Talk: God letters

This talk page is for discussing the God letters page.
Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to the RuneScape Wiki? Read our FAQ.	Be civil Assume good faith Don't delete discussions Take a neutral point of view

Untitled

Why was it discontinued? http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc45/C_Teng/White_party_hat.png C Teng 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Old question now, easier to ask. It seems to be quest-related, they are so woven into stories since they stopped it, that make sense? Plus, it was three of them, probably running out of ideas. tobylane^Talk 21:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not personally know anyone who actually worked for Jagex at the time, but discussion pages often contain speculation. When they were released, I was one of the adult players who had been working in the software industry for decades (that doesn't make me special; I'm just pointing out that I wasn't a kid without perspective.) I believe the God Letters began from a creative/smartass Jagex worker as fun, and were intended only to reflect the persona of the gods. But this was in the days before Jagex issued routine newsposts - it was clearly their policy not to reveal *anything* about upcoming content until the day it was actually released. Most adult players understood this; projects suffer from delays and last minute errors, but customer patience is rare. (Andrew experienced the brunt of any player displeasure back in the very early days when he personally participated in discussions online.) By the time of the letters, players were starved for information, and each new letter sparked a firestorm of debate in the forums: what it meant, what it foreshadowed, what new content was coming, etc. If there *were* hints of planned content in the letters, they may have been ideas that didn't come to fruition. When new content was finally released (after a dry spell), and it conflicted with previous letters, some players went berserk. Jagex had to publicly disclaim the letters in a newspost (in addition to the "we tried to stop him, but he is a god.")

Towards the end, the letters just lost their oomph. I speculate that this was (a) because of the canon/foreshadowing problem, requiring heavy editing, and/or (b) because the office comedian who wrote them left the company, and whoever took over writing them just wasn't funny. Pokemama (talk) 14:48, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Non canon content

The change of the letters from canon to non-canon has caused a number of disputes regarding how they are used in articles. This is an opportunity to discuss how they can be applied in articles, with the following options:

1. Remove them entirely.
2. Remove them when they contradict other canonical sources
3. Leave them be

Please discuss.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Discussion

Support 2. Their announcement as being non-canon does not mean we should eradicate them entirely. Guthix and Saradomin playing RuneLink should obviously not be mentioned, but things that are in line with in-game/postbag/forum/etc. stuff should be kept. Fswe1 09:14, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3. Just document the non-canonical parts. They're an extremely interesting read, far too valuable to remove entirely. Thingummywut (talk) 09:26, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Remove entirely means that we will not reference them on any articles or use them as source, but we will keep them at God Letters + subpages. And don't you mean "document the canonical parts"? Fswe1 09:39, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, right. Misread the first post. What I had in mind in documenting the non-canonical parts was making it clear to the reader what is canonical and what is not. In this case, I support option 2 too. Thingummywut (talk) 09:48, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support 3. Keep the references to them, but say if the information comes from the God Letters, as it may be considered less reliable. Wahisietel (Talk) 09:45, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

We could add a notice to the CiteGodLetter template perhaps? Fswe1 09:46, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think we have the letters transcripted onto the wiki somewhere. Would adding a notice to the letter itself be removing the information too far away from the article?

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Surprise surprise: Support 1: Let me explain, but please correct me where I'm wrong. If something is not canon, it does not belong on wikia (wikia made to understand stuff; non-canon lore, out dated combat tips, old images, etc. do not contribute to the understanding and should therefore be removed), this instantly makes "3" a bad option while it keeps "1" and "2" open for discussion. The problem with "1" is, it might seem too rigorous and too abrupt a cut with the past, also we might lose a lot of content and lore (well, we certainly will do so)... but generally we do this already. Jagex makes decision, e.g.: Demon slayer rework: I liked the old lore, but it got replaced - yes we lost some lore there, but just like the people that like the old look of Bandos: sorry, the game got updated. We should do the same with the God letters - it's out dated and out dated things have no place/should be removed. The problem with point "2" is that, while some things may be considered lore (e.g. the name Saradomin for a character described as the God of Order... wisdom, pleasantry, etc.) while others are not (e.g.: Guthix is gender-neutral). Unfortunately there is a big gray area (e.g.: the Saradomin and Armadyl are "noble brothers"): Lenissa^{(sp, from the ghostly robes mini quest)} said Saradomin would surely give the Elder Staff 'back' to Armadyl, but at the same time... the actual lore is incorrect Saradomin only refers to Armadyl in that way in the God letters. Sure there's plenty other stuff we could point to that are on this grey area, but the point is, the quotes and perspectives that are used are basically not based on lore but on the god letters (which are more close to fan fiction, imo). So if we have to "Remove them when they contradict other canonical sources" then we basically have to remove them all because they are rarely/never quote the canon (e.g.: Saradomin never said Armadyl and him are "noble brothers" within the game - consequently it cannot be seen as lore). And if they do line up (e.g. the name "Saradomin" for a character described as the "God of Order") why not use the REAL lore anyway... why use a lousy substitute if you have the real thing?? I hope this clears it up for people why we should not use non-canon sources for canon, and why the God letters are not canon, and why they should never be used anyway. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 10:10, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

"So if we have to "Remove them when they contradict other canonical sources" then we basically have to remove them all because they are rarely/never quote the canon (e.g.: Saradomin never said Armadyl and him are "noble brothers" within the game - consequently it cannot be seen as lore)." Noble brothers is metaphorical, Saradomin means their beliefs are similar. Anyway, no, this is not stated to be true in the game. Point is, it's also not stated to be not true (be it explicitly ("Saradomin and Armadyl differ very much in philosophy.") or implicitly ("Saradomin is the god of order, Armadyl is the god of cookies [you get the idea].")) in the game. Thus, it shold be considered canon, as it is the only source at all to mention this particular subject. Not affirmed in no way means contradicted. Fswe1 10:32, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll address that. So basically my tl;dr point was:

a - Non-canon does not belong on wikia;

b - The God letters are non-canon;

c - The God letters do not belong on wikia.

And your reply to that was, but God letters could sometimes serve as a nice metaphor to make something clear that could also be explained with proper canon lore found in game. Does this mean I could also come up with... Star Trek metaphors or should it be bound only to RS. Let's say no an it should be bound only to RS, could I use metaphors from other fan sites (even the fan-fiction sites). Let's say no and it should only be from Jagex sources, could I use other, similarly out dated sources to make a point (e.g. the Demon slayer lore). Let's say no and you meant that only the God letters should be used as illustrative metaphors... why are they so special to you?

The point about the information not being actively/explicitly or passively/implicitly said to be untrue... I really wonder how do you see this to be inline with the do not speculate rule? We already stated it's not lore. Neither is the idea that Saradomin managed to attain godhood by killing everyone of his own race and that the deaths of his race give similar power to the murderer, as the Mahjarrat ritual does - neither actively/explicitly or passively/implicitly said to be untrue... anymore believable? Don't get me wrong, I understand the conservative/melancholic longing to hold to things that once were... but sometimes you just need to mourn, accept and move on - the God Letters once were lore, but ceased to be lore. Let's accept, move on, and remove their reverences.

Btw, what do you think of my suggestion: if you can, replace the God Letters with real lore that suggests the same; why settle for something less, when you have the real thing. I think that's a lot more of a viable solution to the problem. And for so long as we don't have stuff to replace the God Letters, let's do the same with these ideas as we did with the idea of Sliske being a god: dismiss them to the realm of non-confirmed. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 11:51, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

"And your reply to that was, but God letters could sometimes serve as a nice metaphor to make something clear that could also be explained with proper canon lore found in game." No it wasn't, that was for that particular sentence, in case you thought Saradomin actually claimed to be Armadyl's brother. To the matter at hand, you begin with the premise that God Letters aren't canon. The point of this discussion is to determine whether or not they are canon. Obviously, most parts aren't, but some are, namely those that aren't contradicted by more reliable and/or accurate sources. It's best to use the Letters just like any other source when they do not conflict with anything. If information is given in a letter that is not contradicted in-game, in the postbag or by a Jmod, then that information is no less accurate than what an NPC in-game says. Fswe1 13:02, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Even though the God Letters have been declared non-canon, we should still reference them. Parts of them are canon, and they WERE previously considered canon by Jagex, with a certain thing from The World Wakes coming directly from the God Letters (Guthix being a butterfly). I think it's fine to reference them as long as we say where the information is from, as that it may be considered non-canonical. Just because they're non-canon doesn't mean we have to remove any reference to them, by that logic we should delete Romeo's article and any references to him. Also, the allusions to them being fanfiction are completely stupid, as that would dictate they were written by fans. They weren't, Wahisietel (Talk) 16:57, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Direct quote from the RS website"Warning: The God Letters were written for fun and the information contained in them is not to be considered canon unless otherwise mentioned.", also linked to on this article page. It clearly says two things:

1. God letters are NOT canon.
2. IF they do contain lore... it will be mentioned...

So far, I have not seen such a mention anywhere (btw, I hope you would agree that your or my "gut-feeling" or "common sense" won't count as their mention). I think it's fair to say that my premises were correct after ;) And, don't worry, I know the meaning of metaphor... I didn't think they referred to Saradomin and Armadyl as actual brother. So since you did not say anything about my non-contradicting Star Trek metaphors... I think I would still like an answer to that question.

As for Battlebens (btw, are you German, or something like that?) commentary, what about my point: "why settle for something less whn you have the real thing"? . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 18:45, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

You're completely misunderstanding what they mean by otherwise mentioned. That refers to lore and information that is stated elsewhere outside of the god letters, such as Orlando Smith saying that Guthix was believed to come to Gielinor as a butterfly, and that his symbol was adapted from his followers. Or the Underwater City, or the gods mottos. Information about those can be considered Canon as it's referenced in the actual game. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:49, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Support 1 ^brings a good point, but misinformation. Gods letter stated "I first came as a butterfly" In the game "it is believed he came in Gielinor as a butterfly" ~Orlando Origin of Gielinor shows he came as his own race, Naragi, and in the Guthixian Butterfly, the Memories, he game as he really was, a Naragi. They stopped being lore after The World Wake. We can keep them in the wiki in their own page (or a link leading to the letters) but we shouldn't add reference to the to the page. Over all the gods letter are pretty much no longer lore/canon, as stated, unless otherwise stated by Jagex. (I have not seen them state it at all one/some of them may be part of it.) So over all they deserve to be removed from all articles. Because they are stated no longer Canon/lore, proof that they aren't is that they are either proved wrong, or information changed from new lore update. True, they are interesting to read, ok, then keep them in a different article. 07scape wiki can keep the information, after all, their lore is based off when the letters were lore. But this isn't 07, so we don't need the letters on the Gods pages because they are no longer lore. Ik this goes off my support, but if they are "THAT" interesting to read. Make a section of the god's page saying "Gods letter" Warn in bold it isn't part of lore/canon. and we give a link or state a few things there. (Ik it sounds a bit dumb, but it is an idea) or as I stated above, leave them in their own page so other can read it. We want this wiki to be filled with lore/canon information, and be as good as we can that we are the best (we are btw). So the least we can do now is what I suggested. I hope my reasoning helps at least in some parts. Adventurerrr ^Talk 19:11, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I believe they should be removed entirely. Support 1. Remember that even if the information contained within the God Letters is still accurate in places, the way it is passed across--IE, the way the Gods wrote the letter--may not be the way the Gods actually think/write/etc. In my opinion, using the God Letters to explain anything is roughly equivalent to using a quote from a character within a fanfiction: that character might exist in RS; he might even do the stuff the author is making him do (ex. Fish Flingers guy teleports you to Fish Flingers), but using the quotations is still inaccurate because we have no idea whether that character would actually say that or not. It misrepresents the Gods, and considering the question of 'which God are you going to follow?' seems like it's becoming very important recently in RuneScape, that's something the Wiki should be trying to avoid at all costs. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 19:00, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I just want us to put stuff like "In the god letters, which are generally considered non-canon unless otherwise stated, Saradomin said that...". For articles like Fief, we could have a notice at the top saying that the article deals with something from a god letter, and as such may be considered non-canon. But at any rate, we shouldn't remove all references to what may be considered "non-canon" from the wiki, as we are the wiki for all things RuneScape, and the god letters are/were a part of RuneScape. Plus, for stuff like Underwater City which is confirmed to play a part in future content, removing the god letters stuff from it would leave us with pretty much nothing on the article. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:45, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree articles like Fief, that are entirely based on their mention in the god letters should not be removed, just like the god letters themselves. Because "Everything on this site (or wiki) is entirely RuneScape-related." But things like Saradomins philosophy, or Guthix's first creatures on Gielinor being sheep etc. should not be mentioned. Also the underwater city article is not entirely based on the God letters. Just like Bob the Cat used to be a bug and 'became a real character', so too is the underwater city to be seen now: they reviewed it again and agreed there will be an underwater city. We don't need to rely on the God letters, alone for this. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 18:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

But Sheep being the first creatures brought to Gielinor is spoken of by Bob the Cat too. So instead of having for example "Bob the Cat states that Sheep were the first creatures Guthix brought to Gielinor", we would have "Bob the Cat and Guthix in the God Letters claim that Sheep were the first creatures Guthix brought to Gielinor. Wahisietel (Talk) 19:11, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

But surely, never the god letters alone. And even then I would say, Guthix didn't say that the God letters stated it, and Bob's mention might eb enough in the first place. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 19:44, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Support 2 - If the information is still canon (not disproved by other sources and with no irony or jokes) inside the god letter quote then it should be in the article, it's not wrong to start with and removing them would be considered removing legit content from a page, which is absurd in my eyes. I believe that this type of source would be immensely handy for readers and they should be the first priority. Hallowland^talk 20:05, June 8, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - All of the people supporting 1 seem to be basing their arguments on "the "fact" that the god letters aren't canon". This is NOT true. Using that as an argument is invalid. Yes, obviously, most of the letters is non-canon or jokes, but stuff that is referenced in-game or not disproven/contradicted in-game (Underwater City, Guthix Flutterby, Guthix flying skull...) is canon. Thus, removing that from articles would be removing legit information. Sure, Guthix and Saradomin don't play RuneLink and the actual letters themselves were never delivered, but some stuff that is in there (estimating about 5%, perhaps slightly more) is canon. "Unless otherwise mentioned" doesn't mean "if a Jmod explicitly says it's canon". We're smart enough to figure that out on our own. And Guthix being a butterfly, and the other things mentioned here, are canon and God Letter information can and should be used to supplement that. Fswe1 08:30, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - In the God Letters, Zamorak represents himself as evil. We know this isn't how he actually represents himself. What they mean by 'otherwise mentioned' is that the information itself remains canon, even if the way it's presented isn't. Guthix says things in incredibly flowery, borderline-nonsensical ways, and again we know that's not necessarily how he acts. Adding these things to articles suggests that, yes, they do in fact talk that way. Since we have no conclusive evidence that Saradomin talks the way he does in the God Letters, the presentation of these letters is non-canon as well. Again I present you with the metaphor of the character in a fanfiction; they may be doing what they do in-game, but you still can't quote them in an article because they might not be doing it in-character. Snowskeeper---Till Hell Freezes Over. (talk) 15:40, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

RE:Comment (Fswe1) - Sorry, I gave you a quote from RS disclaimer saying they are not lore, unless stated otherwise. You are wrong, because basically: they are not lore. I know it is so easy to say an argument isn't valid, especially if you give zero evidence of your own statement being true. At least come to the table with something. Because it's really tiring and frustrating to have those empty discussion. It's like saying: yes, NO, YES! NO!!! Yeheees!! I'm going to tell mommy! I gave you the quote, and you don't even react on it. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 18:53, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

I did reply to the quote. And, no offence, but you seem to be the one adamantly stating you're right. The very same quote you provided contradicts you saying that the God Letters aren't lore. For the last time, they are in some cases. There is no possibility in denying that, as we actually have in-game examples (the ones that have been mentioned numerous times: Underwater City (future update), Guthix's forms, etc.). We know that most of the letters aren't canon, but some parts are. Jagex even state that themselves: "unless otherwise mentioned". I don't see how an in-game mention does not suffice. Or, when something isn't intended as funny and makes sense (like Armadyl and Saradomin having similar beliefs), that isn't canon (it is). "Because it's really tiring and frustrating to have those empty discussion." - I agree. So please stop saying "they aren't canon, full stop" - we've heard that now. And it's not true (not completely, at least). Thank you. Fswe1 19:00, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies then. I think I forgot, sorry. Those in-game example are fine - mention those. You don't need 5 sources saying Guthix was a butterfly, and since the God letters aren't automatically canon/lore why use those as a source when you got proper lore? Same goes with the underwater world. As for Saradomin and Armadyl... I have not seen an in-game source saying they were noble brothers in some sense, Lennissa's quote (on the stolen Elder staff "I knew that as soon as my Lord Saradomin heard this, he would contact Armadyl to inform them of the theft, and the matter would have been resolved quickly and discreetly.") comes closest to this but it's far from clear or prove if you ask me. And again, why settle with less when you can use more/the real thing? . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 19:40, June 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I son't understand what you mean. If a letter is the only source for something, e.g. Guthix butterfly, how can we use other sources instead? Also, if something from the god letters is canon (which doesn't happen often), the letter is just as reliable a source as any other (but only for that particular thing, of course). "I have not seen an in-game source saying they were noble brothers in some sense" - would you need one? If the god letters say something that is not conflicting with other sources, it may be assumed true (unless disproven, in which case the letter would become an inferior source), and you don't have to "wait for more/the real thing" as you put it, since the god letters, when canon, are a source of their own, not a complement or something like that. Fswe1 05:40, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Play TWW, you might see a reference there... in the mean while, read my comment to Cam/Com below. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 11:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Lets us rewind 10 years. The god letters were canon. Activities ingame, such as quests, dialogue, etc. did not conflict with the letters. The letters were, more or less, considered entirely accurate and truthful (Flames of Lloigh-enn is one of the exceptions to this rule, amongst others). Thus up until recently the god letters were considered to be canon and only rarely conflicted with things in game.

Now let us move to today. The God letters have been removed from the list of canonical sources, but for the past decade they were correct and canonical. Is everything they said suddenly false? Of course not. It is merely out of date and, as older parts of the game often do, started to present different accounts of the history of Gielinor. Jagex simply decided they were no longer worth keeping to in terms of story and allowed themselves to deviate from what the letter describe. Therefore, until there is something that contradicts the letters, the letters are still largely correct. It's not like Jagex suddenly rewrote the entire history of RuneScape.

I think it would be a shame to suddenly deny the letters exist in terms of article writing. They provide a little more background reading that, whilst not always correct, could be of interest to our readers.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

"They provide a little more background reading that, whilst not always correct, could be of interest to our readers. " Isn't it the task of wikia to be correct? Fswe1, e.g. reverted Zaros' philosophy from "Fate and Control" to "Control and fate", if we're this nit-picky... I really don't understand why we would be so lenient when talking about the god letters. The quote still stands: "not canon, unless..", please try to convince me with a different argument than "it once was, and doesn't contradict, so lets keep it". . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 11:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your argument is based on taking jagex's words as is. The task of the wiki (wikia is the company that hosts the wiki btw) is to be informative and correct, covering all things RuneScape. Including extra information that does not conflict with the otherwise known correct information does not detract from that. If there is something incorrect about the citation it should be removed, but unless there is something that disputes it who's to say it's actually incorrect?

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

To address the wording of Zaros' alignment, I believe that the wording was quoted from a RSOF thread released with

Yes - I do not see why we should not believe Jagex point of view on their game. I understand Jagex could lie or be incorrect, but to assume that straight away seems kinda off to me, as well as saying we know better what they mean. I understand wiki (ty for the correction) should cover everything RS-related. But again, to say "as long as it doesn't contradict, we declare it lore" seems way much of a leap of faith. Until 'recently' the Fanfiction Zaros Godsword was pretty much in the state of being non-contradicted. This doesn't make it accurate, however. All source, in fact, the only source we ahve to determine what's RS-lore... is Jagex. Why to doubt that seems... off and odd. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 14:59, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

That's a poor comparison. The supposed Zaros Godsword was fan fiction and, even if it would be mentioned somewhere, for example in the God Letters (which it isn't), it would directly conflict with knowledge from other sources and thus it would not be considered true. The God Letters, on the other hand, aren't, and have never been fan fiction and were a reliable source in the past. As such, they remain a reliable sources until contradicted. If something is said in the God Letters that is in line and/or does not conflict with other sources, it ought to be considered true. It's not like they God Letters are suddenly all rubbish, just because they're old. They were a source in the past, so there is absolutely no reason at all not to use them as a source now. Except for the parts where Zamorak and Saradomin play hide and seek, or something like that. Fswe1 16:08, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Where is it actively conflicted then? Btw... I never said a source is not valid just because it's old, I only said the God Letters are not always valid because they're non-canon unless mentioned otherwise. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 13:23, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

They're canon unless contradicted. To assume something is non-canon because of a disclaimer, when it was canon before the addition of said disclaimer, is illogical and Bandosian. Fswe1 16:43, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

I like your antipathy towards Bandos... who can like that guy... :-/ but that really is it. Why should we not follow Jagex' instructions (them being the disclaimer) - let me remind you... the previously and tediously repeated reason you gave me (it doesn't contradict and it once was lore so should be still lore) is very unconvincing. You should really come with a better excuse.-- . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 20:15, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

...and saying "boom - it's all false now!" is more convincing...? Kay... Fswe1 17:35, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so you want to stop talking about it? fine. if you don't want to convince me/us about Jagex being incorrect about their literal statement and you being correct in your re-interpretation? Fine. But then please, don't clutter the talk pages with these non-sense statements. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 06:05, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You think the God Letters were canon one day, then, all of a sudden, they stopped being canon a day later. You've basically been saying "I think we should not consider them canon because they aren't canon" the entire time, despite various counterarguments being used against that. Because that's what I'm getting from this. Fswe1 12:54, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Silverlight was once a Guthixian item, that's no longer the case - they replaced it - with a Saradominist character. Gypsy Aris and several characters used to feature in that quest (demon slayer) once before - they got replaced with nothing. The God letters were once canon, now not any more unless mentioned otherwise. The things that once were canon - got replaced with nothing. I see no problem there... things get lost... just like the ancient antikyra mechanism. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 21:30, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

That's not analogous. Silverlight is now stated to be Saradominist, thus any previous alignments are dropped. Unless it is stated or implied that something said in the God Letters isn't canon (and Mod Michelle's message doesn't count >.>), it is still canon. For example, Sir Prysin used to be known as clumsy. At the moment, it is not said anywhere he is clumsy. However, he should still be considered clumsy, since there is no reason to assume that aspect of the old Demon Slayer isn't true anymore. Fswe1 19:07, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

"Jagex simply decided they were no longer worth keeping to in terms of story and allowed themselves to deviate from what the letter describe. Therefore, until there is something that contradicts the letters, the letters are still largely correct." <----- That. Fswe1 18:44, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Didn't Jagex say this several years ago? I'm aware they fairly recently said Postbag from the Hedge was non-canon, but this seems like fairly old news to me. I was under the impression 2 was already in effect. Jagex named me Able Tis (talk) 08:31, June 11, 2013 (UTC)

I have had the same impression too - but all I found was the disclaimer/warning at the God Letters page, the Post bag to the Hedge hasn't got it. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 11:30, June 12, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - To quote Mod John A (SCD), the Postbag is canon until it directly conflicts with something in-game, in which case the latter has precedence. The same applies for the novels, as evidenced by the recent Q&A, and the God Letters. Thus I think we're done here. ;) Fswe1 16:41, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

If you're able to provide a source we can reference, I'm happy adding a note to God letters and using option 2 for using them as references.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

I agree, if you can find a source saying that. I'm more than willing to agree to that - wholeheartedly :3 In fact... with that recent Lore Campfire answer, I think it's reasonable to accept that the same would count for similar Jagex-released-lore.

“

Kittyphantom said: (Long question that boils down to "Are the RS novels canon.") I stand by the novels being "canon unless we contradict them". A couple of other points to bear in mind about the novels vs the game, though: RS is a living, evolving game, and we keep adding to it and changing it. If we need to change an existing piece of content, we can, but we can't change the text in the novel you have on your bookshelf. We can't let the novels limit us, though. If we have a change we need to make to the game, but there's no way to make it without contradicting the novels, then we'll make the change and that bit of the novels will have to become non-canon. We also can't rely on all RS players having read the novels. That means we can't write in-game stories that assume the player has read the novels; the novels are an optional extra rather than something you have to read in order to get the full story of RS

”

Anyway... I would like to point out that this is the first bit of counter evidence precented. . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . .

Kitty's question was based on something Mod Michelle (who does 99% of the work on the official wiki) posted on another thread, specifically a list of things that were not canon, including the letters, novels and armies of gielinor. I'm guessing Michelle also added the notice to the God letters page on the official wiki too, as part of that these-are-not-canon listing, which she later said was done to be on the safe side rather than add something that could conflict with the ingame version of events.

Bearing the above in mind, are there any objections to treating the letters (and other non-ingame literature) in the same way as the novels should be treated per John A's answer? This would probably extend to postbags and AoG as well.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Could we archive that post/thread with... webcite... just to be save (and prevent this conversation from happening all over :P) ?? . . . _Yours, Enquidou ^Talk . . 09:37, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

John A's post has been archived, Michelle's hasn't. That being said, we should take John's word over Michelle's, since he is a senior content developer and part of the group that decides what is canon and what isn't. Michelle is in charge of the wiki and only added the notice to, as she said, better be safe than sorry. She also messes up quite often, but that's irrelevant. :P Anyway, there is no reason as to why John's statement, which applies to the novels and the postbag (he referenced the postbag a few weeks ago, I believe), should no be extended to include the god letters and AoG. Fswe1 09:48, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to archive Michelle's post, even if just for background.

1. REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature

Aye, if you'd be able to find it. :P Fswe1 20:18, July 3, 2013 (UTC)