While the tabletop RPG contains canonical information on lore, this one is a special case. More specifically, in the Game Master's Guide it provides the GM with some custom adventures to send the players in instead of requiring the GM to create one on their own.
- I fail to see how this differentiates it from any of the bioware canon material. Or indeed any possible dlc. Why should we delete an npc article based on an npc in bioware sanctioned material rather than sticking a bioware canon tag on it?
- The tabletop's materials are divided into several parts such as the Player's Guide, Monsters' Guide, Dungeon Master's Guide (players are not allowed to read that one). This specific part is in the very end of the DM's guide and is called "Adventures" and offers to a DM insights on how to set up their own background and story for their team and then provides them with some sample stories-adventures.
- Here is a disclaimer on one of these adventures which points out an inconsistency but explains why it is imperative to be this way so that the story-adventure make sense and not fall into logical fallacies. 09:55, August 18, 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I follow. The disclaimer just says some npcs hold grudges against orlais, then stops. I don't see how that applies here. Is that a corrupted link?
Anyway, I'm not denying the presence of the information in the adventure module guide but given this is the material bioware has signed off on, I don't see why applying anything other than a possible, "bioware canon" tag is warranted. If the information from the DM guide becomes invalid because it could be changed at the DM's discretion in theory, why is anything from the tabletop books acceptable? I'm not trying to be obtuse or anything I just genuinely don't understand the objection here. -HD3 (Talk) 10:08, August 18, 2019 (UTC)