Talk:Castruccio Irovetti

From PathfinderWiki

The upgrading of Irovetti and potential canon conflicts

War of the River Kings is an Pathfinder Adventure Path so a Tier 1 canon source and has Bard 11 / Fighter 5 for Irovetti's classes. However, Inner Sea Magic and Guide to the River Kingdoms both have Bard 9. I have updated the page for the AP data. --Fleanetha (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of the info from that AP is a bit tricky to deal with (especially the later adventures) because the campaign takes place over years. I say that most of the info for the wiki should be taken from non-AP sources, unless it deals with places or things not influenced by the passing of time. --Brandingopportunity (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick feedback and I can see your point. However, it breaks canon policy to do other than what I have done and making exceptions for one AP seems something we'd have to seriously consider first. Irrovetti is fully statted in PF35, and no where else, so it's the most detailed consideration of him there. I'd like to leave this for now (and the similar problem with Pitax) with the AP data on the main wiki page; and the alternative data are within the wiki for people to view via the conflict banner. But maybe the bigger issue is a Forum discussion / Policy discussion? --Fleanetha (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't really agree with our canon policy altogether. I don't understand why our canon policy should be different from Paizo's when Paizo is going to keep publishing materials that treat the events of APs as non-canon.--Filby (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the conflict badge as Paizo explain the rationale for the discrepancy on p9 of War of the River Kings, but have moved the conflict page discussion here so as not to lose it. As this is a specific instance clearly explained in the sourcebooks, I suggest the use of both versions of Irovetti plus the clarification footnote is a reasonable way forward. It also means I don't have to say for the second time this week that Brandingopportunity was right. --Fleanetha (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)