Category talk:Jackalwere: Difference between revisions
From Mistipedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Are we happy with Category:magical Beast and category:shapechanger, given the different treatment of the wolfwere? We could stick both cases up on the forum and see if any of the Kargatane will give us an errata.[[User:Cure|Cure]] 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) | Are we happy with Category:magical Beast and category:shapechanger, given the different treatment of the wolfwere? We could stick both cases up on the forum and see if any of the Kargatane will give us an errata.[[User:Cure|Cure]] 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
I think Jackalwere is correct, and Wolfwere is wrong (given our recent discussion on Dire Ravens, Wolfwere's can't be animals because they have high INT). But until the Kargatane give us an errata, we're stuck with what's printed. (In fact, even an errata at this point could be considered only Potential-canon by sticklers). I say leave it as printed, but add a note in Wolfwere that they really ought to be Magical Beasts. -- [[User:Gonzoron|Gonzoron]] 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:17, 22 February 2010
Are we happy with Category:magical Beast and category:shapechanger, given the different treatment of the wolfwere? We could stick both cases up on the forum and see if any of the Kargatane will give us an errata.Cure 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I think Jackalwere is correct, and Wolfwere is wrong (given our recent discussion on Dire Ravens, Wolfwere's can't be animals because they have high INT). But until the Kargatane give us an errata, we're stuck with what's printed. (In fact, even an errata at this point could be considered only Potential-canon by sticklers). I say leave it as printed, but add a note in Wolfwere that they really ought to be Magical Beasts. -- Gonzoron 17:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
