Some have noted a concern about not knowing or not adhering to canon as a reason why they are nervous about posting creative material - topical submissions for the front page. Canon knowledge or lack of canon knowledge is no reason not to post an original work.
First, an exercise in pure canon “scholarship” is no guarantee of an interesting article. Greyhawk is filled with ostensible canon that is dull or poorly conceived.
Second, canon is often contradictory. In some cases, there is so much canon that it is nearly impossible to find a single representation upon which all canon sources agree.
Third, there is what I will call “Liar’s Canon.” Liar’s Canon is something 1) that is claimed to be canon, when it does not derive from a published source or 2) that is claimed to be “clearly” derived from canon, when in fact it is the author’s invention. Liar’s Canon may often be distinguished by how hard the author defends the work as “canon” or “correct.” Saying it does not make it so, but Liar’s Canon is often presented either 1) as canon or 2) as affirmatively a fact as if it was indisputably canon. This last technically avoids outright lying - the author is “just” stating their opinion in the strongest most affirmative terms - but the intent to deceive (themself or others) is present as if it were an outright lie as they do not identify their opinion as opinion or what they do in their game. Don’t be put off by Liar’s Canon; it is a fraud, however otherwise its various merits.
Fourth, Jason Zavoda’s index of Greyhawk references (freely available on the web generally, and at Harvestors Heroes, specifically, I believe) makes anyone an instant canon scholar. Jason’s index lists all Greyhawk proper nouns, say Verbobonc, and then lists where that noun, Verbobonc in our example, is mentioned in every single canon source - adventure modules, sourcebooks, boxed sets, novels etc. All you have to do is look the references up and you know the canon to the 90th percentile. There is very little the Zavoda index does not include or cover. If you can’t find something by looking in the Zavodex, it is probably not canon or Liar’s Canon.
Sixth, assuming the point of canon you are looking for is in a source, using the Zavodex or otherwise, that you do not have access to, you can ask someone to look it up for you who does have the source. I have personally been asked to do this twice and was happy to oblige. I imagine most people would not have a problem doing this, particularly as most canon references from a particular source are very brief.
Seventh, what I will call basic canon is nicely summarized in the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. If you have access to the LGG, and it is still widely available, you have probably 85 to 90 percent of canon. Other sources may be more specialized on one area or topic but, in general, the LGG gives you all the basics. It is the baseline. If you stick with just the LGG, you will not go wrong. It is the most recent, most universal statement of Greyhawk canon.
Eighth, you may note that your work is your own creation not beholding to canon. If you drop a DMs Note at the end and explain that you are not holding to canon or that your creation is not canon, or that it reflects your home game, you are fine. Anyone who quibbles with you about canon after such a disclaimer is making 1) an irrelevant point as you did not claim to be adhering to canon or articulating canon and 2) is likely just being a showoff, know-it-all, or jerk. You are golden. Explaining matters forthrightly takes care of any canon concerns.
It is unfortunate but too often the case that a pecking order is created in online forums based upon supposed or pretended to or even actual knowledge. Sometimes, this is intentional but sometimes it is fostered in the minds of the participants and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In either case, no one forces anyone to buy in. Opt out. Do your own thing and don’t worry about the canon or its nitpickers. Most of the best articles on CF, IMO, have little to do with pontificating on this point or that. They are simply great works of creativity. They are not canon _________________ GVD
Third, there is what I will call “Liar’s Canon.” Liar’s Canon is something 1) that is claimed to be canon, when it does not derive from a published source or 2) that is claimed to be “clearly” derived from canon, when in fact it is the author’s invention. Liar’s Canon may often be distinguished by how hard the author defends the work as “canon” or “correct.” Saying it does not make it so, but Liar’s Canon is often presented either 1) as canon or 2) as affirmatively a fact as if it was indisputably canon. This last technically avoids outright lying - the author is “just” stating their opinion in the strongest most affirmative terms - but the intent to deceive (themself or others) is present as if it were an outright lie as they do not identify their opinion as opinion or what they do in their game. Don’t be put off by Liar’s Canon; it is a fraud, however otherwise its various merits.
This should of course be balanced by a consideration of Liar's Strawmen.
That is, 1) critique of a piece based on the premise that it has been presented as canon that may never be challenged, 2) following that up with poorly considered suggestions that are offered as "being just as canonical" when in fact they show a distinct lack of understanding of the canon material, or a lack of creativity in developing it, and 3) asserting that a reader is better able to express the intent and development of an article than the author of that article.
This is perhaps the worst means of critique you can be subjected to, as it takes advantage of the form of communications to try and force an author to justify his work in the face of an unspecified or unproduced alterative.
Fortunately, it is relatively easy to deal with. As long as you maintain your confidence, present your work for what it is and nothing more, and leave it to the challengers to present actual support for their challenges, you can invariably send them packing. And of course, if you are well versed in your topic, you can present the canon references you used, and your reasons for interpreting them in the manner you did, and again any poor critic is left trying to assert that their opinion should be given more weight simply because their non-existent version of the same would be "better" for some unprovable, quasi-artistic, reason. And again, exposing them ultimately deflates them, and lets you get back to discussing the concepts of your article with any interested in exploring the topic, whether they agree with you or not.
Once again, GVD has shown us the way! I would even go one step further, and say that too-rigid adherence to canon is contrary to the true spirit of Greyhawk!
Yeah, that's right. It goes against what Gary Gygax intended when he produced the original material for public use. He openly claimed in the 1E Dungeon Master's Guide that he left the material purposely sketchy so DMs could muck around with it and tailor it to suit their own purposes, just as with the early classics like the GDQ series-you could take out the drow and replace them with Iuz, Vecna, or whoever else as the true masters of the conspiracy.
I'm not saying that nods to past canon in official material, or weaving good ideas from canon into your own work, as I often do, are a bad thing. What I am decrying is the idea that anything and everything published is tantamount to divine gospel, especially when, as GVD pointed out, a lot of is is crap, and even more of it is contradictory.
DON'T LET YOUR PLAYERS, DON'T LET ANYONE, CITE CANON TO TEAR DOWN YOUR WORK. YOU ARE THE DUNGEON MASTER, OR THE AUTHOR, AND YOUR VISION IS AS VALID AS ANYONE ELSE'S.
For example, Samwise likes to portray Keoland as a mighty kingdom, while I portray it as an increasingly wobbly power that's smarting from a well-deserved reputation as a military loser, a shaky foreign policy, and growing social strife at home. Either vision works equally well for a campaign, and is just as valid. I am completely, totally, and absolutely opposed to Greyhawk industrializing or developing firearms, but if you want to do that, go ahead.
So what is canon good for? Well, you can pull the old bait-and-switch; players who travel to Furyondy expecting it to be a quasi-Utopia might be astonished to see its patriarchal social structure, its imperialist attitudes, and its hard-edged politics between king and noble, which still somehow manage to mesh with strong senses of social justice, racial equality and good relations with the indigenous Flan nations. Furyondy does have a lot of good, but it still has a checkered past. And Furyond politics is anything _but_ nice.
People who expect all priests of Incabulos to be murderous plotters and disease-spreaders might be surprised to find the priests complaining to the authorities in a given city if they're harassed by do-gooders. After all, the priests of Incabulos collect donations from penitents to intervene with Incabulos on their behalf to protect them from plagues and nightmares. And when plagues break out, who better to dispose of the bodies than priests who are immune to plagues to begin with? The church of Nerull can openly operate in Greyhawk, taking care of murder victims, those who die homeless or alone, and other people who are not tied to any particular church. They represent a less malevolent side of Nerull, one that views death as inevitable and makes sure it's done in an orderly fashion, but does not seek to actively murder people or hasten their dark master's work.
These are just a few examples of how you can mess with players' perceptions. Canon can be a collection of half-baked travelers' tales, bard songs based more on seventh-hand rumors than proper research, and false assumptions and conclusions, colored by the perceptions of the people who pass the information on. Forgotten Realms in 3E describes its canon as what the people of Faerun commonly know about their world; whether it is true or not is up to the individual DM and players.
And, of course, if you see anything you like, whether it's a description of the Brotherhood hierarchy, or some of the Conflicts and Intrigues mentioned in the LGG, go right ahead and add them. The characters of Lucious Stairnezh, Boss Renfrus the Mottled, or the sage Iquander can all add to your campaign, if you think you can use them.
In short, don't be afraid to break with canon. If canon offers some good ideas, then by all means use them, but don't be afraid to offer your own vision. If you do, you'll be true to the real spirit of Greyhawk. Don't let "The Grey in the Hawk", the works of Sean K. Reynolds, or anything on this site, tell you otherwise.
And if anyone chews you out for messing with canon?
Tell them to go kiss a black pudding. _________________ <div align="left">Going to war without Keoland is like going to war without a pipe organ. They both make a lot of noise and they're both a lot of dead weight, so what's the point in taking them along? </div>
One campaign I played in diverged WILDLY from canon at the end of the Greyhawk Wars (where high level pc's, 14th level or so, were involved):
A chunk of the moon was ripped forth from the moon by a powerful magic-user wielding both of the Vecna artifacts and this meteor was made to hit Mitrik, which became a vast crater that was filled in by the waters of the Velverdyva. Hazen had pretty much killed himself fighting this powerful quasi-immortal mage but could not stop the mage's final revenge (the meteor). Lake Veluna was born, and yet portions of the main Ecclesiarchal Palace in Mitrik has survived under domes of force and powerful wands; a city under Lake Veluna that would later e explored by pc's on a quest for the lost Crook of Rao known to last be mostly in Hazen's possession following the Flight of Fiends incident.
The Greyhawk Wars also resulted in a Godswar, with the pantheons being diminished dramatically to a few surviving deities that represented the main portfolios. The pantheon became a common grouping of deities from all cultural origins. Other gods were forgotten, were assumed to be killed off, or had their power absorbed by one of the greater deities. Some may have simply become proxies of the greater ruling deities. This was done by the dm to solve the problem of having to detail every deity using the 2e specialty priest system. The number of specialty priests to be developed was chipped down by 3/4.
This is just one example of being WAY off canon. I could go on, but there really is no need to. I liked many things about this campaign, and there were only a few things that I didn't care for. Such tales might be way off canon, but are interesting none-the-less; at least I think so. It’s a view into how others have had their campaign veer wildly away from canon as we know it. Think of canon as merely one version of Greyhawk's continuing story. Sometimes your own campaign will fit with it, but most of the time probably not, unless the dm takes pains to keep things in line with canon. Either canon or other campaign story arcs are still good for lots of entertainment. At the very least, any divergent campaign material is grounds for presenting unique variations on canon, and so have their own intrinsic value based on the ideas they present which may be of use to others straight away by simply dropping them into an existing campaign or by sparking the dm's or players' imaginations.
Write on! _________________ - Moderator/Admin (in some areas)/Member -
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
