Corruption of Champions (Pathfinder) - Interest Check - Closed

[Vergil Tanner]

That's what non-canon means, though; not recognised as having happened within the story. It's a dichotomy. Something can't be Non-Canon and yet happen within that universe. As soon as it's acknowledged as having happened within the universe, it becomes Canon. That's what Disney did when they declared most of the Expanded Star Wars Universe Non-Canon; they said that beyond a few select titles, it never happened.
Non-Canon isn't "Unofficial." Canon means "part of the official universe," and Non-Canon means "Not a part of the official universe." If the Side Threads are acknowledged as having occurred in the CoCRP Universe, then they are Canon by definition. If they are dubbed non-canon, then they did not happen within the CoCRP.
Yes, Fanfiction COULD happen, but by being labelled non-canon, the people in charge of what has happened in that universe have said "This did not happen in the official timeline."

And my point was just that saying that all side threads are non-canon tells people that nothing they do outside the Main Thread will be included in the "official timeline," which will discourage them from doing those threads in the first place because there's no point to them, since it won't affect the rest of the game. I understand what you mean now, of course, but I still maintain that you shouldn't use terms like "Non-Canon" because it gives people the wrong impression, because that word is used to refer to a specific thing.

[eBadger]

I think removing something from canon is more about the verb than the noun.

If I wrote a fan fic about Elsa brushing her teeth, it wouldn't be canon; that wouldn't imply Elsa never brushed her teeth, nor would ever do so in a future sequel.  Anyhow, semantics, but was curious. 

[Vergil Tanner]

No, but then there's a difference in contexts. Brushing her teeth? Yeah, that's something that happens every day and could feasibly be in-canon. However, somebody being gangbanged by the guards and staggering back into camp three hours later? If you've said that's non-canon, then it didn't happen by definition of the word. See, the difference there is that nobody said the teeth brushing was Non Canon, but you specifically said that this scene on the side would be. And that's what I had an issue with; you were giving the impression that it wouldn't be considered part of the timeline of the game, so what would be the point exploring side scenes at al?

[Saric]

Hmm.  Same definition, imho, I think you're just conflating 'unofficial' with 'didn't happen'.  Just because fan fiction isn't canon doesn't mean it couldn't happen, or influence a continuation, or be developed into an official supplement.

There seems to be some confusion here so I thought I'd clear it up. And event that is 'Canon' happened, an event that is 'Non-Canon' didn't happen, an event that is 'unconfirmed' or 'unofficial' may have happened and in the case of 'everyday events' a scene may be 'Non-Canon' but the behavior isn't necessarily (e.g. brushing teeth). As gangbangs are not considered 'everyday events', even if they happen every day, declaring a scene to be Non-Canon also declares the event to have not happened.

This has been your Public Service Announcement.

[eBadger]

Clear as mud.  Has only made more apparent your struggle to find a term for something which is not canon, but is still unconfirmed or may have happened, as opposed to the limited definition you're placing on non-canon as things which specifically did not happen. 

The wiki introduces a terrific example of James T. Kirk's middle name.  It was never stated in the original series.  "Tiberius" was introduced in the animated series - which is non- canon.  But the name was later picked up in the movies and shows, and is currently canon.  Non-canon there doesn't mean it could never have possibly happened, it simply means that it wasn't part of the official story - until it was.  That couldn't happen for conflicting events, thus your interpretation (for instance, if the show had listed Kirk's middle name as Teddy) but doesn't have such implications for non-conflicts and doesn't mean that canon couldn't be switched in the future.

Non-canon simply means "not canon," which doesn't mean specifically refuted any more than being "non-blue" means something is red. 

And if you're going to really split these hairs of definition, my original statement was "not part of canon", which is even more broad. 

[Vergil Tanner]

Clear as mud.  Has only made more apparent your struggle to find a term for something which is not canon, but is still unconfirmed or may have happened, as opposed to the limited definition you're placing on non-canon as things which specifically did not happen. 

The limited definition we're using for "Non-Canon" is the definition. I can appreciate that you meant something different, but you used the wrong term, because the term you used has a specific definition.

The wiki introduces a terrific example of James T. Kirk's middle name.  It was never stated in the original series.  "Tiberius" was introduced in the animated series - which is non- canon.  But the name was later picked up in the movies and shows, and is currently canon.  Non-canon there doesn't mean it could never have possibly happened, it simply means that it wasn't part of the official story - until it was.  That couldn't happen for conflicting events, thus your interpretation (for instance, if the show had listed Kirk's middle name as Teddy) but doesn't have such implications for non-conflicts and doesn't mean that canon couldn't be switched in the future.

Yes, Non Canon can be made Canon later on by the showrunners or the authors of the universe. So? Your decision that any Side Scenes that are made are not part of canon means that unless you decide to retroactively say "Yeah that happened," the players have to act as if it didn't happen...which, from their perspective, makes writing the scene kind of pointless because it won't contribute anything for their characters going forwards because unless told specifically that their scene is Canon, they have to act as if they're not.

Non-canon simply means "not canon," which doesn't mean specifically refuted any more than being "non-blue" means something is red. 

That's a bad analogy.
See, "Not Blue" and "Red" are not opposites. "Non Canon" or "Not part of Canon" and "Canon" or "Part of Canon" ARE opposites. "Part of Canon" and "Not part of Canon" is a dichotomy, because they can't be both and there's nothing in between. It's one or the other. It isn't "Non red and blue." It's "Red and Not Red," because those terms ARE opposite.

And if you're going to really split these hairs of definition, my original statement was "not part of canon", which is even more broad. 

No it isn't. First off, when I said "non-canon," you didn't clear up that you didn't say Non Canon, you agreed that that's what you meant.
Second, saying "Not part of canon" is literally the definition of Non Canon, so you just used a synonym that means the same thing.

I can appreciate that you didn't mean "It never happened," but that's the impression your choice of words gave off because you used the wrong terminology. And the fact that you've had three different people tell you that in this thread tells me that it wasn't just me who got that initial impression.

[Blinkin]

You know, this back and forth is really killing any interest in this game simply because both of you seem to have to get the last word after it's been fairly settled what the GM meant by the term, regardless of the Webster's dictionary... or whatever definition is being referenced's meaning.

EBadger, if you want to run, I'll play, but this now pointless "discussion" is getting old fast and I would ask one of you be strong enough to let it go.

[eBadger]

I think it's been an interesting and respectful conversation, but yes, it has also reminded me why I stopped gming games on E.  I updated awhile back that I'm passing on this one for the foreseeable future and decided to pitch a learn to play Pathfinder tutorial/game. 

As to the canon conversation, I don't think it's about being strong enough to walk away for either of us although it has become unproductively circular.

[Vergil Tanner]

I don't think it's about not being "Strong Enough" either. I certainly wasn't attempting to get the last word in, I was simply attempting to make clear why I interpreted the wording in the way I did.

But I do have to agree as well that the discussion has kind of devolved into pointlessness, so perhaps we should have stopped earlier. >.>

[c0i9z]

I'm very sorry that this game will not come to be. If you ever feel tempted to try again, I will certainly try to join once more.

[eBadger]

Thanks coi, may happen at some point but I think a tweaked system and incorporating noncon smut is just a bit too much to bite off for now.