuela (grandmother) is going to make un caldo grande (large soup, hey it was in Spanish and English, not sure if the story was made for other languages) for everyone. Each family member comes by asks what abuelita is cooking.
She tells everyone "caldo".
Each say "Oh, abuelita, that is wonderful. But could you not put in ...." (Where ... is the ingredient the family member does not like).
The abuela say, "OK, I will not put it in."
Finally 20 or so family members later, the grandmother sighs, goes to the garden and starts digging. A granddaughter comes by and asks what she is looking for and the grandmother replies "a stone for stone soup. You can help cook". They go to the kitchen. Grandmother washes the stone while the granddaughter gets a pot of water. Grandmother throws the rock in the pot, some salt, and boils the caldo.
An hour later, the caldo is done. Everyone sits at the table and has som e caldo. Everyone is happy because the one thing they did not like was not in the caldo.
All this assumes you're interested in published Greyhawk canon.
No, all that assumes you are interested in the Greyhawk canon materials, since the very definition of the word refers to the published materials.
The "very definition of the word", as per the OED, includes (inter alia)
a) a rule, law, or decree of the Church
b) a table of sines or tangents
c) The collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired.
d) The portion of the Mass included between the Preface and the Pater, and containing the words of consecration.
e) A species of musical composition in which the different parts take up the same subject one after another, either at the same or at a different pitch, in strict imitation.
f) A quit-rent
g) A size of type-body equal to 4-line Pica; the largest size of type-body that has a specific name.
...and does not include reference to publication as a defining characteristic at any point.
A definition of "canon", which you (and I) may feel is more appropriate in this context, can take publication as its criterion. But there is no "very" about it.
Quote:
When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' ...
And that applies to many words, and to many speakers.
The point is actually quite simple. I am starting to go back and edit all of the articles provided to the Gran March Project by various author's (including yourself Wolfsire). I am trying to restrict editorial license to two areas: 1) written within the constraints of a common "canon." 2) resolution of conflicts within the various articles. For the entirety of the project, we (the general community) has agreed that "canon," was to be the published TSR/WOTC material, Dungeon & Dragon material, Sams Grand Sheldomar Timeline (but not the numerous other articles provided by sam) and Kirk's article on Protonations in OJ 16 (including appendicies).
Now that is what I am talking about
I could be wrong as my ideas of canon have changed, but I do not think I ever agreed that Sam's GST or Kirk's OJ 16 article were canon. I am pretty sure that there are others beside myself who think they are not. They are too large for me to even try to figure out (or want to) the degree to which they are apocryphal. They are great work and I think almost, if not entirely, apocryphal as consistent with canon because they are derived from such (setting aside the possibility that they may have some degree of heresy insofar as there are probably conflicts within the canon they address. Actually, I think Kirk addressed that.)
But so what if they are not generally canon! You are putting together a campaign guide so every one that counts (you, everyone who is helping you, and everyone who wants to use it strictly as written) can agree on what is canon for the project.
You do not need a list of everything that most will consider to be canon, only a list of documents upon which to base your editing. Correct me if I am wrong (not knowing all the details of the project), but it does not matter if “All that Glitters …” or “Tomb of the Lizard King” are canon because they have nothing to do with the GM Project. I intentionally picked those because they are fairly close and GHish.
I suggest you start with a list of all the documents you think might be canon or important that address some part of the campaign, understanding that it reaches beyond the borders of GM, and go from there. Maybe write a rule or two for addressing conflicts. Perhaps list them in order of preference. Personally, I would not even do that. Enjoying the story is more important than possible holes in it.
The "very definition of the word", as per the OED, includes (inter alia)
...and does not include reference to publication as a defining characteristic at any point.
Context, is of course, everything.
According to Encarta:
1. general rule: a general rule, principle, or standard
one of the fundamental canons of free-market economics
2. religion religious decree: a decree issued by a religious authority, especially one ruling on religious practices
3. religion body of religious writings: a set of religious writings regarded as authentic and definitive and forming a religion's body of scripture
4. christianity list of saints: in the Roman Catholic Church, the complete list of all the saints
5. christianity part of Mass: in the Roman Catholic Mass, the prayer during which the bread and wine are consecrated
6. arts set of artistic works: a set of artistic works established as genuine and complete, e.g. the works of a particular writer, painter, or moviemaker
one of the best-known pictures in the Welles canon
7. music staggered singing or playing: a musical technique in which different instruments or voices enter one after the other, each playing or singing exactly the same sequence of notes, resulting in often complex counterpoint
Deleting the religious definitions and the musical definition, we are left with 1 and 6: A general rule or the accepted legitimate collection of art.
The definition is obvious.
Quote:
And that applies to many words, and to many speakers.
No, canon in regards to a body of work for reference has a single, very specific meaning. You can try parsing it all you want to account for outside tastes and preferences, but that only demonstrates your biases, it does not redefine the word.
Deleting the religious definitions and the musical definition, we are left with 1 and 6: A general rule or the accepted legitimate collection of art.
The definition is obvious.
...but only relevant to what you originally posted if one accepts the (unargued) auxiliary assumption that for something to be "the accepted legitimate collection" of something, it has to be published.
The "canonical" text for the study of ancient Orphism is the Derveni papyrus. This has never been published. Scholars have been making use of a pirate copy for decades.
In the particular case of Greyhawk, I think (as I have already said), that limiting one's notion of "canon" to published material is a not unreasonable stance. But the "very definition of the word" has no necessary connexion to publication, even in the context of a discussion of a body of artistic material. One possible definition (and that a sensible one) does.
...but only relevant to what you originally posted if one accepts the (unargued) auxiliary assumption that for something to be "the accepted legitimate collection" of something, it has to be published.
Given that no one can refer to material that only exists in the random memories of a few people, no other assumption could be made.
Do not confuse "widely published" with "existing published." The papyrus example you mention is in fact published, even if copied "illegally." (How they do that when it wouldn't be copyrighted is an interesting concept.)
Even with art, the canon is only what is known to exist. A rumored work of art is not part of an artist's body of work.
Umm, now you are playing fast and loose with teh definition of published... The Derveni text was obviously "Published" a long time ago. It has never been republished in a modern context....
Sam's point is that the use of "canon" and "canonical" in the context of gaming materials is derived from the use of the word referring to the accepted list of biblical books: ie setting which documents are official and which documents are apocryphal. If somebody writes something and circulates it, its been published...
The context of the "very definition" quote was in refuting the idea that private thoughts and events of Gary's and Rob's home brew campaigns (from which they created the World of Greyhawk) were in some way canon. They weren't published and, in fact, were quite deliberately excluded from what was published (indeed, the entire campaign world was remapped and expanded in the published version, with with a lot of that material cut or deliberately withheld).
If somebody writes something and circulates it, its been published...
All is clear. I was taking "publication" in the sense of "to issue or cause to be issued for sale to the public" (back to the OED), whereas you and Sam (if I take your meanings correctly) are using the definition above. The Derveni papyrus may well not ever have been "published" in my sense. Even in antiquity, commentaries on Orphic poetry were not exactly J. K. Rowling, and the actual notion of "publisher" was fairly hazy. But it probably was in your sense. I see what Sam was getting at now, so many apologies to him for the fuss.
Sam (for interest) - circulating copies of the papyrus is not (I think) illegal, but scholarly convention dictates that the discoverers get to decide who does the official publication (i.e., the one people will be paying money to own; see above). However, in this case, the process has been somewhat... prolonged (scholars are in the third decade of waiting, if I remember the matter aright) and so someone snaffled another copy. This is not actionable, but might be considered a breach of etiquette.
If somebody writes something and circulates it, its been published...
All is clear. I was taking "publication" in the sense of "to issue or cause to be issued for sale to the public" (back to the OED), whereas you and Sam (if I take your meanings correctly) are using the definition above.
Vormaerin wrote:
Umm, now you are playing fast and loose with teh definition of published...
"published in an open forum by a holder of the intellectual property rights"
WotC can give it way and it will still be canon. Joe Smoe might be able to get away with charging for it and it will not be canon. LG can publish it to only its members and it will not be canon.
well this has been fun, and here is what I have so far:
Hardbacks
2023 Greyhawk Adventures
Boxed Sets
1015 World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting
1043 The City of Greyhawk
1068 Wars
1064 From the Ashes
Accessories
9025 World of Greyhawk
2107 MC5 Monstrous Compendium
9292 WGR1 Greyhawk Ruins
9360 WGR2 Treasures of Greyhawk
9386 WGR3 Rary the Traitor
9398 WGR4 The Marklands
9399 WGR5 Iuz the Evil
9405 WGR6 The City of Skulls
9577 The Adventure Begins
9578 Player’s Guide
11374 The Scarlet Brotherhood
Adventures
9065 WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
9112 WG5 Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure
9153 WG6 Isle of the Ape
9222 WG7 Castle Greyhawk
9253 WG8 Fate of Istus
9251 WG9 Gargoyle
9265 WG10 Child’s Play
9269 WG11 Puppets
9270 WG12 Vale of the Mage
9279 WGA1 Falcon’s Revenge
9289 WGA2 Falconmaster
9302 WGA3 Flames of the Falcon
9309 WGA4 Vecna Lives!
9406 WGM1 Border Watch
9385 WGQ1 Patriots of Ulek
9317 WGS1 Five Shall Be One
9337 WGS2 Howl From the North
9576 Return of the Eight
9579 The Star Cairns
9580 Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad
9581 The Doomgrinder
11327 Return to the Keep on the Borderlands
11413 Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff
11434 Return to White Plume Mountain
11621 Slavers
Ok, many of these I do not have, and cannot know if they have any references to Gran March. For the most part, the ones I do have do not have any useful information. Therefore, I will place two revised lists below, one with what I know to be useful, and one for references I do not have. I have removed those which I know to be of no utility. For those who have these other modules, please check them and let me know.
The Following are works that are useful:
Hardbacks
1st Ed. Dungeon Master's Guide
3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, Wizards of the Coast
2023 Greyhawk Adventures
Boxed Sets
1015 World of Greyhawk Fantasy Game Setting
1043 The City of Greyhawk
1068 Wars
1064 From the Ashes
Accessories
9025 World of Greyhawk
2107 MC5 Monstrous Compendium
9405 WGR6 The City of Skulls
9577 The Adventure Begins
9578 Player's Guide
11374 The Scarlet Brotherhood
Adventures
9270 WG12 Vale of the Mage
9309 WGA4 Vecna Lives!
11413 Against the Giants: The Liberation of Geoff
11434 Return to White Plume Mountain
This List I do not know about:
9292 WGR1 Greyhawk Ruins
9360 WGR2 Treasures of Greyhawk
9386 WGR3 Rary the Traitor
9398 WGR4 The Marklands
9399 WGR5 Iuz the Evil
9065 WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
9112 WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure
9153 WG6 Isle of the Ape
9222 WG7 Castle Greyhawk
9253 WG8 Fate of Istus
9251 WG9 Gargoyle
9265 WG10 Child's Play
9269 WG11 Puppets
9279 WGA1 Falcon's Revenge
9289 WGA2 Falconmaster
9302 WGA3 Flames of the Falcon
9406 WGM1 Border Watch
9385 WGQ1 Patriots of Ulek
9317 WGS1 Five Shall Be One
9337 WGS2 Howl From the North
9579 The Star Cairns
9580 Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad
9581 The Doomgrinder
9576 Return of the Eight
11327 Return to the Keep on the Borderlands
11621 Slavers
Also, I do not have a good handle on the Dungeon and Dragon Articles that have good references, but I will check Zavoda. Any other help will be appreciated.
"published in an open forum by a holder of the intellectual property rights"
WotC can give it way and it will still be canon. Joe Smoe might be able to get away with charging for it and it will not be canon. LG can publish it to only its members and it will not be canon.
Those were my thoughts at least.
Right.
This pretty much all leads back to my big rant "Secrets Rot" that I unleashed on Gary Holian and Erik Mona.
No matter what you wanted, no matter what you intended, the canon consists of what has been directly stated, and what is currently acknowledged by the property holder. The big examples I always gave prior to the LGG were the map of the city of Greyhawk and the Doomgrinder module. Whatever was intended was great, but that isn't what was published. More currently, we have things like the Sheldomar history, and the "Holian Apocrypha" included in the timeline and essays. Sure, it is great to be able to point to it and say conclusively "that is what the author intended," but it still isn't canon, and even then often doesn't matter. Philidor anyone? You see this constantly in material that is contracted out, such as movie sequels and adaptations, and comic books. The same applies to games. As long as its secret, it really doesn't count because the owner could change it and the effects would never be relevant.
And so we come to Greyhawk.
The original campaign isn't canon, on too many levels. It was never published, it was heavily redacted to what was published, it isn't owned by the current IP holder, and more. It could be a great story. It is a nice reference for what the author intended. But anyone actually setting out to write for the setting for WotC would have to look elsewhere for what he is supposed to use.
And again, despite those who seem utterly averse to making the distinction, this has no affect on what a person uses for their home game or a particular project. Just because WotC thinks some product is cool doesn't mean anyone else has to if they aren't writing for WotC. I refuse to acknowledge the demihuman deities in Greyhawk, believe in the Irongate Canal and the bridges of the Javan, and think Illumians are silly. That doesn't change a thing about the canon. (Unless of course I win the lottery. Then you are all doomed!) But I must still know the canon to be fully aware of what I am changing, and be able to specify it for the audience in case they care. (This is the "Montand Heretic Principle.") Just because I acknowledge the canon doesn't mean I have to be a slave to it, or even care about it.
If you want just Gran March references, I don't think any of your "do not know about" list has anything relevant.
If you include Return to White Plume Mountain, you might want to include most other Bruce Cordell modules, as they share references. Of course, I don't think there is anything in RtWPM that is relevant to Gran March.
9292 WGR1 Greyhawk Ruins
9360 WGR2 Treasures of Greyhawk
I found no Gran March references in either of the above.
Anced_Math wrote:
9386 WGR3 Rary the Traitor
The blue dragon, Volte, possesses the legendary sword Equalizer of Gran March.
Anced_Math wrote:
9398 WGR4 The Marklands
Numerous references, mostly in the Furyondy section
Anced_Math wrote:
9399 WGR5 Iuz the Evil
One passing reference in the history of the Greyhawk Wars
Anced_Math wrote:
9065 WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
9112 WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure
9153 WG6 Isle of the Ape
9222 WG7 Castle Greyhawk
9253 WG8 Fate of Istus
9251 WG9 Gargoyle
9265 WG10 Child's Play
9269 WG11 Puppets
9279 WGA1 Falcon's Revenge
9289 WGA2 Falconmaster
9302 WGA3 Flames of the Falcon
9406 WGM1 Border Watch
9385 WGQ1 Patriots of Ulek
9317 WGS1 Five Shall Be One
9337 WGS2 Howl From the North
9579 The Star Cairns
9580 Crypt of Lyzandred the Mad
9581 The Doomgrinder
9576 Return of the Eight
11327 Return to the Keep on the Borderlands
11621 Slavers
I found no Gran March references in any of these sources.
Isn’t Isle of the Ape Part of the GM project? Just joking ;-)
I do not know if any of the ones that you do not have reference that other Isle, but I bring it up to suggest that references only to GM might be too narrow. Do any of your arc’s cross the border or involved things that do that you might want to check for canon consistency? Perhaps deities?
Also, I do not see the most important part of the canon N1, Against the Cult of the Reptile God.
I have the below works.
These might possibly have some connection to things that might be in your arc, though probably have nothing directly useful to GM:
9360 WGR2 Treasures of Greyhawk
9386 WGR3 Rary the Traitor
9398 WGR4 The Marklands
9253 WG8 Fate of Istus
9385 WGQ1 Patriots of Ulek
11621 Slavers
These I am almost positive do not:
9065 WG4 The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun
9112 WG5 Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure
9153 WG6 Isle of the Ape
These are artifacts created by Vecna, so you should absolutely get copies of them and have your players run them when you are not around:
The blue dragon, Volte, possesses the legendary sword Equalizer of Gran March.
I cannot recall where, but I thought I read that Robilar killed Volte to vent at being POed at Rary. Actually, Volte was not mentioned by name, but it was pretty clearly that dragon.
The blue dragon, Volte, possesses the legendary sword Equalizer of Gran March.
I cannot recall where, but I thought I read that Robilar killed Volte to vent at being POed at Rary. Actually, Volte was not mentioned by name, but it was pretty clearly that dragon.
I think that it is in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. I do not own that one, though, so I may be wrong.
Because he was the first one who stated it. That being:
A heretic knows canon better than a canon-lover because a heretic has to know what he is diverging from.
Because he was the first one who stated it. That being:
A heretic knows canon better than a canon-lover because a heretic has to know what he is diverging from.
Cool; many thanks. It is a good quotation.
I originally speculated it was somehow related to Montand the ruler of Delaric, which would have been a bit bizarre...
Back again. I am finding the enterprise of puzzling out the theoretical underpinnings of people's notions of "canon" to be very intriguing. Curse you, Wolfsire, and your viral meme! What I am trying to think through now is how Greyhawk canon-definition relates to canon-definition more generally.
Quote:
No matter what you wanted, no matter what you intended, the canon consists of what has been directly stated, and what is currently acknowledged by the property holder.
The curious thing about the above is that, as a statement of canon, it immediately makes it totally impossible to determine the canonical status of the very texts which the vast majority of people concerned with "canon" throughout human history have been most worried about. The Bible (to take Vormaerin's example) has no currently acknowledging property holder (or at least, He is very sparing with His pronouncements on what is in and what is out). Three possibilities spring to mind:
a) Everyone who talked about canon in human history before the present day was on a hiding to nothing. This possibility is not out of the question, but a bit dispiriting, and I do not think that the people concerned would have agreed.
b) the statement is radically flawed. Its utility in thinking about Greyhawk, howevr, suggests otherwise.
c) the statement is applicable to some sorts of canon, or for some sorts of canonical purposes, but not others. If so, why is it appropriate to some canons but not others? Is the distinction as simple as the continuing existence of a property-holder? Why does the fact that there is a property-holder make such an ontological difference, and what do we do when there is not one? Do we, for example, try to reconstruct the intentions of a hypothetical one, or the last one we can trace?
The curious thing about the above is that, as a statement of canon, it immediately makes it totally impossible to determine the canonical status of the very texts which the vast majority of people concerned with "canon" throughout human history have been most worried about. The Bible (to take Vormaerin's example) has no currently acknowledging property holder (or at least, He is very sparing with His pronouncements on what is in and what is out). Three possibilities spring to mind:
The Bible as the Bible, no.
Each individual religion, yes. Which is in fact what is done. Thus, while "canon" originated with the Catholic Church, there are in fact separate "canons" for the Jewish Bible, the basic Protestant Bible, and various translation used by different sects. Functionally, each serves as the "property holder" for their faith. That they all claim the same source material is more a peculiar function of religions with public domain material than specific property law.
Quote:
c) the statement is applicable to some sorts of canon, or for some sorts of canonical purposes, but not others. If so, why is it appropriate to some canons but not others? Is the distinction as simple as the continuing existence of a property-holder? Why does the fact that there is a property-holder make such an ontological difference, and what do we do when there is not one? Do we, for example, try to reconstruct the intentions of a hypothetical one, or the last one we can trace?
Pretty much, yes, it is all on the property holder.
Why?
Because he can add or subtract from the canon at will, based on property law. In fact, except for fan reaction (marketability), the holder of intellectual property can do considerably more with his property than the holder of real property. Look at the "reimagining" of Battlestar Galactica as an example. Material can be added (a new book), deleted (WG7 - Castle Greyhawk), modified (From the Ashes to the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer), bought, sold, licensed, crushed, folded, spindled, mutilated, placed on a pedestal, reiterated, upgraded, downgraded, or whatever else.
As for what we do when the property holder is gone, well, that depends.
You could try reconstructing the creator's intentions. Sometimes, it isn't worth it. Jerry Pournelle, although the actual, legitimate property holder, with written permission from the creator to write in the universe, has chosen not to even try writing a sequel to H. Beam Piper's "Space Viking." Why? He is afraid he'll screw it up! He has said there is just too much detail for him to even want to try and risk making a mistake that a Piper fanatic, like himself, will shred him over. Given how most writers for Greyhawk have been shredded by certain "fan" elements, I've long since stopped wondering why some professionals wouldn't touch Greyhawk with an 11' pole even if they could.
You could just churn out something because you can, and probably will, make a profit off of it. You risk some of the lamer movie sequels in existence when you do that, but you also might wind up with the next Freddie or Jason lining your coffers, no matter how lame said sequels are.
As for a grand moral declaration though, there is none. Even Shakespeare looted stories from the past for his plays. A "common" gamer inflicting a hackjob on some mass market fantasy setting might be begging for gratuitous abuse, but it is hardly morally questionable.
Thus, while "canon" originated with the Catholic Church, there are in fact separate "canons" for the Jewish Bible, the basic Protestant Bible, and various translation used by different sects. Functionally, each serves as the "property holder" for their faith. That they all claim the same source material is more a peculiar function of religions with public domain material than specific property law.
That is a very useful way of looking at it. What still bothers me a bit, though, is that they are not actually property holders, even if it makes sense to see them as functioning in that capacity. A metaphor, however useful, is still a metaphor.
Samwise wrote:
You could try reconstructing the creator's intentions. Sometimes, it isn't worth it.
Agreed. In some cases, the results might be a tad contra-instinctual. It all becomes rather odd, for example, in the case, not as rare as one might think, of authors who for one reason or another go a bit peculiar towards the ends of their lives and disavow large chunks of what they had previously written (e.g. Vergil, Tolstoy, Gogol, and (maybe) Dante). This is not usually a problem from our perspective, because whoever gets the rights after they die tends to ignore what might be thought of as the aberrant wishes towards the end. This is not always so, however, and can lead to such oddities as the non-canonical Aeneid (although I think it is legitimate to argue that the subsequent IP holders did acknowledge it, even if they were arguably submitting to force majeure from the Emperor to do so). So I suspect that this line of attack is not invariably effective.
In short, I do not think that I have yet found the general Theory of Canonicity. Perhaps there isn't one. But I shall keep looking...
SW: “Pretty much, yes, it is all on the property holder. Why? Because he can add or subtract from the canon at will, based on property law. In fact, except for fan reaction (marketability), the holder of intellectual property can do considerably more with his property than the holder of real property. Look at the "reimagining" of Battlestar Galactica as an example. Material can be added (a new book), deleted (WG7 - Castle Greyhawk), modified (From the Ashes to the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer), bought, sold, licensed, crushed, folded, spindled, mutilated, placed on a pedestal, reiterated, upgraded, downgraded, or whatever else.”
There is where Sam and I disagree. My meme :-) does not allow for the property holder’s ability to subtract from canon, only create it, which includes creating conflicts. Material cannot be unpublished, so it will always be out there. New canon can be so absurd that that it is not even worth paying for. The idea that WotC can with the tap of the keys determine that GH never existed is just unacceptable. Better, IMO, to say for example WG7 is canon, but not IMC and not for purposes of WotC’s future canon. If WotC said tomorrow that there is not GH canon, no one can publish anymore, and everything that you though was canon was just some fictitious notes in the library of some such sage in Errebon, would the GH community stop paying attention to the notion of canon? I do not think so. People looking for a buck from WotC would be out of luck, though.
“How Greyhawk canon-definition relates to canon-definitions more generally” could be worth exploring, but I think you would want to note why GH is different. It is for that reason that I premised by principle of canon with “For Greyhawk.” Unlike say the collected works or Tolkien, which has some conflict, the conflicts for GH are everywhere and constantly appearing (Damn you Sassy!). There are cults of personality. And probably many other issues to consider.
I think Sam, or someone, once said that canon is only important to those who wish to be published. If that were true, only what the IP holder said would probably be the best definition of canon and probably is the best one for them. But it is not true. Canon is important to me and I have no desire to be published by the IP holder. As I said, there will probably never be total agreement on what canon is. But as I added, canon is “unless otherwise agreed” :-)
That is a very useful way of looking at it. What still bothers me a bit, though, is that they are not actually property holders, even if it makes sense to see them as functioning in that capacity. A metaphor, however useful, is still a metaphor.
Well they are property holders - of their specific faith. It might not be identical to real land, but it is the same as IP.
Quote:
Agreed. In some cases, the results might be a tad contra-instinctual. It all becomes rather odd, for example, in the case, not as rare as one might think, of authors who for one reason or another go a bit peculiar towards the ends of their lives and disavow large chunks of what they had previously written (e.g. Vergil, Tolstoy, Gogol, and (maybe) Dante).
Why not just stick with modern authors who got peculiar? Heinlein's last books were very "offbeat," and even Asimov seemed to be going nowhere fast with the last Foundation/Robot books.
So yes, the phenomenon is not as strange as it might first appear.
There is where Sam and I disagree. My meme :-) does not allow for the property holder’s ability to subtract from canon, only create it, which includes creating conflicts. Material cannot be unpublished, so it will always be out there.
Well there's the thing.
Just being published doesn't make something canon either. So while it can not be unpublished, it can be ignored in the future.
Quote:
I think Sam, or someone, once said that canon is only important to those who wish to be published. If that were true, only what the IP holder said would probably be the best definition of canon and probably is the best one for them. But it is not true. Canon is important to me and I have no desire to be published by the IP holder. As I said, there will probably never be total agreement on what canon is. But as I added, canon is “unless otherwise agreed” :-)
I quoted that, but yes.
And there is the disconnect that keeps coming up.
There is a canon that can be stated by the publisher. Whether you accept it or not, use it or not, does not change it. All it does is establish what official writers must use. It can also provide a baseline for other discussions, but it doesn't have to. It is just "there."
And thus the heretics forum. Where it doesn't matter what the canon says, it just matters what you want to do in your campaign.
Just being published doesn't make something canon either.
I assume that you mean by the IP holder. I have read Mona's ideas of what is canon. Pretty good, but as most lists, apparently arbitrary. I would guess they are uncodified. Maybe it is out there, but I have not seen WotC/Piazo put out the officially sanctioned list of what is and what is not canon, nor seen them say anything that they have published was heresy.
Samwise wrote:
There is a canon that can be stated by the publisher. Whether you accept it or not, use it or not, does not change it.
Indeed. The same is true whether or not they care to tell use what they consider to be canon.
Samwise wrote:
All it does is establish what official writers must use.
That is pretty funny. Better to say "All it does is establish guidelines for official writers."
I bet Official writers manage to not use what they must use all the time. But if any new thing that gets published in conflict with old becomes canon at the whim of the IP holder, all official writers must do is be published by the IP holder. That might or might not happen if they don't stick to whatever guidelines the official publisher has about consistency, style or whatever.
Ultimately, IMO, whatever notions the IP holder has about canon is pretty meaningless to anyone not seeking to be published. What matters to me is what they publish and whether it is good enough for use IMC. Sassy wasn't. It was not too bad for a fantasy city, it just conflicted too much.
Ultimately, IMO, whatever notions the IP holder has about canon is pretty meaningless to anyone not seeking to be published. What matters to me is what they publish and whether it is good enough for use IMC. Sassy wasn't. It was not too bad for a fantasy city, it just conflicted too much.
Pretty much.
What the IP holder says is canon is what is canon.
What relevance that has to your game is up to you.
And yes, Sasserine is a good example.
If you expect to write a Jeklea Bay adventure for Dungeon, you had better account for it.
For your home game, whatever.
The problem only really comes when some people decide they are somehow threatened by canon being different from their home games. And while no one expects the Gaming Police (amongst their weapons are auto-surprise, playtest rules, and access to all settings), this is Canonfire.
I assume that you mean by the IP holder. I have read Mona's ideas of what is canon. Pretty good, but as most lists, apparently arbitrary. I would guess they are uncodified. Maybe it is out there, but I have not seen WotC/Piazo put out the officially sanctioned list of what is and what is not canon, nor seen them say anything that they have published was heresy.
In 1998, the Greyhawk development team did come up with a list of what is or isn't canon. I assume that's still to some extent valid, though of course only up to 1998.
In 2000, WotC declared that the only Greyhawk material future designers would need to worry about was what was found in the D&D Gazetteer, the abridged version of the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. I assume that rule is still somewhat in force, and in that sense that book is the only "canon" one.
There's also Living Greyhawk canon, which includes everything declared canon in 1998, plus whatever the individual triads consider canon. All the Living Greyhawk Journals and Living Greyhawk Gazetteer are canon as well.
Then there's Paizo canon, which is made up of just about every Greyhawk or core cosmological reference in Dungeon or Dragon Magazines, plus the Living Greyhawk Journals, the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer, and everything that Team Greyhawk considered canon in 1998. It doesn't include Living Greyhawk canon. This is the most expansive definition.
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
I was taking "publication" in the sense of "to issue or cause to be issued for sale to the public" (back to the OED), whereas you and Sam (if I take your meanings correctly) are using the definition above. The Derveni papyrus may well not ever have been "published" in my sense. Even in antiquity, commentaries on Orphic poetry were not exactly J. K. Rowling, and the actual notion of "publisher" was fairly hazy. But it probably was in your sense. I see what Sam was getting at now, so many apologies to him for the fuss.
