Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you beaten The Ringed City yet?
If so what did you think of the ending?
Any favourite moments?
Favourite boss?
Not quite; haven't defeated the very final boss yet.
Dunno yet.
Favorite moment was probably the first sight of the Ringed City and seeing just how huge the place was.
The demon prince.
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have a favorite moment from Kong?
Mine's probably the ** spoiler omitted ** Very unexpected and cool. :D
Also, for that end credits scene, which are you looking forward to most?
My favorite's ** spoiler omitted **
Favorite moment:
End credits:
|
How would you say Kong: Skull Island compared with the 2014 Godzilla movie that is apparently part of he same universe? I can't remember if you opinion on the Godzilla movie was one of approval or if disappointment...Loved the 2014 Godzilla movie. Saw it twice on opening day, in fact. That movie is legions better than Kong: Skull Island, and Kong is great movie.
The only nitpick I have about Godzilla (2014) is that I wish that the roles of the husband and wife characters were swapped. It would have been a MUCH better move had she been the bomb expert and he had been the nurse... and not only due to the diversity that would create, but because she's such a better actor than he was.
Okay, both of those are going on my list of must-see movies now. Thanks, James! :)
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If I wanted to make a game more lethal what would be the best way to do so?
2. Without changing any other numbers which of the following two options do you prefer? A. Doubling all damage. B. Halving all Hit Points.
1) Try playing the game as a player first to find out if maybe you're confusing "lethality" with "fun." I've seen a lot of GMs mistakenly assume the game was no fun because from their side of the screen it seemed like the PCs were never in any danger of dying, but from the player side of the screen that's usually not the perception at all. Furthermore... is it really REALLY fun for player characters to die? It's disruptive to the story when they do, and it makes for the dead PC player to have a boring session. There should be a challenge, but killing of PCs is old-fashioned gaming in a bad way.
That said, if you want to up the challenge in your games, the easiest way to do that is to have your players build characters with lower point buys.
2) Halving hit points is less math than doubling damage every time it happens... but I have no idea why you'd want to do either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I was recently getting my spine compressed into my boot by a Giant that I'd pissed off somehow, I thought... what's your favorite character you had (or have) for Skyrim.
What's your favorite dungeon.
Your favorite shout to use.
Weapon.
And random fight that got crazy with multiple combatants. :-)
Have you read books like 1984 or Brave New World? I love stories like those, and it's why I was instantly drawn to Razmiran and parallels to Brave New World.
What's more effective? Ruling by fear or pleasure? (From the point of view of a LE dictator)
|
Creative Director
|
While I was recently getting my spine compressed into my boot by a Giant that I'd pissed off somehow, I thought... what's your favorite character you had (or have) for Skyrim.
What's your favorite dungeon.
Your favorite shout to use.
Weapon.
And random fight that got crazy with multiple combatants. :-)
Sneaky archer.
Don't remember.
The fire one, I think.
Longbow.
Don't remember.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you read books like 1984 or Brave New World? I love stories like those, and it's why I was instantly drawn to Razmiran and parallels to Brave New World.
What's more effective? Ruling by fear or pleasure? (From the point of view of a LE dictator)
Haven't read either of those.
I'm not a LE dictator, and I like to think that all LE dictators end up in ruins, so I like to think that neither method of rule for them is effective at anything other than self-destruction.
A few quick ones:
1. Have you seen the Trailer for "It" yet?
2. Thoughts on the trailer/upcoming film?
3. Do we all float down here?
Stephen King fan, then?
Favorite books?
(Mine are probably Carrie and Misery in a first thought)
What are your thoughts on The Dark Tower saga.
(I think it started fine but I ended being very disappointed with it)
I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I have read most recent posts but the whole thread is way too much for a relatuve newbie like me.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen King fan, then?
Favorite books?(Mine are probably Carrie and Misery in a first thought)
What are your thoughts on The Dark Tower saga.
(I think it started fine but I ended being very disappointed with it)
I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I have read most recent posts but the whole thread is way too much for a relatuve newbie like me.
I've been a Stephen King fan since my Grandmother introduced me to him with the hardcover editions of Cujo and Pet Semetery back in the very early 80s. He's one of my favorite authors.
My favorite Stephen King books is probably "Pet Semetery," but I'm also a huge fan of "It" and "The Stand" and "Bag of Bones" and "Revival" and the Dark Tower series and many of his short stories. My absolute FAVORITE thing he's ever written is "The Mist."
I loved the Dark Tower saga, and was not disappointed by the end. I felt the end was very satisfying and in perfect keeping with the rest of the series—I liked the third book the best, but the last book was a close second place for my favorite in the series.
Do you listen to music when you write, and if so what?
My favorite Stephen King books is probably "Pet Semetery," but I'm also a huge fan of "It" and "The Stand" and "Bag of Bones" and "Revival" and the Dark Tower series and many of his short stories. My absolute FAVORITE thing he's ever written is "The Mist."
1. Which version of The Stand do you prefer? I found the expanded coverage of the plague in the revised edition enjoyable, but the cultural references of the 1978 edition felt more genuine, and some of the added content didn't feel necessary...
2. I, unlike many of my friends from other parts of the country, never found IT terribly scary (as opposed to Pet Semetery,which crawled right under my skin- I suspect it's case of urban/suburban people relating to Derry, while my quasi-rural upbringing made Pet Semetery hit closer to home), but I did enjoy it... when the story was set in the 1950s. Do you find the 1980s sequences effective and worthwhile in their own right? About the only 1980s bits I like are Bowers getting out of Juniper Hill and the Möbius time bit with the Ritual of Chud.
3. In Carrie, King used a format he never returned to in that precise form (IT's Interludes come the closest), with the ex post facto documentation interspersed with a narrative happening in real time. Can you think of any of the novels he's written that might have benefited from re-using this approach?
4. Your thoughts on the Bachman Books?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite Stephen King books is probably "Pet Semetery," but I'm also a huge fan of "It" and "The Stand" and "Bag of Bones" and "Revival" and the Dark Tower series and many of his short stories. My absolute FAVORITE thing he's ever written is "The Mist."1. Which version of The Stand do you prefer? I found the expanded coverage of the plague in the revised edition enjoyable, but the cultural references of the 1978 edition felt more genuine, and some of the added content didn't feel necessary...
2. I, unlike many of my friends from other parts of the country, never found IT terribly scary (as opposed to Pet Semetery,which crawled right under my skin- I suspect it's case of urban/suburban people relating to Derry, while my quasi-rural upbringing made Pet Semetery hit closer to home), but I did enjoy it... when the story was set in the 1950s. Do you find the 1980s sequences effective and worthwhile in their own right? About the only 1980s bits I like are Bowers getting out of Juniper Hill and the Möbius time bit with the Ritual of Chud.
3. In Carrie, King used a format he never returned to in that precise form (IT's Interludes come the closest), with the ex post facto documentation interspersed with a narrative happening in real time. Can you think of any of the novels he's written that might have benefited from re-using this approach?
4. Your thoughts on the Bachman Books?
1) I've only every read the expanded version, so I prefer it.
2) I feel that Pet Semetery is scarier than It, but I still think It is very scary. I haden't read It since it first came out in the early 80s, and just 2 days ago started to re-read it as an adult, rather than as a 10 year old kid (or whatever age I was when it came out), and it is holding up VERY well. The way King infuses the very concept of fear into everything is fascinating, be it the fear of clowns or homophobia or racisim or fear of being bullied... it's really unsettling and nervewracking and effective at evoking horror.
3) Done right, that sort of format can benefit any novel, or it can detract. I don't presume to be better at making writing choices than King, in any event.
4) Haven't read all of them but I appreciate their starkness and cruelty.
My favorite Stephen King books is probably "Pet Semetery," but I'm also a huge fan of "It" and "The Stand" and "Bag of Bones" and "Revival" and the Dark Tower series and many of his short stories. My absolute FAVORITE thing he's ever written is "The Mist."1. Which version of The Stand do you prefer? I found the expanded coverage of the plague in the revised edition enjoyable, but the cultural references of the 1978 edition felt more genuine, and some of the added content didn't feel necessary...
2. I, unlike many of my friends from other parts of the country, never found IT terribly scary (as opposed to Pet Semetery,which crawled right under my skin- I suspect it's case of urban/suburban people relating to Derry, while my quasi-rural upbringing made Pet Semetery hit closer to home), but I did enjoy it... when the story was set in the 1950s. Do you find the 1980s sequences effective and worthwhile in their own right? About the only 1980s bits I like are Bowers getting out of Juniper Hill and the Möbius time bit with the Ritual of Chud.
3. In Carrie, King used a format he never returned to in that precise form (IT's Interludes come the closest), with the ex post facto documentation interspersed with a narrative happening in real time. Can you think of any of the novels he's written that might have benefited from re-using this approach?
4. Your thoughts on the Bachman Books?
1) I've only every read the expanded version, so I prefer it.
2) I feel that Pet Semetery is scarier than It, but I still think It is very scary. I haden't read It since it first came out in the early 80s, and just 2 days ago started to re-read it as an adult, rather than as a 10 year old kid (or whatever age I was when it came out), and it is holding up VERY well. The way King infuses the very concept of fear into everything is fascinating, be it the fear of clowns or homophobia or racisim or fear of being bullied......
Would you have any interesting in listening to an audiobook of IT? A new one was produced last year, and it is horrifyingly magnificent.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you have any interesting in listening to an audiobook of IT? A new one was produced last year, and it is horrifyingly magnificent.
Since my commute to work via car is only about a 90 second drive, I don't really have much of a place to listen to audio books. Given the choice, I prefer to read books rather than listen, since reading allows me to flip pages back and forth with ease if I want and I just like the physicality of a book in my hands.
The only points I really listen to audio books these days are on long drives, and I only really do a long drive a few times a year. Good to know "It" has a good audio book version though. But since I'm already reading it now, that book's unlikely to be one I'll want to listen to a few months later.
More Stephen King. Now about the movies.
What is your favorite and less favorite movie adaptation of one of his books?
I cannot give a very good opinion here as I haven't seen a lot of them that are said to be good nor most of the most infamous. I of course enjoyed The Shining and I remember being terrified of IT as a child but I've never seen it as a grown up. From the most recent movies, I enjoyed The Mist too.
I started reading Stephen King at the age of 11 because my mother really liked his books and I «borrowed» them, so I also have a long story of reading his books.
I have a few questions about the Shifter class.
1)Will it have an alignment restriction?
2)What kind of class is it? (hybrid, base, alternate, etc.)
3)Is it true it will be a martial class with no spell casting?
4)Will it have spell powers?
5)Does it fill a niche for nature(or nature based groups)like the paladin does for the church?
1. There's a yet another big paladin argument going on in the other forums that resolves around whether the paladin conscripting people to fight a defensive war against Fantasy Nazis is Evil or not? I know your not a fan of paladins but what's your opinion on the situation?
2. Is military conscription in general Evil?
|
Creative Director
|
Hi James,
I have a few general gaming questions:
At what age did you get started playing rpgs?
What was the first game system you played?
What was it about tabletop rpgs that kept you coming back?
What's the longest lasting group of players you've played with?Thanks, in advance.
10 years old.
The blue book edition of D&D.
The stories, the imagination, the art, and the fact that it was something fun to do with friends.
As for longest lasting group of players? I suppose 15 years or so?
|
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More Stephen King. Now about the movies.
What is your favorite and less favorite movie adaptation of one of his books?I cannot give a very good opinion here as I haven't seen a lot of them that are said to be good nor most of the most infamous. I of course enjoyed The Shining and I remember being terrified of IT as a child but I've never seen it as a grown up. From the most recent movies, I enjoyed The Mist too.
I started reading Stephen King at the age of 11 because my mother really liked his books and I «borrowed» them, so I also have a long story of reading his books.
Favorite movie adaptation is "The Mist." I try to avoid bemoaning or complaining about least favorites online though, so I'll keep quiet on that count.
That said, there's a LOT of quite good adaptations out there, ranging from the perfect like "Shawshank Redemption" or "The Dead Zone" or "Creepshow" or "Christine" or "The Shining" to the flawed but still good like "11/24/63" or "The Running Man" or "Carrie" or "Cujo" or "Pet Semetery."
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a few questions about the Shifter class.
1)Will it have an alignment restriction?
2)What kind of class is it? (hybrid, base, alternate, etc.)
3)Is it true it will be a martial class with no spell casting?
4)Will it have spell powers?
5)Does it fill a niche for nature(or nature based groups)like the paladin does for the church?
We'll reveal more about the Shifter class when the time is right. I can confirm that it is a true martial class with no spellcasting powers, though.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. There's a yet another big paladin argument going on in the other forums that resolves around whether the paladin conscripting people to fight a defensive war against Fantasy Nazis is Evil or not? I know your not a fan of paladins but what's your opinion on the situation?
2. Is military conscription in general Evil?
1) The internet and its trolls exhaust me. My opinion is that often times, gamers are their own worst enemy.
2) It's lawful. Whether or not it's good or evil depends entirely on the context.
I have seen several of your posts over the role of atheism in the Golarion setting.
1) Why did you decide to use the term "atheist" to mean people who do not interpret deities as being "divine" AND people who choose not to worship deities even if they think that they are deities? The latter is by definition a theist and thus calling those people atheists would be the diametric opposite of what they are. The word for that definition given is a misotheist.
2) The word atheist does not imply disbelief in non-theistic philosophies and religions. By definition many if not most Buddhist in the real world are atheist but you have said that people following things like the Green Faith are not. Why is This?
3) The word atheist does not mean the lack of belief of higher power or purpose like you say it does. The word for that is nihilist. An atheist could be devoted to the code of a paladin just as much as an strict agnostic could.
4) Given how in this setting the only atheist region is evil, that all of the characters who are detailed why they are atheist are for hatred against the gods, and you say that atheist cannot be paladins are you saying that atheism is an inherently evil position?
5) If 4 is true. Then why have you chosen to change the definition of a world-view in real-life in order to portray it negatively in your setting?
We'll reveal more about the Shifter class when the time is right. I can confirm that it is a true martial class with no spellcasting powers, though.I have a few questions about the Shifter class.
1)Will it have an alignment restriction?
2)What kind of class is it? (hybrid, base, alternate, etc.)
3)Is it true it will be a martial class with no spell casting?
4)Will it have spell powers?
5)Does it fill a niche for nature(or nature based groups)like the paladin does for the church?
Shifter class? Where was this first mentioned?
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen several of your posts over the role of atheism in the Golarion setting.
1) Why did you decide to use the term "atheist" to mean people who do not interpret deities as being "divine" AND people who choose not to worship deities even if they think that they are deities? The latter is by definition a theist and thus calling those people atheists would be the diametric opposite of what they are. The word for that definition given is a misotheist.
2) The word atheist does not imply disbelief in non-theistic philosophies and religions. By definition many if not most Buddhist in the real world are atheist but you have said that people following things like the Green Faith are not. Why is This?
3) The word atheist does not mean the lack of belief of higher power or purpose like you say it does. The word for that is nihilist. An atheist could be devoted to the code of a paladin just as much as an strict agnostic could.
4) Given how in this setting the only atheist region is evil, that all of the characters who are detailed why they are atheist are for hatred against the gods, and you say that atheist cannot be paladins are you saying that atheism is an inherently evil position?
5) If 4 is true. Then why have you chosen to change the definition of a world-view in real-life in order to portray it negatively in your setting?
1) I didn't. That was from other folks at Paizo. I'm not the only one who made decisions on how to build the world, nor do I have veto power.
2) Good question.
3) Semantics is fun!
4) In my interpretation, you can't be an atheist who casts divine spells. So no atheist paladins. That's nonsensical to me.
5) I didn't make that choice. See #1 above.
Anyway, the original tone of your questions seems combative and confrontational, which is not a great way to get me to give more detailed replies.
I have seen several of your posts over the role of atheism in the Golarion setting.
1) Why did you decide to use the term "atheist" to mean people who do not interpret deities as being "divine" AND people who choose not to worship deities even if they think that they are deities? The latter is by definition a theist and thus calling those people atheists would be the diametric opposite of what they are. The word for that definition given is a misotheist.
2) The word atheist does not imply disbelief in non-theistic philosophies and religions. By definition many if not most Buddhist in the real world are atheist but you have said that people following things like the Green Faith are not. Why is This?
3) The word atheist does not mean the lack of belief of higher power or purpose like you say it does. The word for that is nihilist. An atheist could be devoted to the code of a paladin just as much as an strict agnostic could.
4) Given how in this setting the only atheist region is evil, that all of the characters who are detailed why they are atheist are for hatred against the gods, and you say that atheist cannot be paladins are you saying that atheism is an inherently evil position?
5) If 4 is true. Then why have you chosen to change the definition of a world-view in real-life in order to portray it negatively in your setting?
1) I didn't. That was from other folks at Paizo. I'm not the only one who made decisions on how to build the world, nor do I have veto power.
2) Good question.
3) Semantics is fun!
4) In my interpretation, you can't be an atheist who casts divine spells. So no atheist paladins. That's nonsensical to me.
5) I didn't make that choice. See #1 above.
Anyway, the original tone of your questions seems combative and confrontational, which is not a great way to get me to give more detailed replies.
I do not mean to come off as combative. But the seriousness and controversy behind the subject at hand can make people take a combative stance which I admittedly am probably doing to some extent.
This is because it seems that the creative team behind Golarion has either projected their own misconceptions over what the term atheist mean and how the people that fall under that label act or they are intentionally twisting that term in order to portray them negatively.
If anything I am biased towards this not being the case, as I enjoy Pathfinder and Golarion in particular with the exception of this one glaring thing that I cannot put out of my mind. I am asking these questions so as to hopefully learn that this was all the result of some misunderstanding and not bigotry or ignorance.
Atheist simply means a disbelief in the existence of deities OR a beleif that there are no deities. In a world like Golarion it seems to be clear that this would solely apply to people who do not view the deities as deities. This action alone does not eliminate concepts such as belief in higher powers or ideas (like ethics, the common good, natural/magical laws, or nature). And this position does not seem to make sense as to why this would decay the soul. Why would this decay the soul but being evil would not?
Furthermore the creative team seems to have labelled most, if not all, atheists as misotheist. A misotheist is someone who believes in the existence of deities but chooses not to worship them anyways. Not only do they incorrectly label atheists this way, they seem to also make all of the characters that would fall under this category be misotheist for petty reasons and then attribute that all to atheists.
This is a behavior I typically see from religious people who lack a fundamental grasp of the definition of atheism, the various reasons people become atheists, and basic philosophy and logic.
The term agnostic is used incorrectly as well. The term agnostic simply means that you do not believe that your beleif on the existence of deity(ies) is 100% certain. By definition almost all atheists and most religious people are agnostic. Agnostic is a question about what you know not what you believe. If someone where to ask an agnostic atheist if he knew whether or not Minerva existed he would say "I don't know if she did.", if the person asked the agnostic atheist if he believed in Minerva he would say "I don't."
What this setting portrays it to be is again behavior I typically see from religious people who lack a fundamental grasp of the definition of atheism, the various reasons people become atheists, and basic philosophy and logic.
1) Do you know what their justification is, if they had one?
2) Unfortunately you did not give a very helpful answer.
3) That is not even semantics. That is changing the fundamental definition of a word without any known justification.
Why could an agnostic in your eyes channel divine power any more than a atheist could?
Why would an atheist not worshiping the deities/not believing they are deities have any impact on power not coming from deities?
4) I am asking why you have that interpretation and how does it make sense.
Hopefully if you took the time to read all of this, you can see where I am coming from.
I get into a game and setting that I loved. But then I see these tropes that are highly likely to have come directly from a fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand and it's just rather depressing to say the least.
To put it in perspective, it would be like finding a game you really like but finding out that your world view is presented as an ignorant, petty, and destructive way of thinking and it indicating that it was born out of bigoted rhetoric. So you go to talk to one of the creative directors about it hoping it was a mistake and the answers you are getting are not suggesting that your initial assessment was wrong.
It just baffles me as a student of philosophy how such a well thought out setting could have such a incorrect and negative part of it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you ever see an oddly combatative or controversial post and immediately check the post count of the poster, just to see if it came out of nowhere?
Contributor
|
I believe you've said that you weren't a fan of the old kaiju template from Dragon Magazine, since it boiled what should be a unique creation down into a set of limited choices. (If I'm not remembering correctly, please correct me.)
How do you feel about kaiju based on lesser creatures, but still uniquely designed? Say, a kaiju formed from a mutated and overgrown gray render, or the ancient ancestor of the kongamato race?
Thank you! ^_^
Is there something that you have always wanted to bring to the Pathfinder system (an idea, an adaptation, a story, whatever) but that you think that would never work for a reason (too bizarre, rules wouldn't support, etc.)?
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Spoiler:I do not mean to come off as combative. But the seriousness and controversy behind the subject at hand can make people take a combative stance which I admittedly am probably doing to some extent.This is because it seems that the creative team behind Golarion has either projected their own misconceptions over what the term atheist mean and how the people that fall under that label act or they are intentionally twisting that term in order to portray them negatively.
If anything I am biased towards this not being the case, as I enjoy Pathfinder and Golarion in particular with the exception of this one glaring thing that I cannot put out of my mind. I am asking these questions so as to hopefully learn that this was all the result of some misunderstanding and not bigotry or ignorance.
Atheist simply means a disbelief in the existence of deities OR a beleif that there are no deities. In a world like Golarion it seems to be clear that this would solely apply to people who do not view the deities as deities. This action alone does not eliminate concepts such as belief in higher powers or ideas (like ethics, the common good, natural/magical laws, or nature). And this position does not seem to make sense as to why this would decay the soul. Why would this decay the soul but being evil would not?
Furthermore the creative team seems to have labelled most, if not all, atheists as misotheist. A misotheist is someone who believes in the existence of deities but chooses not to worship them anyways. Not only do they incorrectly label atheists this way, they seem to also make all of the characters that would fall under this category be misotheist for petty reasons and then attribute that all to atheists.
This is a behavior I typically see from religious people who lack a fundamental grasp of the definition of atheism, the various reasons people become atheists, and basic philosophy and logic.
The term agnostic is used incorrectly as well. The term agnostic simply means that you do not believe that your beleif on the existence of deity(ies) is 100% certain. By definition almost all atheists and most religious people are agnostic. Agnostic is a question about what you know not what you believe. If someone where to ask an agnostic atheist if he knew whether or not Minerva existed he would say "I don't know if she did.", if the person asked the agnostic atheist if he believed in Minerva he would say "I don't."
What this setting portrays it to be is again behavior I typically see from religious people who lack a fundamental grasp of the definition of atheism, the various reasons people become atheists, and basic philosophy and logic.
1) Do you know what their justification is, if they had one?
2) Unfortunately you did not give a very helpful answer.
3) That is not even semantics. That is changing the fundamental definition of a word without any known justification.
Why could an agnostic in your eyes channel divine power any more than a atheist could?
Why would an atheist not worshiping the deities/not believing they are deities have any impact on power not coming from deities?
4) I am asking why you have that interpretation and how does it make sense.
Hopefully if you took the time to read all of this, you can see where I am coming from.
I get into a game and setting that I loved. But then I see these tropes that are highly likely to have come directly from a fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand and it's just rather depressing to say the least.
To put it in perspective, it would be like finding a game you really like but finding out that your world view is presented as an ignorant, petty, and destructive way of thinking and it indicating that it was born out of bigoted rhetoric. So you go to talk to one of the creative directors about it hoping it was a mistake and the answers you are getting are not suggesting that your initial assessment was wrong.
It just baffles me as a student of philosophy how such a well thought out setting could have such a incorrect and negative part of it.
Whew... that's a pretty enormous post. Normally I prefer folks to keep their questions simpler, because I don't want this thread to become a debate forum. That said, I'll do my best to answer your concerns below; I hope they answer your questions. If you feel the need to respond, please don't do it here—do it via a post elsewhere on the boards or to a PM to me. I really want to keep this thread fast-moving and relatively light-hearted, and the topics you're bringing up can quickly firestorm into flame wars.
Honestly, as a person of faith, it's difficult for me to get in the mindset of HOW we included atheists in the setting and didn't just gloss it over and leave it something for each individual game table to wrestle with if it was important to them. But I 100% understand WHY we included the concept—diversity. For the same reason we strive to include as wide a range of ethnicities and lifestyles and sexual preferences and gender roles and so on in the setting, we chose to include all manner of belief system or lack thereof. But again, I'm not the right person to talk to about this. You might get a more detailed explanation and discussion about the topic from Erik Mona, our publisher.
As a person of faith and as the creative director of the campaign setting, I suppose it does fall on me as the one who ended up pushing the "misotheist" elements you call out. I have, in fact, never heard of the term "misotheist" and I'll do my best to keep in mind my deficiencies in understanding in future products.
But all that said, faith and religion and belief and divinity are an ENORMOUS part of the game, and if you flat-out remvoe them from the game, you remove not only several of the classes, you remove a huge chunk of the game's balance by taking out healing, and you rewrite an enormous section of mythology in that everything beyond the Material Plane itself needs to be rexamined and rewritten. That's not the game we chose to publish, so if you're looking for something along those lines, you might find better games elsewhere. Or perhaps the challenge of building your own setting where there is not a firmly established tradition of deities (or even writing down actual rules for faith in the form of cleric classes or details on the afterlife and so on)... that can be a hugely rewarding task for anyone to undertake. It's not something we'll do for you, though.
So, what it might boil down to is that our take on the world simply isn't palatable to your beliefs and convictions. Everyone is different, and while we can certainly try to be inclusive and diverse... we can never be the best thing for everyone. So... I'm sorry if that isn't quite the answer you were looking for, but I hope it explains things a bit more.
Thank you for your post, and thank you for opening my eyes to something I was blind to. And again, if you feel the need to carry the discussion further, please do not do it in this thread, which again, I'm trying to keep fast-moving and to avoid controversy or topics that tend to get folks really worked up and passionate or the like.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James, I remember reading that you aren't really a fan of dwarves in D&D, but you did like them a bit more in Dragon Age: Origins. Could you please explain why you don't care for them, and what you liked about them in DA:O?
Don't worry, I'm not trying to convert you. I'm just curious.
I did like dwarves quite a lot in Dragon Age. The fact that Dragon Age presented dwarves in such a different way made them more palatable and interesting to me. The four biggest things that I appreciated in their changes:
1) Women in dwarf society had a much stronger, more powerful, and as a result more INTERESTING role, and as such, dwarves ceased to feel misogynistic to me.
2) Dwarves in the game were rough talkers—the use of profanity and rough language in several of the dwarf characters made them more amusing to listen to.
3) They didn't sound Scottish. I love Scottish accents but I'm done with that accent being used to be "dwarven."
4) Beards weren't as huge a deal. This is likely because it was easier to animate characters who didn't have big beards, but in any event, dwarves with short beards or stubble or no beards are more interesting to me. I don't really like beards.
As for dwarves... there are a fair number of personality traits in humans that I find frustrating or annoying or unpleasant: heavy drinking, stubbornness, overly male-dominated attitudes, overly muscular body shapes, and loudness being key personality traits or appearance elements that vex me. Furthermore, from a game play standpoint, for many years, dwarves were INCREDIBLY limited in their class options, and I've always liked playing magic-using characters and/or lithe and nimble characters. Neither of which are dwarf-friendly concepts, traditionally.
|
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe you've said that you weren't a fan of the old kaiju template from Dragon Magazine, since it boiled what should be a unique creation down into a set of limited choices. (If I'm not remembering correctly, please correct me.)
How do you feel about kaiju based on lesser creatures, but still uniquely designed? Say, a kaiju formed from a mutated and overgrown gray render, or the ancient ancestor of the kongamato race?
Thank you! ^_^
I'm quite proud of the kaiju template from Dragon magazine. I wrote it, after all, and it's in there because I came up with the idea and pitched it to the magazine when they asked me to write an article to support the fact that WotC was releasing Oriental Adventures (eew, hate that name) at the time.
One of the things I initially tried HARD to do with the template was to make sure it was super complicated and could be used, in theory, to create a wide range of very unique creatures. Since the template had you changing pretty much EVERY element of a monster's stat block, it kind of crossed the line from "Here's a template for you" into "Here's a set of rules for you to use to build kaiju from the ground up." I'm pretty sure simply writing an article about how to build kaiju monsters from the ground up would have been a shorter and more useful article, actually...
|
Creative Director
|
Would you be okay with elaborating? I know Eilistraee is a favorite of yours so I wondered if she was an inspiration (I think she's one of the coolest parts of FR).Am I supposed to be reminded of Eilistraee when I read about the Empyreal Lord Ashava?Sort of.
Not much to elaborate on. Eilistraee is my favorite Forgotten Realms deity, and she was a significant part of the inspiration for Sarenrae. Some of the parts that didn't get rolled into Sarenrae ended up rolled into Ashava. In the same way that Rovagug was inspired by Lovecraft, Norgorber was inspired by Ramsey Campbell's "The Face that Must Die" and Leiber's Lankmhar stories, and Zon-Kuthon was inspired by Hellraiser. Most of the deities I made up for my homebrew were themselves inspired by/hommages to things that I enjoyed as a kid, in other words.
|
|
I see, thank you!
Quick Iron Gods question: The Technomancer prestige class is generally not considered a good idea for this AP since it's so closely tied to the Technic League who are villains in Iron Gods. How does the Iron Priest cleric archetype compare in terms of "okayness" for the AP, as far as the story is concerned?
|
Creative Director
|
I see, thank you!
Quick Iron Gods question: The Technomancer prestige class is generally not considered a good idea for this AP since it's so closely tied to the Technic League who are villains in Iron Gods. How does the Iron Priest cleric archetype compare in terms of "okayness" for the AP, as far as the story is concerned?
What AP are we talking about now? I assume Iron Gods. The Iron Priest should be fine as long as you pick a cleric that's not one that's gonna disrupt the game. The player's guide has plenty of good religion choices. Brigh, for example.
Dear James Jacobs,
Do you think GotG Vol 2 will help make this movie season suck less?
Thanks.