Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 752739" data-attributes="member: 8461">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 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.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.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.Untrue, local variations apply. Different worlds do things differently. Its all still the D&D multiverse.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification