Orcus [Ghostwalk]

[Alzrius]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It was more an offhand comment than anything else; I mean, the argument about official/unofficial Orcus stats seems silly to me. .

This is where we part company. I'm not saying that canonity is "silly" or not. Like I said, I'm acting in an objective manner here. I'm just going on about canonity because I enjoying digging in and comparing and contrasting subtle little nuances from a wide variety of sources to see what big picture they make. Rationalizing it all off as "Do whatever you want; its your campaign" totally kills that game for me.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This is where we part company. I'm not saying that canonity is "silly" or not. Like I said, I'm acting in an objective manner here. I'm just going on about canonity because I enjoying digging in and comparing and contrasting subtle little nuances from a wide variety of sources to see what big picture they make. Rationalizing it all off as "Do whatever you want; its your campaign" totally kills that game for me.

I'm not simply dismissing it all. Note that I present what I feel is an important question/distinction in regards to canon - D&D and d20 are two different things. If something is not released by WotC as OGC, then it can't, by necessity, be canon for d20. Thus, OGC stats for Orcus are more canon for d20 than non-open stats. That seems a perfectly valid argument to me.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not simply dismissing it all. Note that I present what I feel is an important question/distinction in regards to canon - D&D and d20 are two different things.

Ah, I see this as a separate arguement. More below.

If something is not released by WotC as OGC, then it can't, by necessity, be canon for d20.

This is an interesting arguement, but I see it as fundamentally flawed.

First, something does not have to be Open Game Content to be d20. Call of Cthulhu d20 is a d20 book that is canon for the Cthulhu mythos (not necessarily complete, just canon), but it still contains no OGC whatsoever.

Secondly, the idea of "canon" d20 necessitates that all of the d20 games are in one reality. They would, by that arguement, have to be; otherwise it makes questions of canonity meaningless. After all, who would care then if "canon" material for Freeport didn't match with the Scarred Lands material? The D&D material is all in a single reality; one set of planes, so they are all related. There is nothing to say all d20 products are likewise in that reality also.

Given that, there can be no "canon d20" because of local conditions which take precendce over generalities (such as arcane magic in the Scarred Lands making heat, for example).

Thus, OGC stats for Orcus are more canon for d20 than non-open stats. That seems a perfectly valid argument to me.

Whether something is OGC or not has no bearing at all on how canon it is. Canonity flows from a single source in regards to one or one group of settings that are related to each other. That's it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

This is an interesting arguement, but I see it as fundamentally flawed.

First, something does not have to be Open Game Content to be d20. Call of Cthulhu d20 is a d20 book that is canon for the Cthulhu mythos (not necessarily complete, just canon), but it still contains no OGC whatsoever.

Yeah, but it, and a few other books, like the Wheel of Time RPG, are the exceptions, not the rule. They are special deals made between WotC and other parties. So, while they may be d20 technically, they don't quite qualify for this discussion. This particular issue has been an important element in the current ENnies, so it's been discussed at length.

Secondly, the idea of "canon" d20 necessitates that all of the d20 games are in one reality. They would, by that arguement, have to be; otherwise it makes questions of canonity meaningless. After all, who would care then if "canon" material for Freeport didn't match with the Scarred Lands material? The D&D material is all in a single reality; one set of planes, so they are all related. There is nothing to say all d20 products are likewise in that reality also.

They're related, but all "in a single reality"? I think that's the flaw in your argument. Individual campaigns vary more than games do. Heck, to use canon to counter this argument, the Manual of the Planes presents the notion that each campaign is, in itself, a single set of planes, separate and discrete from each other. In addition, you would also have to then accept that Kingdoms of Kalamar material is canon for D&D, if the D&D imprint is used as defining canon.

Given that, there can be no "canon d20" because of local conditions which take precendce over generalities (such as arcane magic in the Scarred Lands making heat, for example).[/B]

As I noted above, I could use basically the same argument as to why there can be no real D&D canon - the Manual of the Planes negates that notion, and presents rules for varying local conditions. Besides that, the d20 mechanic itself is an indication that all these realities share a reality of various planes of existence. I think you'd have to discuss completely different games, such as Hero or GURPS, before the argument for d20 canon would be invalidated.

Whether something is OGC or not has no bearing at all on how canon it is. Canonity flows from a single source in regards to one or one group of settings that are related to each other. That's it.

OGC content is, by your own definition, the very essence of canon for d20. The SRD is OGC, and is one source. Anything that is OGC is an extension of the SRD, in effect. Sure, there can be multiple OGC versions of any given thing, but you see that in what you consider D&D canon - like Orcus, the very epicenter of this discussion. There are how many versions of him for D&D taht are non-open? 2 or 3? Which version is canon? So far, I know of only one OGC version. That sounds more canonic to me.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah, but it, and a few other books, like the Wheel of Time RPG, are the exceptions, not the rule.

It's not our place to say that. Nothing authoritative says they are exceptions.

They are special deals made between WotC and other parties. So, while they may be d20 technically, they don't quite qualify for this discussion. This particular issue has been an important element in the current ENnies, so it's been discussed at length.

I disagree. The ENnies don't discuss canonity, so anything they've had to say on that doesn't apply here.

They're related, but all "in a single reality"? I think that's the flaw in your argument.

You misunderstand. Canonity only comes into play when various sources are part of a unified universe/multiverse. Nothing says that all d20 sources are part of such a multiverse, ergo, there is no "canon d20". That's what I meant.

Individual campaigns vary more than games do.

Individual campaigns are not relevant to discussions of canon.

Heck, to use canon to counter this argument, the Manual of the Planes presents the notion that each campaign is, in itself, a single set of planes, separate and discrete from each other.

Presenting a notion is not the same thing as saying something is true. Likewise, this doesn't make those other campaigns canon anyway, since they do not come from an authoritative source.

In addition, you would also have to then accept that Kingdoms of Kalamar material is canon for D&D, if the D&D imprint is used as defining canon.

KoK is canon for D&D.

As I noted above, I could use basically the same argument as to why there can be no real D&D canon - the Manual of the Planes negates that notion, and presents rules for varying local conditions.

Incorrect. There is a single D&D canon. The canonity being anything that WotC prints; canonity is defined as being material that comes from a single source, and is authoritative because it comes from that source alone, and all else does not. Even if that bit about the MotP is true (note the "if" - I want a citation there), it doesn't change canonity.

Besides that, the d20 mechanic itself is an indication that all these realities share a reality of various planes of existence.

That is merely your opinion on the matter; nothing equates that shared mechanics must be a shared reality.

I think you'd have to discuss completely different games, such as Hero or GURPS, before the argument for d20 canon would be invalidated.

However, this is, as you said, just what you think; canonity is about the things that are beyond personal opinions.

OGC content is, by your own definition, the very essence of canon for d20.

How exactly is that my own definition. I never once said that. You did. Likewise, OGC is not the very essence of canon for d20 because all things d20 as a whole cannot have a single unifying canon - canonity is only established through framework of setting, not mechanics.

This arguement of yours would imply that there can be no Forgotten Realms canon, since nothing of FR is OGC, but there obviously is FR canonity. Ergo, your statement must then be flawed.

The SRD is OGC, and is one source. Anything that is OGC is an extension of the SRD, in effect.

So far you've mentioned nothing related to canonity, however.

Sure, there can be multiple OGC versions of any given thing, but you see that in what you consider D&D canon - like Orcus, the very epicenter of this discussion. There are how many versions of him for D&D taht are non-open? 2 or 3? Which version is canon? So far, I know of only one OGC version. That sounds more canonic to me.

Incorrect. As I've explained above, things that are OGC are not related at all to what is canon or not. Canonity only applies when compared to a specific setting - and only when it comes from that setting's authoritative source. Nothing you have mentioned there has anything to do with that. You're making up terms and definitions as you go along to make an artificial distinction.

Once again, OGC has nothing to do with how canon something is. For WotC's setting, they set the canonity - it doesn't have to be OGC.

There is no d20 canon because canonity is something that exists for a setting. There is a Star Trek canon, a Forgotten Realms canon, a Wheel of Time canon, a Scarred Lands canon, etc. But d20 is just a group of mechanics for use, not a specific setting unto itself. Ergo, there is no "d20 canon". There is a D&D canon because the carious campaigns of D&D exist in one universe, and there are examples of them blending into each other, in-game examples (references to characters from other campaigns, etc). Simply having campaigns use the d20 system is not an example of cross-campaign pollination, and thus is not indicative of any holistic "d20 canon".

 

[Nightfall]

There is no d20 canon because canonity is something that exists for a setting. There is a Star Trek canon, a Forgotten Realms canon, a Wheel of Time canon, a Scarred Lands canon...

Well since you brought it up...we don't have much that's cannon...well maybe a little but if we had canons, they were burned a while back.

 

[Olive]

Actually, that can't go for Orcus (canonically speaking), since that principle doesn't apply to the D&D multiverse.

I think the problem (as I've said before) is that you're thinking that there is a consistant canon between 3e and 2e. I think the idea that CH put forward is perfectly valid, as the existence of a D&D multiverse went out the window with the new MotP, at least in the Planescape version of it. If a 3e inhabitant of FR and a 3e inhabitant of Greyhawk met some where on the Plane of Shadow, and talked about Orcus, they'd confuse each other.

"God? Orcus isn't a god. He's a mere Demon Prince"
"What on Faeruna re you on about? He's a god for sure..."

etc.

Or maybe we're overthinking it

No doubt, no question.

 

[Alzrius]

I think the problem (as I've said before) is that you're thinking that there is a consistant canon between 3e and 2e. I think the idea that CH put forward is perfectly valid, as the existence of a D&D multiverse went out the window with the new MotP, at least in the Planescape version of it.

Disagree. Just because there was a planar catastrophe and a new edition doesn't mean canonity is gone between editions. Sure there are some complications, but its still there. Just ask the FR people.

If a 3e inhabitant of FR and a 3e inhabitant of Greyhawk met some where on the Plane of Shadow,

Assuming they had different cosmologies, and assuming that those cosmologies connected via the Shadow Plane.

and talked about Orcus, they'd confuse each other.

"God? Orcus isn't a god. He's a mere Demon Prince"
"What on Faeruna re you on about? He's a god for sure..."

Disagree. Nothing still says that despite the "different cosmology" theory, that there are multiple versions of the same NPCs out there. While we do have different takes on Orcus, I do believe those are reconcilable.

Originally posted by Nightfall
Well since you brought it up...we don't have much that's cannon...well maybe a little but if we had canons, they were burned a while back.

You reversed where you had "canon" and "cannon", I think.

That said, the Scarred Lands have a very nice canonity indeed. It just hasn't been challenged or needed any real interpretation. I expect that will change after a few more editions go by.

 

[Pale]

Here's a thought that I've had for a long time:

There are aspects to every idea that are viewed through filters to represent the "face" of a god or very powerful being.

e.g. Raiden, the Japanese God of Lightning and Thor, the Norse god of Lightening are the, behind it all, the same being.

Raiden is the Lightning God viewed through a Japanese cultural filter and Thor is the same Lightning God viewed through a Scandanavian cultural filter. Are they the same being? Ultimately no, the filters differentiate them significantly. In essence? Yes, the force/concept behind (Lightning God) is what ties them together as one being.

This idea can easily be extended to Orcus and his many forms. I won't bore you by restating everything said above using Orcus as a focus. But I thought that it might be some food for thought.

 

[psychognome]

Personally, I always loved the Orcus illustration on the Creature Catalog; it looks like an old DM of ours.

Damn, I wish my DM would look like that.