Canon and truth in-universe

[Inquisitor Soren]

GW retcons all the time. Possibly far too ften, making ti confusing.

From realizing that in a, 'its fantasy game' way I would agree. GW retcons like it is going outta style. But in-universe that makes things somewhat interesting. By messing with the fluff so much it has given the players the licenses to do whatever they want in 40k. There are so many contradictions in the fluff that it lets players pick and choose what they want to believe is 'real'. I think they have 'destroyed' their fluff continuity, but in doing so have created something fairly unique as well.

I'm not sure I could name another game or game system from anything that has the diversity that 40k in its lore.

On a Simpsons Related note: "I wonder if I can Cannonize a child." "Leaving!"

Sorry that has been in my head for hours...

[Melissia]

Naw, I think they have a fluff continuity, but it's just bizzarely organized.

...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

Because the BoLS crew haven't deemed it worth their time yet, and frankly I don't blame them. When/Ifever they feel like it, they'll do it.

[Nabterayl]

I agree with Kahoolin. What he's describing really is the process by which in-universe truth is decided in all fictional universes.

To put it another way, we have a large number of sources that are canon, but not all pieces of canon are equally reliable from a fictional-historiographical approach. Take a real-life example, the Roman Empire. If you want to read about the history of Rome in the 3rd through 2nd century BC, we have two main authors to choose from: Polybius (writing in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC), and Livy (writing in the very late 1st century BC). Both Polybius and Livy are historical sources, and you'd be a fool not to use both of them. But if the two of them conflict (and I'm simplifying hugely here) Polybius should be considered the more reliable source, since he was writing about events that had happened in his lifetime. They are equally historical sources; they are not equally reliable.

Substitute "canon" for "historical sources" and you have the process by which we decide what "really happened" in any fictional universe. If you've spent any time in GFFA fandom, you're probably familiar with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon]four levels of canon[/url] that Lucasarts has articulated. That is just an institutionalization of this same process. C-canon is trumped by G-canon, but it's still "canon." It's just less reliable.

Lucasarts makes it fairly easy for a Star Wars fan, since they have official levels of reliability for each piece of canon. The task for the 40K fan is not so much to decide what's canon and what's not as to decide how reliable each piece of canon is.

[gwensdad]

...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

If I understand the software right, they would have to make a special category of user in order to do that. Currently it looks like the categories are "regular user" (who get titles based on # of posts) and "BoLS crew" (who I read as "Moderators").

Anyway...let's get back to Truthiness in the 40K universe....

[DarkLink]

...off-topic, I know, but why are you a Chapter Master?
Shouldn't you be a Canoness (one-n) Preceptor at the least, maybe a Canoness Superior?

Alas, but we can't pick army-specific ranks. Unless you earn the special attention of the Admin, like Eldargal has.

[Kahoolin]

By the way, look up the definition of retcon.

I know what retconning is. My point is that yeah, conflicting fluff means usually that something has been retconned in the canon in the real world, but you can't just say "it's retconned" when someone asks why Salamanders are now black. That is not an adequate in-universe explanation.

@Fautie, I admit my example was contrived. What do you have to say about the Salamanders then?

How do we find out if they are really black or white in-universe? By deciding which canon we believe on the basis that one is a retcon and the other is therefore outdated? Or by examining all the canon and coming up with a convincing in-universe explanation?

What I'm trying to say (and I realise Nab at least gets it and =I= Soren seems to as well so I must be explaining it OK in some sense) is that it doesn't make sense to mix up the two approaches. If I come home from work and my house has been burgled, do I think burglars have smashed my stuff, or do I just say "oh that's nice, God has retconned my life?"

The first is an in-universe explanation, the second is an explanation from canon Of course both are true in a way, but not at the same time. Each truth is the result of a different approach.

[Melissia]

Yes there is, actually...

All Marines can change their pigmentation dependant on the nature of the planet they're on. Even Salamanders.

[Kahoolin]

All Marines can change their pigmentation dependant on the nature of the planet they're on. Even Salamanders.

See, now that is an adequate in-universe explanation. Except . . . I know that the Salamanders now (as a result of retconning) have a flaw so that their planet turns them permanently black. How does this square with the old artwork in-universe? That stuff may have been produced in the 80s in the real world, but it was still the 41st millenium in-universe and ... wait a minute how do you even know that stuff about marine skin? You've been reading MARINE FLUFF HAVEN'T YOU!

Jokes aside, all Im trying to say is that if we want to talk in-universe we have to stick to in-universe justifications which don't just come from canon - they come from canon+ historical analysis of the canon. And if we want to talk ret-conning and canonical validity then we don't get to use in-universe justifications or what seems likely to be true in-universe to decide what is really canon and what isn't.

[Melissia]

It's nearly impossible to know 40k fluff without knowing about the Marine implants.

[Kahoolin]

Lucasarts makes it fairly easy for a Star Wars fan, since they have official levels of reliability for each piece of canon. The task for the 40K fan is not so much to decide what's canon and what's not as to decide how reliable each piece of canon is.

So I guess we could say that unlike Lucasarts, GW has a . . . loose canon

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. I hear the Salmon is delicious.