Filthy Lucre's page

Gloom wrote:

Rysky wrote:

And you have absolutely nothing going for you to believe it was justified.

When someone makes a claim like this the burden of proof is on them. Lacking any sort of proof one should assume that the best possible scenario took place. Otherwise people could make claims all day without anything backing them up and put a ton of people who did nothing wrong under a huge amount of stress just trying to prove something didn't happen.

Agreed.

Provide the proof to back up your claim.

Prescriptive statements don't always have a truth value and thus there could be no evidence to support them one way or the other.

And in my opinion that shows that they are aware that their setting has much more importance for their ongoing success than you seem to think it has.

It very well may be a major selling point for most of their audience/customers. It's just not for me, and I was surprised to be in a minority.

For example, when I DMed 3.5 D&D we didn't do so under the impression that we had to have any kind of fealty or deference to Greyhawk.

That may have changed in the meantime, but given how they meshed the rules with the setting in 2E, I don't think it changed that much.

Given Paizo baked the setting into the rules of 2E in the core book then it would seem they think category one is potentially the smallest? Just a guess

People keep saying that the setting and the rules are tied together but I don't see any evidence of this.

For example, which class features of the rogue depend on using Golarion lore/setting?

Or, which parts of the rules on animal companions are inextricably linked to Golarion lore/setting?

Is it even possible to tie any kind of mechanical rules to lore in such a way that they can never be seperated or reflavored? I don't think so

That Heather F is an absolute gem - now I feel kinda bad she's gunna have to delete all those posts :/