PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy

Archives:

1 (–2009) 2 (2009–2015) 3 (2015–2017) 4 (2018–2020) 5 (2020–2024)

Updating Valid resources section

Changes Accepted This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been accepted.

Should Lost Omens books be Tier 1 or Tier 2? They sort of take the place of the Campaign Setting books, but seem much more firmly enmeshed in editorial canon. CadeHerrig (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The tiering of this policy is very outdated in general, and the product offerings under P2 are both created differently and intended to serve different audiences than their P1 counterparts. I think Lost Omens books should be Tier 1, for what it's worth, but also that we should look at revising this list entirely to place P2 sources over P1 sources, and perhaps rearrange how different product lines are treated in relation to one another.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need to overhaul the 'Valid resources' section of Canon Policy. Of necessity, we need to decide where the missing V2 product lines fit, namely Lost Omens, Pathfinder Adventures, and Pathfinder One-Shots, as well as other important missing lines, such as Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, plus any others I missed. If we simply follow suit, they would all be Tier 2 except for Lost Omens World Guide, which would rank as Tier 1. However, Yoda's point above is well made that V2 books are not direct counterparts of V1. For clarity, we should also probably insert 'Pathfinder First Edition' ahead of some of the lines, such as the Tier 1 Bestiaries comment too. I am very unfamiliar with the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, so have plumped for Tier 2 as a guess for that. Anyway, here is a strawman of the relevant section updated in a basic fashion. For ease of reading, I have put a [F] marker against lines amended - these will obviously be removed before promotion to the formal canon policy. Please comment on anything that is missing, whether we need new tiers to make this work properly, and anything that needs amending up or down in its tier. We can then amend the strawman as the process runs. --Fleanetha (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text

Tier 0

• Errata created by Paizo editorial staff

Tier 1

• [F] All Pathfinder Lost Omens volumes
• All Pathfinder Adventure Path volumes, excluding fiction in the Pathfinder's Journal section
• [F] Hardcover books in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line published as of Pathfinder First Edition's Adventurer's Guide (but not including older Pathfinder RPG books except as noted)
• The Inner Sea World Guide
• [F] Pathfinder First Edition Bestiary, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3, Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5, and Bestiary 6: these are Tier 1 resources solely for monster statistics, i.e., not for monster text

Tier 2

• [F] All Pathfinder Campaign Setting volumes, and their earlier Pathfinder Chronicles designation (including the Campaign Setting), with the exception of the Tier 1 The Inner Sea World Guide
• All Pathfinder Module volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder Adventure volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder One-Shot volumes
• All Pathfinder Player Companion volumes
• [F] All Pathfinder Society adventures, including Pathfinder Society Scenarios (including retired scenarios), Pathfinder Quests, and Pathfinder Bounties
• All Pathfinder fiction, including, Pathfinder's Journal fiction within the Pathfinder Adventure Path volumes; Pathfinder Tales novels published by Paizo or by Tor Books; Pathfinder Tales web fiction; Pathfinder Tales short fiction
  • when resolving conflicts between works of fiction and sourcebooks, both of which are Tier 2 sources, take into account the possibility of, for instance, an unreliable narrator in the fiction; always explain the rationale when a sourcebook is considered of greater authority than a fiction source
• [F] All Pathfinder Adventure Card Game material
• All canon content in playtest materials, such as Pathfinder Playtest content

Tier 3

• Web supplements released by Paizo
• [F] Any past or current versions of the officially sanctioned guides to Pathfinder Society organized play, with the version number specified in citations
• World clarification from a citable source such as permanent message board post, chat transcript, or podcast
  • by a member of the Paizo editorial staff on any topic
  • or a freelance contributor in relation to a topic on which they are credited with having written

Tier 4

• All licensed Pathfinder campaign setting material in non-Paizo sources including but not limited to:
  • Official content in Kobold Quarterly or other periodicals
  • Pathfinder Online or other computer/video games based in the setting
  • Pathfinder-branded comic books
  • Pathfinder Legends audio dramas

Comments (continued)

Counter to this proposal, I agree with Yoda's suggestion that the Lost Omens line should be in Tier 1 instead of Tier 2, allowing newer Lost Omens books—the flagship setting line that has explicitly resolved several prior Adventure Paths' outcomes in canon—to officially override older Adventure Path issues. This was a relevant point before the Remaster and becomes only more important now and ahead of the two upcoming Tian Xia releases.

I'd also suggest including Pathfinder Quests alongside Pathfinder Bounty scenarios in the Tier 2 line for Society works.

The conflict policy already favors newer sources over older sources, and all Second Edition sources are newer than First Edition sources, so I don't think Yoda's suggestion of downgrading the tier of First Edition-era lines is necessary. The rest of the proposal looks good to me. -Oznogon (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Oznogon. I have amended the strawman with your suggestion—as it is a simple way of incorporating Yoda's point mentioned—and my omission: please check. Happy with those points, personally. I also agree with your third point. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a bit of terminology tweaking to suggest.

First, the Guide for Society play is most formally the “Guide to Organized Play: Pathfinder Society (Second Edition)” or more commonly the “Pathfinder Society (2e) Guide to Organized Play.” The same naming convention is used for Starfinder Society. It’s been on my list to tweak the article & title, but not really top priority.

Maybe the canon policy should just say “Guides to Organized Play” or maybe the PFS current edition Guide outranks PFS older edition Guides & the SFS Guide?

It's had a few names, so I have modified to the main ones to how they appear on the wiki for 1E and in the latest doc for 2E (latest on-line version is called Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play, which is different from your two names and the name on the wiki ??) so they can be linked to their wiki pages. If they need changing, then we can accommodate that later. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The title of the full single-page document as it exists at this moment on Lorespire is "Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play", and its shortened title as commonly used within the guide is "Guide to Organized Play". If that title is inaccurate, or if there are multiple conflicting titles for the guide, that's a concern more for the guide than us. If that link's not the canonical location of the complete and official guide as it should be cited on PathfinderWiki, it's unclear what is or should be that location.

In a quick scan of the internet archive, it's also been titled "Pathfinder Society Guide to Play (Second Edition)" (2019) and "Pathfinder Society (Second Edition) Guide to Organized Play" (2020–2023 pre-Lorespire). In both cases the single-page document itself used a different title, typically "Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play".

Since it's had many, many titles and versions over the years, I second the suggestion of using a generic reference to the officially sanctioned guides and avoid specifying a precise title, such as:

* [F] Any past or current versions of the officially sanctioned guides to Pathfinder Society organized play, with the version number specified in citations

Unlike organized play officials, PathfinderWiki is not vulnerable to anyone seeking to game benefits from the organized play system through imprecision, so this should be sufficiently clear for the policy. Precision in the case of this policy is arguably more of a problem than a benefit. -Oznogon (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Re: maybe the PFS current edition Guide outranks PFS older edition Guides & the SFS Guide?; as noted w/r/t First Edition/Second Edition sources in other lines, the conflict policy already prefers newer sources over older sources in conflicts, so specifying that in the tiering is unnecessary. The Starfinder Society Guide is not a Pathfinder canon work and should not be listed, full stop. -Oznogon (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Second, the name of the group which includes PFS Scenarios, Quests, and Bounties is most properly “Pathfinder Society adventures” lowercase a. “Bounty scenarios” is best avoided. “Scenario” is the main/meatiest type of adventure in the list, but Quests & Bounties are not types of Scenario.

Done --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

(That’s slightly irritating, I know. But we have to go for that level of specificity when making the Guides, since some folks will always be confused, try to game the system, or both.) Petronius (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks - I have added to / amended the strawman. --Fleanetha (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

First, I have added headings to separate the proposed text from the comments about it. Secondly, I have amended the line regarding the guides to Pathfinder Society organized play with Oz's slimmer version. Over a month has elapsed since the last comment, so let's get this important policy discussion concluded - last call for comments please and I'll aim to conclude next Sunday 3 March 2024. --Fleanetha (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I approve of the suggested changes. -Oznogon (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Policy accepted and updated. Thanks all for help in getting us 2E shipshape. Note that I have not reverted the changes made in January to the old text above for bullet 3 of Tier 3 and its sub-bullets, as that would be pointless and just a consequence of several policy change requests happening at the same time. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Categorization of retroactively removed subjects

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

The policy lacks clarity on whether subjects retroactively removed from canon should retain their categories. For an example, see Talk:Folca.

Proposed change

In the "Categorization" section, change this sentence:

Note that production errors, such as Old-Mage Jatembe's alignment misprint in Inner Sea Magic or the "buttery knife" in Adventurer's Armory, are exempt from this; superseded content can be categorized, but content that was never deemed correct should not be.

to (additions bolded for emphasis)

Note that canon inclusion errors, such as the inclusion of Folca and the Slohr, and production errors, such as Old-Mage Jatembe's alignment misprint in Inner Sea Magic or the "buttery knife" in Adventurer's Armory, are exempt from this. Superseded content can be categorized, but content that was deemed to have never been correct, or which in hindsight should never have been mentioned or included in the setting canon, should not be categorized.

-Oznogon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that Tiamat ("Honestly, she never should have been in Pathfinder in the first place", per the Tiamat meta page), for example, also falls under exactly the same classification of Folca, so any decision should take that into account. Tiamat . "Hindsight" is different than "literal typo" type errata. --Emky (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Updated the proposal to be more explicit about that, and thanks for the reminder to decategorize Tiamat, who had already been removed from navigational templates, and to audit the inbound links to that article. -Oznogon (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am comfortable with this, though I would like to append the following sentence to the suggested new text above: […] should not be categorized. In a case where a page exists that already has categories attached, hide those categories but do not delete them. This aligns with what has been done so far but makes it explicit to avoid doubt. --Fleanetha (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)