Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Journals
 General Forgotten Realms Chat
 The Candlekanon: Policy Discussion
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2017 :  22:33:56  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Okay, let's review where we are at:

1. We decided overwhelmingly to support a community based canon in order to sustain the Realms. This fan canon, which will deviate from the WotC canon, will be called the Candlekanon.

2. We decided overwhelmingly to organize the Candlekanon around a Wiki. The Wiki is already up and running, and can be found here.

3. We decided overwhelmingly that the Candlekanon will accept all existing published canon, and will accept submitted lore from any place on the timeline. Future WotC canon will also have to be submitted under the same process as any other submission, and as a result may be rejected by the community, integrated in a way the community feels is most appropriate or accepted as it is presented in the official canon.

4. We decided overwhelmingly that the Candlekanon will begin at 1500 DR, which is 9 years after the current canon date of 1491 DR.

These are the things we have decided already. Now that we have made these decisions we have to move onto the next phase, which is discussing the type of policies we are going to use on the Wiki. Now, obviously, not everything has to be set in stone. The policies will adapt and evolve with the needs of the Wiki--there will likely be future policies necessary that we cannot envision right now. However, there are some policies that are going to be vital right from the outset. I think two of those policies will be how we decide what becomes Candlekanon and what does not, and the format in which the Candlekanon will be written.

On the first major policy, how we determine what becomes and does not become Candlekanon, it is important for us to start discussing those details now. We had some of those discussions previously, but I have tried to delay them until this point--we had to establish the previously mentioned things first.

On the second major policy, the format in which Candlekanon submissions will be accepted, we have also have had some discussions. Basically, this comes down to whether or not submissions will be similar to the Volo's Guides with an unreliable narrator, or more encyclopedic with an omniscient narrator. There are pro's and con's to both methods, and I really think we need to have a discussion on it before we hold a vote.

In both instances these are really difficult policies to retroactively change later down the line. In the first instance, it could lead to hard feelings and accusations of favoritism, and in the second instance it would require us to go back and basically rewrite all previously established Candlekanon entries. Trying to get these two policies correct right out of the gate is critical.

Of course, I do not want to lock us down to just these two policy discussions. There are other policies that we need to consider. Just take a look, as an example, of the policies for the Forgotten Realms Wiki. We are going to need similar policies for our Wiki, and perhaps some additional ones as well. So, this is an opportunity to begin these discussions.

Once we have had some time to discuss things, our next two major votes will be to decide the two major policies I brought up here. These votes will probably happen more-or-less simultaneously. Policies that are discussed here will also be brought up for a vote later.

As a side note, I am looking for people who have some skills with Wikia organization. We need to update the templates, themes, CSS, and all that good stuff. We need to begin getting the format and basic layout down for the Wiki, as at the moment, it is mostly being used to organize personal stuff for later submission. If you are a FR Wiki admin in good standing, and would also like to be an admin on the CK Wiki, let me know.

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2017 :  23:24:06  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
On the first issue, how submissions to the Candlekanon will be judged and accepted, here is a suggestion based on what we have previously discussed. Let me know what you guys think.

1. All Candlekanon submissions will undergo an editorial process to ensure that they are fully in line with the standards set out in the policies. This is an open ended process of undetermined length, based on what is being submitted.

2. Once a submission completes the editorial process, it will be put up for a vote. The vote will remain open for two weeks.

3. If at least 75% of those voting support the submission within the first two weeks, then it becomes part of the Candlekanon. If support is below 75% then the submission will be considered "controversial" and the vote will remain open for three additional weeks. At the end of the final three-week period whatever the majority decides becomes the final outcome. It also means that the maximum amount of time a submission is up for a vote is one month (31 days).

4. To avoid vote tampering, we will do voice votes here on Candlekeep, foregoing anonymous voting.

5. To further avoid vote tampering, for someone to vote they must be a member of Candlekeep for at least one month with at least 25 posts here on the forum. Alternatively, they must be an active contributor on the Wiki for at least one month, with active participation in the editorial process of submissions.

6. There are three acceptable votes to be made on a submission: Accept, Block, and Abstain.

7. A vote of "Accept" is straight forward--you are voting to make something Candlekanon.

8. A vote of "Block" carries with it additional criteria: you must state the reason you are blocking. Blocking something without stating a reason nullifies the vote. By stating the reason clearly, it allows the individual(s) who made the submission to make changes and re-submit their entry if it is blocked by the community.

9. A vote of "Abstain" is a statement of indifference or indecision. You are neither voting to "Accept" or "Block." This is important in the first two weeks of voting, as the total votes to avoid the three-week run-off requires 75% of the votes to be "Accept." In the final tally, if a run-off occurs, only "Accept" and "Block" votes are counted and "Abstain" votes are discarded.

10. A voter has the ability to change their vote at any point as long as the process remains open.

11. A blocked submission is moved to the homebrew section of the Wiki. It can, however, be resubmitted so long as it undergoes significant enough changes to potentially become Candlekanon. This requires the individual(s) behind the submission to take the reason for the blocked entry into account and make adjustments in an effort to build greater consensus. This is also why there is the additional requirement for those blocking to state the reason(s) behind their blocking.

What are folks thoughts on this as a potential method of getting into the Candlekanon? This takes into account some of the discussions we had, as well as expanded upon some of those thoughts and concerns.

Really, the new thing I am proposing here is the requirement to state the reason behind blocking an entry. In my opinion, I think this is a good idea because it could potentially reduce hard feelings toward having something blocked. Those who make submissions will know and understand the reason behind the blocked submission and will have the opportunity to modify their submission and then resubmit it in an effort to win majority support. This will move us more toward a system of consensus building.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 05 Aug 2017 :  23:32:37  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
On the second issue, which deals with the narration format of submissions--unreliable or omniscient--I am personally undecided. On the one hand, I personally enjoy reading unreliable narrators. It is much more preferable than the omniscient narrator. On the other hand, this will probably make managing the Candlekanon hard as hell. In a sense, there would be no "objective" truth aside from what is established in WotC's canon. Submissions could potentially "overwrite" each other with alternative interpretations of events, and with multiple interpretations of events--how do we check things against the fan canon to avoid confusion?

I guess I am leaning toward omniscient narration, even though I personally prefer the tone and feel of an unreliable narrator.

Of course, I guess there is also a middle path. We could have entries written from the perspective of in-world characters, but require the entries be accepted and treated as "objective" truth for the purposes of the canon. That sort of draws upon the strengths of both.

What are the thoughts of everyone?
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Master of Realmslore

Colombia
1678 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  00:25:46  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
On the first issue, I'm ok with that. I agree with explaining why one should block a vote, as it will help to make a better, cohesive canon.

On the second issue, I guess we can go with the unreliable narrator, but pointing out when the unreliable narrator is wrong about something, with notes.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  00:47:38  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Some policies from the FR Wiki we might want to consider:

The 3 Sentences Rule: Basically, if an entry can be summed up in less than three sentences, it does not deserve its own article. Submissions of less than three sentences should be added to other articles.

Name the Battles: There are a lot of battles in the canon that do not have names but are significant. Articles need names and titles, thus all battles must be named.

War and Conflict in the Realms: This is not part of the FR Wiki, but it requires a discussion. Battles are normally part of larger wars. We need to come up with a definition of what we consider a "conflict" and what we consider a "war." Wars and Conflicts can then be broken up into three parts: skirmishes, battles, and sieges. Instead of having an individual article for each battle, we can have a single article for each war and conflict and have a section of the article devoted to all the skirmishes, battles, and sieges that make up the war or conflict in question.

Forgotten Realms Canon: Basically, this is the FR Wiki canon policy. I think ours should be identical to whatever the FR Wiki decides so that the CK Wiki and the FR Wiki are backward compatible.

Categorization: I think our rules for Categorization should be similar to the FR Wikis. However, I think our policy needs to be a bit more extended, to draw a distinction between homebrew lore (stuff not submitted for the Candlekanon), submissions for editorial review to the Candlekanon, and stuff that has been accepted into the Candlekanon. This is something that needs to be more broadly discussed, as it relates to the organization on the Wiki.

Citing Sources: This is something I am unsure about. On the one hand, it is important to cite sources when we are dealing with official canon. On the other hand, we are also making stuff up, which is the entire point of the Candlekanon. This is something that needs to be discussed in greater detail and ironed out.

Disallow Unsourced Edits From Anonymous Users: I am thinking that a similar policy may be appropriate for us, but something broader--for example, disallowing anonymous users from editing anything to do with the Candlekanon. If you want to contribute to the Candlekanon, you must register. We could still allow anonymous users to upload stuff to the homebrew section of the Wiki.

Featured Articles Critera: The FR Wiki has criteria that it uses to judge an article as being prepared to be featured on the main page. I think we should use similar criteria to judge when an article is completed with its editorial process and is prepared to be voted on for the Candlekanon. This is something that needs to be discussed in more detail.

Infoboxes: Infoboxes are important parts of Wikis. We need a policy on it, and there is no reason CK Wiki should not use the same policy as the FR Wiki--or at least one very close to it. This will make it easier for people to navigate both Wikis, as the format will feel familiar.

Naming conventions: There is no reason we should not also adopt the FR Wiki's naming conventions, perhaps with some modifications that are unique to our Wiki. Again, this keeps the format familiar between the two wikis.

No Crunch: Like with the FR Wiki, our focus is on lore over system mechanics. However, unlike the FR Wiki we are allowing homebrew stuff. So, I believe that anyone who wants to take the time to stat out or build an NPC, monster, or something else in the Candlekanon should be able to link to their homebrew build from the Candlekanon article. This would be system independent, and basically open for anyone who wants to make a submission--no voting. This will make the CK Wiki more useful to DM's who want to quickly pull NPC's or monster's from the Wiki without having to create their own. We may need some additional rules around this, obviously.

Past Tense Policy: We may want to consider adopting an identical rule for similar reasons.

Plagiarism: Ditto here. We need the same policy enforced to avoid copyright violations.

Protected Pages: We will need a similar policy to protect the Wiki from vandalism.

Scope of the Project: The CK Wiki will need a similar set of guidelines for similar reasons.

Sorting the Years: The CK Wiki needs a similar policy for identical reasons.

Spoilers: Similar rule for similar reasons. Basically, if you read the Wiki you are opening yourself up to spoilers.

Uploading Images: Identical policy for the same reasons, to avoid copyright issues.

Use Lower Case: Similar policy for similar reasons--to keep us consistant with the FR Wiki.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
33703 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  02:00:57  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm curious about the editorial process. What are the standards that are considered, who makes them, and how transparent is this process?

Note: I am NOT volunteering to be part of that process.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

Editor and scribe for The Candlekeep Compendium

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!

Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 06 Aug 2017 02:01:38
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  02:19:47  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

On the first issue, I'm ok with that. I agree with explaining why one should block a vote, as it will help to make a better, cohesive canon.


Yes, we will need a clear policy on the matter, but the goal is to push everyone toward consensus and compermise. One of the concerns raised early on is avoiding hard feelings about someone voting against a proposal. By having a policy that states that you must present a clear reason for voting to block something, this will hopefully de-personalize the issue. It requires people to discuss the differences they have, and ideally work together to create something even better that both individuals can enthusiastically support.

Another advantage of doing this is that it allows us to sideline most of the 'I do not like this idea for X, Y, Z reasons' during the editorial phase. That allows us, during the editorial phase, to focus on what needs to be done to prepare an article for entry into the Candlekanon. Then during the voting phase people can raise all of the objections they want if they vote to block it. If we allow all of those objections to be raised during the editorial phase, then it could potentially stall articles indefinitely, and allow a handful of individuals to hold up an article that the majority support. At some point, discussion over differences has to end, and things have to go to a vote to see where people stand. In other words, this helps reduce (though it does not entirely prevent) filibustering.

quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

On the second issue, I guess we can go with the unreliable narrator, but pointing out when the unreliable narrator is wrong about something, with notes.



So that everyone has an idea and point of reference here are some various samplings.

I would consider this sampling as a "middle path" that I described previously. Here is Volo as a (un?)reliable narrator in Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, pg. 8:
quote:
This port city is both shelter and lifeline for the folk of the Coast. It is the only place to buy many luxury goods and offers the discerning shopper the widest selection of goods anywhere in the Sword Coast region--though usually at prices higher than those in Waterdeep or coastal Amn.

Baldur's Gate is a tolerant but well-policed city of merchants, and quiet business as usual is the general order of each day. Baldur's Gate, Berdusk, Neverwinter, and Silverymoon are probably the safest settlements in all western Faerun. In Baldur's Gate, the watch wears distinctive black helms with a vertical red stripe on either side, if you have problems. Not only are the members of the watch vigilant, enthusiastic, wise, and observant, but the Flaming Fist Mercenary Company, over a thousand strong, is based in the city. Every tenth person or so is a member or a watch agent (well, spy) of the Fist, skilled in battle and within a breath or two of numerous armed allies.

The visitor can freely stroll and shop. If you can't carry all you buy, or need help to find your way, guides and porters can be hired at most street corners. These husky youths are known as lamp boys or lamp lasses because they carry lanterns at night to light the way for their patrons.


Contrast the above with this one below. The one below is from the perspective of an omniscient narrator and is more encyclopedic. It is from the 3rd Edition, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, pg. 225-226:

quote:
One of the two great cities of the Sword Coast, Baldur's Gate sits on the north bank of the River Chionthar, twenty miles from where the river flows into the Sea of Swords. Situated halfway between Amn and Waterdeep, the city thrives on trade.

Trade knows no alignment, so tolerance is a virtue in Baldur's Gate, but not to the extent that visitors are allowed to conduct themselves in ways injurious to other persons or property. Guards in distinctive black helms with red stripes on either side police the city. They pay more attention to the upper half of the city, the part within the original walls, than to the newer, lower half by the river, enclosed by lower walls.

As is often the way in Faerun, the great number of guards in Baldur's Gate is a clue to the presence of a well-run thieves' guild, Guildmaster Ravcnscar (NE male human Rog10/Skr4 of Mask) maintains amiable though distant relations with Baldur's Gate's four grand dukes, including Eltan (LN male human Ftr20), the commander of the Flaming Fist mercenary company. The Flaming Fist serves as Baldur's Gate's unofficial army, providing cheap rates in return for a subsidized base of operations.

Most major cities have a few major temples, but Baldur's Gate's three major halls of worship are noteworthy. Gond's High House of Wonders houses an astonishing collection of one-of-a-kind inventions. Gnomes, inventors, and craftsfolk make the pilgrimage to Baldur's Gate for both inspiration and devotion. Tymora's temple, the Lady's Hall, is remarkable for its size and wealth. The temple to Umberlee, euphemistically known as the "Water Queen's House," is one of the few actual temples to this deity in all of Faerun.


Here is another example of an unreliable narrator, this time more obviously unreliable than Volo. However, it has even more color and flavor. This sample is from the Planescape Setting book, Face of Evil, the Fiends, pg. 30:

quote:
Plenty of myths surround the Lords of the Nine. Some folks say they're arch-fiends, risen from the ranks below them to dominate the layers of Baator. Other graybeards claim they're really yugoloths (I swear, some folks see 'loths everywhere they look). There's even a group that thinks the lords grew up from the very essence of Baator itself and are the living manifestations of the plane's will.

Is any of it true? Who knows? The lords keep most of the facts about themselves dark; the fewer folks know of 'em, the better. still, it doesn't prevent tenacious mortals from digging up whatever they can. Take Willgan the Dogged, for instance. That blood gathered together more material than nearly any other. 'Course, the baatezu say his sources were corrupt, and Willgan ain't available for questions--he's vanished.

Anyway, here's what we do know about the lords. They're mighty, maybe even mightier than the deities of Baator. They're partly creatures of symbology as well as physical form, so their natures change bit by bit over the millennia. They've hidden the truth about themselves behind countless walls, giving different names and showing different aspects to almost every berk who asks, so that no one can truly label them. Like powers, they can manifest avatars and choose their forms for best effect.

The lords shape the layers of Baator in their own image and police their territory better than the Harmonium ever could. They command handfuls of noble baatezu and armies of common baatezu, and they use their underlings' power to amass ever more influence for themselves. And though they're bitter rivals, they recognize the need for diplomacy and alliances now and again to keep Baator strong against outsiders.

What else? Well, the lords don't give a fig about the Blood War, leaving it all in the hands of the Dark Eight. They simply rule the nine layers of Baator. They also make pacts with leatherheads on the Prime Material Plane, promising strength, wealth, and sometimes immortality to those who follow their tenets. They build civilizations and crush empires. They are, in short, never to be messed with.

That's all I can say with certainty. Anything else is just guesswork. 'Course, some guesses are better than others, and the chant below is a collection of the most compelling evidence ever found. But mind where you take this information, berk--flap your bone-box too loudly in the wrong places and you'll wind up in the dead-book for sure.


This is to give a taste and flavor of the different ways the information can be presented. I would consider Volo's presentation method the 'middle path' that I mentioned. I would consider the 3E FRCS entry to be omniscient and encyclopedic. Finally, there is the Planescape presentation method which is the most colorful, but also the most blatantly unreliable.

When it comes to reading something, I find reading the Planescape presentation the most enjoyable. It is interesting and full of color and flavor. It gives a real taste of the setting. However, doing this for a Wiki is likely next to impossible. Keeping the tone and presentation consistent would be hellish. Then there is the fact that the text deliberately attempts to offer alternative interpretations of the world, which has a real impact as people attempt to add to the setting--eventually some of those "interpretations" start to get nailed down.

The advantage of doing things like the 3E FRCS is that it is clear, clean, concise, and factual. This makes working on the projects much easier.

...and of course, the Volo's Guide method is the 'middle path' between the two.

There are pros and cons to all methods of presentation.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  02:39:05  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert

I'm curious about the editorial process. What are the standards that are considered, who makes them, and how transparent is this process?

Note: I am NOT volunteering to be part of that process.



That is something that has to be determined and discussed in this thread. However, a couple of those questions can be answered:

1. Who sets the standards?
We do. We will be voting on them.

2. What are the standards?
We need to vote on them first to answer that question.

3. How transparent will the editorial process be?
It will be 100% transparent, and everyone can participate. Once the policies are set it will create clear guidelines for everyone to follow.

We have already, based on our previous votes, begun to outline some of the things that the editorial process will require. For example, we are required--based on our previous voting--to incorporate all official Realmslore and existing Candlekanon that is currently published. This means we cannot retcon anything with a submission.

So, for example, let us say you are writing something for Cormyr in 1487 DR. Well, there are canon events taking place in Cormyr during that time period that you have to take into consideration. Likewise, if there is already a Candlekanon article for Cormyr for 1500 DR, something you write for 1500 DR has to be consistent with the published Candlekanon.

There are some other things in there as well that are implied, for example, a Candlekanon article cannot plagiarize copyright material.

For an idea of some other policies that might need to be followed, see my previous post and some of the FR Wiki policies.
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  03:11:32  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
WHY choose?

While 2e leaned toward 'unreliable', and 3e leaned toward 'omniscient', we've seen examples of both in both and the whole edition didn't burst into flames or implode.

I prefer a Volo-esque 'unreliable narrator' (or like how Elaine cunningham presented the 'information' in her Evermeet novel). I do enjoy reading a Planescape-ish type of entry, but I wouldn't want an entire setting/edition presented exactly that way (and I don't think everything in PS was presented that way - I'd say about half was 'cold, hard facts'). It would get on my nerves after awhile... and might be why I still had several shrink-wrapped {never opened} Planescape boxes in my collection (before it all burned).

But at the same time, I like when I look up something specific and can find that specific thing, without all the 'fanfare'. So what I am saying is that I like a mix, and don't see why we couldn't have that. I 've come to prefer to write my Realmslore in the 'Volo style', if only because it makes it easier for other users to tweak. Personally, for something like the CandleKanon, I would think that would be the obvious way to go (I would be more likely to vote 'Accept' for a piece of lore I didn't care for, if I could just choose to ignore it (not disregard it - it would still be our canon - I could just not think about it).

Which brings me to the next point - the voting. I REALLY don't like the 'open voting'. I will, once again, go along with the consensus, but I think thats going to lead to some pretty heated arguments. I also would have preferred to do the voting on the Candlekeep Facebook page - I feel like if we keep it here, it might be viewed as 'elitist'. Just something to think about.

One last thing - Lore limitations? The specific one I am thinking about is 'area' (landmass, space, Crystal Sphere, cosmology, etc, etc). Since this IS supposed to be a Forgotten Realms project, BUT FR has now become 'Core' (D&D), does that mean everything is on the table? I am going to assume it should be 'TSR/WotC/Hasbro-only' (with 'Earth' - the D&D Earth - thrown in for good measure... and completeness... because it IS part of FR lore), but obviously we should avoid other IP's (even though at least three other IPs do have official 'D&D/TSR lore'). Cthulhu might be okay, because its 'public domain' (not all of it - BE CAREFUL!), but we'd have to watch our step around Newhon or Moorcockian material (even though there is a Newhon ghoul in FR, in canon). And obviously other game company's stuff would be off-limits (although an oblique reference might be fun, like mentioning that someone tried to kill Rasputin... which is from Pathfinder). And NO Jedi. Or Golden Snitches. LOL

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 06 Aug 2017 03:22:26
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Master of Realmslore

Colombia
1678 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  04:55:46  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I guess the Candlekanon would do well in stick with the current 5e OGL. It will help to avoid some legal problems. I guess the 3.xe OGL is ok as well, but I dunno if those two OGLs are compatible.

And obviously with the DM's Guild politics (so, only FR-related stuff, and maybe Ravenloft, as is now connected to the Realms thanks to Curse of Sthrand), as I guess some people will want to publish CKanon stuff in the DM's Guild.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...

Edited by - Zeromaru X on 06 Aug 2017 04:58:18
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  05:22:21  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

WHY choose?


For the sake of consistency and the ease of designing coherent editorial policies.

Another 'middle path' is to use the 3E omniscient narrator, but include obvious in flavor character text to get the different perspectives (or just the most popular perspective) of people in the Realms.

There are pros and cons to every style--there is no 'right way' only what way will work best for us. The clear advantage I see to the 3E style is that it will eliminate a lot of debates and arguments. The text says what it says, and it is authoritative and factual. This also makes editing things much easier, and it is also easier to craft policies around it.

Trying to do both could end up with inconsistencies. For example, a more Volo's guide style narrative might give one perception of the Flaming Fist, but an omniscient narrative might give another. There is no dispute here over which one is "correct"--the omniscient narrative is correct because it is omniscient. The problem, however, is that the Volo's guide version had already created a certain accepted perception of the Flaming Fist that the omniscient style overwrote. Do you see the rabbit hole we threaten to go down here?

Flavor text could potentially solve this issue, I suppose. This way different perceptions could be displayed, while "the truth" is made clear. This might achieve both at the same time.

So, I guess the options at the moment are something like:
- An unreliable/biased character narrator.
- A reliable/non-biased character narrator.
- An omniscient narrator with flavor text.
- An omniscient narrator only.

Are there any other ways we can present the Wiki material? I am trying to set things up so that there can be clear voting options.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Which brings me to the next point - the voting. I REALLY don't like the 'open voting'.


I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you referring to the voice voting (i.e. you have to post)? Or are you referring to leaving the vote open, allowing people to change their minds until the voting closes?

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

(I would be more likely to vote 'Accept' for a piece of lore I didn't care for, if I could just choose to ignore it (not disregard it - it would still be our canon - I could just not think about it).


I agree--that is one of the key advantages of an unreliable narrator. However, voting for blocking something and stating the reasons for blocking gives someone the opportunity to make changes if the majority disagree with the submission. This allows something that people don't care for to move into the category of 'something I can tolerate' or 'something I like.' It pushes people toward a compromise, though it could also lead to arguments or disagreements. However, I also think something that gets blocked without explanation could potentially be more damaging. How can something be corrected and re-submitted if people do not know why it was blocked in the first place?

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

I also would have preferred to do the voting on the Candlekeep Facebook page - I feel like if we keep it here, it might be viewed as 'elitist'. Just something to think about.


My concern about moving things to Facebook is that it creates basically three separate sites: the Candlekeep Forum, the Facebook page, and the Wiki itself. That is a lot of different sites to spread everything across. There is a good argument to keep all project discussions 100% on the Wiki, similar to how the FR Wiki operates. This way the project is completely centralized.

There is also the issue of people not using Facebook. For example, I have a Facebook page, but I never log on. I rather despise social media in general, lol. That might make me an elitist.

quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

One last thing - Lore limitations? The specific one I am thinking about is 'area' (landmass, space, Crystal Sphere, cosmology, etc, etc). Since this IS supposed to be a Forgotten Realms project, BUT FR has now become 'Core' (D&D), does that mean everything is on the table?


Obviously, the main focus is on Faerun itself. However, at the same time the Realms has always been connected to other worlds. We will have to make a determination on the 'Candlekanon Cosmology' and part of that is going to have to reflect how the Realms is connected to other worlds. This obviously opens up Planescape stuff, Greyhawk stuff, Eberron stuff, Dark Sun stuff, and even homebrew worlds. Of course, we are not required to recognize anything canon from those settings unless we vote to canonize them as is without changes. The only "true canon" stuff would be the stuff that is either accepted in the official FR canon or the stuff we vote on to approve for the Candlekanon.

Of course, the central focus of the project is Faerun itself. However, expanding just beyond that would be the Cosmology and the associated settings (Kara-Tur, Maztica, Returned Abeir, Abeir (the planet), Zakhara, Evermeet, etc.) The next layer beyond this would be the settings canonically associated with the Realms as a whole like Planescape, Greyhawk, etc. The next layer beyond that would be settings that has a potential to be associated with the Realms like Dark Sun, Eberron, Mystara, etc. The next layer beyond that would be settings that were never intended even to be remotely associated with the Realms, Planescape, or anything D&D related--settings such as the setting for Dragon Age or the Elder Scrolls. The next layer beyond that would be homebrew worlds.

In short, when it comes to dealing with 'other worlds' it has to work with the Cosmology (because that would be established Candlekanon), and it would have to get majority support just like everything else. This means that if a planet of Dragonborn named Zo'bolinixiumisuzm exists within the Realms Cosmology, and the majority of people vote in favor of said planet existing within the Cosmology--then it exists within the Cosmology as described in the Candlekanon. People could then homebrew things about Zo'bolinixiumisuzm to their heart's content, but the only thing recognized by the Candlekanon is what is voted into it.

The same thing is true for published settings like Dark Sun. If someone wants to write something about how Elminster healed Athas with a magical fart, and the majority of people vote to accept it--then that becomes the truth about Athas according to the Candlekanon.

So, there are no real 'limits' to what can be submitted. However, I would imagine the stuff going through the editorial process the fastest will be the stuff relating directly to Faerun itself. All the other stuff is secondary, tertiary, quaternary, quinary, senary, etc.
Go to Top of Page

Zeromaru X
Master of Realmslore

Colombia
1678 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  06:24:58  Show Profile Send Zeromaru X a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So:

Primary canon:
Faerūn

Secondary canon (other regions of Toril):
Abeir
Anchorome
Evermeet
Laerakond
Lopango
Kara-Tur
Maztica
Osse
Zakhara
etc.

Tertiary canon (other settings with canon associations with FR):
Earth (D&D version)
Krynn (Dragonlance)
Nerath (PoL/Nentir Vale setting)
Oerth (Greyhawk)
Planescape
Ravenloft
Spelljammer (other planets within Realmspace)
etc

Quaternary canon:
Other settings

Quinary:
Homebrew and other franchises.

Long ago, in the distant past, they fell into decay. The philosopher’s path... The river of glory... Even the saints resting in the darkness rise up without response and block the way...
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  07:36:11  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X

So:

Primary canon:
Faerūn

Secondary canon (other regions of Toril):
Abeir
Anchorome
Evermeet
Laerakond
Lopango
Kara-Tur
Maztica
Osse
Zakhara
etc.

Tertiary canon (other settings with canon associations with FR):
Earth (D&D version)
Krynn (Dragonlance)
Nerath (PoL/Nentir Vale setting)
Oerth (Greyhawk)
Planescape
Ravenloft
Spelljammer (other planets within Realmspace)
etc

Quaternary canon:
Other settings

Quinary:
Homebrew and other franchises.



Yeah, I would say that pretty much. It's not something hard and fast, like a guideline, policy, or rule or anything. It is more of a frame of mind. A sort of mental order of importance. People can submit anything that they want, but what is really important? What is taking place in Faerun, because that is where the Realms, as a setting, is primarily focused. There is other stuff out there that is relevant--such as Kara-tur lore and Planescape lore. There is even stuff that can be added to the setting, such as connecting the Realms to homebrewed worlds. All of that is fine and dandy, but what is the most useful to the most people? The stuff dealing with Faerun, after that probably Planescape lore is the most useful since that deals directly with the Cosmology.
Go to Top of Page

BadCatMan
Senior Scribe

Australia
363 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  12:13:42  Show Profile Send BadCatMan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Wikis tend to evolve organically: people find new approaches, others pick them up, they become standard; problems arise, a solution is proposed, it becomes policy. Other times, you just look at what people are doing, and accept it. So, as you say, you don't have to set it all up first. You can leave them and fix things up as you need them.

Voting can be done at the wiki itself, just by editing and posting one's name, as we do at the FRW for approving Featured Articles. Any user can see the changes, so it's all open and honest. Anonymous voters can be removed.

Unreliable vs Omniscient: Why not do both? People are going to write one way or the other, so we might as well accept it. Even in 1e and 2e, sourcebooks were written with wholly omniscient POVs and with both omniscient and in-universe POVs. An omniscient POV is easier and more common, than inventing a narrator and an unreliable POV is less useful to someone just wanting to know about the world. I don't need an unreliable narrator for cheeses of the Realms, even to tell me which is disgusting. Views on the Zhents meanwhile probably do need biased voices, for and against.

An article could easily have sections for hard facts and a section for Views and Opinions, or the Vox Populi, to be more efficient. On the FRW, we present views with a "Some say X" or "Many people think..."

The 3 Sentences Rule: This has so many provisos and counter-arguments it's one of our less useful policies, IMO. Some things just don't fit on other pages and need their own, no matter how small. But it would be more useful for the CKW: it saves on one-liners and drive-by submissions ("The Dog & Duck is a pub in Wheloon."), encouraging users to put more work in, and enables open-ended developments incorporated in larger articles ("Some of the less welcoming pubs in Wheloon are the Dog & Duck and The Drunken Druid..."). CKW's homebrew doesn't need to be broken down so much as we do at the FRW.

Canon Policy: Our Canon policy is basically our best guess at WotC's own canon policy, which seems to be nigh non-existent. It's an evolving thing and we're gearing for a revision. Since the CKW is focusing on homebrew and fanon, I'd say a Canon policy is almost a contradiction in terms.

No Crunch: We disallow crunch (detailed stats and rules, as opposed to just levels and names) to prevent copyright infringing copying (I think WotC might be more focused on rules copying than fluff copying. Since any crunch on the CKW should be homebrewed, it should be okay. But you would need rules around it: you can say an NPC has a class from a certain sourcebook, even discuss some abilities, but not give the full rules of the class. But if it's a homebrew class or spell, and doesn't rely on any more than the SRD/OGL, it's fine.

Past-Tense Policy: The FRW's Past-Tense Policy is an inexplicable sticking point for many people, who take a person or place being described in past tense as meaning it's dead or destroyed. Never mind that all novels are written in past tense. Once again, we use past tense to keep us behind the ever-advancing timeline, saving on the need to update articles when places are destroyed or people die or return from the dead. But as the CKW's adopted a setting time of 1500 DR, a present tense from the perspective of that year, with past tense for earlier lore, could be a good thing. At least until you move to 1510 DR. :)

BadCatMan, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc.
Scientific technical editor
Head DM of the Realms of Adventure play-by-post community
Administrator of the Forgotten Realms Wiki
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3255 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  14:01:22  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

Unreliable vs Omniscient: Why not do both? People are going to write one way or the other, so we might as well accept it. Even in 1e and 2e, sourcebooks were written with wholly omniscient POVs and with both omniscient and in-universe POVs. An omniscient POV is easier and more common, than inventing a narrator and an unreliable POV is less useful to someone just wanting to know about the world. I don't need an unreliable narrator for cheeses of the Realms, even to tell me which is disgusting. Views on the Zhents meanwhile probably do need biased voices, for and against.

An article could easily have sections for hard facts and a section for Views and Opinions, or the Vox Populi, to be more efficient. On the FRW, we present views with a "Some say X" or "Many people think..."




I was going to propose the same thing. I don't see why we need to only adopt one and ban the other. If someone wants to write their work from an unreliable perspective, then they can either use the unreliable narrator, or expressions like "many think that..." as suggested by BadCatMan. Some people may also be more comfortable with writing in either style, and that--IMO--is one more reason to not ban any approach.

To all Facebook-using FR fans, you might be interested in checking out this page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/450517575051806/
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  14:10:19  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
^AGREE^ (*I've found - working with BCM before on the Utter East - that he tends to make a LOT of sense)
{shakes fist at Irennan} "how dare you get between me and my buddy BadCatman!"
EDIT: But since you agree with both of us, you're forgiven.

As I stated above, you can have BOTH, and it doesn't really interfere, because its easy to mix them in a single entry. for a good example of that (and a bit of self-promotion), read the piece I did on 'The Snow Elves' for the Elves of Faerūn project; I presented it as a certain scholar asking for information from Candlekeep regarding something (thats the 'omniscient' part), and the scholar replying back with a few 'stories' he had on file, but couldn't ascertain the veracity of those tales (although he held the 'tellers' in high regard) - that was the 'Uncertain' part. At the end of the article, you had some in-setting folklore about Snow Elves, and perhaps where they could be found, but you still didn't know for sure if they actually existed.

Thus, 'omniscent', that segue-ways into 'uncertain'. I've seen that elsewhere - if you really stop and think about, the entirety of the Netheril boxed set is presented that way (NONE OF IT may be true!), because if you read the intro, its just a 'story' Larloch is telling to Szass Tam. Yet, everyone excepts that box as 'omniscient'... but its really not. In fact, I'd argue not a single shred of FR lore is 'omniscient', since the basic premise of the setting is that it is 'tales told by Elminster to Ed Greenwood on cold winter nights' (He lives in Canada - they're ALL 'cold winter nights' LOL).

As for the voting - I meant that I would prefer a 'secret vote', rather than open, only because it WILL generate hard feelings. However, I do see your point about 'telling us why you don't want it'. That makes a lot of sense. I, personally, have a hard time with that (I have NO filter - "Its doody!" LOL), but I suppose that's on me.

As for FB - I don't care for it much either. A couple of weeks ago FB informed me that my posts "had received 53,000 likes". My first thought was, "Yay me!" My very next thought (followed in nano-seconds) was, "I need to get a life". I've been trying to avoid it ever since. BUT, it is a great way to get 'exposure', and have more people following our project... and voting. On the other hand, we could wind up with a bunch of people skewing the votes because of personal preconceptions ("Doesn't the entire setting revolve around Drizzit?")

And I just now went through about ten entries in my head from a 'Drizzit Wiki'. It was pretty scary.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 06 Aug 2017 14:16:53
Go to Top of Page

Irennan
Great Reader

Italy
3255 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  15:12:02  Show Profile Send Irennan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
{shakes fist at Irennan} "how dare you get between me and my buddy BadCatman!"
EDIT: But since you agree with both of us, you're forgiven.



I'm relieved that I have your forgiveness, "Realms Explorer extraordinaire"

To all Facebook-using FR fans, you might be interested in checking out this page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/450517575051806/
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2489 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  17:51:59  Show Profile Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I also think you can have both. For example, there could be an omniscient narration, but maybe one that contains an unreliable narrator in it. And this itself could take many forms. It could be like Volo's entries, or it could even be a short story.

Sweet water and light laughter

Edited by - CorellonsDevout on 06 Aug 2017 18:04:08
Go to Top of Page

Adhriva
Learned Scribe

USA
144 Posts

Posted - 06 Aug 2017 :  18:17:34  Show Profile  Visit Adhriva's Homepage Send Adhriva a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The problem of an unreliable narrator is you often have to cite who the narrator is, especially if other people are going to add to it or build on it. With Omniscient narration and both (some say, so and so commented, etc in the text) don't have to deal with that. For a wiki, I find that to be better.

Crunch can be up in the air depending on the article, but one thing I think that would be useful is a proper way to cite fan works like those on the DMsGuild. It could go a long way in encouraging more to participate in the fanon. It's a permanent link to your work if you add that information to articles and it gets approved (since the DMsGuild doesn't do well to display or promote work). Mutual promotion.

As far as scope.....That's something I think we need to be careful with. Same with images (that aren't created by us). I'd have to see the license. Part of fair use is not confusing derivative works with official works. As the FRwiki only deals with canon material, they have a good case of using images by WotC/TSR because it only promotes canon material. Considering most of our content is derivative by definition, we might not be able to. Something to keep in mind.

I like the proposed acceptance process Aldrick laid out. I do have one minute question though: what about changes that aren't isolated to one, stand alone article? A paragraph in this article. A sentence here. The smaller elements of having content being interconnected. This is especially going to come up with canon articles we've expanded on.

Professional illustrator and comic book artist.
Artstation Portfolio
Go to Top of Page

Cyrinishad
Learned Scribe

300 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  18:16:06  Show Profile Send Cyrinishad a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay


As for the voting - I meant that I would prefer a 'secret vote', rather than open, only because it WILL generate hard feelings. However, I do see your point about 'telling us why you don't want it'. That makes a lot of sense. I, personally, have a hard time with that (I have NO filter - "Its doody!" LOL), but I suppose that's on me.

As for FB - I don't care for it much either. A couple of weeks ago FB informed me that my posts "had received 53,000 likes". My first thought was, "Yay me!" My very next thought (followed in nano-seconds) was, "I need to get a life". I've been trying to avoid it ever since. BUT, it is a great way to get 'exposure', and have more people following our project... and voting. On the other hand, we could wind up with a bunch of people skewing the votes because of personal preconceptions ("Doesn't the entire setting revolve around Drizzit?")

And I just now went through about ten entries in my head from a 'Drizzit Wiki'. It was pretty scary.



Regarding "FB" voting... I'm not on FB, I don't go on FB, and I won't go on FB, so if voting is on FB, it means that I can't vote (and I would like to)... and I very much agree that an FB crowd could create many undesirable skews in the voting results.

Also, can we consider moving Candlekanon timeline forward whenever the WotC Canon timeline moves forward? That way we can try and stay 9 years ahead of the curve... (Of course, if they pull another 100-year time jump out, then nevermind)...

Furthermore, I very much prefer an "unreliable" narrator approach or presumption over an "omniscient" narrator... Because this will make incorporating ALL future submissions to the Candlekanon easier, and avoid the many "foot-in-mouth" scenarios over the years where a presumed "omnisicient" narrator of the FR Canon has been proven to be just another "unreliable" narrator masquerading as an "omnisicient" narrator...

Last thing... I'm excited that the ball is rolling on this project, and am looking forward to us building OUR Realms together!

To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. -Socrates

Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened. -Dr. Seuss
Go to Top of Page

CorellonsDevout
Great Reader

USA
2489 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  20:14:44  Show Profile Send CorellonsDevout a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay


As for FB - I don't care for it much either. A couple of weeks ago FB informed me that my posts "had received 53,000 likes". My first thought was, "Yay me!" My very next thought (followed in nano-seconds) was, "I need to get a life". I've been trying to avoid it ever since. BUT, it is a great way to get 'exposure', and have more people following our project... and voting. On the other hand, we could wind up with a bunch of people skewing the votes because of personal preconceptions ("Doesn't the entire setting revolve around Drizzit?")



LOL just out of curiosity, was this on your own FB page, or in a group? I'm a part of the Forgotten Realms Archives FB page, and it has a large number of members, but I don't think I have ever seen anything other than advertisements and petitions on my feed get that many likes lol (the most I've ever gotten is 700, and that was on a different page entirely).

@Community as a whole: regarding the voting thing, what if someone submits a piece, and we are torn about how to vote? We like X part of the submission, but not Y? Would an "abstain" vote be best, or?

Sweet water and light laughter
Go to Top of Page

Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire

USA
15724 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  20:22:13  Show Profile Send Markustay a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Except for maybe one person (don't quote me on that), I think most of us here prefer the 'unreliable narrator' methodology (not only because its a GREAT way to sweep inconsistencies under-the-table, but its also more fun to read).

So could we maybe do a 'hybrid' method? Not like what I or CorellonsDevout (or anyone else) has said - I'm thinking more of 'universal' approach to that for the Wiki. Maybe have a homepage with a brief story/description, like Athol (YES, that IS a canon scribe of Candlekeep - I just love that name LOL) of candlekeep giving a lecture to some new 'initiates' at the keep (perhaps replacing numbers lost during the Spellplague/century of *Blech*/Sundering?), and say something along the lines of...

"We here at Candlekeep not only pride ourselves on the sheer amount of information we have available, but also on its veracity. While it is true that our 'fiction-section' is very popular, most petitioners come here seeking answers, and do not want to get bogged-down in hearsay and folklore. Nor just a good yarn, for that matter. Therefor, it is imperative - as part of your futures here - that you verify every submission's authenticity, to the best of our abilities. In the cases of works where no such legitimacy can be established, we have a third section - 'uncorroborated testimonials'. We would only send a seeker to that area if no other options are available to them. We would hate for someone to be mislead - or Mystra forbid, harmed - by 'false' information we had given them. Be that as it may, because much new information has come to light over the past century, we feel it is necessary to now pour-over every tome, page-shred, parchment, and tablet in our massive collection that we have relegated to that section in the past, and see if the information therein has not since been corroborated. This is why most of you are here; why most of you will spend the rest of your lives in this area of the library alone (except for personal inquires, of course). If you feel apprehensive about dedicating your life to going through a millenia and a half of personal journals and other lore of that nature, then know this: Our collected works extend MUCH further back in time than the founding of this citadel. Several priceless volumes even go back to the time of the One World {a murmur passes through the crowd}, and pre-date the Giant/Dragon wars. If that humbles you then well it should - our work here is not for the faint of heart. Some of us have spent our entire lives looking for just that one piece of information that slipped through the cracks. If that bothers you, then go in peace. We have sister-libraries all throughout Faerūn and beyond, and we would be happy to help you find placement with them. And for those of you who have instead been filled with wonder, than ye are in good company, this set of vaults happens to be my personal favorite {he smiles, and turns to unlock the massive door behind him}. Welcome, young gathers of lore and seekers of the hidden, welcome to a place some have jokingly referred to as..."

The CandleKanon



Put that (or something along those lines) in the very front/homepage, and we're good. Now everything in the Wiki itself can be written in either style... and yet, people can still choose which 'facts' they wish to go with.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone


Edited by - Markustay on 08 Aug 2017 00:48:51
Go to Top of Page

Cyrinishad
Learned Scribe

300 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  20:39:29  Show Profile Send Cyrinishad a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'll cast my first vote of "Accept" towards Markustay's suggestion of a universal approach and his submission of a Candlekeep Sage's message to Initiates of the Candlekanon...

To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge. -Socrates

Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened. -Dr. Seuss
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  20:47:11  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

Voting can be done at the wiki itself, just by editing and posting one's name, as we do at the FRW for approving Featured Articles. Any user can see the changes, so it's all open and honest. Anonymous voters can be removed.


This may be the best way to handle voting. It keeps everything with the project in one place. I sort of went back and forth on this idea in my head. Part of the reason we went with the Candlekeep Wiki and Candlekanon names was to keep a connection with the forums here. Though, I guess we would still be using the forums to communicate research and stuff like we are doing right now.

What are the thoughts of everyone else? Voting on the forums or voting on the Wiki?

quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

Unreliable vs Omniscient: Why not do both? People are going to write one way or the other, so we might as well accept it. Even in 1e and 2e, sourcebooks were written with wholly omniscient POVs and with both omniscient and in-universe POVs. An omniscient POV is easier and more common, than inventing a narrator and an unreliable POV is less useful to someone just wanting to know about the world. I don't need an unreliable narrator for cheeses of the Realms, even to tell me which is disgusting. Views on the Zhents meanwhile probably do need biased voices, for and against.

An article could easily have sections for hard facts and a section for Views and Opinions, or the Vox Populi, to be more efficient. On the FRW, we present views with a "Some say X" or "Many people think..."


Like I said previously, I see the pros and cons to both sides, and I am personally undecided about where I stand. My major concern is having an unreliable narrator can lead to disputes and arguments. "Well, since it was unreliable it does not have to be true. This could also be true!" We want to have a consistent and clear canon, which is one of the reasons I also started to consider a middle path--an attempt to have our cake and eat it too--similar to what you described.

The only reason that I personally would consider an omniscient narrator at all is for the sake of having a completely indisputable shared set of facts. The text says what it says. It is authoritative. Otherwise, my personal view is that an unreliable narrator is superior in all other ways.

I am curious as to whether anyone can address my personal concerns about an unreliable narrator:

How should we handle "factual" disputes? For example, person X says Z NPC is alive, but person Y claims that Z NPC is dead. Alternatively, person X claims that Z organization is active in this area, but person Y claims that Z organization was disbanded a decade ago.

How should we handle the transition from "unreliability" to "reliability"? For example, person X claims that organization Z has the goal of achieving A, but person Y claims that organization Z has the goal of achieving B. Then sometime in the future, person X writes further lore that has organization Z achieving the goal of A, thus invaliding the lore put forward by person Y of organization Z attempting to achieve goal B.

These two questions are obviously interlinked. My desires and concerns are centered around attempting to pre-emptively deal with arguments, hard feelings, and opposition to changes. While an unreliable narrator gives us more flexibility, it also simultaneously raises the stakes for heated disagreements and arguments. I see these things going hand in hand, but maybe someone has a solution that can solve these problems that does not immediately come to my mind.

quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

The 3 Sentences Rule: This has so many provisos and counter-arguments it's one of our less useful policies, IMO. Some things just don't fit on other pages and need their own, no matter how small. But it would be more useful for the CKW: it saves on one-liners and drive-by submissions ("The Dog & Duck is a pub in Wheloon."), encouraging users to put more work in, and enables open-ended developments incorporated in larger articles ("Some of the less welcoming pubs in Wheloon are the Dog & Duck and The Drunken Druid..."). CKW's homebrew doesn't need to be broken down so much as we do at the FRW.


Yeah, it is a rule that relies heavily on common sense. I am thinking about proposing an alternative--a rule about consolidation and organization. It basically relies on the same principles here, but ultimately it is always going to come down to common sense and readability.

quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

Canon Policy: Our Canon policy is basically our best guess at WotC's own canon policy, which seems to be nigh non-existent. It's an evolving thing and we're gearing for a revision. Since the CKW is focusing on homebrew and fanon, I'd say a Canon policy is almost a contradiction in terms.


Can you tell me what direction the canon policy for the FRW is likely to go? I think it is important for the CKW to align closely with the FRW in terms of its canon policy. We are accepting everything that is published up to this date as canon. So, while we are adding stuff that is non-canon, it is being placed on top of--and ideally not contradicting (at least not on purpose)--already established canon.

quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

No Crunch: We disallow crunch (detailed stats and rules, as opposed to just levels and names) to prevent copyright infringing copying (I think WotC might be more focused on rules copying than fluff copying. Since any crunch on the CKW should be homebrewed, it should be okay. But you would need rules around it: you can say an NPC has a class from a certain sourcebook, even discuss some abilities, but not give the full rules of the class. But if it's a homebrew class or spell, and doesn't rely on any more than the SRD/OGL, it's fine.


This is good to know. My general feeling is that we should be system neutral. We are a community based around the lore of the setting, not the system itself. If someone wants to stat up monsters, NPCs, homebrew rules, whatever for some non-D&D or d20 system I am fine with that. However, having some additional rules around crunch for existing systems is important as you point out here to avoid copyright.

quote:
Originally posted by BadCatMan

Past-Tense Policy: The FRW's Past-Tense Policy is an inexplicable sticking point for many people, who take a person or place being described in past tense as meaning it's dead or destroyed. Never mind that all novels are written in past tense. Once again, we use past tense to keep us behind the ever-advancing timeline, saving on the need to update articles when places are destroyed or people die or return from the dead. But as the CKW's adopted a setting time of 1500 DR, a present tense from the perspective of that year, with past tense for earlier lore, could be a good thing. At least until you move to 1510 DR. :)


I was considering the past-tense policy for identical reasons--the timeline is ever-advancing, and as a result as things move forward it avoids us having to go back and change things.

quote:
Originally posted by Adhriva

As far as scope.....That's something I think we need to be careful with. Same with images (that aren't created by us). I'd have to see the license. Part of fair use is not confusing derivative works with official works. As the FRwiki only deals with canon material, they have a good case of using images by WotC/TSR because it only promotes canon material. Considering most of our content is derivative by definition, we might not be able to. Something to keep in mind.


This is something I did not consider in terms of using images. I suppose we could always create our own art. I can draw stick figures.

quote:
Originally posted by Adhriva

I like the proposed acceptance process Aldrick laid out. I do have one minute question though: what about changes that aren't isolated to one, stand alone article? A paragraph in this article. A sentence here. The smaller elements of having content being interconnected. This is especially going to come up with canon articles we've expanded on.


Part of this is obviously done through normal wiki linking. Another part of it is just updating existing articles. It may make sense to have a lenient policy that encourages people to clarify existing articles. A clarifying sentence here. A clarifying sentence there. Maybe even a lenient policy toward organizing articles over time. We will be able to see any and all changes that were made as well as who made them. So if there is some disagreement, we can always revert back to the previous version.

As for adding new and unique lore--even minor lore--that would go through the normal process. The articles would be updated accordingly.

quote:
Originally posted by Cyrinishad

Last thing... I'm excited that the ball is rolling on this project, and am looking forward to us building OUR Realms together!


I am glad. You should come to the other threads around the Keep here. We are organizing thoughts and discussing possibilities. I am in the process of trying to update myself on all the changes made with 4th and 5th edition.
Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  22:20:48  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hey everyone,

I should probably also drop in here--rather than creating a new thread--and point out that the CKWiki is undergoing some work. Moviesign has been updating the layout. He also intends to import some of the templates from the FRWiki, which will allow us to use the same citation system that they use over there.

I've given both Moviesign and BadCatMan administrative privileges over at the CKWiki, since they are admins on the FRWiki, and they both know more about how FANDOM's Wiki works than I do.

So, everyone should keep an eye on the updating Candlekeep Wiki, and thank Moviesign for his help.

Go to Top of Page

Aldrick
Senior Scribe

909 Posts

Posted - 07 Aug 2017 :  23:53:13  Show Profile Send Aldrick a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay

Except for maybe one person (don't quote me on that), I think most of us here prefer the 'unreliable narrator' methodology (not only because its a GREAT way to sweep inconsistencies under-the-table, but its also more fun to read).

So could we maybe do a 'hybrid' method? Not like what I or CorellonsDevout (or anyone else) has said - I'm thinking more of 'universal' approach to that for the Wiki. Maybe have a homepage with a brief story/description, like Athol (YES, that IS a canon scribe of Candlekeep - I just love that name LOL) of candlekeep giving a lecture to some new 'initiates' at the keep (perhaps replacing numbers lost during the Spellplague/century of *Blech*/Sundering?), and say something along the lines of...

"We here at Candlekeep not only pride ourselves on the sheer amount of information we have available, but also on its veracity. While it is true that our 'fiction-section' is very popular, most petitioners come here seeking answers, and do not want to get bogged-down in hearsay and folklore. Nor just a good yarn, for that matter. Therefor, it is imperative - as part of your futures here - that you verify every submission's authenticity, to the best of our abilities. In the cases of works where no such legitimacy can be established, we have a third section - 'uncorroborated testimonials'. We would only send a seeker to that area if no other options are available to them. We would hate for someone to be mislead - or Mystra forbid, harmed - by 'false' information we had given them. Be that as it may, because much new information has come to light over the past century, we feel it is necessary to now pour-over every tome, page-shred, parchment, and tablet in our massive collection that we have relegated to that section in the past, and see if the information therein has not since been corroborated. This is why most of you are here; why most of you will spend the rest of your lives in this area of the library alone (except for personal inquires, of course). If you feel apprehensive about dedicating your life to going through a millenia and a half of personal journals and other lore of that nature, then know this: Our collected works extend MUCH further back in time than the founding of this citadel. Several priceless volumes even go back to the time of the One World {a murmur passes through the crowd}, and pre-date the Giant/Dragon wars. If that humbles you then well it should - our work here is not for the faint of heart. Some of us have spent our entire lives looking for just that one piece of information that slipped through the cracks. If that bothers you, then go in peace. We have sister-libraries all throughout Faerūn and beyond, and we would be happy to help you find placement with them. And for those of you who have instead been filled with wonder, than ye are in good company, this set of vaults happens to be my personal favorite {he smiles, and turns to unlock the massive door behind him}. Welcome, young gathers of lore and seekers of the hidden, welcome to a place some have joking referred to as..."

The CandleKanon



Put that (or something along those lines) in the very front/homepage, and we're good. Now everything in the Wiki itself can be written in either style... and yet, people can still choose which 'facts' they wish to go with.



We need a little quote box that looks like a scrap of parchment for in character text.

Anyway, how about this--I shortened it a bit.

quote:
An Introduction for New Acolytes of Candlekeep

“. . . you must understand, young acolytes, that we not only pride ourselves on the sheer amount of information we have available, but also on its veracity. So much new information has come to light over the past century, that we feel it is necessary to now pour-over every tome, page-shred, parchment, and tablet in our massive collection to see if the information therein can be corroborated. Therefore, it is imperative -- as part of your futures here -- that you verify the authenticity of every submission to the best of your abilities.

This is, after all, why most of you are here, and why most of you will spend the rest of your lives in this library. If you feel apprehensive about dedicating your life to going through a millennium and a half of personal journals and other lore of that nature, then know this: Our collected works extend MUCH further back in time than the founding of this library. Several priceless volumes even go back to the time before the Tearfall. I see that many of you are humbled -- as well you should be -- our work here is not for the faint of heart. We Avowed have spent our entire lives looking for just that one piece of information that slipped through the cracks. If that bothers you, then go in peace. We have sister-libraries all throughout Faerūn and beyond, and we would be happy to help you find placement with them. And for those of you who have instead been filled with wonder, then you are in good company.

Welcome, acolytes, gatherers of lore and seekers of the hidden to Candlekeep.”


~ Athol Mortus, in 1500 DR the Year of the Sea's Secrets Revealed
A Guide of Candlekeep in the service of Great Reader Tormas Vraal



If we vote to have unreliable narrators, then all the narrators should be Avowed from Candlekeep.

BTW, I just want to make sure I got this right.

Head of Candlekeep = Keeper of Tomes
Second in Charge = First Reader

Then below them there are anywhere from one to eight Great Readers.

Below the Great Readers are the ranks of the Gatewarden, the Chanter, and the Guide. The Gatewardens tend to those who visit Candlekeep, the supplies, the security, and serving the clergies of Oghma, Denier, Gond, and Milil who are considered honored guests of the community (though mostly Oghma since he has a temple here). Meanwhile, the Guides train acolytes and the Chanters chant the prophecies of Alaundo.

The Chanters themselves are served by the Voices. There are three Voices one for each of the following directions: North, East, South. (No West?!)

Of course, the lowest rank are the Acolytes--those new initiates to Candlekeep, seeking to join the monastery.

All monks of Candlekeep are known as the Avowed.

This is from Volo's Guide to the Sword Coast, but obviously, it is hopelessly out of date by 1500 DR.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2020 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000