Ad placeholder
Talk:Astarion: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→MTG Cards advertising and canonicity?: Reply
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:My words arent gospel, discussions about this topic are encouraged! | :My words arent gospel, discussions about this topic are encouraged! | ||
:~Valk [[User:Valk|Valk]] ([[User talk:Valk|talk]]) 08:07, 9 January 2025 (CET) | :~Valk [[User:Valk|Valk]] ([[User talk:Valk|talk]]) 08:07, 9 January 2025 (CET) | ||
::Thanks for the thoughtful reply! | |||
::During the "editing discussion" (not sure what to call it) I also brought up that it was his background during EA, however it no longer is and much of the EA content is not canon anymore, even if him being a noble doesn't contradict anything and is not in any way a huge leap, so I'm not sure what to do with that (it is also included clunkily into the article so I might overhaul that new section altogether once I get my pc back even if we decide it is best to include that info) | |||
::I can't discuss that they're backed by Larian, but that they've been consulted over this or worded it carefully is where I am skeptical (and what to make of new "BG3" canon in a post-BG3 WOTC world is something I wonder what to do with altogether). Like I've said it does conjure some problems, regarding the Gale and Wyll cards, where I can't confidently say what counts or not. | |||
::As for Neil, I also find the subject touchy because in the past there have been a few instances of him getting info about Astarion wrong based on people's fan content. I admit there's some personal bias there in that in regards to lore canon I prioritise what the writers have to say (and in all honesty I fully expect Rooney to confirm he was a noble, because as we pointed out it's the most logical conclusion, but we don't have that statement, I believe) [[Special:Contributions/31.4.198.250|31.4.198.250]] 12:30, 9 January 2025 (CET) |