Re: Canon

Ugh, hit the send button too soon :p

--- Paul Westermeyer <westermeyer@???????.net> wrote:

> No, the proper word would be 'legendarium',  a body
> of information which is generally acknowledge to
> represent fact in a mythological creation.  IE 'The
> Call of Cthulhu' must be considered an authoritative
> source on H.P. Lovecraft's Mythos.

Good point; wasn't aware of the difference ;)  Leave
it to the historian/teacher to set us straight! ;)


> But semantics aside, I would argue that the only
> viable basis for 'canon' material we can make is
> published material.  If we use the published
> Spelljammer material as our canon, then we can more
> usefully understand each others ideas and work by
> noting how it differs from that established canon. 

Personally, I'm not a stickler for canon anymore. 
Maybe its disillusionment, or maybe reality set it,
but I kinda don't see a real purpose for it.  A DM is
going to use what he/she wants to use; canon be
darned.  Maybe things would be different if we had a
team working together on a common goal/project, but
those rarely turn out the way we hoped.  Could be
proven wrong, though :)

Adam


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/