General talk:Unofficial Lore

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search

Todd Howard's Order of Priority[edit]

This is being posted here for future reference:

  • 1. In-game events viewed through the eyes of the player
  • 2. A book published in-universe that can be read inside the game
  • 3. An official work published outside of the game (examples given include the game manual and the official cookbook)

Todd also said anything stated by a fan (an example given was fan theories) would not go on the list. This would imply fanfiction and other unofficial works are non-canon and not to be considered a part of The Elder Scrolls lore or canon.--Rezalon (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Didn't we already know that? Anything that wasn't released officially is not part of ES Lore. There is no "imply" at all, it just is. I don't feel like this is new information. Jeancey (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing new here, it seems more like trying to blow something out of proportion. In the interview Todd said that fan theories and debates are to be encouraged. In a related but different answer he gives his "priority" list, which fits everything we already know about how lore is formed and treated by Bethesda. This doesn't diminish fan-fiction in any way, it's just basically confirming everything we already know but has never been officially stated, and this isn't an official statement either to be clear. Silence is GoldenBreak the Silence 15:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Did Todd specify exactly what priority is that? Priority in what? His knowledge of universe? His personal way in knowing the universe? Why should this bother us? Phoenix Neko (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It is the priority of what is more important in Canon for the Elder Scrolls. So seeing something in a game takes precedence over descriptions of that thing in a book, if there are conflicts. Basically describes what we already do. Jeancey (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
He doesn't use the word 'canon' though. And he wasn't asked about canonicity at all. The header "Game Development, Canon, and Fan Theories" is deceiving. Phoenix Neko (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

() He mentions a panel at a London event. I'm fairly certain that panel involved canonicity. It's definitely what he was talking about. Jeancey (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It's really hard to make conclusions without taking all context into account. Phoenix Neko (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
It's a moot point anyway, since even being about canonicity, we already do all this, and nothing he said changes how we approach things being canon or not. Jeancey (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)