Where does Morcar live?

[Daedalus]

Your points ate understandable, of couse. The MB-GW divorce gave us a stylistic step-dad that couldn't quite replace original-dad. I totally agree Chaos and the Empire are completely generic. GW lawyers are a famous for jealous IP protection and apparently would offer no more in the split. The kids always lose.

[Big Bene]

At the risk of repeating myself:

Speaking of "canon" in the case of a 1980ies boardgame is grossly over the top.
"Canon" originally and by it's true meaning, refers to the bible, a real world religious book, that, for the believers of these religions, has a meaning in real life, beyond the meaning of a work of fiction (including divine relevations, but not necessarily a literal "historical" or "scientific" truth). Because of this there were times when it was essential to know for sure which parts of the oral and written tradition belonged to the real holy book. Religious authorities "canonized" the book, i.e. they defined which texts belonged in there and wich did not.
The jewish Thorah was canonized around 100 AD, probably at the Council of Yavne. The christian Old Testament was canonized first at the Council of Rome in 382, as far as I know, and the canon of the New Testament was defined in a letter of Athanasius in 367 and later approved in various councils.
For the Quran, there was a time under the first three or four califes, when the tradited sayings of Muhammed were collected and written down, with various different and competing versions. More than once a collector had all evidence of the rivalling collections burned. This is sometimes called the "canonizig" period of the Quran.

But for works of fiction...?

Basically, these are just stories. Everyone can read them, read the ones he likes and connect them in his mind to some bigger story-arc, including or leaving again everything he likes.

Now, there are modern franchises with something they call a "canon".
Mostly, and most prominent, this is Star Wars. Superhero comics also have a tendency to "canonize".
This is more than a bit artificial, and highly questionable, but for the time being, let's take it as it is.
In these cases, the definition of the "canon" is solely the decission of the copyright holder.
After Disney purchased Star Wars, they redefined the canon. For better or worse, it was their right to do.

The copyright holder of Heroquest in the time it was published was MB. Not GW!
And MB would never have thought of a "canon" for a board game.
What they did know was official vs. inofficial material. And what they published or licensed to publish was official and therefore "right". It didn't have to present a cohensive story (or style or mood). We should be glad that the story (and style and mood) went out as cohensive as it did. It was a product line, not a parallel universe. No canon. Official material. And all official material belongs to Heroquest. We don't have to like all of it. We don't have to play all of it. It was not the intention of the publisher to make any of it mandatory. They just hoped it would sell. If anyone did not like the American expansions, but at least bought the older ones, MB was fine with it. No "canon", just official materials that the buyer can use any way he likes.

[j_dean80]

Perhaps the Inn-mates can produce an unofficial official background world. Daunting task I know. Arrange official quests in a playable sensible order and create connecting background to flow between them. Possibly with newly added connect-the-dot quests.

[aaronAGN]

At the risk of repeating myself:
But for works of fiction...?

Like The Bible....

Basically, these are just stories. Everyone can read them, read the ones he likes and connect them in his mind to some bigger story-arc, including or leaving again everything he likes.

Now, there are modern franchises with something they call a "canon".
Mostly, and most prominent, this is Star Wars. Superhero comics also have a tendency to "canonize".
....
What they did know was official vs. inofficial material. And what they published or licensed to publish was official and therefore "right".

Official = Right ... Is the new definition of franchise "canon".
So what are you preaching about? And why?
You seem to have gotten all worked up into a sermon for no reason.

[Big Bene]

So what are you preaching about? And why?
You seem to have gotten all worked up into a sermon for no reason.

Thank you for trying to bee constructively critical.
I like to elaborate a bit, perhaps i'm bit preachy, but I just want to give the backgound of the facts or the opinion I express in my posts.
My point is that talking of a Heroquest "canon" is way over the top, both the term and the concept.
MB and GW in 1989 didn't give a [insert nasty word] about a canon. They wantedto sell their products. Coherence of the stories and the background world was only maintained as far as necessary to sell even more games.

But for works of fiction...?
Like The Bible....

Ooops... seems I hit a mark here.

I used the term "work of fiction" - and I think this was pretty obvious - not as the oposition of "scientific true" or "historical accurate", but as a genre of literature (belletristic).
Such stories are made up by a person and marketed as such. They are works of art.
They have a special funciton in society and culture, and this is a different function than that of scientific books, newspapers, poetry, biographies, instruction booklets, and also than religious books that are considered "holy" by the believers, such as the Bible, the Quran, the Vedes, the Book of the Dead, the Edda etc. pp.
Some (not all) of these were canonized at a time, and for the cultural and social function of a religious book it makes sense that a canonisation can be necessary sometime, for a true belletristic work of fiction it makes much less sense. Large franchises (such as Star Trek or Marvel) have a tendency to declare a "canon" as a working tool for both official and fan authors to make stories that don't over-stress the suspension of disbelief of the audience by too blatand contadictions. But at the end of the day, every reader and co-author is free to use the material a he likes, without any consequences for the sociocultural funcitons of the stories. If I like to play heroquest with Munchkins, you can do so and stil play a game of Heroquest. You cannot rewrite the Bible to include Munchkins, believe in it and still claim to be, example given, a Lutherian protestant Christian.

Having said this, I would define a work of fiction as story that a person or group of persons have purposely thought up, and this is certainly not true for most of the abovementioned religious books, including the Bible. Such books are collections of texts that developed over milennia from older texts and other sources, collected and arranged again and again by peoplel who fully believed in the truth of these texts. So no, to your sttement "Like The Bible", I would respectfully disagree, even in the most literal sense.

[aaronAGN]

"Such books are collections of texts that developed over milennia from older texts and other sources, collected and arranged again and again by peoplel who fully believed in the truth of these texts."

It is a collection of texts. Yes. Of parables and myths based around some history.
Samson had super-strength.
A man came back from the dead.
Jesus' magic powers.
Moses, the plagues, and parting the sea.
Still fictions.

People have written texts about the earth being flat.
Have written books denying that the holocaust happened.
Just because someone wrote about it and believes it - doesn't mean it's a truth.
That's the point I'm making.

[j_dean80]

Pretty sure the forum specifies no religion talk. To each their own. Keep it that way.

[Big Bene]

Just because someone wrote about it and believes it - doesn't mean it's a truth.
That's the point I'm making.

But why?
It's totally irrelevant for the topic at hand if the Bible, the Heroquest background stories, or any other story is true. We were dicussing canon. Canonisation makes some sense, less sense or no sense at all, depending on the practical, social and cultural function of the text in the society that uses it. It may make a difference if the audience believes in it's truth (because it may affect this function), but it makes no difference if it is absolutely and proveable true.

Pretty sure the forum specifies no religion talk. To each their own. Keep it that way.

Agreed. I didn't want to discuss religion. The information was meant to be purely historical.

[aaronAGN]

Just because someone wrote about it and believes it - doesn't mean it's a truth.
That's the point I'm making.

But why?
It's totally irrelevant for the topic at hand if the Bible, .....

You made the comparison for the bible vs works of fiction. I was initially just snarking about such an observation.
And commented on your sermon length post because it was unnecessarily long.
Canon, whether in reference to the bible, star wars or comics, is simply what's official and what isn't.
You assumed you hit some nerve, and kept going. Thus the conversation continued.
I'm fine with following the rules and avoiding religion.
I'm just trying to explain my side of things.
Sorry to cause any trouble.
Now, moving on.