Use the following template for a nicely presented post:
{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}
As the policy currently stands
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.
To solve some of these issues, I've made a few proposed policies that are open to suggestion
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:
- When games conflict irreconcilably with printed sourcebooks and novels (as in the case for Baldur's Gate), the latter wins.
- 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:
- Newer material trumps older material whenever the two conflict.
- FR-specific material trumps generic D&D material whenever the two conflict.
- Published sourcebooks, magazine articles, and D&D Insider material trumps video games.
- Game plots left entirely up to player choice should be left ambiguous.
- Only generic material from other campaign settings should be included.
- Lore trumps mechanics whenever the two conflict.
So there you have it. Suggestions and discussion are welcome.
This leads into the second one, for example duegar are dwarves and not devils in FR. Sure the 4E MM says they are devils, but they are not in FR. But, of course, the 4E supporters only like it when it's on there side. As soon as you say they can't have their 4E whatever they cry fowl and demand that it must be done and 4E is the rule. So duegar are devils, but is there even a 4E FR reference for this?
The love vs mechanics is a fun one. Older E's have tons and tons of lore, but 4E has almost none. In fact, 4E is just about all mechanics. I can fill a page about a old E spell, but a 4E spell would be just one line...of mechanics. Yet the 4E folks insisted in changing the whole magic system around on the wiki and making all the old stuff useless, if not just out right deleting it.
So the canon policy sounds great, if your a 4E lover, as they get everything they want and are free to ruin the older Realms.Personally, I think the idea of duergar as devils is more than a mite silly myself, but it's not my decision to make.
It's one thing to say Bob is the official king of Waterdeep per page 12 of the Realms Book of Kings. But it's another thing to look at the Realms as a 'real' place. And this brings in the real world problem: the people who are in charge of the 'official Realms' don't care, they are just employes doing a job. It's a sad and harsh reality, but it's true. And it's been true from the start of 3E when the lore dropped off to just about zero. The 'officials' are not true fans of the Realms, and even if they were, it would be second to their job(and that is understandable).
Now, the folks here on the FR Wiki are True Fans. We all like the Realms. We all come here on out free time and add things to the wiki because we want to and we like the idea of having all this Realmslore online.
So why must we automatically bow to the 'officials' that don't care? Just as some worker 'officially' writes oh elves are not eldran, they are in fact half dragons known as elgons why must we change everything on (our) the wiki to match that. How about we vote on the crazy, careless changes that the 'officials' make? This will become important in a couple months when 5E comes out and changes the Realms yet again. So, instead of just changing things randomly to whatever the 'officials' say, lets vote on it. When some 'official' says that all FR so called elves are really elgons and always have been, how about we think about that and then vote to add it or not?
I know no one wanted to keep the classic pages, and absolutely demanded that all pages be ruined by 4E spam to make them useless to other editions, but there is always a chance that common sense will prevail. Then if we vote out the horrible 4e (and soon to be 5E) stuff we can have the normal wiki back. And we can still have a redirect at the top of the page to say something like This page is about the real elves, if you want the crazy 4E version follow this link.
Because otherwise what's the point of having a wiki that covers canon at all in the first place? Why not just let in fanon? There's an arbitrary boundary between ignoring canon and making it a fanon-wiki, which would be a much more drastic shift in our policy than what I'm proposing.
I don't see why there has to be a "this is the 3e or the 4e wiki" debate at all, to be candid. While the number of changes between 3e and 4e lore-wise are large and arguably unnecessary, none of them are significantly more drastic than the change from 2e to 3e, which rewrote the cosmology of the Realms entirely and got rid of racial confinements on class, or the move from 1e to 2e, which massacred several of the setting's more popular gods and brought in several new ones.
These proposed changes are not meant to favor 4e: the contrary, they're meant to allow the smooth integration of all the various iterations of FR into one whole and to make it easier for the wiki's articles to be read, rather than jumping back and forth between statements like "in 4e" or "in Neverwinter Nights or "back in 2e," etc. My hope is not only that people's anxieties about 3e lore getting wiped out be dealt with, but that information from prior editions be integrated as well, which largely was ignored earlier in favor of 3e and 4e.
Take the Mystra fiasco, for example. Thanks in no small part to TSR's decision to name both Mothers of Magic with the same name, there's been a fair amount of merging between the two deities on this wiki, such as listing the previous Mystra as "neutral good" or using the same holy symbol for both deities (despite 1e sourcebooks dictating otherwise). This is just one example of how the wiki was initially significantly biased towards 3e. I'm trying to reduce that bias, not towards 4e, but simply in such a way that all editions are counted while keeping up with the most recent information when contradictions emerge. Overall, it's not a dissimilar system to the one used by Lucas Licensing for Star Wars continuity.
If you want to ignore canon, that's fair and entirely up to you. But this wiki is for all FR fans and so should present information that is useful to people using the currently published form of the setting. Anyone who wants to do otherwise can do as they've always done: alter canon how you wish for your own purposes or use the sourcebooks from their preferred edition. It's what disgruntled 2e fans during 3e and it's what I would expect 3.5 fans to do now. And of course it's naturally what unhappy fans of 4e will do when 5e comes out.
You use the term "trumps" a lot, but I would like to suggest that we cover all our bases here, such that:
- The piece of lore was correct in one source, but has since been explicitly retconned
- We should note in the article that the information was retconned, and provide a source.
- The piece of lore was correct in one source, but appears to have been superseded in a later source
- We should write both sources' points of view into the article, beginning with the later source, and reference both sources.
- The piece of lore was correct and is still so
- Provide a reference already!
I would like to see all editions represented without bias, explicit or otherwise, so that everyone gets the benefit of the full back catalogue of realmslore.
With regard to the "FR-specific trumps generic D&D", I would advocate that, like above, the differences are represented, FR-specific first, and references are given for both.
Again, with video games, I would say the same thing: sourcebook info first, then explain that it's different in the game, and reference both.
As far as video game canon status is concerned, let's collect together sources (things Ed has said, WotC statements, etc) that can help us decide whether they are determined as canon (as usual, "I know it's true because I read it on some site I can't remember" is not going to be good enough) and we can present the sources on the policy itself.
As far as other campaign settings are concerned, I feel that the information would have to be shown to be specifically applicable to the Realms. Unlike generic D&D material, which can be assumed to be present in the Realms unless specified otherwise, I think that to be included on this wiki, information from other campaigns must actively be shown to be relevant. A good example is Sigil. While part of Planescape canon, it can be shown to be included in several sources specific to the Realms, so it is appropriate to list here.
What's canon and what isn't is really a mater of opinion. There are people over at Candle Keep who insist that an item is canon only if Ed Greenwood wrote or said it which is hard-line silliness in my opinion.
I'm in agreement with Niirfa's hierarchy on canonicality (is that a word?). However, I think we need to include the FR novels in the list. I read many of the novels and it seems that many FR authors, especially the new ones, have only a passing familiarity with the Realms. Often, material in the novels conflicts with official sourcebook material, especially class specific abilities. I suggest placing official source material at the top of the list with novels, Dragon/Dungeon magazine articles and other material from WoTC in the second highest tier. Where would forum postings by FR developers or authors go? With the novels and magazine articles?
The problem is that difficulties arise when information released in setting-specific material is intended to be applicable generally. Warforged from the Eberron Player's Guide is one example, a lot of the material presented in Planescape is as well. My idea was that we'd separate material that only applies to the original setting from that which is generic and only include the latter.
Still, I can see that it would be easier to integrates races like warforged and thri-keen, which have already been referenced in FR-specific documents, than races like the kalashtar or mul, which, to my best knowledge, have not been. Similarly, while integrating information about the planes from Planescape is useful to a certain extent, we do run into certain barriers given the immense retcon about FR's cosmology for 3e, including the relocation of several deities and creation of entirely new planes that were formerly "layers" or "realms."
That sounds reasonable. Here's one quote:
There's some ambiguity in the word "game products," of course. But there have also been cases where WotC has ruled out specific story ideas because they would change canon (actually destroying the Wall of the Faithless in MotB was one such idea, apparently). Storm of Zehir was also created with the intent of linking the 3e Realms to the 4e one, including hints about the Spellplague's origin and its later effects.
I wasn't aware of this, though, to be fair, I've only read a handful of FR novels, so I'm not an expert. It does seem inevitable that contradictions between the novels and sourcebooks would arise at some point and though my first instinct would be to just go with whatever came out later, it does make a certain amount of sense that the RPG sourcebooks would occupy a higher level of canon than novels, since the sourcebooks are more carefully screened by WotC (and TSR in the past) than the novels (which are written mostly by other people).
Under that idea we might have something similar to the levels of Star Wars canon (which I admit I've modeled my earlier proposal off of to an extent), with different tiers depending on the reference source:
- Printed Sourcebooks. With more recent books holding greater authority (whichever edition they are).
- Printed Novels. Again, with the more recent novels being more accurate, though contradictions are probably less likely here.
- Magazine/online articles.
- Video Games. One example would be the Baldur's Gate games, which would be canon except for where they contradict the novels, wherein the novels take greater priority.
Where to put authorial statements is an open question, though I'd go with the rule of thumb that it depends who the author is and in what capacity they're asking. A game developer talking about a game would have less authority than say R.A. Salvatore or Ed Greenwood, for example.
This is why I think we should use common sense, although using the above as a general guideline is useful, and simply note the contradictions as we go. We can make both versions available to the reader, and make no attempt to say one is canon and one is not. The exception would be if a contradiction was explicitly cleared up, by a forum post from Ed or something similar.
Niirfa-sa, I'm afraid your Phil Athans quote is too ambiguous to carry any authority, since, as you already pointed out, it mentions "game products" which, the devil's advocate would be keen to point out, might as easily refer to sourcebooks as video games. Do you have a source for that, by the way?