PathfinderWiki talk:Canon policy/Archive 3

From PathfinderWiki

Adventurer's Guide tier

Green check.svg

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

The Adventurer's Guide, a Pathfinder Roleplaying Game-line product entirely comprised of Pathfinder Campaign Setting content, has been out for a couple of weeks, and judging from Talk:Winter Council it sounds like there's already been some discussion on how to handle its setting content:

I believe the compromise we came up with was that we only mention "updates" to existing canon that are explicitly stated and otherwise leave things vague. That gives people who want to be up on the "latest canon" something, while also serving those who want to play through the original AP. So to the original point, yes, IMO I think we can mention that the Winter Council was disbanded, but not say much else (as the details are largely dependent on the players when you run Second Darkness).--Brandingopportunity (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

As Yoda8myhead notes below, this will continue to come up in future Pathfinder RPG works, such as Book of the Damned.

So I have two proposals:

  • Because the RPG line is not in the canon policy, we should add Pathfinder RPG line works, starting with the Adventurer's Guide onward, as Tier 1 sources in order to clarify how to handle conflicting and updated information. New works in the RPG line need to be in Tier 1 in order for their setting content to "compete" with APs and ISWG with regards to the setting's current state. This should explicitly exclude RPG line works published before the Adventurer's Guide, and should not change our more specific rules around RPG-line Bestiaries.
  • We should be explicit in the canon policy that Pathfinder RPG line content can update Adventure Path content with assumptions about an AP's end result.

I feel like this point in particular needs clarification here, because as I've already found with Winter Council and am starting to see in some interesting conflicts introduced in the Guide, allowing the Guide to assume even an unspecific AP result could have cascading consequences on related parts of the setting.

For starters, the Guide's states of the Lantern Bearers (and by extension Winter Council), Cyphermages, Council of Thieves, and Gray Maidens include numerous alterations to character alignment, class, and level, including level regressions; organizational scope, leadership, alignment, and affiliations; character identity and survival; the public knowledge of drow in the setting; drow racial alignment; renaming articles (whore queens, Swallowtail); and breaking the Gray Maidens into independent, opposing factions. -Oznogon (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm still formulating my thoughts on this (it's a deceptively complicated issue), but I wanted to point out that this is only the first book in the RPG line that will include campaign setting material. Book of the Damned will be coming out this fall, and it includes reprinted—and in some cases updated—information from the Campaign Setting books of the same name. Rather than set a specific canon policy for this one book, I suggest we make our decision to cover this situation arising from future releases as well, just so we don't need to reinvent the wheel every 6 months. —Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I've updated the proposals to expand their scope to RPG line works going forward. -Oznogon (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding the RPG line as a Tier 1 source, although I think it needs to be specified that on certain subjects it should be disregarded. The only one of these I can think of are the planes, some of which have different names in the GameMastery Guide (Limbo instead of the Maelstrom, Purgatory instead of the Boneyard, and Utopia instead of Axis). Are there other subjects like that? --Brandingopportunity (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I spoke with James Jacobs about this subject and he said that all Pathfinder RPG hardcovers going forward (beginning with Adventurer's Guide) should be treated as Tier 1 sources. He also said that no one should have had their level reduced or significantly changed, and that those might be errors rather than retcons. In general, however, changes to the way organizations operate or the fallout from AP conclusions are meant to be updates to previous material.—Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoda. As an aside, does this mean future books in the Bestiary series should also be considered entirely Tier 1, as opposed to Tier 1 only for monster stats? -Oznogon (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
There are no Bestiaries on the horizon that have been announced, so we don't have to deal with it in the next year. If one comes out sometime thereafter that necessitates a review of this policy, we can cross that bridge then.—Paizo Publishing, LLC.png Yoda8myhead (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(resetting indent) ^

In that case (for what it's worth to say it about my own proposal) I've tweaked and am in favor of making the policy changes above. -Oznogon (talk) 03:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Bit late to this, but I am in favour of the first proposal above. Though, I think the second statement could do with expansion to make it clearer - I think I am in favour and understand it but would like it clarified. We also need to think about how we structure pages where one book updates perfectly canon information in another, separately from this proposal change process. I'd be reluctant to see real-world chronology creeping in to the titles within articles, for instance [e.g., 'Events at the time of the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP'] We may want to make yet another policy stating that a book's real-world publication date corresponds to a particular year in Golarion's history (AD 2017 book material discusses events / the situation in 4717 AR, etc.) We have de facto been doing this for some while now. Unfortunately, I can already think of exceptions to this rule in that the new Runescars comics plus the Pathfinder Legends audio dramas play havoc with such a ruling, but, then again, they are clear, understood exceptions. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Re: one part of the above:
We may want to make yet another policy stating that a book's real-world publication date corresponds to a particular year in Golarion's history (AD 2017 book material discusses events / the situation in 4717 AR, etc.) We have de facto been doing this for some while now.
Regarding dates, this is already in the canon policy. Or are you suggesting adding or changing something about the date policy? If so, can you be more specific? -Oznogon (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
No change needed - that's exactly what I meant, so de jure then, not de facto. I am getting old. -Fleanetha (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes accepted

I've accepted this policy change based on Yoda8myhead's statement and Fleanetha's approval. The policy change is implemented in the text, and details about the changes are in the Canon policy FAQ transcluded onto this page. -Oznogon (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)