Nonsense.
The core of GH canon is found in a a few pages at the start of the Folio boooklet: the timeline, the migration maps, the description of the history of the world including the Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colourless Fire, the Sueloise and Oeridian migrations, etc.
The names of rulers weren't provided until the boxed set split the original booklet into two books and added those details (Glossography, p 17).
The names of streets in the City of GH weren't provided until the CoGH boxed set, which some people regard as silly and non-canonical in any event.
Canon didn't freeze with the original booklet.
This is why I asked, upthread, what view you would take of someone who started with Grey Box FR, added details to the blank spots, and then stuck to those details either in ignorance or in disregard of subsequent publications. You said that would still count as a FR game.
What I said was that it was unlikely in the extreme that there would be enough conflict to alter things enough not to be FR. I didn't say it wasn't possible, or that it would without a doubt always be FR.
So when I give Hardby catacombs, how is that a disregard of canon? When I decide, as described above, that Slerotin's mummy has been interred there, how is that a disregard of canon? And if in another campaign I decide that Hardby has no catacombs, how is that a disregard of canon either? Why do I have to fill in the blanks the same way every campaign?
I didn't say it would be a disregard of canon, and in fact have said the opposite, so I'm puzzled why you keep saying these things. They don't make sense coming from someone who bothered to read what I have written.
Well, WotC thinks you can have Purple Dragon Knights in Krynn. You just have to relabel them Knights of Solamnia! So on this occasion I'll trust WotC over you.
The mechanics for Purple Dragon knights are different from Knights of Solomnia, so WotC thinks no such thing.
As far as the moons are concerned, everyone knows that they are called Celene (the handmaiden) and Luna. The presence of a third, invisible black moon doesn't contradict anything. The presence of wizards whose power is tied to the phases of the moon doesn't contradict anything. The folio glossography actually has a rather lengthy discussion (relative to its overall size) of astronomical phenomena; and there are at least two GH deities of stellar/astronomical phenomena (Celestian and Pholtus). So how do you possibly take it that it is stated, or implied, that Oerth contains no orders of moon-dependant mages?
Canon establishes two known moons. Two visible moons. Nothing says there can't be a third one, small and orbiting rapidly like a modern-day satellite about the earth.
If it is unknown, then it powers no one and nothing. It's unknown! If it powers wizards and is invisible, then it's known, not unknown, and canon established the known moons.
I find it very odd that someone who says that making the Celestial Emperor just a minor major domo in his own back yard is not sort of change to OA canon is now protesting that adding a compltely plausible astronmical phenomeon to Oerth is a wild change to the established canon!
Canon establishes that he is limited to the east only.
Well obviously they WoHS in my GH campaign aren't tied to Krynn moons. They're tied to GH moons. And in my GH game, also fairly obviously, magic can come from moons. Why shouldn't it? Nothing says it can't, and the discussion of astronomy in the Glossography suggests that it can!
Wizards of High Sorcery cannot be tied to any moons other than the Krynn moons and still be Wizards of High Sorcery. That's what the lore established them as. Alter the lore and you no longer have Wizards of High Sorcery. You have some other kind of similar, but different wizard. Now, you might argue that those similar, but different wizards who get power from Greyhawk moons can also call themselves Wizards of High Sorcery. That's true, but that's very poor DMing in my opinion. Anyone who knows about Wizards of High Sorcery is going to think of Krynn. Causing confusion by naming another set of wizards the same thing is not a good thing.
Thanks for telling me what I can and can't do. Fortunately for me I worked these things out over 30 years ago, even without the benefit of your advice and permission!
How about you quote me telling you what you can't do, or where I tried to "give you permission" to do anything. Your argument is in blatant bad faith.
