Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Throughout appendix section it repeatedly points out and I paraphrase;
"Blah Blah stuff in the main sections aren't the only races in Azeroth, Blah Blah, here are some more Blah Blah that can be found in the world, blah blah.", "Kaldorians have other allies, here are some of them, blah blah", "There are more than just Orcs and Goblins as goblinoid races, here are some more that exist on Azeroth, Blah Blah"..., Etc, etc.
They never once says, anything to the affect, of "no this race doesn't exist, it is not lore, it is noncanon, but you can use it if you like".
Infact, the introduction also points out that monster descriptions found in appendix 3 take precedence as lore over any monsters with similar names found in other rpgs that they were derived from(as they contain special lore, or special warcraft universe traits), requiring new special descriptions. Again that seems to support the existance of those creatures, rather than just being adaptations from other books. The section essentially gives you warcraft lore that takes precedence over other material, but makes you go to other books for RPG stats.-Baggins 20:42, 23 April 2006 (EDT)
- "Infact, the introduction also points out that monster descriptions found in appendix 3 take precedence as lore over any monsters with similar names found in other rpgs that they were derived from(as they contain special lore, or special warcraft universe traits), requiring new special descriptions."
- Well, to be precise the introduction says the following:
- "Some creatures in Manual of Monsters are similar to those described in the MM - centaur, dragons, elementals, golems, and so on. In some cases, the MM descriptions are suitable for use as-is, such as for elementals. (Full-fledged Warcraft elementals may make an appearance in a future supplement, but the existing MM versions work fine in the interim.) Under those circumstances, the creature receives no listing in the Manual of Monsters. In other cases, the monsters are different enough in their ecology or abilities to require a new description here. When a creature is listed in Manual of Monsters with the same name as one in the MM, the description in this book takes precedence for a Warcraft campaign. The same is true for animals and vermin particular to the world of Azeroth, as described in Appendix One. In the case of identical types of creatures, the version in Manual of Monsters takes precedence."
- So, if you rely on this quote from the introduction for your argument, you should note that a) it only talks about the MM (the Monster Manual for Dungeons & Dragons) and not any other RPG books (like for example the Creature Collection) and b) the quoted paragraph seems to refer mainly to the main part of the Manual of Monsters and not the appendices (that's why appendix one is explicitly mentioned - but note that appendix three isn't). Also, you must consider for what audience the book was written. At the time the Manual of Monsters was published the Warcraft RPG wasn't a game on its own like the new WoW RPG is now but it was merely a campaign setting for Dungeons & Dragons. That means the whole book was written for Dungeons & Dragons players who own the D&D books. It was an extension for D&D. So of course the book wasn't going to say "Throw away all your D&D and other d20 creature books because in the Warcraft setting they don't exist!" No, the book had to build on the existing D&D material. So besides the main part of the book that fleshes out the creatures that really exist in the Warcraft setting and differ from other settings, they also provided an appendix with descriptions how other D&D creatures could fit into the Warcraft setting lore-wise, so the D&D players could make the most of ther D&D and d20 books. But do these few sentences for those creatures that otherwise appear in no other source of Warcraft lore (also no other RPG books) make those creature officially part of the Warcraft canon? You say Yes, I say No.
- And of course, the Manual of Monsters doesn't say "no this race doesn't exist, it is not lore, it is noncanon, but you can use it if you like" because that would be kind of silly and only anger or confuse the D&D players. The whole idea behind the d20 System License was that different books would be compatible with each other and you could easily use a monster from some other book in your d20-based setting. It's only natural that the Warcraft Manual of Monsters made use of that fact. It's a selling point for D&D and d20 players after all. As the WoW RPG is published under the OGL now and sees itself as an idependant game, I guess we probably won't see something like Appendix Three in the upcoming Monster Guide for the WoW RPG. --Foogray 04:50, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
But do these few sentences for those creatures that otherwise appear in no other source of Warcraft lore (also no other RPG books) make those creature officially part of the Warcraft canon? You say Yes, I say No.
Well not trying to alter your opinion, or anyone else, but the "it doesn't appear in any other book" so it may not be part of the continuity, doesn't seem to work in my eyes much, considering that there are things in every rpg book that do not necessarily show up in other sources. Magic & Mayhem plenty of things that haven't shown up in any other source(Black Iron Golems of Undercity for example). More Magic & Mayhem has plenty of things that do not show up in other sources(Argent Dawn Templars for one example). Lands of Conflict mentions that there is a undead half-elf, and Undead dwarf in the Apothecary society in the Lands of Conflict. A pandaren colony of the stonetalon mountains only shows up in Alliance & Horde compendium, but does not show up in Lands of Mystery. Plus every book has individual characters that aren't mentioned in any other source. As I mentioned before Shadow's of Ice has giant elephants in the story, that haven't been mentioned in any other source. If just because it wasn't mentioned in another source was prerequisite for the material to not be official, then we could possibly ignore alot of sources.
So to keep pages neutral all I personally choose to do is list material in this Wiki, and refer it back to the source it originally came from. If people want to choose to ignore or accept that material that's up to them. We don't have to bring up the "it may or may not be official" arguement in every topic for something mentioned only once, and just refer them back to the books the source came from. If that "may or may not be official" discussion exists it should exist only on the page for the book where the item originates, to avoid repeating the same material over and over. Also by linking them back to their source we specifically say its not seen in WOW, but this is for anyone who might find it interesting.
-Baggins 08:06, 24 April 2006 (EDT)
- Yes, there's a lot of stuff that only appears in the RPG books and that's totally cool since Chris Metzen has mentioned himself that he sees things like the novels or the RPG books as ways to expand on the Warcraft universe besides the computer games. So I also don't think you can generally say "This only appears in an RPG book so it's not official lore" and I didn't want to imply that with my comments. The Manual of Monsters Appendix III, however, is kind of a special case. Things like the Undead Dwarf in the Royal Apothecary Society from Lands of Conflict etc. that only show up in the RPG books are there to expand on the universe, to give it more color and make it more interesting (and also in a way make it more "realistic" since things like Undead Dwarf Forsaken mostly don't appear in the WoW MMORPG because of technical limititations as a new character model would have to be created for them which would be way too much work for a maybe handful of ultimately insignificant NPCs - the game mechanics just dictate some things that don't really make sense in terms of a plausible fantasy setting, like the size of the continents in WoW to give another example). Most of those things were probably directly authorized or even suggested by Blizzard - although some things could very well just have been invented by the RPG authors and slipped by Blizzard (As we have seen with the whole "Thrall killed Grom" debacle Blizzard really doesn't seem to check the lore of the RPG books that closely). The thing with the Manual of Monsters Appendix III is, that it is fairly obvious why it was included in the book. It wasn't really included to expand on the Warcraft universe or because it makes sense that the creatures mentioned there would exist in the Warcraft setting. No, it was included so RPG gamers could use their D&D and d20 creature books within the Warcraft setting. It's there because the Warcraft RPG wasn't really a RPG that stood on its own legs but was published under the d20 System License and it totally makes sense to make use of that fact and give guidelines for the players how to incorporate creatures from other d20 products into the Warcraft setting. The additional lore for these creatures wasn't created because those creatures would greatly fit into the Warcraft setting, it was created to make these creatures fit into the Warcraft setting so the RPG players can use them. And that's where I see the difference between the lore in the Manual of Monsters Appendix III and the lore in the other RPG books (or the main section of the MoM for that matter). --Foogray 06:58, 25 April 2006 (EDT)
I know this is months and months late, but I happened across it through a series of links from the Naaru page. I was one of the developers for the line at that point - that was the last book I worked on. If it clarifies anything, I put in appendix three exactly for the reasons stated above: Just as advice on how to add traditional D&D creatures to Azeroth, or to add creatures from the Sword & Sorcery imprint. At the time, there weren't a lot of Warcraft monsters known to the RPG people, so this served as a way to adapt content without explicitly or officially adding anything to Warcraft.
I don't know about any decisions made afterward, but at the time it was written, I didn't expect any of it to be used in Warcraft. Where you see statements like "this race is another ally of the Kaldorei" or "these fiends are some of the Burning Legion's footsoldiers," those are intended to say "if you want to use this, then it's likely to fit into Warcraft Italic this way. --Kali Magdalene 06:04, 19 January 2007 (EST)
- Actually you aren't "months and months" late. The topic has come up again just recently. You can see some of the recent discussion on User talk:Baggins#Manual of Monsters Appendix III and WoWWiki talk:Lore policy#The infamous Appendix III. Also Luke Johnson, the current main developer of the WoW RPG, pretty much said the same thing you did a few days ago in this thread on the White Wolf forums. Despite all that there are still some WoWWiki editors who believe the Appendix III information should be presented equally to other official information here on the Wiki which I find rather unfortunate (but you can see all that discussion on the pages I linked above - no need to get into it here any further). Anyway, welcome to WoWWiki! It's great to have someone here who actually worked on some of the Warcraft RPG books. You don't have to if you don't want but would you share your real life name with us so we can attribute the work you did on the Warcraft RPG to you? --Foogray 06:49, 20 January 2007 (EST)
- Deirdre Brooks. I started development on the Manual of Monsters and Luke Johnson finished it. I wasn't really prepared to develop a D&D line at the time, so while I feel I got it off to a strong start, I couldn't keep up with the schedule. As for neutrality - Wiki does what wiki does. I think it might be appropriate to include the perspectives from people such as Luke or myself in regards to this topic, but I wouldn't edit it into the article myself. --Kali Magdalene 07:29, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Hmm that's interesting considering the fact Luke Johnson admitted he was only a writer at the time and not an editor, and he had nothing to do with that particular book;
- "My secret shame. It's the one Warcraft book with which I wasn't involved. (Though I *was* working on the books back then, as someone pointed out.)"-Luke Johnson
- I'm a year late this time! Anyway, you're right - I got Luke mixed up with the guy who actually took over from me, Mike Johnstone. He was originally brought in because he was awesome at D&D's mechanics and we'd decided to publish 3.5 rules. The whole thing was on a compressed time schedule due to being behind schedule when I started, so having a rules guy was doubly good just for having another set of eyes (in addition to Bob Fitch from Blizzard) to look things over. --Kali Magdalene 11:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Baggins 14:52, 2 February 2007 (EST)
- My biggest problem with the warcraft RPG books is that a lot of the content is blantantly Dungeons & Dragons ripped. I mean.. Blink dogs? Hobgoblins? I'm certain a lot of this content will never see the light of day in any Blizzard game. Thankfully. Warcraft is a rich, independent world and dipping into the generic D&D pool to get enough content for those books is in my opinion less than fruitful. I'm not saying it's not lore. I'm just saying I don't have to like it. --User:Varghedin/Sig 07:04, 20 January 2007 (EST)
- You know, it's really unfair to say that "a lot of the content is blantantly Dungeons & Dragons ripped". You may get that impression from reading the discussions here on the wiki but in truth these discussions are mainly about the Appendix III of the Manual of Monsters only. As I tried to point out the Appendix III is a very special case even when it comes to the RPG books. The rest of the books don't have that much "ripped from D&D" (besides rules stuff, but that is just the nature of the beast that is the d20 System). One must also differentiate between the old Warcraft RPG (which was basically a campaign setting for D&D) and the new WoW RPG books. The new WoW RPG tries much harder to be closer to the Warcraft computer games and take less stuff from D&D. True, there may be a few things here and there, but it's not like the Warcraft computer games didn't take any inspiration from D&D themselves. For example one of the new bosses of the BC dungeons is basically a Beholder - Blizzard even called his model files "Beholder". Chris Metzen himself admits in the introduction to the Manual of Monsters that he and many guys at Blizzard are (or were) D&D players, so I guess it's inevitable that the Warcraft universe took some inspirations from D&D. --Foogray 07:29, 20 January 2007 (EST)
- You're right, I don't know the full distinction between appendix III and the other RPG books. I was speaking more from experience with what I've seen in the books before. That D&D-inspired content exists in Warcraft is inevitable since D&D was basically the first big fantasy game, and the beholder is far from the first case. And that's fine, of course. What I don't like are the creatures that have never been and probably never will appear in a warcraft game, feature heavily in original D&D, and obviously has been put into the books to create a sufficient material base to publish the books. For all I know, it might even have been enforced by Wizards to contain some D&D content since the game uses their patented rules system. That content is of the type that I don't feel belong on wowwiki, even if it's considered official. --User:Varghedin/Sig 08:07, 20 January 2007 (EST)
'Official' Stance on Appendix 3Edit
"That MoM appendix was full of ideas about how you might incorporate monsters from other sources into the game, if you feel like it. Until I see mites running around in a Warcraft computer game, I wouldn't consider them canon." -Luke Johnson - Thoughts? Arguments? Denial (Baggins)? I figured I'd bring it here since Baggins was representing WoWWiki in its entirety in that thread and never seemed to mention it around these parts... --Kakwakas 12:46, 28 January 2007 (EST)
- Well, yes, that is Luke Johnson's stance, but he also admitted its his unofficial stance and not necessarily the view by Blizzard themselves, and we may never get Blizzard's official stance.
- "No, I'm not an official Blizzard spokesperson, so you're welcome to wait on word from them if you like. I won't be offended."-luke Johnson, same link as above.
- That being said we we will never state that appendix III is "canon". Nor will we state that it is "non-canon". We will remain neutral on this issue, as it of the utmost importantance to what wiki's stand for and this wiki's policy.Baggins 13:31, 28 January 2007 (EST)
- Clearly you read the original topic, i've said all that needed to be said there. Anything else and you're beating a dead horse with no hope of making a difference.
- Oh, and Baggins has talked about it plenty, many of us have, just mostly on IRC where it could be discussed easier. -- 14:22, 28 January 2007 (EST)
I think the outcome of the whole discussion (some of which occured on the Scrolls of Lore forum, see my talk page for link) was that we need to make it clearer where the Appendix III info came from and to show that it is a debated topic. We need make no statement as to canon or non-canon until Blizzard themselves say either way. Luke's opinion is important, and should be incorporated onto the 'debate' page. Overall, I do think it is important that readers of the pages know about all this, so they do not go off blindly saying either the wiki is 'wrong' or that these creatures really must exist.14:24, 28 January 2007 (EST)
- Wait, we can't take Luke Johnson's word about a book he developed as canon? What about this quote:
- "Elune birthed Cenarius, but gave him up to Malorne because Cenarius was more a creature of the mortal world and could not be with her. Malorne, who had relations with both Elune and Ysera, knew that he could not properly care for his son, but Ysera's love was so great for Malorne that she took Cenarius as her own. Hence being his mother (or adoptive mother)." --Richard A. Knaak
- Can we not accept this as canon since Knaak isn't an official Blizzard representative? Am I missing something here that makes an author of a book more credible than a developer of a d20 book? --Kakwakas 01:34, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Luke wasn't a writer of MoM, whereas Knaak was directly related to the subject matter. In addition, they speak of different matters - Knaak was giving a specific official lore point (he would not have made it up on the spot, and it would have gone by Metzen first), whereas Luke was giving his stance on a book's contents. In any case the information will not be removed unless we have an official pronouncement essentially telling us not to carry the info. What we can do is clearly point out the debate over it, and make sure people realise where the info came from.
- To be perfectly honest, I'm don't know what you're arguing against here - carrying the info in the first place? More helpful would be to tell us what you think should be done about it. :) 05:01, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Luke was the second to last person to approve the material in MoM, before Chris Metzen (who had final say in everything). Even if he didn't write it, he's ultimately responsible for it. --Kali Magdalene 07:31, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Interesting considering that Luke Johnson admitted he had nothing to do with MoM itself, also there is the fact he was just an author at the time, and not the editor or developers.
Baggins 14:52, 2 February 2007 (EST)
Okay, here's an interesting question: Remember that whole "Thrall killed Grom Hellscream" thing? For those who don't know: The World of Warcraft RPG main rulebook states that Thrall killed Grom Hellscream. Of course that was just a stupid error on the part of the writer of that section of the book. How do we know that? Well, for one it's pretty obvious, and also because Luke Johnson told us so and apologized for that error. Back then everyone just accepted that apology by Luke Johnson, someone (I believe it was Baggins) put an explanation about the error on the retcon page and noone went around editing every article in the wiki to say that Thrall killed Grom, demanding that we can only accept this thing as an error if someone directly from Blizzard confirms it as such. So why shouldn't we also accept Luke's statement in this case? "He wasn't a writer on MoM" you say, and you are right. But he didn't write the bit about Thrall killing Grom either (he worked on that book but didn't write that section), so why trust him there? Does he have any special insight just because he also worked on the same book? No, not really. I don't know if you have any idea how roleplaying books are written but usually it's a bunch of hired freelance writers who all get told by the developer of the line which chapters/sections to write and most of the time don't even get to see the texts of the other writers let alone meet them during the production of the book. So just having worked on the same books means nothing. The developer is the guy who puts it all together. And that guy at the moment is Luke Johnson. So that's why he knows what he is talking about and we trust him about the "Thrall killed Grom" issue. But what about the MoM, you ask? Yep, Luke was neither writer nor developer on that one. So he can't really say if the appendix 3 was meant as canon back then or not (although he can give us his well-informed opinion as an "expert" on all matters concerning the Warcraft RPG). But you know what? It doesn't really matter if the authors back then meant the appendix 3 to be canon or not. Because right now Luke Johnson is the developer of the RPG line. And that means he knows if it's supposed to be canon now. Do you really think the developer of the whole WoW RPG line could work without knowing what's supposed to be canon and what not? He is the guy who tells his authors what to put in their writing and what to leave out. How could he do that if he didn't know if he should tell his authors to put stuff from the MoM appendix 3 in future books or not? He's the guy who talks directly to Blizzard about what's canon and what to put in the books. So, if Blizzard really thought that demodands etc. were canon you think he wouldn't know? Why do you think it is that absolutely none of the RPG books of the 2nd edition (since the RPG is called "World of Warcraft RPG") contain references to any of the D&D-stuff from appendix 3? Don't you think Blizzard would've called Luke up by now and asked "Hey, we really like those demodands and they are totally canon, so how come they don't appear in any of your books anymore?" Okay, I'm exaggerating here to get my point across - but please just think about this for a moment. Even though Luke isn't a Blizzard employee I think it's pretty stupid to just mark what he says as "opinion" and continue to put stuff from appendix 3 all over the wiki. Let's use some common sense here.
If you insist on putting that stuff on the wiki - fine. But please mark it accordingly and clearly separate it from other lore. And the RPG tag obviously isn't enough in this case when even the RPG's developer thinks this stuff isn't canon. --Foogray 18:30, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Wall of text crits you for 10k damage. You make good points. But we do mark the stuff, though it could indeed be made more clear I guess. We just need someone to actually sort out a good way of presenting that :) 18:49, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- There is a difference between saying "Sorry, i made a mistake, this is an error in the book and is not in accordance with the information Blizzard provided me and not what i intended to write." and "We made this stuff up, and adapted it for warcraft. I don't if they wish to use this information in their future lore so i can not say if it is canon or not". ¬_¬ As was also pointed out by someone who did work on the book, and i pointed out again in the topic, this is not an issue with Appendix 3, it is an issue with MoM as a whole and any source that has used information from it. Basically, if we discredit Appendix 3, we discredit MoM, and we discredit any other source that uses it, despite it's intent and future use as canon. That is not a decision we can make, nor is it one Luke can make on his own as he has no say in what happens or is used in the future. -- 21:34, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Fictional universe canon doesn't work the same as law, Zeal. Should we discredit the WC1 and WC2 manuals since they have information that is no longer accurate? What about the official WoW website which has errors on its lore page? Anything that says blood elves would never join the Horde? Listen to yourself. Luke Johnson may not have written all of Appendix 3, but he was the DEVELOPER on the TEAM of people that he TOLD what to write up. Appendix 3 was specifically designed to let people incorporate monsters from other D&D campaigns. Could we at LEAST get a special "Template:Appendix3" tag instead of some tiny link at the bottom of the page? --Kakwakas
- How about you reread everything i've ever said over and over until you stop missing key points. This has nothing to do with retcon policy, and i never made any implications to law. It is not limited to Appendix3, so no Appendix 3 tag could ever be used. The use of a tag in the way you want would dicredit the source and show bias on the part of the wiki, something that will not, and can not, be tolerated. -- 22:35, 29 January 2007 (EST)
- Sure. Here's what I've gathered.
- 1) No, you're the one with the thick skull and Baggins sure as hell seems biased to the status quo of the Appendix 3 policy here. I try to avoid taking the offensive in these arguments these days, but you were asking for it.
- 2) Luke Johnson is as official as you can get when it comes to the RPG books. Saying he can't be trusted for confirming/debunking things in the book is like saying a manager is not responsible for something he told his employees to do (it's pretty much exactly that, actually).
- 3) It is not neutral point of view when the facts change and the wiki does not due to some sort of bias. You are not being neutral and taking both sides if you present something as fact with only a small link at the bottom of a page that links to the bottom of another article. Should we remove Template:Fanfic and just put a fanfic tag at the bottom of all fanfic articles? I realize this isn't quite the same as fanfic, but it is the same concept when it comes to deceiving people into believing something is fact.
- 4) Kenzuki is very unbiased and he knows a hell of a lot about lore. It really wouldn't surprise me if you thought something he said was opinion when it was really just a bit obscure. The only thing I've ever seen him be biased about is the Forsaken, but that's mostly just IC.
- 5) No, there really isn't a difference between admitting a mistake and confirming that something isn't canon, because that would mean that it is a mistake on WoWWiki that should be corrected. Look at the index of MoM. Do you see how the various known Warcraft monsters are throughout the main part of the book and in the first two appendices? Look at Appendix 3. It's at the back of the book and, I reiterate, states that they are monsters adapted from other D&D settings into a Warcraft-esque style so that GM's could use them in their campaigns without having to completely redesign monsters.
- 6) In terms of law, if part of a piece of evidence can be falsified, the entire piece of evidence is thrown out. This is where my reference came from. Just because Appendix 3 is not canon, doesn't mean all of MoM isn't. This is somewhat like saying that since the earth has been proven to be billions of years old that the Christian Bible (and various other religious texts and mythos) don't have an ounce of truth in them.
- 7) Having a tag on all Appendix 3 articles with a small explanation about its controversy is not bias. Squealching a significant portion of the lore community in favor of your status quo, however, is bias.
- Did I miss anything? --Kakwakas 02:22, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I'm sorry, but from my conversations with Kenzuki, I do not agree that he is unbiased. He was telling us to remove the info from the wiki without good reason to do so even before Luke Johnson's comments. He demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the wiki - it is neutral, and therefore does not make decisions over whether something is canon. Not only that, but there is no reason not to carry information from a Warcraft RPG book that isn't canon.
- Now, this conversation is worrying me as it seems to becoming more and more about taking sides. We need to settle this as it is causing major problems.
- What I think would be a good idea is to have an Appendix 3 banner (as, really this is the section being discussed here - I've not heard of problems with any other RPG book sections), mentioning that is it from Appendix 3 of MoM and describes what the section is for. Something like:
- Would that satisfy (this would be in addition to the other notes on the pages). 08:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- Kirkburn, we've had this discussion before, and it's still under voting. You seem to have also missed a key point, in that the issue is not with Appendix 3 (only the "thick skulled" are stuck in this beleif), it is with MoM as a whole, and any source that uses it. This is a not a controversy that belongs in a header, and we are already pushing for the removal of these headers and replacement with refrencing. The controversy is well documented on the MoM page, we don't need to repeat it, and we don't follow this practice in any other issues where controversy is involved. -- 12:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I was asing for it? you started to be offensive to me, i responded in kind, and now you insult me? sure. whatever.. I see no reason to reply to anything you've said, as you clearly show your own bias and everything i've already said has addressed those points and you choose to ignore what i have said out of your stubborn ignorance or have a profound misunderstanding of the issue, which i can not make any clearer for you. -- 12:05, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- Okay, the insults and mud-slinging has got to stop. This is just getting stupid. Kakwakas, the opinions of the the 'lore community' matter little to this discussion. What is your suggestion, if you have one?
- Btw, can someone make a list of exactly what is in Appendix 3 so that each page can be checked? 14:33, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I've already put forth my suggestion. All I ask for is a nice little tag like the one you made in this topic. I wasn't aware of the policy vote that Zeal mentioned, but Foogray pointed it out to me. Baggins also did a pretty good job of putting a link to the Appendix 3 section of this MoM page on most all of the Appendix 3 monsters, so they shouldn't be too hard to find. --Kakwakas 21:16, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- "Baggins also did a pretty good job of putting a link to the Appendix 3 section of this MoM page on most all of the Appendix 3 monsters" Which is all that is needed as it is.. -- 21:45, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- I disagree. Most users won't even notice it. --Kakwakas 22:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)
- It's been suggested (multiple times), i don't insult people on the wiki, yet i can usually justify it with the fact i did actually provide contructive criticism along side it, and only used it for emphasis. In this case, i've already provided that, and i don't fancy restating things 30 or so more times when people still choose to be stubborn and ignore them or don;t understand them. So i'll leave it at that, nad won't insult you. The refute to your argument, lies in what i've said already, as it always has, choose to ignore it again if you wish. -- 22:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)
Something fishy about that "Deidre Brooks" comments, considering that Luke Johnson admitted he had nothing to do with MoM itself, also there is the fact he was just an author at the time, and not the editor or developers.
"My secret shame. It's the one Warcraft book with which I wasn't involved. (Though I *was* working on the books back then, as someone pointed out.)"-Luke Johnson
Baggins 14:52, 2 February 2007 (EST)
- Yeah, that's a bit strange. But before calling her a liar I would just assume that she confused Luke Johnson with Mike Johnstone. At this point of the discussion it probably doesn't matter anyway. --Foogray 13:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)
Ok, to make this clear, here's the overview..
Appendix 3 was not meant as canon, we know that, we understand that. It was a supplement for the RPG and represented a stop gap for any future Monster editions to the RPG. No offense to the authors, but they poorly decided to reference A3 in the rest of MoM, thus discrediting the lore validity of their own book entirely.
Blizzard however, have later done with MoM what they wish, taking some A3 monsters, without their original disclaimer, and using them alongside lore we know to be valid. This means we no longer know Blizzard's the stance on A3, nor can we discredit MoM, with its original authors admitting it is now out of their hands and do not known themselves. As this means the disclaimer and original intent of A3 are now invalid, and their new intent unknown, we can not use them on A3 content, but we can document the disclaimer under MoM.
So, we reference the source for such information as MoM, just like any other source. But on the MoM page, we explain what has happened, we quote the authors, and we make it clear that there is a great deal of controversy over it. We do not place A3 disclaimers on the actual articles that contain this information. No small notes, no giant headers, only referencing the source. Doing such things would discredit MoM and display it as invalid lore, something we can no longer do.
This will all become much clearer and easier for users to gain the information on once the new referencing and citation policies come into effect, and I suggest MoM articles be the start of testing our and putting into effect these policies.
And once again, to end on the note of a concept that eludes people's grasps. We are not Blizzard, we do not know what they know, we can't make the judgements they can. We are neutral, and we are unbiased. We do not acknowledge canon, as Blizzard do not. All sources and thier content are equal and valid unless the source itself, authors of the source or Blizzard state otherwise, with Blizzard's actions and statements recieving the most priority. We can only display all information, and both sides of an argument in an unbiased manner unless Blizzard officialy state otherwise. --12:42, 2 February 2007 (EST)
- "From a marketing perspective, Appendix III could help attract customers of D&D and other d20-type games to the Warcraft franchise if creatures familiar to them were included or available for use during RPG gameplay"
Actually I highly doubt that was the case, I believe it was the other way around to some degree. It would attract WoW customers to other RPG books.
Also it was needed at the time, it filled in a "hole" to add more gamplay options to a game that had only one other book at the time (the corebook, and few months later, Alliance & Horde Compendium). The early version of the game at the time was virtually unplayable without using other sourcebooks to add gameplay. Infact it was required to have some of the generic DND handbooks to even play the game (per first edition rules).
Also the game makes a big deal about making sure things fit into Warcraft setting, and aren't just adapted without any thought. It seems whoever wrote the Appendix was against the average D&D mindset. It wasn't just using other non-warcraft blizzard books but the game made a big deal on what "couldn't fit" in th earliest books.
Infact in the case of some of the earlier chapters like the sections on demons had abilities (summon unique demon types) applied to Pit Lords, and such that would only work if the race was taken outside the world of Azeroth. Otherwise the game said the ability couldn't be used. Either this means Azeroth limits their power, or they meant the Warcraft setting in general. Since Azeroth was essentially the only setting at the time, the latter is likely true (although Outland and Emerald Dream were partial settings that early on).
Yes, you would have to qualify that your speculation above is argued by "many opponents" to you particular speculated reason. Who else thinks that was the reason why they were included? Who and were, what's your citation?Baggins (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)