Talk:The Border Kingdoms (sourcebook)

Is there a reason this was tagged non-canon? The dmsguild product entry here states: "The Border Kingdoms is an officially-approved Wizards of the Coast release, meaning that its content is Adventurers League legal and all the lore contained in the book is official Forgotten Realms canon!" --Wywernywin (talk) 16:06, May 13, 2020 (UTC)
 * According to whom? Anyone can publish a book on DMsGuild and claim anything about it in the descriptive text box. It would be very strange for it to be canon, considering Wizards of the Coast haven't said a thing about the book, neither have they listed it as a product on their website. As far as I can tell, it is totally and legally unofficial. The legal information inside the book mirrors a standard unofficial release — it clearly states that it is published under the Community Content Agreement. See this link about ownership and licensing issues.


 * Clearly, the other original material in the book is copyright by Ed Greenwood and Alex Kammer. According to the license: "if your work merits incorporation into canon, Wizards will contact you about purchasing your IP outright." As this isn't the case, it seems clear The Border Kingdoms is not canon. At most, it should be considered shadow canon. This could all change if Wizards give a statement! ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 17:20, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, I suppose I'm only going based on what Kammer and Ed have said (for example in this podcast here:). I would find it strange if the authors were to say it's approved by wizards if it is not, especially considering Ed's involved. However, I'll try to reach someone in twitter or so from WotC for their confirmation. --Wywernywin (talk) 17:58, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link, it is much appreciated! I just went through it. In this podcast, Alex Kammer stated that it will be "an official Wizards release, so this is going to be canon". However, the sourcebook (as released) is not an official Wizards release, at least not in terms of licensing, and is not listed as an official product either. As much as I'd love to see it be official canon, there is no official justification for it. Hopefully, some will come soon! ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 18:34, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Has anyone tried tweeting at the Wizards/Perkins/Mearls about this? just curious.Artyom.pavlov (talk) 22:47, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * Mike Mearls is no longer part of the D&D TTRPG team. I haven't seen any responses from Wizards or Perkins so far. ~ Possessed Priest (talk) 23:11, May 13, 2020 (UTC)


 * No response from Perkins so far, though I managed to get in touch with Kammer in Twitter. Let's see what the response from WotC is. Also, if there's a specific person the response should be sent to, as Kammer asks there, let me know.--Wywernywin (talk) 14:15, May 14, 2020 (UTC)


 * Um. Kammer's question to Chris Lindsay here asks no more than we've already confirmed, namely that it's AL-legal and "official", whatever that means, like anything else released through DMs Guild. Never mind that it's such a loaded question. So not even Kammer is saying its canon. — BadCatMan (talk) 14:39, May 14, 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, Ed chimed in on it now in Twitter, saying it's canon. His post pretty much says what our "What is canon?" section says under Ed Greenwood. I'm sorry this has turned into such a debate, it was not my intention.--Wywernywin (talk) 17:13, May 14, 2020 (UTC)


 * I was the one who tagged this. Last time this came up, I said "While some people are reporting it is canon, it's mainly due to having Ed Greenwood's name attached and author Alex Kammer's personal view. However, the official material only states it to be Adventurers League legal and Convention-Created Content, and even specifically for Kammer's Gamehole Con, which has exclusive AL rights to the BK. While Ed Greenwood's word is generally regarded as canon, judging by this reviewer stating much of it is copied from Greenwood's original BK articles, and others reporting it is an update of a 2018 work of the same name, it sounds like Greenwood's name is only attached to cover for the copied material. It may or may not be canon, but there's no way of knowing, and I would err on the side of "nope, not at all"." But Possessed Priest lays out the argument much better above. Apart from those two statements, every other statement about the book I've seen since, even from the authors themselves, can only say its AL-legal, not official or canon. — BadCatMan (talk) 00:42, May 14, 2020 (UTC)