Forine (world)/meta
Notes (2007-13)[edit]
Safari Ship claims that Forine had a population of 5.9 billion in 1110. Behind the Claw claims that it has a population of 1.6 billion in 1120. The easiest way to reconcile the two figures is to say that the 1.6 billion is the population of Forine itself and the 5.9 billion is the total population of the system. Ignoring the complications of population increases between the two dates (Forine could have a zero population growth policy), this means that 4.3 billion live offworld. It is (just) possible to give Forine the highest population in the system by distributing the rest with 1.5 billion in the Dragan Belt and 1.4 billion each in the two clusters, but that seems a tad contrived. It is canonical that the Forine system only has one belt and no gas giants, but one could introduce a couple of other terrestrial planets. Instead, I've chosen to assume that the Scouts occasionally make exceptions to the rule that the most populous world/belt in a system is considered the mainworld. After all, Forine is the capital of the system and far more populous than any one planetoid in the belt.
- - Rancke 14:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The contributors to this wiki have come up with two mutually-exclusive, non-canonical versions of the history of District 268 which results in different versions for a number of worlds, including Forine. These different versions arise from honest disagreements about how to interpret canonical sources such as Behind the Claw and The Regency Sourcebook -- which present contradictory data and both of which include descriptions of various systems in District 268 that violate simple logic.
One version is based on the opinion that the information in Behind the Claw is no less plausible than that presented in the Regency Sourcebook, and that it generally supercedes previously published information when it contradicts such. This version can be found here. The other is based on the opinion that some of the information in BtC (not all of it, of course -- not by a long chalk) is self-contradictory and/or highly implausible, and that it does not automatically supercede previously published information with which it conflicts. This version can be found here. Since both versions are, by definition, non-canonical, neither can claim to be authoritative.
- - 02:27, 27 May 2013 by Tjoneslo