FANDOM


Delete nomination Edit

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.

Subsequently this cannot be a considered a reliable source of canon information so I am nominating it for deletion. Viktoria Landers 08:31, August 17, 2019 (UTC)

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?

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 04:25, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

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. Viktoria Landers 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. -Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 10:08, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

The tabletop has several and specific sections which provides lore information to both players and the DMs about the politics, geography and history of Sirius. That part is canon and I am planning to extract lots of information into the wiki (though most of it has already been extracted by other editors). No one is disputing this.
As for the Bioware canon, it is based on stories which happen only if Bioware canon's walkthrough is followed, eg. The Warden is a Dalish Elf who makes the Ultimate Sacrifice, Alistair becomes the King of Ferelden, etc. The tabletop RPG is not based on Bioware canon simply because you start several years before the events of the Fifth Blight. That's why it will be even more inaccurate if we use that tag for the tabletop's custom adventures-stories. Viktoria Landers 10:37, August 18, 2019 (UTC)
That didn't really answer the question about the disclaimer though or why this is any less concrete than the rest of the material. Everyone knows that by nature of being a tabletop rpg quest npc, the possibility of change within the gameplay is present. Our job is just to demonstrate the parts that relate to the world as ostensibly can be relied on within the game world. We could come up with new note noting that this is just the npc and the quest as the book describes it and could be modded at the DM's discretion. But then the same could be said of anything in the game, anything COULD in theory be modded by the user. Besides there's nothing lore breaking or even particularly lore building in this or any comparable article anyway. They're just character descriptions and possible break downs based on the quest layout in the book.

-Seekers of Truth heraldryHD3 (Talk) 11:42, August 18, 2019 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.