Forum:Revised canon policy

{{forum post
 * Given the confusions about 4e, 3e, and prior editions, I thought it might be worth revisiting the official canon policy of the wiki to something more fluid.

All published paper sources under the FR label are canon.
Broadly, this is a good policy but in specific cases it lends itself to some confusion.

First of all, it doesn't really address what we do when two paper sources contradict each other. Generally speaking it has been an unspoken policy to regard more recent information as more canonical, but this is not explicitly stated and can be confusing.

Secondly, it doesn't really deal with the fact that both TSR and WotC, who were/are the official holders of the FR intellectual property, have generally intended generic D&D sourcebooks (like the PHB or MM) or even works from other campaign settings (like Spelljammer or Planescape) to contain information that is directly relevant to FR, even if it isn't under the FR label.

Video games are non-canon.
This policy was adopted early on in the wiki's existence but I don't think it actually reflects WotC's official policy. Rich Baker and others have stated in somewhat nebulous terms that games like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights fit into the FR canon in one way or another. Granted, no one seems to think that they hold as much water as the printed sourcebooks or novels, particularly when the two contradict one another, such as the Baldur's Gate novels vs. games paradigm, but there is a general impression that the games aren't completely non-canon.

Additionally, for some time, it's been interpreted on this very wiki that games, which contribute as much I think to FR's popularity as the novels, are more or less loosely canon.

Most recently published works are more accurate than old ones.
So what the Monster Manual 3rd edition has to say about devils, for instance, is more accurate than what Monster Manual 2nd edition has to say. This doesn't mean that material from previous versions is completely false or inaccurate; it's just that whenever a newer reference conflicts with an older one, the newer one almost always wins. Otherwise, both works are considered canon.

Here's a case example. Let's say you're using both the MM3e and MM2e to write an article about pit fiends.

'''I'd also add the following corollary to this rule: Whenever alignment is concerned, we use 3e alignments. Except when it's a 4e character or monster.'''

This is because the 4e alignment system, while different, doesn't actually contradict the 3e system - it's just broader in terms. Any character considered "Good" adequately covers both "Neutral Good" and "Chaotic Good," "Evil" covers both "Lawful Evil" and "Neutral Evil," and "Unaligned" covers "Lawful Neutral," "True Neutral," and "Chaotic Neutral." There's no need to revise the alignments of characters.

However, to keep things simple, whenever a character or monster is introduced in 4e that didn't exist in previous editions, I'd interpret (for the sake of simplicity) the provided alignments as they're written, preferably with "Good" redirecting to "Neutral Good," "Evil" to "Neutral Evil," and "Unaligned" to "True Neutral."

FR-specific works are more accurate than generic D&D ones.
So what the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide has to say about the planes is more accurate than what Manual of the Planes 4th edition has to say. Again, this doesn't mean the latter material is utterly invalid, it's only rendered false when there are contradictions between the two.

I'll provide another example. Take the plane of the Supreme Throne. Recently, I discovered (from this wiki) that the plane was actually another name for Limbo. Curious about this, I went ahead and checked the source and, sure enough, the Grand History corroborates this fact very clearly on the listed page number.

However, this creates a contradiction in canon: according to the FRCG, the Supreme Throne is, like all the planes inhabited by gods, an astral dominion. But according to the core Manual of the Planes for 4th edition, which according to official WotC policy is applicable to all campaign settings and not just the "Points of Light" setting, Limbo is an elemental realm.

In this case, I would say that Limbo, because it is explicitly stated to be the same plane as the Supreme Throne, is actually an astral dominion, despite it's official placement in the Manual of the Planes as an elemental realm. This is because that whenever an FR source and another D&D source contradict one another, the FR source wins.

Information presented in computer/video games are broadly and generally accurate.
That is to say that the central narrative, characters, backstory, lore, and characters are accurate. However, there are two conditionals to this:
 * 1) When games conflict irreconcilably with printed sourcebooks and novels (as in the case for Baldur's Gate), the latter wins.
 * 2) In cases where the plot is determined by player choices, canon is somewhat ambiguous. Occasionally, we learn what choice the player canonically made in subsequent materials. Sometimes we don't. If we cannot determine the results of these choices by direct statements or inference, than the matter should be left ambiguous.

Information presented for other campaign settings should be limited.
It's obvious from official WotC policy that classes, races, and even monsters from other settings are more or less intended to be optional and canon for every setting and not just the one that it was originally published for. Hence, warforged exist in FR and swordmages exist in Eberron. However, we don't want to become the D&D Lore Wiki rather than the FR Wiki, so information for other settings should be limited only to either the generic or that which is already directly applicable to the FR.

For example, warforged are canon to FR, but we shouldn't include every piece of information about them published. Information about warforged can be characterized two ways: setting-specific and generic. The setting-specific information, unless it is FR-specific, should be left out, so we aren't going to include information about how warforged fit into Eberron although we would include, however, information from the Dragon article about fitting warforged into FR. Generic information includes stuff like physical description and personality, which we would include.

As a corollary to the above, I'd recommend promoting interwiki communication and cooperation, including links between different wikis.

To a certain extent, we already do this with the LFR sub-wiki and the NWN2 Wiki, among others. I'd just include expanding this policy to include other wikis that have information that is relevant to cross-setting materials. For example, a link to the Eberron Wiki article about warforged within our own article about warforged.

Lore trumps mechanics. (Very nearly) always.
When all else fails, remember that lore trumps mechanics. Of course, this is a bit more complicated than it sounds since in many cases mechanics is meant to reflect lore, even if that isn't state outright. But if a piece of lore and some crunch from a sourcebook directly conflict, always choose to go with the lore.

Generally, the only exception to this is if the crunch in of itself directly infers changes in lore. For this, I'd call for a case-for-case basis, with most articles simply following the lore > crunch rule.

Summary
In essence, here is the proposed canon policy:


 * 1) Newer material trumps older material whenever the two conflict.
 * 2) FR-specific material trumps generic D&D material whenever the two conflict.
 * 3) Published sourcebooks, magazine articles, and D&D Insider material trumps video games.
 * 4) Game plots left entirely up to player choice should be left ambiguous.
 * 5) Only generic material from other campaign settings should be included.
 * 6) Lore trumps mechanics whenever the two conflict.

So there you have it. Suggestions and discussion are welcome.
 * Niirfa-sa 23:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post }Thanks, Fw190a8. I'll take a look (already given it a brief look over). Should we continue discussing the policy proposal here or on the link's talk page?
 * Niirfa-sa 03:12, January 18, 2012 (UTC)}}