Gez said:
More seriously, I would tend to say monsters from the ToH are more canon than monsters from the MM2 or BoVD. Why ? Why such a heretic train of thought ? How could I conceive such a blasphemous idea ?
Well, it's quite simple, and it stems from the very nature of D&D, and the very nature of the d20 license.
D&D is a generic RPG. Less generic than, say, GURPS, who intend on being applyable to any genre, but much more so than, say, Exalted, that is tied to one setting.
Actually, D&D has always, and to a recent degree very much so, defaulted to the Greyhawk world. Hence why it was the Greyhawk archmages who had their names in spells, and why in 3E the Greyhawk gods were listed, etc., but thats a minor counterpoint.
D&D in itself is merely a toolkit -- a collection of component among which you pick and choose to build your setting (you can also take a premade setting, like the Realms, for which most of the pick-and-choosing has been already made by other persons). This means that just because WotC has released the Desmodus in 3 books already don't force you to use them in your own campaign. It's modular. I'm pretty sure Loxos are not canon in the Realms, for example -- and I hope they'll stay non-canon; there are some things that are only acceptable, and even then, barely, in multiworld settings like DragonStar, PlaneScape or SpellJammer.
D&D is built that you can, if you wish, pick and choose what you use in your campaign, its true, but that doesn't in any way make it less canon. You're talking about stuff that is only "acceptable" in certain worlds. However, "acceptable" is relative, and since canonity must be a standard that applies without the murkiness of personal choice involved (since it would otherwise become so varied by individual interpretations that it might as well cease to exist), that line of reasoning you present then becomes invalid. Just because loxos aren't (that we've seen) in the Realms doesn't necessarily make them non-canon in the Realms, or anywhere else.
Even the true core components -- the content of the PH -- is not necessarily canon everywhere. A dwarven paladin would not be canon in a d20 Rokugan campaign (the default setting of OA), for example, but is perfectly canon in Greyhawk or the Realms. And yet an old-school purist could exhibit 2e or older books and claim dwarven paladins are not canon.
That line of reasoning doesn't hold up either. Each individual setting has its own particular quirks and things that are different, its true, but that doesn't make them any less canon unto themselves. The differences in spellcasting in
Dark Sun, for example, doesn't make the series less canon with all of D&D. The key issue here is you're talking about D&D, when what the real definer of canonity is is WotC. Anything WotC publishes with a D&D logo on it is canon, period. If individual settings deviate from the stuff in the three core rulebooks, that doesn't decanonize them, it just means that local variations apply. Since the D&D universe still carries the echo of the holistic multiverse set down in 2E, that means that those local variations in worlds still exist separately from each other, but as part of a unified whole.
As for a dwarven paladin in d20 Rokugan, that simply harkens back to the "separate but unified" theory. In Rokugan dwarves cant become paladins because thats the local law of the Rokugan world, but a dwarf from another land/world who came to Rokugan could be a paladin. And of course, d20 is less canon than WotC, meaning that WotC stuff trumps where a conflict is irreconcilable.
As for the old-school purist, his arguement fails to hold up because he is using dated material. A source of canonity is allowed to update itself, declaring older material non-canon in favor of a newer version. 3E is more canon than 2E wherever 2E and 3E conflict, period.
Here's for universal canonity -- it can't exist in a multisetting game.
Yes it can. Local variations apply, which means the canonity bends for what is acceptable as coming from those individual worlds. To use an example, just because the pizza in Naples is different from the pizza in Chicago, that doesn't mean they aren't both pizza, just that different places make it differently.
To use a lingo that is surprisingly popular, fluff is canon for the setting it relates to, crunch is never canon as it don't exist by itself.
Untrue, local variations apply. Different worlds do things differently. Its all still the D&D multiverse.
Now, I have not really adressed why the ToH would be more canon than a WotC book. After all, it has its share of useless monsters like all monster books do (keeping in mind that one's favorite may be another's useless trash). This leads us to the other point: the OGL and d20 STL.
Here again you bring up the point of "useless" as key. That's, as you note on the side, a personal moniker, and thus cannot be a standard of canonity, since that must be objective.
Let say I'm a d20 publisher, and as such, I want to publish a d20 something. Let say a scenario/module/adventure, call it whatever you want. This ready-to-play story is rooted in folklore and include the crazened ghost of a powerful elven witch: a banshee. I could either build my own monster, or avoid wasting time and using one already existing, but not the banshee from the MM2, not the keening spirit from the City of the Spider Queen. But there is the groaning spirit in the ToH that just scream, pun intended, to find a place in my latest masterpiece. Now, in the sequels of that adventure (because it's a full-blown campaign I publish), the adventurers will discover a corrupted city of dark creepers, whose dark stalker leaders have been replaced by shadow demons, and finally discover that Orcus was behind all that and have to fight him in to thwart his nefarious plans (no harm done, he's used to that).
Dark creepers ? They'll be, from what it seems, in the upcoming Fiend Folio 3e.
Shadow demons ? They are in the Book of Vile Darkness.
Orcus ? Ibid.
But I can't use them. However, I can use those from the ToH.
Irrelevant. Just because something is or is not OGC has no affect on its canonity. Its the source that matters. Something that comes from the Pope has more validity than something from a local Reverend. Something that comes from the Supreme Court has more validity than a state judge. Something that comes from WotC has more validity than a d20 publisher. However, the only need for a true difference in levels of canonity is where canonity conflicts. A d20 publisher that does something differently, something as-yet untouched by WotC, is fine as far as canonity goes, since its not contradicting WotC material. Likewise, something set in a specific world can deviate from the published rules also to a degree, under the "local variations" clause.
In this way, the ToH is more canon, as more people are able to use it in published material.
By now we've ended up at a completely different place where we began. Before it was "usefulness" of materials that you said was canon (whats more generic and what isn't), and now its whats more OGC? Uh-uh. It's the source. Its who says it, not what they say. That's the source of canonity.
