Talk:Xvart

Why was the Image Removed? TerrorBlades 13:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like the image was removed by mistake in this edit. I have restored it. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Greate Ok, so there was no problem with the Copyright thing? TerrorBlades 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is usually no problem using screenshots from computer games as long as the source is provided. The image on the article ought to be fine now. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 18:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * it is no copyright violation to use a self made screenshot? Thought so, but if you are right, that is fine. I always thought that it is only allowed to use such screenshots, wich came directly from the page of the publisher and is a kind of promotional stuff, like the pics from the Wizards in their artwork section. Historicus 18:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see Screenshot and associated sources on that article. It is pretty much generally accepted that screenshots are 'ok' to use, even if you have produced it yourself. I suppose it could be a legal grey area if you really wanted it to be, but I have never heard of anyone objecting to the use of screenshots on a wiki in good faith. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Xvart!
Goin' to add some images of there hutts and try and get some sens of the fact that they use a Bear as vilage protector.

I'll see what else fact i can get out of these creatures from Baldurs gate!

I'll try and see if i can find some Consept art or other of these sins the Screenshop isent that good.... TerrorBlades 12:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe you can find more of them in the dragon: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20051215b They were one of the races of the 1. Edition, mentioned somewhat around the late 1980s. In one of the older books may be more of them. Here is a patron deity mentioned, a demigod named Raxivort:http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drigg/20071024
 * ps. sorry, the one above is from me. Must have been logged out without noticing it. Historicus 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * hehe no mater :) Just logged in my self :D. But i added once the thing about this Raxivort, but it got removed.And I'll add what ever i can find that's fitting Thank's :D! TerrorBlades 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now i wonder what i can and can not add... i got the mag... via a site... *cough* *cough*

I would avoid mentioning Raxivort, as he seems to be specific to the Greyhawk campaign setting. -- Rowan Earthwood 01:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Good Article status

 * Correct : yes
 * Referenced : yes
 * Formatted : yes
 * Clean : yes
 * Nearly complete : no (Since they are rarely in the Realms, it would be best to get the info from Volo's Guide to Monsters in here, to give it a better Realms feel.)
 * Policy-adherent/Demonstrative : yes

Inconsistencies?
The stuff written in this article seems to directly contradict what's written in Volo's Guide to Monsters. The article says that xvart children are conceived, but Volo's says that xvarts lack the ability to reproduce and that Raxivort makes all the xvarts over time to throw off his pursuers. Which is correct? Dachimotsu7734 (talk) 04:05, December 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Both. Or neither. :) The 2nd-edition lore is correct for 2nd edition, while Volo's Guide is correct for 5th edition. D&D is rife with such contradictions. Our goal, as laid out in the Canon policy, is to document both versions and let the reader pick which is best for their game or come up with their own solution, though in general the more recent edition should supersede the older where it makes sense. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:16, December 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with that, but it should be made clear which is the old version and the more up to date lore, especially as the newer stuff can be cross-referenced with Raxivort and then make sense. Metalmunki (talk) 14:43, July 22, 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to distrust anything Volo says, so I'd go with the 2e lore. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:15, December 16, 2017 (UTC)