User:Aeakett/User blog/Regarding Non-Canon Sources

Note that I wrote this post during scraps of free time while attending to more serous matters. As such it may lack even the minimal coherence of my usual ramblings. That said, I think it covers the main points that I wanted to get across, and I'd like to share my thoughts while the prompting discussions are still fresh in everybody's minds

There has been a bit of talk lately about canon and what should and should not be included in the project. Most of this discussion has revolved around "fluffy bits" found in various creature books (Tome of Horrors, the Bonus Bestiary, and the upcoming Pathfinder Bestiary specifically). In the case of ToH, it's pretty easy to make the case that it isn't canon, and its fluff shouldn't be cited. The BB and PFB are a little less clear though (on the surface at least). I mean, look it says "Pathfinder" right on the cover. However, Heaven's Agent pointed out (correctly in my opinion) that these are system books designed to be generic enough for use with any setting. Conversly, what we're interested in here at PathfinderWiki is the setting.

To many, including myself, this rather fine distinction can be pretty frustrating. It's pretty fair to assume that the fluffy bits in the system book that Paizo writes reflect reality in the setting. It also seems reasonable to think that 3rd party fluff (from ToH for example) from monsters used in setting books would be legitimate for inclusion.

It's also interesting to consider the case of certain 3rd party material written Paizo staff and contributers. The ones that come to mind are:

• Armies of the Abyss by Erik Mona. Paizo already uses Qlippoth in their setting material, so it seems pretty reasonable that the rest of the book would apply to the setting
• The Elysium Gem by Colin McComb. This is an upcoming release form SKR Games that consists of material cut from Beyond the Vault of Souls.
• Darkness Without Form: Secrets of the Mimic by Clinton J. Boomer and Matt Banach. Boomer literally wrote the book on Golarion's mimics, or at least the chapter of the book on Golarion's monsters (Dungeon Denizens Revisited).

Despite all of these juicy bits floating around out in the world, none of them are canon. Paizo has never said that they will honour any material in any of these sources. By extension, the wiki does not consider them to be valid sources. The fact is that, these unofficial "sources" are more likely to be disregarded than any official product. As it is, Paizo has already admitted that Guardians of Dragonfall contains information that they aren't quite happy with, and that it will be disregarded if/when a newer product needs to override it. Heaven's Agent also claims that the setting treatment of Jubilex already varies noticably from the fluff in ToH (a fact that I have no reason to dispute, despite my lack of knowledge on the matter). I suppose that my point is that, Paizo have already shown themselves willing to override their own work, and put their own spin on 3rd party material, and chasing scraps of information form non-canon sources is probably folly.

The only comment I have is with the actual pathfinder bestiary and bonus bestiary..... I believe Erik Mona has said that the descriptions there should be accurate to the setting (after looking I found it was actually in response to me asking if asking just this subject [Here|http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/products/paizo/bestiaryAndGolarion]) —Cpt kirstov (talk) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:53:39 +0000

Agreed - all that I was taking was appearance information. Maybe the bestiaries should be added the cannon ladder as a lower tier than everything else - a 'only when verified as present from another source' tier... since I forsee this being a more common issue with new Chroniclers... —Cpt kirstov (talk) Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:38:24 +0000

In light of the link above, it seems like the problem is less that the Bestiaries are not canon so much as they are outside of the scope of the project: to create an encyclopedia of Golarion-exclusive content.

OTOH, while exhaustively adding fluff from the Bestiaries is outside the scope of the project, I don't see why they should be ruled out as a source for basic information. Something like the following: "It is beyond the scope of this project to provide more than the most basic details about creatures, items, or game elements that are not specific to Golarion. In cases where very basic information about a topic would improve an article of Golarion-specific information, a reference to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook or Bestiary may be preferred to a reference or external link to another resource, such as Wikipedia. However, such a reference should comprise no more than a single, brief sentence that provides a basic definition of the topic."

In any case, it may be helpful to have a statement on the RPG books on the canon and scope policy pages; this issue is likely to come up again with the release of the Bestiary and other Pathfinder RPG rulebooks.

BTW, I see on "Recent Changes" that others have commented here, but I can't see those comments for some reason...? —Goblin Witchlord (talk) Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:33:26 +0000

Aha, I can see them now. Thanks. —Goblin Witchlord (talk) Fri, 11 Sep 2009 17:14:02 +0000

I think the idea of Golarion-specific flavor is also key in determining what should and shouldn't be added. As someone who absolutely loves adding creature articles to the project, I find myself giddy at the thought of all the information that will soon be available as part of the Bestiary. But I have to keep reminding myself that if it's not specifically placed in the CS, it doesn't belong in the project.

Regarding the Bestiary, if we have other sources focused on a creature, such as articles in the APs or as part of the Revisited line of books, then by all means such creatures should get their own article. It should be OK to pull mechanical fluff from the Bestiary, and leave the rest of the article to be filled with information from the other sources. If a creature is simply mentioned in passing in another wiki article, such as the mention of griffons in the Abadar article, or even just as part of an encounter table in a cannon source, then it too has a place in the project. In such an instance, though, where CS information is unavailable we might want to consider bringing over only the mechanical fluff - appearance, abilities, etc.

With third-party sources, I actually feel the best course of action is to include nothing from the source other than a basic infobox, and include a link leading to an article about the book on the source line. Though it could be argued that it would be worthwhile to include the mechanical fluff from such sources as well, there's simply no way of knowing if Paizo would take such material as written or modify it to better fit Golarion. —Heaven's Agent (talk) Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:55:14 +0000

Your last line is key. We all want the wiki to be as full of information as possible and sometimes that motivation tempts us to include more than we should from sources that don't officially fit the setting. It is important to remember, though, that adding information to the wiki which may need to be changed or removed at some point down the line actually makes our ultimate task harder and the end goal of amassing Golarion canon here even farther from being attainted. If anyone ever has questions of a source's validity, there's nothing wrong with bringing it up among the community for discussion. —Yoda8myhead (talk) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:22:19 +0000

The question is where we want to invest our time and efforts. Sure, it helps the project to add info from Game sources that fit within canon, but it helps ten times as much to add information from Setting sources. Just because something exists on Golarion doesn't mean that it has to have an entry here. Unless flavor is specific to Golarion and not the standard baseline for the game, it doesn't belong here. —Yoda8myhead (talk) Thu, 10 Sep 2009 21:02:07 +0000