Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 758726" data-attributes="member: 8461">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.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.And lo, we didn't. No biggie.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 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.</blockquote>

Verification