PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy/Archive 2

Minor addition to tiers required

So, today's blog post brings up a minor point regarding our tiers of canon. We have articles that source blog posts already, and it seems sensible that they should be considered a valid source. It's also pretty clear that blog posts are T3 ("World clarification from a citable source such as permanent messageboard post or chat transcript" pretty much covers it already). I think all we need is a quick addition to clearly and specifically add blog posts to tier 3. Should we just make the change, or should we wait the two weeks for discussion? --Aeakett 12:26, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe just to add it, as it isn't really a change of policy, but a correction to a previous oversight. In general, information on the blog is directly quoted from the product that is being previewed which would place the information in the same tier as the sourcebook in question, rather than the blog. Today is an exception, since the content is more of a web supplement (like "More Magic of Thassilon") in a non-pdf format. In any case, I think we can just go ahead and add it. -- yoda8myhead 14:27, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

While this page is getting some light shone upon it, shall we clear these two other amendments. Adding blog to the Tier 3 sources seems the lowest possible level it could sit and with Golarion Day and webfiction, Tier 2 could be argued. However, those are so specific a general Tier 3 category is probably safest and simplest, especially as web fiction is picked up in the following policy change request.--Fleanetha 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Fiction

Would it be appropriate to add additional clarification for Pathfinder Fiction. Fiction appears in Pathfinder Adventure Paths (Tier 1), as web fiction (Tier 3) and now as independent books (Tier ?). Should all fiction be on the same tier? Should fiction be separated into tiers based on where it appears? -- Takeyabue 20:57, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly appropriate to cover it since there's so much of it coming out. Fiction gets the same level of continuity and development as game products. I think all of it should be considered tier 1 or 2 at the lowest, including web fiction. — yoda8myhead 02:39, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

If you say that all fiction gets the same level of development, then novels and web fiction should be grouped together. I think that they should be at level 2 though. That's where most of the game products are. I think the AP volumes (including their fiction) deserve to be at a higher level, since they are the flagship products and most widely distributed.

tl;dr: Web fiction and novel should be tier 2. AP fiction is a special case by virtue of how/ where it's published, and therefore tier 1. Aeakett 22:56, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

I vote Tier 2 for all fiction: AP, web and novels - that keeps it simple.--Fleanetha 15:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Inner Sea World Guide

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

I'd like to change the "Campaign Setting" in this page to The Inner Sea World Guide. It seems that the old CS is pretty much superseded by the World Guide. Is everyone okay with that? --Brandingopportunity 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I would still mention the campaign setting, but prolly move it down a level or two. That way the The Inner Sea World Guide can supersede it in the hierarchy, but any facts that are in the campaign setting that arn't disputed in the world guide stil have a place in the hierarchy.. just my 2 cp -- Cpt kirstov 04:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that makes a lot of sense. --Brandingopportunity 04:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

So do we make the Campaign Setting a Tier 2 source, or do we keep both as a Tier 1 source and say that The Inner Sea World Guide should be used when information conflicts? --Brandingopportunity 19:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we lump the Campaign Setting in with the rest of the Pathfinder Chronicles/Pathfinder Campaign Setting line. At this point, it no longer has higher authority than any other setting book, as the "top spot" is occupied by the World Guide.—Yoda8myhead 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Aeakett 22:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And to me - all very well argued and agreed by all Admins and Cpt kirstov, so I shall make this change today; have added tick box above: I hope that's all correct.--Fleanetha 14:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorporation of Bestiaries into Canon Policy

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

Original Discussion from the Forum

(I have edited some of the forum comments to make sense in this Change Policy discussion; the original comments are here: Forum:Canon policy and Bestiaries)

Where do the Bestiaries fit in the PathfinderWiki:Canon policy? It looks like Paizo have changed, for instance, the CR of Raktavarna from CR 3 to CR 2 (important for familiar use) and Rakshasa maharaja from CR 18 to CR 20. Now, as policy is written, the old AP 3.5 books trump the later Bestiary 3. This seems wrong to me even if the AP books were written for PFRPG. I understand Paizo take AP monsters they like and add to later Bestiaries, but probably use that transfer to upgrade / correct / improve the particular monster. I suggest we amend the Canon Policy to ensure the Bestiaries are clearly incorporated.--Fleanetha (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Pathfinder RPG updates of 3.5 monsters should always be considered higher-tier sources, IMO. Further, any time a monster appears in an AP or other setting book and is later included in a hardcover rulebook, the newer one should also be used, as that's the version that's received the most internal development. If the development team doesn't feel a change is appropriate, we won't make the change when reprinting the content, even though it's technically the design team's call. The policy should probably be updated to account for this. Would you be ok spearheading the process of making that adjustment, linking to this forum in the discussion in the policy discussion page as detailed in Policies and guidelines? Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can update once we have a quorum. Another reason to delay is I have at the back of my mind the fact that the Bestiaries are not completely Golarion canon but more generic, so is there any danger of placing a Bestiary at the same level as a Golarion related sourcebook?--Fleanetha (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be a bit trickier than this. Certainly the Bestiaries should be used for the stats (of which we use very little), but the write-ups in the APs always have much more Golarion-specific background information. So my suggestion is that Bestiaries be used for stats and APs for everything else. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 18:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Change Policy Discussion

Please add further comments here, for instance, for the turn of phrase we should use in the policy...

"In cases wherein rules content created for a previous rules system is updated to a newer rules set, or when a campaign-specific rules element (such as a monster, prestige class, or spell) is adopted in the setting-neutral core rulebook line, the most recent statistics should supersede the older, except when explicitly noted. Setting-specific flavor elements should always take priority over generic description and flavor, except where explicitly noted."— Yoda8myhead (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean by "except where explicitly noted," but I'm not sure - any obvious examples where we would want to make an exception? Would we use the conflict tag to note it? --FoiledAgain (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess any specific notations would be made by a member of the Paizo editorial staff on the messageboards, and therefor take precedent anyway, as a top-level source. We can likely remove those clauses from the proposed text without incident.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I rather like Brandingopportunity's suggestion of 'Bestiaries be used for stats and APs for everything else' - it's simple and that's goodness. Yoda8myhead, have you started law classes recently? --Fleanetha (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No time for law class. Too many game rules to write. Not that there's much of a difference.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this has been available for discussion for enough time now and, in the absence of any strong dissension, I am marking this policy change as accepted by the community and have updated the policy page accordingly. My wording is in line, I believe, with the common consent above. --Fleanetha (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Adventure Card Game/Guild tier

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

What tier should we use for Pathfinder Adventure Card Game content, including PFSACG adventures? I'd suggest Tier 2, alongside PFS. --Oznogon (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but feel conflicted in the knowledge that there will be adventures using characters, locations, etc. from the adventure paths that will conflict with the continuity of those APs. Since characters from APs have their own continuity, if an ACG scenario says that character was in another place or involved in some other content (because that's the existing character card that met the scenario's needs), then how do we resolve that? — Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Any conflicts introduced by Tier 2 ACG content would favor the Tier 1 AP issues, so we'd resolve it like any other conflict between a Tier 1 and 2 source: "In the case of an irreconcilable conflict between sources, the source from the most authoritative tier should be given preference ... However, in all cases is that valid sources should be construed so as not to be in conflict. The presumption should be that a conflict does not exist unless no other explanation is reasonable under the circumstances."

Ergo, if an ACG scenario says a character from an AP issue was in another place or involved in some other content, and that creates an irreconcilable conflict, use the AP issue's content. -Oznogon (talk) 16:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

First, I have never played the ACG (though I would like to do so), therefore, I am speaking with no knowledge of that area. However, taking Yoda's argument to the next tier, what would happen if an ACG card about Belkzen conflicted with the information in Belkzen, Hold of the Orc Hordes? Instinctively, the Campaign Setting book would win for me. Is that fair? Looking at the list of tiers, for me the ACG seems to fit into Tier 4 along with the comics: a similarly Pathfinder-associated product, but off the beaten track of the main published books on the setting. I do a lot of work on the comics, so I don't see this as a 'dumping ground' tier either, but an appropriate level for understanding issues that may come up. I presume, as I don't see the sales results, that most people using this wiki have access to the books, so can fully participate in a debate on any conflict. However, I presume fewer people have access to the tier 4 resources and the ACG, so that presumption again feels, for me, that Tier 4 is more appropriate. Remember my opening statement, so formally I have to abstain, but wished to express some opinions / ask questions. --Fleanetha (talk) 11:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comics being Tier 4 as they are licensed products published by a third part (even if most of the comics authors are now Paizo editorial staff). However, what is it about ACG (and especially PFSACG) scenarios that makes them less canonical than the events of a PFSRG scenario? The mechanics? The concurrency with an AP? (Weren't PFSRG seasons 3-6 directly related to the events and characters of APs, especially season 5 with Wrath of the Righteous? So is the corresponding ACG base set and current PSFACG season.)

As I said I cannot comment as have no knowledge here and will leave to others. --Fleanetha (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If we elevate staff clarifications (below), I'd be fine with putting PFSACG in Tier 3, as the PFSACG is a first-party source that shouldn't (in my opinion) be equated with third-party licensed materials. But we should either explain what makes PFSACG scenarios less canonical than PFSRG scenarios, or also drop PFSRG scenarios to Tier 3. Either way, if there are conflicts between Tier 2 sources, they'd be handled as they are now: assume no conflict, determine whether there's a plausible explanation, flag as a conflict only if not, prefer the newer source in the article, and discuss it on the conflicts page. An intra-tier conflict isn't inherently irreconcilable. -Oznogon (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

This has legs. --Fleanetha (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Elevating staff clarifications on the Paizo messageboards

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

Per Yoda8myhead on Talk:Ijo/Conflicts, Paizo editorial staff clarifications on canon topics should be a higher tier than Tier 3. Opening a policy change proposal to facilitate discussion. -Oznogon (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In addition to Ijo, this has also come up this week on Talk:First World/Conflicts and Talk:Kindler family/Conflicts. -Oznogon (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Particularly:

“

I have adjusted Ailson's sister's name from Allishan to Ellishan—for likely understandable reasons. We can probably see that into the wiki soon.

— F. Wesley Schneider

”

Per the canon policy, we shouldn't update that until a source confirming the change comes out (in this case, likely Bloodbound). If we changed the tier of clarifications, we could change this on Wes's suggestion and still comply with the canon policy. As it stands, User:Cpt kirstov implemented the change, and I haven't reverted it. -Oznogon (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need to specify between a 'official response' like this seems to be vs a 'this is how I would run it' response. which in this case, Wes's quote obviously means its an official change, and while it prolly could have waited, I wanted to make sure that we didn't think that it was a new sister instead of a name change. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this and, quite frankly, I think this has been de facto policy for some time so let's formalize it. Cpt kirstov's comment is a wise one though and we'd best append a note about that too. --Fleanetha (talk) 08:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing canon conflicts

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

Per Yoda8myhead on Forum:Conflict categories, we should categorize canon conflicts by their state of resolution. Forums discussion pasted below, emphasis added. -Oznogon (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The current discussion on Talk:Ijo/Conflicts got me thinking about our conflict discussions, and I realized that there's no index of conflicts nor anything to make them officially/unofficially resolved/unresolved. I propose we make categories to group them as follows:

• Canon conflicts
  • Unresolved canon conflicts
  • Officially resolved canon conflicts
  • Unofficially resolved canon conflicts

An "official" resolution would be one that comes from someone at Paizo, clarifying which source(s) should be considered canon over others. And "unofficial" resolution would be one that comes from our own Canon policy or assumed, hand-wavy explanations.

I assume a bot can be wrangled to add at least the top category to all /Conflicts talk pages, and then at least we'll have a smaller group to manually sift through to categorize them by resolution status. - Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The bot work should be simple. I'm all for this. If we do it, we should note the process on the canon policy page as well. -Oznogon (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly! -Cpt kirstov (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds useful. --Fleanetha (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

If we don't get any further feedback or any opposition by next week, do we want to implement this and modify the canon policy accordingly? It seems uncontroversial, but I'm not always the best gauge of that. -Oznogon (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. (This is never a one way street either, so if someone comes in late we won't ignore them plus, albeit bureaucratic, a new change policy could be set up to revert.) --Fleanetha (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved status to accepted to acknowledge this policy change. -Oznogon (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)