Talk:Patronage (4e Campaign Setting)

To Do List

The setting is almost complete. What I would still like to accomplish is:

• think: I'd like to be able to create the heraldry for Alabastria and each of the Free Kingdoms.
• think: I will probably want to reorganize the Backgrounds page at some point.
• think: I am contemplating unique mechanics for the humans' power of prophecy.
• think: A page on divination procedures. I'd like each Patron to have its own favored method, and this gives me a chance to describe the celestial bodies of Patronage. --Wrecan 07:20, 30 September 2011 (MDT)

--Wrecan 08:39, 27 September 2011 (MDT)

Done List

• DONE: Detail Winteren.--Wrecan 09:30, 28 September 2011 (MDT)
• DONE: Added adventure and campaign seeds. --[[--Wrecan (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2012 (MDT)User:Wrecan|Wrecan]] 08:39, 27 September 2011 (MDT)
• DONE: Map of the continent--Wrecan (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2012 (MDT)
• DONE: Add stat blocks for creatures specific to Patronage, like the Reckoners.--Wrecan (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2012 (MDT)

GD's Map (now obsolete)

I added a more comprehensive map. If you want to make the map (or each one) clickable you can use Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Links but it would not work well. I think the way it is now is the most understandable. What are your thoughts about File:4e Campaign Setting Patronage.jpg? What about File:Patronage Map.JPG (do you think it still has a use)? --Green Dragon 01:54, 6 November 2011 (MDT)

Thank you for doing this. I like it. I have a few small comments. First, I'd rather you not have named places not mentioned in the wiki, such as individual Mounds of Duat. The Mounds aren't given individual names, and are often treated as interchangeable. Second, Mongrel island is too small. It should stretch eastward just to run parallel to the Caliphate-Chiseli border. Third, the Ochre Mountains do border Duat. The Dead March doesn't come between them. --Wrecan 12:32, 8 November 2011 (MST)

No problem, it was fun to draw. I was not aware of the mounds situation. I read in the text about the "Mounds of the Shinigami" and "one of the mounds" so I assumed that they were specific. Since the words cut through roads and hills, I don't know what to do. I guess I could draw in the hills, rescan that section, and remove the other black pixels of the words. The words cannot be erased easily (it will always show). We could also just change it? Should we just say they change every so many years and currently they are named this way?

Mongrel Island could be redrawn, scanned as a separate file, and put onto the map. It would have to be over the current island, the sea serpent, and the text. They could be moved (but not removed too). You want to draw the island you are talking about (to keep it consistent I used 3B for everything on the island save the rivers which are 2H and the name which is 8B)? I could as well.

The reason I did not include a border between the Ochre Mountains and Duat was because such high mountains do not just come down into plains, they have foothills. I did not consider the foothills to be appropriate for the might of the titans and they did not seem to work well with a land of hills (as was then mentioned). --Green Dragon 18:32, 8 November 2011 (MST)

For now, leave the map as is, but please don't put any of these new place names in the text for the individual kingdoms. I'll work on my own detailed map and replace yours when I have the time. As for Duat, the Northern part of Duat should be hilly. Duat is a snowy barbarian kingdom (in the north), and snow-covered hills work well for that geography. --Wrecan 06:54, 9 November 2011 (MST)

For now we'll leave the names on. When you replace the map you can then change the names as appropriate.

If you thought the climates were different you needed to mention it on the pages before or now redo the map. Your mistake is a mistake, and it cannot be remedied as easily as editing the pages otherwise, so stop now. --Green Dragon 13:56, 9 November 2011 (MST)

Why would I have mentioned it?! I'm not the one who made a map unrelated to what was written about my camapaign setting. i didn't ask you to make a map and it wasn't immediately apparent how inaccurate the map was. You made an assumption that the map stretched from pole to pole even though I specifically stated on the main page for the campaign setting that the whole campaign is on a single continent that is only a part of the world. What part of that gave you the idea that the world stretches across two hemispheres!? You should delete that map and all the changes you unilaterally made to the setting and allow me time to make my own map that reflects what I actually wrote. Moreover, your map did in fact alter things. You unilaterally placed a gap between the Ochre Mountains and Duat that was not in my graphical representation. You made the Fey Realm and Ironguard share a border that isn't on my graphical representation. You added cities to nations that shouldn't have any additional cities. Why did you do that?

I just saw another inaccuracy in the map. You placed a city named Southbar in Ironguard. But Southbar is the former name of the city that is now Foundry, the capital of Nidvalar. Southbar, was the southernmost point of the Second Empire's Wall (now called Walls Road), which stretched from Northbar (a city in Midhaven on the Nereid Sea) to the Savage Sound. How can Southbar be a city that isn't on the Savage Sound and isn't even on Walls Road?! I also note Walls Road seems to stretch only to the end of Nidvalar, when the history of the Second Empire clearly states the Wall (which became Walls Road) stretched all the way past the city of Artifice, which is in Midhaven. --Wrecan 15:19, 9 November 2011 (MST)

When I read "on one world" I understood that those extraplanar attributes had to happen somewhere and somehow throughout the mists since one cannot just take a boat to them. When I read "one continent" I understood that it was like Pangaea. When I asked "Major environmental changes are present. How does this happen in the natural sense?" I only got a vague response which was not like "they are not quite done!" but rather "The only major environmental change is that ...". Had I read "This region is a jungle" on the pages I would have added a jungle and considered that over half of the world was mists. This was not explained. This CS was considered close to done (nomination for FA) and it was a planet so I thought that if I drew a map all the situations would be detailed. How I drew it worked with that (within reason– I could have replaced some farmland in Midhaven for these desired jungles I guess). The word "part" is not anywhere on Patronage. I had a reason for the gap (although also partly a mistake). If this is so important I could look into seeing what I can do (and may). There was a border between the Fey Realm and Ironguard. Four corners border on four corners. I considered this a mistake. I added cities because the Alabastrian Empire was ridiculous. It has 48 cities each by a lone mountain. Were I to do only the other cities this would look so fake, it would be terrible (and probably never a FA since people who would play it would think it was not real; creatures would not be normal, and everything would be unplayable (powergaming, DM fiat, etc)). --Green Dragon 15:41, 9 November 2011 (MST)

First, it says "Patronage exists on one continent on one world." That sentence is not This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. read to say "Patronage exists on the only continent on one world or that this one continent is the same size as the world! If having this campaign setting be a featured article means I have to accept you This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. making decisions to fill in things you consider gaps (even when they aren't), then remove the FA nomination. It's not worth the agitation of having to review everything you write to make sure it's consistent with what has been written This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.. If you had a question, or were unclear on something, you could have asked. I tried to answer everything you asked, and I've been very good about responding to comments. But now I feel like you've forced yourself into this project as an unwelcome collaborator, rather than as a Wiki Editor. If you think something is incomplete, or you see a typo, that's fine. When you decide that the Alabastrian Empire shouldn't have 48 cities when most other nations have none, then ask me how I justify that. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. You've named cities without any regard as to whether there were supposed to be naming conventions. You changed titles of nobility on some weird anti-religion stance. It's not like this is something I undertook lightly. I started this project two years ago. It's got my blood, sweat, and tears all over it. I've written a novel's worth of material for this setting This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.. Isn't that the sort of thing one would have thought would have been made explicit, not the fact that the "one continent on one world" is, perhaps, a normal sized continent on a normal-sized world? --Wrecan 16:21, 9 November 2011 (MST)

[1] (etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil) (1:1). Issued on 18:11, 9 November 2011 (MST) --Green Dragon 18:11, 9 November 2011 (MST).

Why consider there are things you didn't think of? Inclusion or exclusion, both are reasonable. A clarification was needed. I asked "Major environmental changes are present. How does this happen in the natural sense?" and that the only playable area covers a section of the world is a major environmental change I would say. I asked this question (per the above statement) and I guess the answer really didn't cover what this planet is about. I made the map because I wanted to... Jupiter is pretty large where Mercury is pretty small. If you don't appreciate my work, you are free to make your own. Saying my changes were mistakes case and point is wrong as there is large margin of change. Why consider there are things you didn't think of? --Green Dragon 18:11, 9 November 2011 (MST)

It's not that I didn't think of it. It's that I had already written a novel's worth of text and I didn't imagine that a Wiki Editor would take it upon himself to invent material and then place it in the wiki without first asking me it if it made sense, or contradicted stuff in other Patronage articles. Obviously, not every factoid about Patronage can appear in the wiki. It's a world with thousands of years of history. If I did include everything, the campaign guide would be too voluminous to be useful. (I think it's on the verge of that as is.) And what you considered a gap others may not. And what others may consider a gap - which they can fill in when they use the campaign guide in their home games -- you and I may not. The world was complete enough to be used by DMs wishing to run campaigns in Patronage before you started filling in the gaps you perceived. But now the articles are contradictory. Maps don't correspond to descriptions. Saying you made mistakes is accurate because what you created contradicted other things that I had written. The use of Southbar is one example. Allowing the Dead March to encompass part of the Ochre Mountains is another. I don't know why you are so reluctant to acknowledge and correct these mistakes. You didn't work on it for years. Of course you shouldn't be as versed in its details as the author. There's no shame in that. --Wrecan 07:59, 10 November 2011 (MST)

The answers I got told that the environmental changes were fully written. So... What am I to do? I can't draw a map that doesn't exist. The whole southern portion shouldn't have existed when I drew it? Maybe you don't see the palm trees in the Green Lands (meaning jungle). That jungle was in the description. I don't understand what you asking for. What couldn't work with how it was written I choose one of the possibilities (and ones which, I thought, made the most sense) for. I read the patronage articles. If there is more pertinent information you should include it! It will help people put this campaign setting in its context. When you say "The world was complete enough to be used by DMs wishing to run campaigns in Patronage before you started filling in the gaps you perceived." I must say that drawing the map makes one consider how the pieces come together. My opinion on this (now at least) is that, no, it was not complete enough. There was nothing about the southern reaches being a jungle (what creatures do you consider to encounter?!). Southbar gives Northbar context, just like Legionpost gives Legionhome context, but 48 cities to a total 55 cities (or so) in the entire world is not context. Players would most likely think it was not made well enough to be used (to strange; no context for their game). Think about the distances. Let's say you can walk 50 miles a day. Most towns are 3 days walk apart. That's 150 miles. If anything more towns are needed (context). Less towns then what is here is something else. When I was drawing it, yes, I messed up on the Duat line (but it's not a big deal). I am not reluctant to redo anything. I'm not going to correct it because it took me long enough to draw and I'm not going to redraw it. I don't have the desire anymore. --Green Dragon 23:39, 10 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. If that means Patronage isn't ready for FA status, then Patronage isn't ready for FA status. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 06:22, 11 November 2011 (MST)

[2] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (2:4). Issued on 20:24, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 20:24, 8 January 2012 (MST).

I could also assume that making sense makes sense. Feel free to edit this campaign setting once again– it is no longer being considered for FA so the punctuality of it is more or less irrelevant. --Green Dragon 11:39, 11 November 2011 (MST)

I have a few follow-up questions.

Do you mind the extra cities?

If I was to copy-paste the palm trees from The Green Lands throughout the bottom sections, would that be desirable?

If possible I could attempt to rectify the Duat and Ochre Mountains border, would that be desirable?

If I do these things is there anything else which is not listed and is important? --Green Dragon 11:45, 12 November 2011 (MST)

Now that the FA Nomination is terminated, as you said, time is not of the essence. I am working on my own map, so there's really no reason for you to work on the one you wrote up. Given that, it really doesn't make sense for me to go through your map with a fine-tooth comb and list all the inconsistencies. --Wrecan 07:19, 13 November 2011 (MST)

Setting Namespace

If you take a look at the wiki's campaign settings, the namespace is standarized as Setting (DnD Campaign Setting) over any specific edition. This is for many reasons. If the particular setting in question ends up being somehow made where it can only be played in one edition (which would be very unlikely or very odd), then the page should say that. This was decided way back when we first started adding and separating the 4th edition stuff from 3.5.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:11, 22 August 2009 (MDT)

Sorry. I didn't realize. Thanks for fixing it for me. This is a 4e-specific setting, though I haven't yet included the 4e-exclusive information.--Wrecan 19:50, 22 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating

I know you're working on this - and it is already looking great. I'll keep checking back and fixing the rating accordingly. Also, I love the table you've got on this main page's Race section. Really simple and informative tool.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:41, 30 August 2009 (MDT)

Thanks. Apparently, I've now been downgraded to a three. --Wrecan 12:45, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Age Timelines

I really enjoy the timelines you have on each "ages" page. Just a friendly note that I may end up "stealing" (read: copy-paste) the code for those in the near future.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:35, 4 October 2009 (MDT)

Images Project

• I've added images to the Landbond page and all the Patrons' pages except Dragon and Elemental. Next stop... the Patron Lands! --Wrecan 16:40, 15 September 2011 (MDT)
• I've added images for each of the Patron Realms. Next stop: Free Kingdoms!--Wrecan 06:57, 16 September 2011 (MDT)
• I changed my mind and did the Wild Lands first. Now the next stop is the Free Kingdoms!--Wrecan 07:33, 16 September 2011 (MDT)
• Screw it. I've now added images to every page except the Free Kingdoms, the Chaotic and Xalian Ages, Power Sources, Dragon, and Elemental. (And the indexed pages)--Wrecan 09:37, 16 September 2011 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon 11:38, 11 November 2011 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

This constantly updated Campaign Setting is one of the best ones on the site. I think that, given community (including main contributor Wrecan) involvement in writing up a short intro with a good representative image, this would make a wonderful featured article.

Support

• Support — As nominator, per above.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:17, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
• Support — As author. --Wrecan 07:50, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
• Support — As my comment below has been dealt with (in spades) I'm changing my vote to support. Looks good. --Badger 18:08, 16 September 2011 (MDT)

Comment

• I really appreciate the nom, and would be happy for any suggestions for an info or image. We can always use the Dragonseye pictograph on the main page for a pic. but if anybody has any other suggestion, I'm all eyes!--Wrecan 07:54, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
• Comment — This is perhaps one of the most complete settings on the entire site. While some pages could use more flavor-text, every page on this wiki could. The writing is very solid, and the History section rivals high school World History in material covered (for me at least). Formatting of all the pages is very well done. The only reason this is a comment instead of a Support is because I think pictures would help. I'm a sucker for pictures. I can't say I hold it against you, because I know how hard it can be to get pictures we're allowed to use. So, in short, beautiful CS, and you've done amazing work, but I'd need some pictures before I swap my vote to Support. If you're interested, I'm pretty sure Google and Flickr allow you to search for images licensed for reuse, and I know you can search the Wikimedia commons. --Badger 15:34, 28 August 2011 (MDT)
• Thanks, Badger! So, where do we go from here?--Wrecan 11:41, 18 September 2011 (MDT)
• Comment — What does it mean to be a noble or base race? I know that they are classified differently, however is anything else different? Should something be included in each place and organization about how they are treated? How do the patrons interact among themselves? Are they regarded as gods among others even if they are not the patron ruler? --Green Dragon 14:20, 1 October 2011 (MDT)
  • Response: The distinction between "noble" and "base" race means little in the free Kingdoms, except possibly pride of being created as a race superior to another race. A genasi might act haughty towards a dwarf, thinking the dwarf was built for menial labor and fighting. One's race is much more important in the individual Patron Lands, and the page on each Patron Land discusses what it means. In the Fey Lands, for instance, the noble elves are considered genteel courtiers, while the base goblins are house servants and spies. On Mongrel Island, the noble shedim serve as intelligent hunting dogs, while the base ravin are considered to be the equivalent of foxes or rabbits. --Wrecan 08:22, 3 October 2011 (MDT)
• Comment — Major environmental changes are present. How does this happen in the natural sense? Are they gradual changes and the environmental conditions stay in a certain area because of a non-revolving planet? I don't really like the idea of a non-revolving planet. However how this is explained needs to be mentioned. --Green Dragon 14:32, 1 October 2011 (MDT)
  • Why do you think Patronage doesn't revolve? It has seasons like any mundane planet, as well as a 12-month year, a 24-hour day, and celestial orbs in the sky. The only major environmental change is that the Green Lands are always green, but that's been explained as a result of the will of the Oni patrons. --Wrecan 08:22, 3 October 2011 (MDT)
    • I said that because I don't see the weather of the seasons detailed on the individual environments. This would be good to add (so players know how it is when they arrive in a specific place). --Green Dragon 13:30, 1 November 2011 (MDT)
• Comment — Is there anything that DMs need to know in particular, such as a list of which races are patrons, cannot be played, and should be treated differently in-game? Quests would be nice (to give a feel and context for the setting as well as provide a path a game may take). --Green Dragon 14:45, 1 October 2011 (MDT)
  • Nothing in particular is needed with respect to races. Every playable race fits in one of the categories of noble or base races, and if you click on any Patron, you can see which mortal races serve (or served) which Patrons. This is explained in "Reclassified Races" in the Mechanical Notes section of the main page. The Patrons are simply my classification of all the epic-tier humanoid races (and dragons and aberrations/leviathans), which is explained on the page of each Patron race. While I agree quests would be nice (and it's on my ever-shrinking todo list), I don't think they're strictly necessary. --Wrecan 08:22, 3 October 2011 (MDT)
    • I made some minor changes to some of the Patron pages to emphasize the definition of these racial categories. I also added a definition of "Patron" in the "Reclassified Races" in the Mechanical Notes section of the main page. Hope that clarifies things. --Wrecan 08:56, 3 October 2011 (MDT)
      • This really helps clear this up. The patron limitations are much more understandable now. --Green Dragon 13:30, 1 November 2011 (MDT)
• Comment — I am commenting the existence of a to-do list. A FA should be "complete". In any case (depending on how much work it is) it should get worked on. I may do some work on a better map by the way. --Green Dragon 13:30, 1 November 2011 (MDT)

My daughter just had her bar mitzvah this Saturday and work's been hectic. Really, once I include the reckoner's stats, it will be complete. Everything else is just gravy. --Wrecan 12:53, 8 November 2011 (MST)

No need to rush this. Drawing the map gave me many quest ideas, and I was thinking about making a "Quest Ideas" page at least. --Green Dragon 18:36, 8 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 08:01, 10 November 2011 (MST)

[3] (etiquette: be civil) (3:4). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

Why is this? --Green Dragon 23:41, 10 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 12:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

[4] (etiquette: argue facts, not personalities) (1:5). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

Oppose: This article is not playable. It is riddled with flaws and it is stagnant within that regard. --Green Dragon 11:38, 11 November 2011 (MST)

I respectfully disagree that it was the article that is flawed. But I'll happily take the withdrawal of the FA nom, given the alternative. --Wrecan 12:48, 11 November 2011 (MST)

If the article has things which don't exist that (somehow) exist there is a problem. --Green Dragon 13:58, 11 November 2011 (MST)

If the article must have the entire universe of potentially relevant facts included within it to be considered complete, then I suggest that there should not be a single article on this wiki that has a rating over 3. --Wrecan 16:04, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Where talking about the FA status here. FA is above getting a 5 rating (that is the base). --Green Dragon 18:21, 11 November 2011 (MST)

Then I take it, no campaign setting will ever receive FA status. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 22:18, 11 November 2011 (MST)

[5] (etiquette: argue facts, not personalities) (2:5). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

No. It's about how you define the relevant facts. Are they nitpicky ways (e.g. here with the total adherence needed (to what sometimes even?) to make inconsistencies work) or are they human givens? For example, how many human givens, which can effect a campaign, are there? --Green Dragon 22:28, 11 November 2011 (MST)

I don't know what you mean by "human givens". --Wrecan 07:20, 13 November 2011 (MST)

By "human givens" I mean things which seem to happen in the circumstances given. For example, the army on the Bone Road is not only going to push the undead to the edge of the road. They will push them a little farther away. For example not all citizens of Ironguard can be in the military. Things which don't seem to make sense I guess. --Green Dragon 20:45, 23 November 2011 (MST)

I never describe anybody as "pushing" the undead to Bone Road, or that there is an army stationed on it. And why can't all citizens in Ironguard be in the military? Universal conscription is not unusual. Imperial China ran for centuries on the concept. --Wrecan 05:59, 25 November 2011 (MST)

See also this diff and if all citizens in a country were in the military would only slaves be the labor force? If you learn about slavery it is interesting to learn that it has more effects then economic effects. The changes of people's character is a major aspect. People begin to consider slaves an extension of their will and it disintegrates the country. If you need advice on learning about slavery I can attempt to help you, but I would recommend you take a class about it. --Green Dragon 14:05, 25 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. I note a lot of 5-star campaign settings out there. Shall we go through them together and see if they meet This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. college-level knowledge of psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology? Do you think Forgotten Realms would meet such a standard? Eberron? Any published setting? At this point, I can't really tell what you're advocating. --Wrecan 19:19, 25 November 2011 (MST)

[6] (etiquette: argue facts, not personalities) (3:5). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

No, they don't. They do, however, need to incorporate users understandings of these things when they note them. When someone mentions something like "What you are to do is to stop adding substance to other people's campaign pages without letting them review it first!" then this becomes the problem it is. A collaborative environment does not require this, and above when I am mentioning that not all the aspects are being considered I am meaning that there are problems. I consider these problems to be considered with such a contributor (although not necessary– but it seems appropriate in this situation). Later, I am making note of how these things can even be considered (as I have no idea how). --Green Dragon 23:51, 25 November 2011 (MST)

I did not know that I was free to go and make substantive edits to other people's campaign wikis on this site without checking with them first. I would assume that would be considered "incivility". Wikipedia defines incivility, in relevant part, as aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict." This is particularly true here, were people are contributing the product of their creativity (as opposed to Wikipedia, which is to be entirely factual and not invented). This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. I think most people would find it remarkable that any member would simply go into a page created by another member and change it substantively without first discussing it with the original contributor. In fact, if that's the policy of this wiki it needs to be much more prominently displayed so people know (1) anything they post can be changed substantively by any other member for any reason the member deems appropriate, and (2) they can go ahead and change anybody else's pages for any reason they deem appropriate. The whole thing really does need a policy because you've accused users of vandalism (also here) in the past, but there does not seem to be any standard for when something is considered vandalism. I am having difficulty seeing how your unilateral changes to a campaign setting I created is materially different from other edits that were considered vandalism. --Wrecan 07:22, 26 November 2011 (MST)

[7] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:6). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Does Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles answer your questions? --Green Dragon 13:51, 26 November 2011 (MST)

Yes, I think it does: "Even though people can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor, it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they 'own' the article" (See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.) Ta-da! This is telling me that before you, GD, or anybody else makes substantive changes to somebody else's creative work, they should have the common courtesy to work with the original author and not make unilateral changes. A common courtesy you did not afford me. --Wrecan 07:30, 27 November 2011 (MST)

And here's some more choice quotes from the Wiki page on ownership of articles:

• Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor others' edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership. Often these editors can be approached and may offer assistance to editors unfamiliar with the pages. The template {{Maintained}} may be used by such editors on the article talk pages.
• An editor who appears to assume ownership of an article should be approached on the article's talk page with a descriptive header informing readers about the topic. Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor. If necessary, ignore attacks made in response to a query. If the behavior continues, the issue may require dispute resolution, but it is important to make a good attempt to communicate with the editor on the article talk page before proceeding to mediation, etc.
• In many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article, so keep in mind that such editors may be experts in their field or have a genuine interest in maintaining the quality of the article and preserving accuracy. Editors of this type often welcome discussion, so a simple exchange of ideas will usually solve the problem of ownership.

So from what I can see, I do not own this article (and I never said I do), but my being the primary (perhaps even sole) editor makes sense This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.

Sadly, D&D Wiki doesn't have the "Maintained" template, so I can't place it on the talk pages of each of the Patronage articles. The Maintained template really should be added to the site as it makes perfect sense here. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 08:03, 27 November 2011 (MST)

[8] (other uncivil behaviors: lying) (2:6). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

You could make such a template. However, no, I did not do any sweeping changes. A few minor things (they're really not that big of a deal or when making the environmental design work it was already stated by the primary contributor that it was complete, which it was not fully so); however when I continued, I encountered some problems so (above) I am asking these things to be fixed the way the primary contributor has been asking for. E.g. realize the fix. --Green Dragon 11:01, 27 November 2011 (MST)

The standard is "substantive", not "sweeping". The changes you made -- adding cities, changing the titles of nobility, changing the geography -- are substantive changes, which you made without the courtesy of speaking to the primary contributor about it. You did not "ask" for these things to be fixed until after I made fuss about you changing it unilaterally. And I have been fixing some of the issues you've raised. I've already changed the sentence about "one continent on one world" and made a new paragraph on climate. I plan to add more cities to some kingdoms, and I'll even expand the Ironguard section to explain how everyone can be in the military and the psychological effect slavery has had on Ironguard's culture. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 12:49, 27 November 2011 (MST)

[9] (etiquette: argue facts, not personalities, be civil, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (3:6). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

No one is at fault. Mistakes happen and confusion is a part of life. All I am saying is that my confusion was justified. Justified or not for the campaign setting is not what I am talking about. This is what you are talking about above. Were I talking about this I would ask that my map and all my changes were not corrected. I am just mentioning that there is confusion. If you like I can try to clear up more and you can look over my edits– if you prefer (to get this a better rating). --Green Dragon 21:55, 28 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy.

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 08:58, 29 November 2011 (MST)

[10] (etiquette: work towards agreement, argue facts, not personalities, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:7). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

I am a contributor in good standing. Saying that I am being uncivil is without bearing.

I am a contributor of multiple articles and areas throughout the entirety of D&D Wiki. Having an editor say that I need to ask about a specific change, which is alleviating a problem, is something which is not the case. A primary contributor of an article must understand that some contributors do not care about the process of asking first. These contributors may know what they are doing is not incorrect therefore so be it. Since I don't really care to much about this article I am leaving it how it is. It has caused me undo time. If I were to care I would care less about your necessary style of contributing and infer the understanding that you understanding a contributor contributes and one can correct edits after the fact just as easily as before. --Green Dragon 11:30, 29 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 12:56, 29 November 2011 (MST)

[11] (etiquette: work towards agreement, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (2:7). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

"Similarly, if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them." --Green Dragon 16:13, 29 November 2011 (MST)

I have no problem with challenges or development. As I've said, I have already begun the process of incorporating your comments into the Patronage campaign. I added a section on climate and I have changed the sentence about Patronage appearing on one continent on one world. So, as you can plainly see, I am more than willing to accept constructive criticisms and suggestions. --Wrecan 09:54, 30 November 2011 (MST)

I am a contributor.

"Similarly, if you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them."

"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." --Green Dragon 12:21, 30 November 2011 (MST)

Repeating the comment to which I responded, without explaining why you feel the need to do so, is not helpful. That you are a contributor is tautological. --Wrecan 16:38, 30 November 2011 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

What are you talking about? "Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor others' edits." Please note the "or tailor others' edits." The next thing you quote is about approaching such editors. The last bit is just informative. --Green Dragon 18:31, 30 November 2011 (MST)

This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. The topic at hand is the Patronage Campaign. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. And in fact, your edits were motivated by your admitted "confusion". I am an editor familiar with the topic. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 07:25, 1 December 2011 (MST)

[12] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (3:7). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

It's you tailoring my edit. --Green Dragon 10:37, 1 December 2011 (MST)

That makes zero sense. There's no problem with me tailoring your edits to the Patronage articles because I am familiar with Patronage and I am the primary contributor. So I don't have an obligation to post to the discussion page first. This text has been removed as it is not civil. Please see the warning below and/or the Warning Policy. --Wrecan 07:27, 2 December 2011 (MST)

[13] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, other uncivil behaviors: lying) (1:8). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

That's not the case. Not every one desires to work in that format, so freedom is the ruling faction. See also "or tailor others' edits." Please note the or. --Green Dragon 10:12, 2 December 2011 (MST)

The Wiki policy you cited has no exception for where "freedom is the ruling faction". --Wrecan 08:17, 3 December 2011 (MST)

[14] (direct rudeness: belittling a fellow editor) (2:8). Issued on 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST) --Green Dragon 21:05, 8 January 2012 (MST).

How am I going to explain an explanation if it's not even understandable in an explained format? I'll start: Do you know what "ruling faction" means? --Green Dragon 14:25, 3 December 2011 (MST)

Rating

The rating this campaign setting got is a 3. This is because the implementation for a DM is difficult. Putting players into the world, one aspect of this, requires a comprehensive map and colors cannot do that. Other aspects of this include the need for understandable environmental conditions (which is improving though) and true understanding of what citizens do (the population can have a drastic effect on one's game). Additionally information relating to what one can encounter where, and quests would be beneficial (e.g. "For DM's" is missing) and many areas are hinting at things to say the best "A single continent on a single world", for example. With a little work this could be a 4 and with more this could be a 5. --Green Dragon 18:30, 11 November 2011 (MST)

My adding of the map back helps correct the problems of this campaign setting. The rating has been changed to be 4. --Green Dragon 18:42, 3 December 2011 (MST)