"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Darwin's Theory has nothing to do with racism. Just evolution by selection in nature. Those more fit for an environment are more likely to survive to have descendants and pass on their characteristics. Social Darwinism does have to do with racism / cultural bigotry. Social Darwinism was the application of Darwin's theory of survival of the fittest to human beings and human societies. Don't blame Darwin for the popularization and misuse of his theory.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So, threads reproduce asexually by budding off / deviding. Or is it sexually? With an OP and someone who "suggests" a split? Interesting. You can learn so much on message boards :D
*edit* Ahem, normally, in more ways than one, this would not have popped into my mind, but I just read a couple of articles on genetics and reproduction.
I preferred it be rarer in my (homebrew) game. The result; Raise Dead has a limited duration. It is meant to give a character some time to settle their affairs, finish what they were into or get back to where a Resurrection spell is available (which is permanent). It's different (and takes some getting used to), cuts back on the permanent return to life and has spawned some interesting role playing. There's nothing like a wake where the deceased is an active participant :D
Then too, different temples have their own requirements for resurrection and their are inheritance laws that prevent or restrict it...
It has also made Reincarnation more popular as a lower level alternative to "just plain dead" :) and personally, I've always found reincarnation to be entertaining...
Light Dragon wrote:
I have always assumed that Elves took longer to do things. Growing up? A century. Pregnancy? 5-10 years. Given Elvish life spans (and mine are still based on the old 1E trope, over a thousand years certainly depending on the sub race) they should have patience beyond shorter lived races. And really odd resumes :) They should be able to focus on what they are doing for many years; years a human wouldn't have the patience to do without it being a life long commitment, and then move on to something different. Doing military service for 20 years with total dedication. No problem. Like a human doing a couple of years in the service. Going on a "road trip" carousing for years. Sure thing, like a human on summer vacation. Doing a walk about as an adventurer for a decade or more... just another step in a young Elves life. Raising a munchkin for a century would be a more serious commitment, but the job of raising Elvish children might be more spread out to parents, aunts and uncles, godparents, academies, age cohorts (as they enter adolescence) etc.
I'm a subscriber, and I'm still waiting. Which is OK. I'm typing this between grading papers. I just finished jury duty and I'm trying to force my seniors to graduate. Some of them are resisting. So, next week would be good for me :)
Does sound nice though. And I would probably be playing hooky and reading it... so definitely next week. Or later in the week... I'm weakening...
It is good, and it's been mentioned, and I think ignored, several times. :)
That is pretty peculiar given the item in question is listed on the artists page you listed under "e-books" as Cheapy mentioned. The "reviewer" is a one post wonder too...
Black Dougal wrote:
So, when I pay $8 to see it and $6 for a coke I should send up a prayer of gratitude for living in the one non-expensive place in California (it can easily be mistaken for one of the hotter more desolate places in Texas...)? Hurrah Bakersfield! Bring on those 100+ degree days, at least the movies are cheap!!!
Conversion from 2E to 3E took work. Quite a bit more than 0E to 1E or 1E to 2E. I suppose I could have converted from 3.5E to 4E, but it would have gone beyond "work". If I didn't mind trashing most of my setting and starting new it could have been done. I bought the 4E core books btw to check it out for myself. I did not take the word of angry posters etc. After reading them I made the decision, well I like to think WotC did it for me, to stick with 3.5 (later PF). I gave my 4E books away. Something I've never done before. It wasn't so much that 4E was "horrible" or "a betrayal of D&D". That type of thing makes me roll my eyes. It was simply a completely different game in the same genre of FRPGs. And I didn't have the time, or inclination, to learn / play a game that different from what I already knew and liked. Ymmv.
Colonel Volstov wrote:
And given your revival of this thread you must have taken The Complete Book of Necromancers seriously :)
Gnoll Bard wrote:
All too true. What I expect to be the same is human nature. Give people enough time, the possibility, and the right circumstances and things will happen.
I agree to an extent, but it isn't just guns physically getting out, it's the knowledge of them. One gunsmith leaves Alkenstar and the cats out of the bag. Britain experienced this when they tried to block the ideas of the industrial revolution from escaping the British Isles. A couple of individuals found their way to Belgium and the secret was out. How long has Alkenstar had guns? It only took a couple of generations for the ideas to mature and escape from England.
Alternately, capturing the gun from pirates or marauders and reverse engineering it would not be too unlikely a possibility either.
A new military technology is perhaps the most difficult thing to contain. Take a look at nuclear proliferation today and it's a safe bet that nuclear technology is far more complex than gunpowder. If some societies are too conservative and unwilling to accept change (which I can well believe) others aren't and, sooner or later, the technology will find it's way to them.
All imo, of course. The exact circumstances of any given situation might either accelerate or retard the spread of a new technology of course. I killed the possibility off early in my own game by having alternate physics / biology / science leaving attempts at making gunpowder useless. I haven't regretted the decision, but ymmv.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
No big deal, I do the same. And it's easy to misunderstand things on message boards.
As for Golarion, I think they have placed stuff in odd corners (Alkenstar for example) on purpose in case they wanted to add things at a later date or because they planned to. It's smart, and, to be honest, I've sited things that I hadn't yet worked out / included in odd corners of my own setting. Of course, some of those things got deleted while others are in the setting. The advantage of a homebrew campaign - you don't have to justify changes that are out of your characters sight :)
The connection between China and Europe was pretty limited. The Chinese made significant use of gunpowder, but didn't advance their technology the way Europe did. European use of gunpowder accelerated with technological advancement. And yeah, they were shocked about the uses the western barbarians had put gunpowder to.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
My setting started out as a campaign setting for Chainmail several years before D&D existed. I converted it to D&D in 1974 when I got my first set of the LBBs. I've been tweaking it and working on it for almost 4 decades since. It's the only setting I've used (although I have read several - I'm not above borrowing good ideas). I've read tons of fantasy, mythology etc. I have multiple degrees in history and cultural anthropology. In the course of it's existence I have advanced my timeline between editions and built up a solid history for the setting. I've dismantled the various races and worked on their cultures as well. It's been... lived in. I'm sure Golarion has as well, it's James Jacob's home game in large part iirc, but it's also been used as the home campaign of Paizo's system. There were differences between Gygax's and Arneson's home games and the commercial versions too. After all, who would want to give away all their secrets? :)
Now, first of all, I said Golarion is good, it just has to cover all the bases. Logic... tell me why guns are only popular in one nation on Golarion, Alkenstar iirc. Nobody else thinks it would be nice to reach past all that heavy armor that gives armored knights / infantry an advantage? Has nobody noticed it? Those people who have the technology to make plate armor and so on can't make guns? It's hard to justify any reason why firearms aren't more popular. Magic is the default reason, but I'm sorry, magic or no magic guns would be useful. Once guns appeared in Europe they spread rapidly. Nonetheless, I can see the reason for the limitation. It gives firearm wielding characters a reason to exist without having firearms stuffed into all other areas and all the others peoples games (who may not want it) and still be the same setting. It's a well done setting, but it has to accommodate their material and it's well designed to do that.
Gnoll Bard wrote:
I agree, they have done so and are passionate about it. I don't have your familiarity with the material on Golarion, but as I understand it there have been shifts in what is "cannon" over the years. And there have been in my game as well. Just not as many, because there is only one of me and I don't have to accommodate anything I wouldn't want in my game. I have sat around producing "histories", "ethnologies", "biographies" and tons of miscellaneous material over the years. I don't do novels though :)
Gnoll Bard wrote:
It's not "meh" to me, as I've said, it's well done. As settings I'm familiar with go, I'd place it with Greyhawk, Blackmoor, The Forgotten Realms, Glorantha and, at the pinnacle of it's type, Tekumel. That is not faint praise. And I know people homebrew / use "head-cannon" (I like that phrase) in these settings. As I'm sure they would if they had mine. In short, it's very good, but it is a commercial setting. There are advantages to that (numerous talented people working on it) and disadvantages to that (numerous talented people working on it). James Jacobs is the creative director and that certainly helps keep things tight. So, have I "done better"? I doubt it. Have I done better for my purposes? Certainly. That's the advantage of a lot of time spent over numerous years to create your own vision of a fantasy world. It'd be pretty strange if I hadn't come up with exactly what I want. Barring schizophrenia of course :)
Personally I homebrewed Fabricate and ended my problem. I gave it a duration :) Duration expires and 'Poof', you have a pile of (ruined) raw materials. Nobody buys ordinary goods from Wizards as a result and Wizards don't fabricate using expensive raw materials :D And to those who say "but it's 5th level!" I can point out any number of 5th level spells which do as much or more and have durations. As well as others that are "instantaneous" and don't have a real duration.
In game reasons for lack of abuse of RAW spell... higher powers object to it's mass use (but not private use). Others have touched on these same things. Higher powers might include gods of craft who consider the labor involved worship... kings who have to deal with the economic chaos that results. Craft guilds, assassin's guilds, other deities unwilling to irritate their fellow deities by resurrecting trouble makers who run afoul of craft deities and assassins, Wizard's guilds / colleges who are aware of the problems it can cause (for them, not just you). These are, however, all in game social reasons. The only way, imo, to create a rules system reason is to modify the spell / craft rules (and yes, I've beaten the craft rules up and altered them too)...
Bill Dunn wrote:
The "it's a game" view. The other side wants a rational reason for world building / simulation purposes I believe. And, what does the DM do if a PC decides to dominate the economy this way? Various methods have been suggested, often involving coercion or murder, but why wouldn't an NPC Wizard, or another PC Wizard, decide to fight fire with fire? Allowing this to happen could get... silly. Of course there is DM fiat... but some people want a rules system reason.
*edit* You'll note the argument has been phrased, and is being paraphrased by me, as "why wouldn't a Wizard do this?" It's from a theoretical framework. If spell "X" works like this why wouldn't people do "Y"? The answers have ranged from GM fiat, to social game world reasons, to the spell doesn't work like that, to who cares if it does work like that.
Set, just imagine a planar connection in which the snow fades out of the bottom / off the land of Irisen to a plane of eternal winter storms and then falls again in the skies over Irisen. That's how I would handle it in my own world. Waste not, want not :)
As for Golarion, it has to cover everything Pathfinder contains (with some exceptions I'd imagine). It's a commercial kitchen sink setting with isolated areas for every concept / idea / trope. The parts are very well done, having them all in the same world / setting can be a problem. Of course, once you've bought it you can change it to suit or let it stand as is. It probably is easier than having the setting of the week syndrome.
I have my own world / setting. A more limited kitchen sink in which I've tried to make sure everything that is in it fits logically together. It means not all concepts / ideas / tropes fit but I've been working on it steadily for 39 years now and it has a sense of coherence to it.
Careful, that kind of rational thinking can get you in trouble. You're supposed to say "it's just a game" :) Of the various things they missed revisiting / fixing, crafting is, to me, the most obvious one they should have. Here's hoping Ultimate Campaign clears up a few issues. I'm not holding my breath though.
I agree with you there. "Balanced" and "different" are hard to do, to do well anyway. Too much "balance" sometimes equals vanilla classes with different names on their powers. And fulfilling different roles when the roles aren't equally important at the same time or place is not an exercise in easy. I've always been fine with that, but then I've played D&D a long time.
As an aside, if there is one term I would love to add to the profanity filter around here, it's "broken" :)
Yes, but that was a reflection of the world Moorcock built. They were superior. He didn't need game balance and the game was just... accurate.
I'd love to give some feedback, I'm already thinking homebrew myself. Unfortunately the next week+ will see me buried in grading make up work, final exams, and generally making sure my seniors graduate. And that my sophomores haven't lost the willpower needed to walk or pass World History. Good thing breathing is an autonomous reflex or I'd lose most of them... munchkins. Then I'll have time to relax, work on my game, run a game, read stuff etc.
Uh, how it works irl. Boy (James T. Kirk) meets Girl (Carol Markus). Boy gets with Girl. Baby comes down the pike. In the meantime Boy and Girl break up. Girl does not tell Boy about baby, less baby run off to Starfleet with Boy. Baby get's dead. Boy gets really, really mad after just finding baby. Simple really.
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
No. Just replying to a post about Stinking Cloud and pointing out options other than it for a limited resource like 3rd level spells for a 6th level Wizard. Also pointing out that any feat is an "at will" resource, a different creature than a spell slot. I wasn't really thinking about the Daze feat at all (nor did I take a look at it). You can calm down :)
Or heck, get excited. I've finished grading and I'm calling it a day :D
Possibly ending the battle. You have 2 3rd level spells at 6th level, 3 with a 16+ Intelligence score which is very reasonable. And, 4 if you have a bonded object I suppose. There are a lot of other spells vying for those three slots though. I doubt you would have more than 1 spell slot dedicated to it. Unless, you're a bit... strange. You've got Fly, Dispel Magic, Invisibility Sphere, and Fireball available among many others. And you only learn two new spells in your spell book per level without investing extra resources. So, you know 4 3rd level spells at 6th level (if you used all your freebies on 3rd level spells). Which do you know, which do you not? And which of those 4 will you memorize, or not? Limited resource for a day. Without using up extra resources (scrolls etc.). And if you want to scribe scrolls that's a feat and, for a third level spell c.3-400 gp (?), I'm not sure on the cost. It's an old chestnut I know, but "a feat chain is forever" a spell slot is only good once a day. As the Wizard goes up picks up more spell slots and begins crafting goodies this becomes less of an issue. But a 6th level Wizard is only on the beginning of that road. His resources while powerful are limited. As always ymmv.
*edit* Hmmm... Yeah, as that Wizards goes up it doesn't just become less of an issue, it tends to be a insignificant issue. But, that's as you go up and become incredibly powerful :)
If he knows the spell and doesn't mind tying up a significant part of his limited use resources. Great if he has it, zero if he doesn't.
Sounds interesting. And as for the young king's stand in, it's regent.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The it's "just fluff" argument grates on me a bit. If it was "just fluff" there would be no difference. There is, if very little. It's about the mechanics, not the fluff.
And, to paraphrase thejeff, why wouldn't those sneaky Goblins be Rogues? Should I only make sneaky Goblins Ninja? Should I make all sneaky people Ninja? Why do I need two sneaky classes, Rogue and Ninja, that are so similar? Should I just use the Ninja for that one PC who wants it? Because it's mechanically, slightly, superior? Because he's the only one in the world who works this specific way? Should I retcon Ninja in all over the place? Should I use some formula to divide the current sneaky NPCs / PCs into one class or the other? Or should I just go with Rogues and not use Ninja?
Conservation of time / energy says just go with the last option. Especially when the difference between the classes is not too great. Mind you I'd be saying the same thing (why use the new class) if the original stealth class had been Ninja and the Rogue was the new boy in town...
If a class brings something significantly new / useful (say mounted combat / horse survivability with the Cavalier) I'm more apt to want to do the work. Otherwise, as others have said, just fix the Rogue and have done with it. It's not like we are talking massive differences here, just some. Enough to yield a perceived advantage of course...
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
It pretty much absorbed my life from 1974 until the early 80s. Then graduate school and real life started pushing in, and further in... *sigh*. It's a constant struggle to find the time for gaming between work and family (and it does take a distant third place there). When I retire in about 8 years though... game on! :D
My opinion on the new base classes is colored by the ones that are useful in my game setting. I'm using the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle and Magus. The Alchemist got cut because I have a system of alchemy, didn't need a new one. The Summoner got cut because... well, for a lot of reasons. *cough* Digimon *cough* And I didn't feel like shoehorning them in. The Gunslinger, well no guns or gunpowder = no Gunslinger. Samurai and Ninja hit the cutting room floor because I already have the Rogue and Cavalier and I don't have an eastern section or a desire to have variants of classes that already have enough archtypes / variations. Oh, no Monks either btw. You say "monk" in my game and they're looking around for some western medieval looking guy in robes.
As for my personal "do I like this class" opinion, I'm fine with most of them. I can miss the Alchemist and the Summoner though. No use for those two. They mess with too many things that came before. Gunslinger, I'm not sure about. The touch armor class thing makes me wonder why anybody would bother with all that heavy stuff with guns laying around.
As always, ymmv on these things.
Ahem... as for editions...
0E or OE is a reference to the original game plus supplements. I've seen 0E+ used to refer to the original box plus it's supplements. The original box included only three classes, the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric. Three of the supplements, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry introduced additional classes. Greyhawk added the Thief and Paladin. Blackmoor added the Assassin and Monk. Eldritch Wizardry added the Druid and psionics. Gods, Demigods and Heroes added deities from various past religions and works of fiction. Swords and Spells was a replacement (for Chainmail) mass combat system. Plenty of other classes were proposed in magazines. The Strategic Review (predecessor of The Dragon / Dragon Magazine) added the Ranger in it's short run for example. There were many others but few were later canonized by inclusion in later editions of the game like the Ranger (starting with 1E).
The original Basic D&D game (1977), the "Holmes Basic set" as it's known, was a three level introduction to the game based on 0E / supplements with changes and a push towards AD&D in it. The basic D&D sets are usually referred to as just "Basic D&D", or Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic and BECMI (see below).
AD&D, referred to typically as 1E, crept out with the Monster Manual in 1977. You had to wait for the Player's handbook (1978) before you could really be said to be playing AD&D. The Dungeon Masters Guide came out in 1979 iirc. Other books followed of course. There were 11 classes in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana (? year) which added, as was mentioned above, three more classes / subclasses and made the Paladin a subclass of the new Cavalier class. AD&D hung on until 1989.
The Basic D&D set most people remember came out in 1981, edited by Tom Moldvay (? spelling). I'm not sure if Moldvay edited the "Expert" book which came out a bit later, but I don't think so. Basic = Blue book, Expert = Red book. Anyway a different game from AD&D, based on the original D&D but with changes, racial classes etc.
The next "basic" D&D iteration was the BECMI version in 5 volumes beginning a couple of years after the last Moldvay basic edition. The volumes were Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal. Later they put it all into a large hard back called the Rules Cyclopedia. I'm not positive of the exact editors / writers / years on these. I'm not getting any younger :) Oh, and purists whine about some changes made to the original volumes in the Cyclopedia version. Today, we call that errata...
2E usually references Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1989). The rules lost a class or two (the Assassin) came up with some fairly absurd names for Demons and Devils and, more usefully, cleaned up and condensed the rules. Until they expanded it out again.
And 3E came in 2000. I don't think I need to do this one.
Interesting thread. My group runs from 30-60 year olds. I'm 54. It's a sandbox campaign with a lot of player involvement in the world / the lives of NPCs.
I've seen GoT. Not ML Ponies. Although I've heard enough to catch the reference. Let's see... adventures, death, friends, enemies, gambling, whore houses, orphanages, nuns, holy orders, criminal guilds and gangs, crime, politics, nobility, adoption, miscarriage, loss of friends, vengeance, shopping. Oh, and more death. I'd say mature. Life happens. Sometimes it's roses, sometimes it's not. My players are, on the whole, more worried about events in the setting / world, than just leveling up.
A new barony is being established. They're getting tied in to the local elite. There's a border war starting, more complex than it looks on the surface. And they are associated with one of the cities more unusual street gangs. And through it, although they don't know it, the Assassins Guild. They have connections at the local magical collegium... and with a fence for the Thieves Guild. They are also tied in to a number of businesses.
It happens, Marriage and babies may result. We don't generally follow the action in the bedroom. They all have imaginations. Oh, and childbirth can be messy. In real life or game :)
Players die, If they are low level, it's funeral time (if the body was recovered) and / or an epic wake. Often followed by bar fights, drunken walks home (?), attempted muggings and so on. And sometimes jail time. Or fines. Lots of fines.
To be resurrected you need to be mid level plus (worth a god's time), on good terms with a church / temple that practices resurrection (not all do), have the means to pay for it, and friends willing to arrange it. Or friends willing to pay for it. Or have a temple owe you a really big favor...
It's about a life of adventure in another world with all the pitfalls and promise of that. Big highs. Big lows. Hopefully a big life. Or an epic death. Sometimes not so big or epic though. Life can be like that.
Well, for those of you who don't know, there is a new movie in the works. Sorry about the non-linkified state of it, but here's the url:
Apparently Warner Brothers is going to give it a go.
*edit* Given the thread below under Movies / Gamer Life I'm assuming most of you know...
That explains playing PF. It wasn't a move per se, just picking up the game after a hiatus.
For me, having pretty much played every version since 1974 (except Basic -- read but not played) it doesn't have to be original. Just good. If it does a good job of keeping the game simpler, but keeps a lot of the elements that make 3.5 / PF good (for me), I'll go for it. Oddly enough it wouldn't stop me from collecting PF either.
4E left me cold. It was the first time I didn't even consider moving my game to the new edition. It usually took a while, several years, but I would move on. WotC has done thing that I didn't care for (well, like 4E) but DDN does seem to have some promise and a few ideas I like.
Oh, and they did away with one of the persistent message board issues too. They gave Skeletons and Zombies low intelligence, explaining their alignment and weapon use in one fell swoop :D Now if they would just swat a few more of those pesky things they could eliminate about half the posts on message boards :)
I read your post and one question popped into my mind. Why did you switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder? 2E to 3.x was a significant change, 3.5 to PF, not so much.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The European Falchion is the only one I'm concerned with in terms of PF, I don't think it was ever a dagger in European usage (although I could be wrong).
I understand that both were in use. The main Macedonian weapon was the Sarissa though. Macedonian Hypaspists used the Dory, and while they were an elite their primary (original) function was guarding the Phalanx flanks. Don't try to repeat that too often :) The Companion cavalry were the strike force, the Phalanx of Phalangites provided the immovable object and the Hypaspists provided some infantry mobility for flank coverage and exploiting enemy weaknesses.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The Macedonian phalanx with 5 (iirc) or so rows of pike points in front of it didn't really need as much armor as a hoplite. The enemy was that much farther off and it was difficult to penetrate the forest of pikes in front of the phalanx. I think the Hypaspists function as elite guards for commanders etc. post dated Alexander; he tended to lead his Companion cavalry. I do know they had that type of role later and may very well have had it when he wasn't hanging out with the cavalry.
It's been a while since we did ancient miniatures, but I still remember the basics.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
The First Crusade was 1096-1099. The Falchion appeared in roughly the 11th century. The standard chopping blade of the typical medieval falchion was a result of the Crusades. The illustrations and surviving examples of the weapon are post First Crusade. The Byzantines were at continuous war with various Moslem powers of course. I'd imagine some "previews" of the Falchion might have passed on to Europe through trade with Constantinople...
The Dory was the standard Greek spear used by all Greek Hoplites. The Macedonians one upped them in length with the Sarissa. It was a big, no pun intended, advantage. Although it works as a pun too, doesn't it ? :)
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
It is a specifically Zulu weapon, developed by Shaka Zulu himself) designed for melee. They used the assegai for throwing.
*edit* And you posted on this while I was typing and checking on wind damage to my house and chasing down the neighbors dogs who escaped their yard. Sorry.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
A Falchion is typically a one handed chopping infantry weapon. Developed after the First Crusade; a knock off of the Scimitar iirc. Used apparently as a tool as well, "fashionable" as well with some made for knights etc.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Macedonian infantry used the Sarissa, a pike. Length varied but topped out at about 21'. The discipline and training of Macedonian warriors was as good as any in the Greek world. Other Greeks thought them "half barbarians" because of their accents and the position of Macedonia, on the edge of the Greek world. Under Phillip II of Macedon they conquered Greece. And under Alexander, the Persian Empire.
It's been awhile, but as I recall Shaka Zulu developed the shorter assegai (iklwa -- thanks I couldn't recall the name) specifically as a melee weapon. Using it that way gave the Zulu a huge advantage over the other tribes in the area and made the Zulu a dominant power in the region. They still used the standard assegai for throwing. Warriors generally carried multiple weapons for that reason.
A falchion irl is a knock off of the Scimitar as I recall. Typically a one handed sword used by infantry although some were more decorated / expensive (and probably used by the upper classes). There were two handed versions, wooden hilts 1'+ iirc. I also remember that one theory on the lack of surviving weapons, despite their popularity, is that they made good chopping tools as well as weapons. It's certainly a long way from PFs Falchion to the real thing.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Maybe the geneering facility was in Northern India and the personnel manning it were local, but the genetic material wasn't. All the "supermen", whatever the ethnic origin of their DNA, might have Sikh names, given them by the personnel or simply to identify which facility they came from... or because they were geneered as soldiers and the Sikhs are a military cast from that area. There are a lot of possibilities.