Hello, I am currently reading the guide to Absalom. On page 26 subsection "Fort Tempest" it states:
...Fort Tempest was build a few centuries after Aroden's death...
When we take a look at the time line of Golarion a presented in the Campaign Setting page 203 states 4606 AR as the year of Aroden's demise and 4708 AR as the current year. Strictly speaking the current year in Golarion is 4709 since one year in our world equals one year in Golarion and 4708 AR equals 2008 AD if I remember correctly.
The contradiction goes even further.
...after the Radiant Siege of 1619 AR proved a foe could take the point and use it to build a tower to fling rocks into the city...
Let's assume the Keep was build after Aroden's death, although a few centuries cannot be possible, since this would indicate some point in the future. Why does it take the City 2987 years to notice this weak spot in its defenses and build a Keep?
Sorry if this has already been posted.
Greetz
Ganzir
This constitutes a "major" flaw?
It doesn't make sense for Absalom to wait so long to bolster such a weakness, so I'd say that rather than a "few centuries after Aroden's death," I'd say that the fort was built shortly after the weakness became apparent.
Thanks for clarification.
This constitutes a "major" flaw?
I'am not a native speaker of the english language, therefor it may very well be, that someone who is reserves the term "major" for a far more severe flaw.
I admit, that keeping a track of all the events happening in a fictional world to which many authors contribute can be a tough job, but since so many things in Golarion revolve around the death of Aroden I thought this situation warranted the use of the term "major".
Greetz
Ganzir
It doesn't make sense for Absalom to wait so long to bolster such a weakness, so I'd say that rather than a "few centuries after Aroden's death," I'd say that the fort was built shortly after the weakness became apparent.Thanks for clarification.
This constitutes a "major" flaw?I'am not a native speaker of the english language, therefor it may very well be, that someone who is reserves the term "major" for a far more severe flaw.
I admit, that keeping a track of all the events happening in a fictional world to which many authors contribute can be a tough job, but since so many things in Golarion revolve around the death of Aroden I thought this situation warranted the use of the term "major".
Greetz
Ganzir
Oh no harm done. "Major Error" is the kind of language someone might use if they were overreacting, but you have a valid excuse.
I personally wouldn't use the term major unless it made the product unusable.
"Errata", singular form "erratum", would be the precise English word for this kind of error in a document. You won't often see English speakers use the singular form correctly (just like datum and data). So go ahead and use "Erratum" right, and you'll really freak them out!
I personally wouldn't use the term major unless it made the product unusable.
OK, I keep this in mind, ... this might be totally beside the topic, but when major flaw or error states that something is unusable, than may I ask in what case you'd use the term "critical flaw/error" since this is the term I had used to state that something is unusable or is this the nearly the same and what is actually said depends on the taste of the speaker making the respective statement?
Greetz
Ganzir
|
I personally wouldn't use the term major unless it made the product unusable.OK, I keep this in mind, ... this might be totally beside the topic, but when major flaw or error states that something is unusable, than may I ask in what case you'd use the term "critical flaw/error" since this is the term I had used to state that something is unusable or is this the nearly the same and what is actually said depends on the taste of the speaker making the respective statement?
Greetz
Ganzir
:) Honestly I can't remember anyone ever using that particular term or phrase before. We usually reserve the worst things for major flaw, and perhaps would use "Critical flaw/error" for something that would perhaps cause deaths...
Interesting point though. Fun to look at how one uses language.
Perhaps, others can give a better opinion. :)
|
OK, I keep this in mind, ... this might be totally beside the topic, but when major flaw or error states that something is unusable, than may I ask in what case you'd use the term "critical flaw/error" since this is the term I had used to state that something is unusable or is this the nearly the same and what is actually said depends on the taste of the speaker making the respective statement?
I think it depends on how much of the product you deem is unusable, and how thoroughly ingrained the flaw is. Where this was a date, and only mentioned in one or two places, its not that big a deal, easily handled as James mentions above. The only real affect is on campaigns attacking Absalom in this manner. If instead the book was written as if the city of Absalom was in Tan Xia (the far east) it would be a much more critical flaw, possibly causing the entire book to be unusable.