The Sigil said:
He has an interesting viewpoint - and one that sounds very much like a "religious" view of D&D... I think you two will not be able to come to an agreement because you cannot agree on the definition of certain terms.
It isn't "religious" (and I object to being called that), its source-based. As for not agreeing, that was probably what we understood also, hence why the debate died.
His definition of canon is somewhat obtuse with it's multiple layers, but boils down to, "what WotC publishes."
The backhanded "obtuse" insult aside, thats about the gist of it. For the most part, canonity quandaries don't come up too much, except when the same material gets a different take by several different people, and can't be reconciled. For the most part, this doesn't happen very often, since the majority of material out there is campaign-specific. Its only when things such as the exact same monster being published by multiple companies, or a trans-campaign thing (such as Orcus) get done different ways with no explanation for it that canon becomes necessary.
That and to distinguish between all the fan-stuff out there.
As for the part about "what WotC publishes", yes, thats most canon. They are the original source after all.
Your definition of canon appears to be different - it appears to be roughly, "what is the common standard for D&D."
Since you are proceeding forth from different definitions of terms, I doubt you will come to an agreement.
And lo, we didn't. No biggie.
Which is why I was curious to know - are these terms even applicable any more? Or are there so many different definitions out there so as to make it impossible to come to an agreement? And if we can't agree on what the terms mean, exactly, how can we meaningfully argue over what is and isn't canon if we can't agree on what canon means? (Answer: We can't.)
I think they're just as applicable as they always were, the d20 companies out there just complicate the issue some. The question isn't one of applicability, its one of necessity. Even WotC is trying to get away from the concept of canon being so iron-clad (hence why the Realms has a different cosmology now). And for the most part, I don't see too much problem with that. I personally dislike the loss of the "holistic multiverse" but it can be salvaged easily enough, especially if you read between the lines in existing products and back-continuity.
As for an agreement on what it means...we don't need that. Consensus is over-rated. People can't agree on anything, but things still get along. What we need is an authority figure to just dictate what is canon and what isn't, after all, the buck has to stop somewhere. Trying to get everyone to agree to one definition is pointless, since it won't happen. For the most part though, we already have this authority, they just aren't flexing their muscles in terms of canonity as much as they could, and thats their perogative.
I personally think it is time to retire the concept of "canon" as no longer relevant to D&D discussion except as it relates to the two examples I cited in my first post (i.e., what d20 publishes should consider as the common material every gamer uses and secondly what is considered canon for all practical purposes in your gaming session).
I disagree. I think canon is important. I think you're getting it confused with a degree of rightness though. People seem to think that advocating canon means that canon is necessarily better than non-canon material. It just means its more official, thats it (and heavens know there have been some awful official products). It doesnt need to be better or more applicable to the widest possible audience. It just needs to be canon. 'nuff said.
