Nero24200's page

The concern was on whether or not the research happened at all, and who did the research. Hate to be the one to break this to you, but well-meaning middle class Americans do not have the greatest track record on cultural sensitivity. This AP will be offensive to someone, but having both people with cultural background training on hand and writers that grew up in the source cultural milieu is a good faith effort that should satisfy most critics.

Just so we're clear, we only care if the research is being done by middle-class Americans? Because others have done so badly before we are judging an entire group? To be honest, if the material is offensive but you're opinion is flipped immediately due to the ethnicity of one of the writers/consultants then your offence can't have been that significant to begin with.

If someone wrote an offensive stereotype into a book or movie that offends me I'm not going to magically find it less offensive because of the person that wrote it (Unless maybe there is some specific history of things they've said being taken out of context, for instance).

As an aside, if you think Celtic traditions that didn't get filtered through Tolkein and 50 years of Dungeon and Dragons should be incorporated into various classes and monsters, that seems like a fine topic to start in the Lost Omens campaign setting forum. Certainly the next time we get an AP set in the Broken Lands I'd expect...

I'm not saying they didn't, but that's more reason to argue that "If fact-checking is required for one culture, it's required for this one" too, since celtic myths have mutated substantially more due to Tolkein's use (in fact, Unicorns aren't even considered Fey under WOTC). For the record I brought it up as a point - I don't actually care if people use my heritage in their fantasy games and tweak it. I'm not expecting PF, if they ever do a celtic based campaign to get everything 100% right.. because if they did what would be the point of fiction?

For the record Scottish Culture has already been used by Americans and done poorly (see Braveheart). Here's the truth - we don't care. The states wants to portray us as fight-happy and simple? Go right ahead. We joke about it, we (unironically) enjoy the movie as it's still a good story (in spite of the numerous inaccuracies). Speaking of which, it was actually used in Schools as a base point for history, with one lesson I personally starting with "Here's what they got wrong".

Something that creates a conversation point about historical societies and groups isn't a bad thing. It's a touchy subject in the states as 90% of their history involves religious oppression and slavery, but just because they want to secretly bury their past doesn't mean group does. Even if they get it wrong Paizo shouldn't worry about doing a celtic-themed campaign, and I seriously doubt an east-Asian person would say differently.

It feels a bit weird to be (potentially) critical of the idea that someone who might not be of east-asian ethnicity writing a component inspired by east-asian culture.

Like... research is something that exists. A poorly researched scenario I could understand causing offensive, but this scenario hasn't been released yet and Paizo have seemed to be doing a decent job so far of looking into the myths that inspired a lot of elements in their setting/game.

Does there reverse apply? If Paizo have a staff member of east-asian heritage are they allowed to work on a scenario inspired by ancient Egyptian mythology?

Will it apply to other things? I'm of celtic heritage and I've not seen a thread discussing if the druid class should remain, or how I feel about how Unicorns, elves, pixies, merrow, selkies or kelpies etc have been added, particularly since a lot of them ARE different from how they appear in mythology.

Is there a line that should be drawn somewhere? Bare in mind this isn't about something offensive. This is something that "might" be offensive.

There's something disingenuous about criticising an AP purely because you play as cops. There have been previous AP's that include elements such as fighting against a specific race (see Drow in Second Darkness), AP's where you literally are expected to commit acts of piracy (Skull and Shackles), tomb raiders (Mummy's Mask) and even one where you fight against good-aligned people seeking to stop a slavery-built empire (Hell's Vengeance).

But law enforcement is where we draw the line?

Bad timing I'll admit but it's weird to criticise it for being topical. There are more slaves now than at any other point in history, so why is the existence of Cheliax not "topical"? If Paizo avoided everything that could be controversial the only AP's you'd ever see are "Adventure's in Happy land where nothing bad ever happens, ever. Not even an argument".

I'm not really attacking your desire for a third type of magic so much as questioning what you see think it brings to the game that the other two can/do not bring.

Well...a few reasons.

One, the power point/augmentation system makes powers more balanced at high level. Using powers with a high "Manifester" level means using more power points - as opposed to spellcasters whose caster levels increase with levels, even though the empowered spells use up the same slots. It also makes having a "signiture" power more easy, since with enough power points alot of powers can still be useful at higher levels. I've yet to see a 20th level wizard still using magic missle or burning hands, but I've seen 20th level Psions still using Mind Thrust.

Specilisation is handled in a different (and in my opinion, better) way, by simply offering certain slightly more powerful powers only to those who specialise (for instance, Fly is only avalible to Nomads, Schism to telepaths etc).

Theres also the fact that other options become avalible with psionics. Using the psionics rule I was able to create a supernatural fighter reliant on physchic powers...without even taking a single psionic class level. My current character is an awakened cat Psion, and considering the need for verbal and somatic components in normal magic, such a character wouldn't even be playable without psionics.

Theres also the fact that you can "cut them out" when needed. Unlike normal magic, you can remove it from the game without "breaking" stuff. Remove arcane and divine and suddenly you're left with only 4 core classes and the majority of magic items (something which is essential at high levels) no longer exist. If I wanted to create a different magical feel for my game by say...only allowing arcane classes, the games feel becomes radically different since PC's can no longer match high CR challenges. Most high CR challenges assume the occasional PC death, and suddenly ressurection magic doesn't exist.

This, to me, means a points for psions, since there presence can make the game more interesting, but if I feel they don't fit into a campaign I can remove them without altering the overall feel of the game.

And lastly, theres the vancian casting system, which in all honesty, is my least favourite form of magic. Not everyone likes vancian magic - in fact, paizo have stepped away from a "Vancian" system by changing abilities like Rage to function using a point system rather than "Per Day".

Yes, theoretically, you could make psionic characters using the current rules, but by the same stretch you could also make 3/4's of the core classes obsoleute. A barbarian can easily just be an aggressive fighter, a bard could just be a fighter/rogue/sorcerer, a sorcerer could even just be a wizard with a different theme.

I'm not a big fan of throwing out classes left right and center, but I love having the option of different casting systems. Remember that D'n'D is a "Fantasy Kitchen Sink", just in core you already have crusading knights, celtic druids and wuxian monks. The game already has a mis-mash of different themes and ideas, so what's wrong with a few more options, especially considering that the game losses less if you simply decide to not use these ones?