PathfinderWiki talk:Nocticula Revision Initiative
Kickoff
Timestamping the kickoff of this initiative. Please use this page for project-wide discussions, and Talk pages of individual articles for discussions specific to them. (Article-specific discussions that start here might get moved.) -Oznogon (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Policy update
We should probably include a discussion on defining the wiki policy for major canon updates like Nocticula: they only happen once we have "proof" that they are indeed permanent in subsequent publications. This mostly has to do with APs updating the "base canon" of the setting. We should also note in this discussion that the "base canon" will be wholly updated once Pathfinder 2: Electric Boogaloo is released. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Since there's already been some off-wiki discussion about this particular subject, I'll defer to Yoda8myhead. I do agree that the spoiler policy could be clearer on this point going forward, one way or another, though that might be best raised on its talk page. -Oznogon (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm starting to think that this topic might not be as big of a spoiler for Return of the Runelords as initially thought. The only thing that Runeplague does is giving the confirmation that the ascension happened (offscreen, some time before the AP began or shortly after it did; in any case, the PCs of Return of the Runelords have nothing to do with it). - HTD (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Needs resolution of discussions on PathfinderWiki talk:Spoilers, specifically the proposal to define "major spoiler". I've copied Brandingopportunity's statement to Project talk:Canon policy. -Oznogon (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Spoilers
Disclaimer: This particular plot already got wrapped up before the end of 1st Edition and has nothing to do with the changes between 1st and 2nd Edition. In case anyone reading this is going to play Wrath of the Righteous or Return of the Runelords in the future, I'm also going to avoid mentioning actual spoilers for these APs in this message.
At the moment, Nocticula's ascension is treated as a spoiler for the entirety of both of these APs, which means that any article whose subject has even the smallest connection to Nocticula (like Achaekek) is considered 'unsafe to read' until one has played or GM'ed both APs. This is really really really excessive for an event that happened off-screen (some time between these two APs) and does not directly impact the PCs' experience in any meaningful way. Even though some of the finer details (like what happened in Rise of New Thassilon) are indeed spoilers for these adventures, this is not the case for the actual ascension itself. Specifically:
- In Wrath of the Righteous, no ascension is mentioned within the adventures themselves (it's only presented as a potential plot hook in the Beyond the Campaign article).
- In Return of the Runelords, the ascension is presented as a rumour, and an ascended Nocticula is even recommended to players as a deity to worship in the Player's Guide (which, by definition, is spoiler-free). Technically, the official, definite confirmation that this happened is in Runeplague, but players should already have known about it from the Player's Guide. - HTD (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)