Ok, good to know. I am not very close with the setting before 4e. My info about faerun is rather from the new edition.
Cool man a bit o heads up, The old realms is nothing like the new realms. The new setting is just that...A new setting they just reuse some names.
So when talking realms it's good to point out new or old setting as they are not the same thing, it's like saying eberron and greyhawk are the same setting.Not picking on ya you did not make the confusion, just saying The realms is more like Golarion then you think
Part of being a DM is making the campaign setting yours!
If you just play the campaign setting as it's written, then you end up with a flat world...
Don't like Galt, change it...
I LOVE Golarion because there IS so much there... You can drop elements from other settings into it easily! I can run Expedition to the Barrier peaks in Golarion since it's actually hinted at in the setting...
Guns are there, but expensive! excellent.
They wrote the world, you need to re-imagine it for YOUR game.
I know that I can change everything, rewrite it or make everything by myself. And I have done it often in the past. But I am old and my free time is precious.
So IMO one of the reasons I buy the books and adventures of a professional setting is that I dont have to make the stuff myself. Changing money for time. :)
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If you're not using Galt you can just ignore it, this requires no time or effort on you're part.
Hank are you some kind of terminator robot sent from the future to destroy mankind?
Yes. But from only 3 days in the future. And not to destroy mankind, but to pay my Visa bill on time. So. Mission successful.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yes. But from only 3 days in the future. And not to destroy mankind, but to pay my Visa bill on time. So. Mission successful.Hank are you some kind of terminator robot sent from the future to destroy mankind?
Please tell me you remembered to bring me the winning lottery numbers this time!
Please tell me you remembered to bring me the winning lottery numbers this time!
GAH! *smacks forehead*
|
Actually you're perfectly correct. Nationalism, in the way that we largely think of it (and is expressed in most fantasy RPGs), didn't begin to appear until the 19th century (though there are roots in the Renaissance, largely due to the rise of a direct taxing system, which nationalized militaries and dismissed the kings' dependence on vassalage).
You can find such roots going back to Rome.
To a degree it is the combination of those elements, along with simple endurance, that distinguishes the more regional based loyalties of the Dark Ages with the full nation states of 18th century forward, not to mention significant nationalistic historical redaction.
Actually you're perfectly correct. Nationalism, in the way that we largely think of it (and is expressed in most fantasy RPGs), didn't begin to appear until the 19th century (though there are roots in the Renaissance, largely due to the rise of a direct taxing system, which nationalized militaries and dismissed the kings' dependence on vassalage).You can find such roots going back to Rome.
To a degree it is the combination of those elements, along with simple endurance, that distinguishes the more regional based loyalties of the Dark Ages with the full nation states of 18th century forward, not to mention significant nationalistic historical redaction.
True, though even in Rome the nationalism was limited to a single city-state (i.e., Rome), and the surrounding peninsula. The empire (and Republic before it) contained many nations, but not all called themselves Romans (though many did earn the right to call themselves citizens).
Just a thought on the 18th C: we concentrate on political, philosophical, and scientific achievements of the Enlightenment when we think about this century, but the majority of people who lived in that century had their lives only tangentially affected by the advances of the century that we focus on. Most people lived in circumstances that were virtually medieval. Further, there was a vast difference between the 18th century and the “long” 19th century. (That in spite of the fact that I would dearly love to play a gaslight Victorian fantasy campaign at some point. While "medieval" is both my default and my favorite, I think both of those centuries have plenty of room for some great fantasy gaming that would feel very different from the [to me] unattractive "modern" game.) And no matter how refined and impressive, say, 18th C England seems to us when viewed through our historiographic lenses, it was utter barbarism to the Imperial Chinese of the same time, which most moderns have viewed as unquestionably "medieval".
I don't much care for the modern aspects of Golarion myself, which is why I don't plan on playing in those areas. Ever.
Like Forgotten Realms' Maztica and Kara Tur, Galt is one of those places that just breaks the setting for me and thus I'll never use them.. I probably won't buy anything related to it (and some other places.)
Maztica and Taladas are my favourite published worlds. Absolutely fantastic...both of them. Both heavily inspired (read "I ripped off elements and ideas from them liberally") areas of my homebrew.
Actually you're perfectly correct. Nationalism, in the way that we largely think of it (and is expressed in most fantasy RPGs), didn't begin to appear until the 19th century (though there are roots in the Renaissance, largely due to the rise of a direct taxing system, which nationalized militaries and dismissed the kings' dependence on vassalage).You can find such roots going back to Rome.
To a degree it is the combination of those elements, along with simple endurance, that distinguishes the more regional based loyalties of the Dark Ages with the full nation states of 18th century forward, not to mention significant nationalistic historical redaction.
Sure, though people tended to think of themselves as being part of a realm the further one goes back. While its tough to pin down any one element as being the significant element there was a cultural shift in how people viewed their nation states as time went forward. If one drops back to the 1600s your going to have a hard time finding some one willing to die for their country (though they might die for their clan, or their king), try that in the modern era and you get nearly the opposite, very few will die for their president or their prime minister but many are willing to die for their country.
One can even see this with a relatively recent country like America where the why the people viewed the union as a whole (that is the United States of America) versus the way they viewed their states shifted. These days most Americans have only a pretty nominal loyalty to their state - particularly considering how much they tend to move around but Americans are pretty rabidly loyal to the nation as a whole. Drop back 175 years and the level of loyalty to the nation as a whole is much less while loyalty to ones individual state increases very significantly.
Just a thought on the 18th C: we concentrate on political, philosophical, and scientific achievements of the Enlightenment when we think about this century, but the majority of people who lived in that century had their lives only tangentially affected by the advances of the century that we focus on. Most people lived in circumstances that were virtually medieval. Further, there was a vast difference between the 18th century and the “long” 19th century. (That in spite of the fact that I would dearly love to play a gaslight Victorian fantasy campaign at some point. While "medieval" is both my default and my favorite, I think both of those centuries have plenty of room for some great fantasy gaming that would feel very different from the [to me] unattractive "modern" game.) And no matter how refined and impressive, say, 18th C England seems to us when viewed through our historiographic lenses, it was utter barbarism to the Imperial Chinese of the same time, which most moderns have viewed as unquestionably "medieval".
If we are talking about the upper echelons of government I'd agree that their is a moderately significant difference, especially if we are talking early 18th century as opposed to late 18th century Great Britain.
But for the average people, I'd say they were pretty close to on par. Vast majority drudging their lives away doing whats barely above substance agriculture.
Just a related point from the Iomedae! thread: It is difficult to create a fantasy product with names that sound good in English. Expecting it to sound as good to German, Spanish, etc ears is probably expecting a miracle. I've heard tell it's happened a couple of times, but shooting for miracle on a regular basis is probably not really fair. Scratch the "probablies". Though I feel your pain, it really has to be up to fans of Pathfinder of other tongues to massage pronunciation as necessary.It's interesting to note that the name "Galt" weirds me out precisely BECAUSE it's a real-world place—it's a town in central California near where my grandparents live. So the name sounds completely fine to me in English... it just weirds me out that it's the same name as where Grandma and Grandpa once taught elementary school back in the day...
And it weirds me out because it's the Swedish word for a male pig (the kind who likes to sleep in mud, eat truffels, and smells like it lives in a pig sty, not the kind who think it was a mistake to give women the vote). But if I could live with the goddess of love in the Forgotten Realms having the same name as the father of the girl I had a huge crush on as a teenager...
Just a related point from the Iomedae! thread: It is difficult to create a fantasy product with names that sound good in English. Expecting it to sound as good to German, Spanish, etc ears is probably expecting a miracle.
Beyond the fact that sometimes, they'll use words that have an actual meaning in other languages (like the infamous Harn incicent - harn means Urine in German - or giving someone the first name of Grau, which means grey in German), it's not that bad.
Again, I as a German generally like the names they use for PF. It's a lot personal preference.
Ok, good to know. I am not very close with the setting before 4e. My info about faerun is rather from the new edition.
Oh. So you didn't know the Realms when they were still good? There used to be a time when the FR gods didn't behave like they were in a fifth-rate soap opera, for example.
There used to be a time when the FR gods didn't behave like they were in a fifth-rate soap opera, for example.
When was that?!
Before the publishing of the various Time of Troubles products, and then a period that lasted from the end of the publishing of those products up to the launch of 4th edition.*
*Not counting the drow deities, but they were wonky to start with, so meh.
I'm sorry, but this makes no sense to me. If you're not using Galt you can just ignore it, this requires no time or effort on you're part.
Personally, I don't have any problems with Galt; I don't think there's anything especially modern about revolution and executions, and as noted above it's kind of tucked off to the side.
I'm a little disappointed that, out of the five "major" nations (Andoran, Cheliax, Taldor, Qadira, Osirion), none of them really strike me as a plain vanilla, medieval England type of setting, at least not from the artwork I've seen so far. It's the same thing with Eberron -- it sometimes seems like it's striving too hard to be different than the "typical" setting (e.g. Greyhawk).
I know a little of the 3e material but not much and I never liked to play in them.
A lot of people did. But others didn't, and kept whining about it until wizards caved in, and basically fired tons of loyal, long-time fans.
Paizo won't make the same mistake.
Dear Pathfinder Designers,
While in the last weeks during reading the CG for pathfinder I was really pleased and positively surprised, till I came across... Galt.
*blank expression* You're kidding right? I've read most of the thread and I am ... well ... confused. You don't like Galt, don't play there. Don't buy the adventures that support that section. Wala. Done.
You don't like one little section and you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (English expression meaning you get rid of something as valuable as a baby when you're done with something as not valuable and insignificiant as the baby's bath water)?
My favorite sections of Golarion: Mendev and Lastwall. I focus on them, come up with maps for them, write up NPCs for them, etc. My least favorite section: Mwangi Expanse. Do I let my dislike of the Mwangi Expanse interfere with my development of Lich's prison? No. Do I let my jokes of how Peter Pan is missing from the pirates and indians theme of Bloodcove interfere with my love of the foreigner slums in Edege. I look at what I like, and I ignore what I do not.
I am sorry, but I do not understand your problem.
Enpeze wrote:
Dear Pathfinder Designers,
While in the last weeks during reading the CG for pathfinder I was really pleased and positively surprised, till I came across... Galt.
*blank expression* You're kidding right? I've read most of the thread and I am ... well ... confused. You don't like Galt, don't play there. Don't buy the adventures that support that section. Wala. Done.
You don't like one little section and you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater (English expression meaning you get rid of something as valuable as a baby when you're done with something as not valuable and insignificiant as the baby's bath water)?
My favorite sections of Golarion: Mendev and Lastwall. I focus on them, come up with maps for them, write up NPCs for them, etc. My least favorite section: Mwangi Expanse. Do I let my dislike of the Mwangi Expanse interfere with my development of Lich's prison? No. Do I let my jokes of how Peter Pan is missing from the pirates and indians theme of Bloodcove interfere with my love of the foreigner slums in Edege. I look at what I like, and I ignore what I do not.
I am sorry, but I do not understand your problem.
I may be wrong, and I pray I am, but what I get from the OP's comments is that his attitude is that he wants what he enjoys playing in handed to him with no work on his part. I have only been playing since 2000 but I have not run across any adventure or module that has just exactly what I want out of the setting without some work on my part. Granted I have not had much experience but if you want a particular setting then build it yourself. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, don't expect any company to cater to your whims and disregard everyone else. That may not have been what was said exactly but is what I got from it. As I said I could be wrong, it has happened before.
Just my 2 cp.
Bring me my hossenfeffer!
Welcome, Dr Pete. Nice reflections.
BTW, Eric Hinkle has an idea for Galt that I like and might provide a further part of the picture there. It's the ghouls.
For a pan-Golarion meta-explanation, see Taliesin Hoyle's It's the Azlanti.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A lot of people have been dumping on Empeze, to one degree of politeness or another. And, with the rising indignity of Empeze's continuing responses, there's been some cause there.
So, first of all, could we all take a deep breath? We're all gamers. We're all fans of Paizo's product lines. We're all on the same side here.
Second, I think I understand something about Empeze's argument. My response to him is: Golarion isn't the same kind of setting as the world of REH's Conan stories, or even as Dragonlance's Krynn. Krynn was set up to tell a specific type of D&D stories. Weis and Hickman went so far as to say that Krynn was unreachable through Spelljamming ships, because they didn't want that kind of cultural polution.
The lands of Ravenloft, and Athas, the world of Dark Sun, were the same. These were campaign worlds with one specific product line and a focus on one theme. If you were playing in Athas and wanted to do some wha-hoo dungeon explorations, or if you were in Krynn and wanted to explore the ramifications of plentiful psionics, you had to find your way to another material plane.
In Golarion, you need to pack your horse and travel. Golarion is a patch-work world, as people have said, and --here's the important part-- where flavorful setting features are more localized than you should expect. Yes, Numeria is a "Barrier Peaks"-like super-science setting, but the entire campaign world is not awash in high-tech artifacts, like you might expect. Galt, to use another good example, worries Andoran, provides fuel for some of the machinations in the River Kingdoms, and impacts Cheliax. But its influence doesn't go beyond that.
That's an important aspect of Golarion, and it's counter-intuitive.
--+--+--
And a note about Campaign Settings and "use". Respondents here have noted that, of course, a GM could plop some aspect of Golarion, say, Ustalav and Latwall, and maybe Nirmathas, into his campaign and have everything he'd need to run a terrific adventure path or two.
But I'd remind them that, for an awful lot of people, "running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms" or "in Onara" (the world of Arcanis) has meant adopting the gamut of that setting, exactly what Empeze says he doesn't want to do with Golarion.
If someone announced they like Eberron adventures, but were bothered with all the psionics and high-tech feel, it would do them no good for us to suggest that they could just take the parts of the setting they liked.
They might well reply, "Well, sure, but if I take out psionics, and high-tech magic, and warforged, and put in a sentient hare-like race, and use the Greyhawk dieties, and surround the Eldeen Reaches with the mists of Ravenloft, then at what point should I stop telling people that I'm running an Eberron campaign?"
Some people are indeed running Golarion with all the bells and whistles turned on. (I'm running a PbP like that.) Empeze has decided not to, and --at least in his initial post-- came to the company messageboards and explained, respectfully, why he made that decision. And got heat for that.
Breathe, folks. We're all on the same side, here.
I may be wrong, and I pray I am, but what I get from the OP's comments is that his attitude is that he wants what he enjoys playing in handed to him with no work on his part.
My reading of the OP's posts is that he like the setting alot. He says he "very much like the basic principle of Golarion to mix several classic cultures ... to allow for basic and exotic adventures as well", "like[s] ... that the world lives through the adventures", and "the integration of dwarfes and elves [is] very smooth."
But then he came across Galt and concluded that "After reading Galt, I am not so sure anymore I want to play in Golarion." He supported this by saying things like "Alone that 2 big countries (Taldan and Andoria) in the world seem to be at least partially in the 19th century with its complex poltical societies is not very 'fantasy' to me." I read this as, he had a good impression of these two countries until he read Galt and Galt soured his take on the setting. He further continued his argument by saying "... in the next edition of Golarion the heroes AND the goblins then have cell phones." That's just my read.
After typing all that, I can also see that he may not have been fully enjoying his read on the CS and Galt was merely the final straw (in the same way that Dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms was for me, back when I was thinking that 4E might be a good thing). But his reaction seems too overblown for that explanation. I don't know, I'd rather hear the OP's reation to my take.
Applauds call for civility. Thanks, Chris.
I may have lost touch with the rising tone of the thread when I posted my humorous comment. I think that Silverhair had a point, however, about our (OP, you, me, and everybody we know's) occasional tendency to want Golarion tailor-made to our fancy, instead of seeing ourselves as tailors-in-chief. That said, we all benefit when somebody raises what is for them a problem and then we all reflect on it, even if there is no consensus for/against nor a solution that is acceptable to the OP--especially if we do it in the right spirit.
This reminds me of my reaction to Expedition to the Barrier Peaks back in the day, so yes, I sympathize with the feeling, even if I don't share it in a specific instance.
|
|
Technology isn't one of those, but that has a different reason: They've got magic. They don't need technology, because magic's there, and usually better at things now than technology will be centuries hence.
There might be the occasional tinkerer, but they'll be an exception, and will have real trouble finding funding, since the rich guys who would normally fund them would sooner give it to a spellcaster to further his craft - and get results now.
Thus, the cellphone as we know it will not get to Golarion any time soon, but I see no reason why there is no magic item that replicates its functionality using magic. The spells are already there, the only thing they'll need to do is create a magic item that uses them and you're set! Better yet, they'll probably have no running costs and you'll be able to communicate with someone who doesn't have one himself - he just cannot initiate the conversation.
Message (cantrip) already does half the job...
to the OP.. as KaeYoss mentioned... you don't seem to like Golarion... don't play in Golarion... use what you like of it and pathfinder and play with such things...
the fact that you think that you are doing a favor to your players by not showing them something is egocentrical... and as a player I would hate you... I like to take my own decisions... my DM can tell me 'you cannot use that in my campaign, because it breaks what i try to make' but I won't accept the idea "this is wrong for you... as i am wiser thna you i save you from this"or are you afraid thatone of your players wants to be an Andoran paladin, dressing like an officer of some 18th century (which is closer to what you are implying)?
but don't me wrong... I UNDERSTAND your position (not all your decisions)... I loved exalted premise... until I read Outcast, then I noticed everypart where futuristic magi-teck was appearing... what I liked in a fantasy setting became other thing... since then I hardly have opened the books... still bought (abyssals are great... so I got them and read them) and every time I have been asked to begin a campaign there I always say the same 'I hate to run an Exalted game... want an Exalted Game, run it yourself I will play as a player"
If you don't like Golarion because you see something that changes it for you... then DON'T play there!
use what you like of the setting and call the world other thing... erase those places... yes ERASE them as if they had never existed if that works for you...
you don't like it... is fine
coming to complain about the designers because you don't like it and you feel betrayed... ITS NOT
PS: I like techno-magik,magi-tech, spirit-tech... but I expect them to bein the premise of the game, not as a forethought of "we really wanted to do this"
Golarion presented us 1st just Varisia, then Korvosa, but already RotRL already presented us with the premise of ancient weapons of mass destruction "giagiant laser used by Runelords FTW" and Iliked how they mixed the world... yes my problem is that i try ot use a lot of it at the same time... one ofmy playersdoesn't like the 19'th century feeling of somethings... but just ignore it and keeps reading...
Not picking on the man, but if he is wanting Golarion to be more like the new realms setting, well he has the wrong setting is all.
|
|
Not picking on the man, but if he is wanting Golarion to be more like the new realms setting, well he has the wrong setting is all.
agreed
made my answer last page, just cheked the changes in this one... as someone says... not every setting is for everyone, even if its designed to be likeable to most people at least somewhere.
you don't like it... is fine
coming to complain about the designers because you don't like it and you feel betrayed... ITS NOT
I dunno. Mortika has me all messed up with this "seeing other people's perspective" thing. (Calvin & Hobbes; June 17, 1990.) Is that what the OP intended? To complain? Did the OP feel betrayal? At what point is it not OK to critique something you didn't like?
EDIT: I've gone back and read through Enpeze's posts and don't think s/he sounds like someone who is inordinately complaining out of some unacceptable motive. It was a strong reaction, sure. But I wonder, Enpeze, if it isn't the kind of reaction that you'd moderate yourself over time--not saying that you would utterly change your mind, but just not feel that the reaction bated on the judgment would need to be so strong. You dwelt particularly on a "fear" that you'd invest in something you basically liked that would then change too much towards the aspect that you didn't like over time. An understandable misgiving, but I don't think one that has any significant probability attached to it: just ask fans of the Forgotten Realms, whose molten, white hot fury against Wizards of the Coast right now knows no rivals! After 2nd and then 3rd edition, did they expect what happened with 4e due to some things they didn't like in the setting before? Myself, I'm gonna bet that the setting is not going to change to much from the basic feel that they have already set. If they have an AP that is too much "Spaceman Spiff" for me, then sure, I'll cancel my subscription and then reinstate it later (or not). But I don't see the whole setting changing tone due to a few places that are closer to other genres or milieus. And, to take the example of Galt, surely revolutionary France was not the first revolution, nor the first case of civil tyranny, nor the first case of political purges. These all happened in Ancient and Medieval times as well, even if those people didn't have frilly shirts and guillotines.
On the psychological side, when we argue against someone's complaint, it may well turn a mere fear into a fait accompli by the time we're finished with it, depending on how we engage it.
Just a related point from the Iomedae! thread: It is difficult to create a fantasy product with names that sound good in English. Expecting it to sound as good to German, Spanish, etc ears is probably expecting a miracle. I've heard tell it's happened a couple of times, but shooting for miracle on a regular basis is probably not really fair. Scratch the "probablies". Though I feel your pain, it really has to be up to fans of Pathfinder of other tongues to massage pronunciation as necessary.I am not this opinion. There are anglo-american settings out there with most names sounds good. Talislanta for example. Great Names. Or Warhammer is full of good names.
OTOH many names in Faerun sound not good to my ears. This is not a dealbreaker though. They sound sometimes strange and unintuitive but one can get used to with time.
Either the names "not sounding good" are reserved for D&D settings or it depends on the sensibility of the designer.
But IMO it depends not on a mysterious law that prohibites names of english settings cannot sound good in other languages.
That's fine, and I fully acknowledge that personal preferences may have as much, or even more, to do with how something "sounds" than one's cultural-linguistic formation. But the idea that personal preference has not at all been formed by that cultural-linguistic milieu? Tough for me to buy. I hear foreign words and names all the time that sound goofy as hell to me with my English ear. Does this make me a proponent of some mysterious law? I don't think so. But I cannot help but notice patterns.
At what point is it not OK to critique something you didn't like?
I do not believe that it is ever not okay. It is perfectly okay. However, there is no difference, then, between a critique by one individual of a product and another critique by a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) individual aimed at that first critique--they are both equally valid. If one feels obligated to defend the OP's right to express an opinion, then one should feel equally obliged to defend others' opinions that disagree with said opinion, since they are all just opinions.
At least, that's my opinion.
Complaining is fine, but don't expect it's gonna change, it's not like the setting is a post apoc wasteland. There are many area's to play, much like the realms or greyhawk it is ment to apply to alot of diff game styles. It is not a one theme setting. If the OP does not like that, well he does not like that. A more Limited and one themed setting would prob be to his liking. And not a thing wrong with that.
Many of us here just can't understand how one small part of the setting could kill a whole setting for a DM, I mean I played the realms for 15 years or better without ever setting foot in Cormyr or Sembia and the dale lands just passing though. I can not understand how a few areas you never have to go really kills a setting. I mean I never liked Cormyr so should i stop playing the realms because OMG it has cormyr in it a rip-off of a English like kingdom and I find is so overdone in fantasy.
I am not poking fun at or judging the OP, we all have diff tastes in gaming . But the Ideal of one area killing a setting as big as Golarion is just a odd concept to me is all
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm a little disappointed that, out of the five "major" nations (Andoran, Cheliax, Taldor, Qadira, Osirion), none of them really strike me as a plain vanilla, medieval England type of setting, at least not from the artwork I've seen so far. It's the same thing with Eberron -- it sometimes seems like it's striving too hard to be different than the "typical" setting (e.g. Greyhawk).
Taldor is one such locale. Lastwall is another. Mendev is a third, and you might even include (if you can tolerate a bit of Eastern European flair) Brevoy.
But Taldor is the one you want. We're going to be making that a little more clear in the way we depict that nation artistically going forward.
--Erik
Complaining is fine, but don't expect it's gonna change, it's not like the setting is a post apoc wasteland.
Well, one thing that could change is the art that's used to illustrate Galt, Taldor and other "modernish" countries. I.e., we could see more knights on horseback and fewer riflemen in smoking jackets. Hey, it's possible. :-)
EDIT: Ninja'ed by Erik Mona! Thanks for the explanation.
I may be in the minority but i liked Galt and Taldor art, the rifles didn't fit with the almost gunless setting, but i did like the art
At what point is it not OK to critique something you didn't like?I do not believe that it is ever not okay. It is perfectly okay. However, there is no difference, then, between a critique by one individual of a product and another critique by a second (or third, or fourth, or fifth...) individual aimed at that first critique--they are both equally valid. If one feels obligated to defend the OP's right to express an opinion, then one should feel equally obliged to defend others' opinions that disagree with said opinion, since they are all just opinions.
At least, that's my opinion.
Absolutely. My concern just shifted a bit because I didn't want a new member of the community having a less than welcoming experience when they piped in.
Seeker -- I think we're on the same page.
Mona -- Really? I was getting a Byzantine empire vibe off of Taldor based on what I'd seen. (Now maybe I'll complain! ;) )
|
But Taldor is the one you want. We're going to be making that a little more clear in the way we depict that nation artistically going forward.
--Erik
Aaaaah Shame ! I was really digging it as a Byzantium area ... Such a good idea ... Bad, bad Erik !
Can we still keep it doomed and greek ? Please :)
Otherwise, I can relate to some of the OPs points, as I shared some of his reactions initially... (I always was a history fan...)
But then I thought ... what the heck ? After all, before starting on Pathfinder, our group has been playing Arcanis for some 4 years ... Arcanis where Romans, medieval germans and ancient Persians, as well as half-renaissance/half ancient Greeks are side by side ... and we enjoyed it, so ... Not a problem at all.
Besides, I can't wait for the Pathfinder's guide to perpetual Revolution. Sounds like a fun one coming.
Regards
An understandable misgiving, but I don't think one that has any significant probability attached to it: just ask fans of the Forgotten Realms, whose molten, white hot fury against Wizards of the Coast right now knows no rivals!
It made me stop buying their stuff. And not just FR. Everything. They want to fire me as a fan? Fine, if my money isn't wanted there, I'll take it elsewhere.
Should Paizo do the same - listen to whiny noncustomers and change the setting to make them customers - I'd do the same again.
But I doubt Paizo'd do that.
Lastwall is another. Mendev is a third,
Funny. Upthread, I said that these were my favorite parts of Golarion. Well, at least my preferences are consistant.
Hee-hee! It's not like I had any particular folk in mind with that purple passage. :)
Yeah, I'm not full of fear. I think that fans only have so much influence over creative types, and so we may feel like we have to use that too the max to be heard, but the folks here are more responsive to fans while still having their own strong vision of the way things should be. I just don't see that vision going so far from my own that I'd have the 'Realms reaction'...all the while reserving the fan's right to freak out should the day ever come.
EDIT: Good, Stereofm makes me feel not so crazy.
I.e., we could see more knights on horseback and fewer riflemen in smoking jackets. Hey, it's possible. :-)
Heh. Quote of the week!
oddly enough, I've started thinking of Andoran not as an American analogue, but as England during the reign of Oliver Cromwell.
How much worse! (Shakes fist at shade of Cromwell.)
An understandable misgiving, but I don't think one that has any significant probability attached to it: just ask fans of the Forgotten Realms, whose molten, white hot fury against Wizards of the Coast right now knows no rivals!
It made me stop buying their stuff. And not just FR. Everything. They want to fire me as a fan? Fine, if my money isn't wanted there, I'll take it elsewhere.
Should Paizo do the same - listen to whiny noncustomers and change the setting to make them customers - I'd do the same again.
But I doubt Paizo'd do that.
You and me both, sad I enjoyed some of the novels too. My white hot hate has yet to cool, one bit i'll tell you that much
I was getting a Byzantine empire vibe off of Taldor based on what I'd seen.I was really digging it as a Byzantium area ...Great minds must think alike. I was totally picturing Taldor as the Byzantine Empire, albeit slightly Anglicized.
I was thinking more along the lines of France before the French Revolution, but after Louis XIV. That probably shaped some of my notion of how "modern" I thought it was.