|
500 years is how many generations of humans?25 on the average, with 20 years from one generation to the next.
When the term 'generation' is mentioned in The Bible, theologians universally adhere to a time span of 40 years for each instance of use.
In more modern times, when the term 'generation' is used the average is normally set at 20 to 25 years, but this can be shorter or longer (for instance my Generation X is loosely given to those born from 1967 to 1982).
The current Generation being birthed right now is very loosely being called a varied number of names ranging from 'Generation Z, or Generation I, for the Internet Generation, and also dubbed Generation @.
I myself would not mind it called the Paizo Generation ;)
|
|
What I find interesting is that in many published campaign worlds (and I'll wager many a home brew campaign) the major high/'epic' level spell casters of note are arcanists (wizards, not even sorcerers) with very few high level clerics and priests (yes there are exceptions, Krynn's Kingpriest and much later incarnations of Fzoul of the Zhentarim come to mind).
I guess that's partly due to traditions both from our world's myths (be it Thomas Malory's Merlin or Professor Tolkien's Gandalf) and traditions in game (The Circle of Eight, Fizban, Elminister et al).
I was using the term generation in a more biological sense, such as when a recently born child has bodily matured to the point where it can safely reproduce and care for the offspring as long as necessary. Thus, it is in the 20-25 year range usually. I think that aspect whas what Matthew aimed at. Monikers given to people born within a certain range of years or having some common themes, like baby boomers or genxers, are more of a sociological phenomenon. The bible can´t be trusted on matters such as the count of years (Methuselah is said to have been nearly 1000 years old), so I´d take the generation count as being metaphorical as well.
Stefan
The bible can´t be trusted on matters such as the count of years (Methuselah is said to have been nearly 1000 years old), so I´d take the generation count as being metaphorical as well.
Stefan
Well, what if he lived to be a thousand years old? Is there any particular reason to accept other miracles in the Bible, but deny long lifespans?
Well, what if he lived to be a thousand years old? Is there any particular reason to accept other miracles in the Bible, but deny long lifespans?The bible can´t be trusted on matters such as the count of years (Methuselah is said to have been nearly 1000 years old), so I´d take the generation count as being metaphorical as well.
Stefan
I don´t want to get in a religious discussion here, but I don´t think that I stated anywhere that I accept the miracles in the bible (or any other miracles) at face value. I rather see it as metaphorical stories, based (especially in the old testament) on now greatly distorted stories passed down originally in an oral tradition. (btw, most of these extreme old ages are probably translation or calculation errors - if you divide these ages by 12, you get reasonable, if quite high, numbers for ages.)
Stefan
Well, what if he lived to be a thousand years old? Is there any particular reason to accept other miracles in the Bible, but deny long lifespans?The bible can´t be trusted on matters such as the count of years (Methuselah is said to have been nearly 1000 years old), so I´d take the generation count as being metaphorical as well.
Stefan
I don´t want to get in a religious discussion here, but I don´t think that I stated anywhere that I accept the miracles in the bible (or any other miracles) at face value. I rather see it as metaphorical stories, based (especially in the old testament) on now greatly distorted stories passed down originally in an oral tradition. (btw, most of these extreme old ages are probably translation or calculation errors - if you divide these ages by 12, you get reasonable, if quite high, numbers for ages.)
Stefan
I have no problem believing that all miracles are possible, and that all miracles are impossible, all at the same time. You'd probably understand better if I sat you down with a bottle of the good stuff and we talked it over.
As you say, a discussion for another thread, another time.
What I find interesting is that in many published campaign worlds (and I'll wager many a home brew campaign) the major high/'epic' level spell casters of note are arcanists (wizards, not even sorcerers) with very few high level clerics and priests (yes there are exceptions, Krynn's Kingpriest and much later incarnations of Fzoul of the Zhentarim come to mind).
I guess that's partly due to traditions both from our world's myths (be it Thomas Malory's Merlin or Professor Tolkien's Gandalf) and traditions in game (The Circle of Eight, Fizban, Elminister et al).
Well, I wouldn't place Mordenkainen in such company. He's not that old, for one thing. He also wasn't designed by an author/ game designer to be an epic figure. He grew into an archmage over years of actual play. Elminster, so far as we know, was always an uber powerful NPC. Fizban is actually a god's avatar.
Mordenkainen began his game life as a lowly first level wizard, just one spell per day. He's a PC who did really well for himself, after a long and fruitful career of killing monsters and taking their stuff.I'm coming at this from the angle of a pretty knowledgeable, long-time GH fan. To understand how the character fits into the world, I think it's worth considering his history, bot in game and metagame.
Yes... I think that's what I was trying to get at. Except in GH and FR where high-level, helpful mages are relatively common - everywhere else they are much more likely to be either evil or get corrupted by power.
Actually, I'm not saying that at all. I'm not saying that power necessarily corrupts. But those who are already corrupt will have no problem with becoming liches.
The good guys will not do so, though.
...those who are already corrupt will have no problem with becoming liches.
The good guys will not do so, though.
Baelnorn. Archliches.
Still, not something entered into lightly.
Edit:
...Those poor FR villains are always getting spanked! I suspect that the infamous TSR Code of Ethics had more to do with that than the intentions of Ed Greenwood or most of the other game designers, but I could be totally off-base on this one...
Ed has repeatedly said as much in several interviews from years back.
Except in GH and FR where high-level, helpful mages are relatively common - everywhere else they are much more likely to be either evil or get corrupted by power.
I disagree. In canon/published GH, high level helpful mages are not very common. The Circle of Eight lean heavily TN, with just one real exception in Tenser. They aren't exactly a fraternity of helpful 'good guys.' Remember, a True Neutral character may sometimes help demons and devils if the forces or good have grown too powerful. True Neutral is not just 'good lite.' Mordenkainen strikes me as kind of creepy and possibly not trustworthy. He's got an agenda, and helping people just to be nice isn't really part of it. Good is not his goal- he strives for Balance. I imagine he'd assassinate an angel as readily as he'd imprison an archdevil, if he thought it necessary to one of his plots. He's as likely to be a foe to a party as he is to be a helper. He might even be both.
You are probably right about FR, a setting that's long been known for the good guys being much stronger and more comptenent than the villains. Those poor FR villains are always getting spanked! I suspect that the infamous TSR Code of Ethics had more to do with that than the intentions of Ed Greenwood or most of the other game designers, but I could be totally off-base on this one.
That brings me to something I like about Golarion. It doesn't sugarcoat things. The grit level seems notably higher than in some other settings. It's got some villians with teeth and guts, darn it!
I said helpful but I was struggling for a word that meant not hostile/power-mad. That said on reflection there aren't a lot of those in GH beyond (most of) the circle of eight
I said helpful but I was struggling for a word that meant not hostile/power-mad. That said on reflection there aren't a lot of those in GH beyond (most of) the circle of eight
Ah, yeah, I get you now.
I really miss Elminster. And the Seven Sisters. :(
That being said, how about Baba Yaga? Okay, so she's not around very much, IIRC, but she certainly is present at some times on Golarion, right?
Hmmm. last time I ran FR, I killed Elminster off screen before play began. He was erased from existence by an alliance of his enemies, but not before he managed to kill scads of the lame villains left over from the TSR 'code of Ethics' days. I offed Drizzt, too.Orcs got him, got him so bad he aint ever coming back.
.
The Harpers were ripped to shreds, and the Zhents got new, smart leadership.It was joyous. Player reactions ranged from 'good riddance Mary Sues' to 'OMG, he killed Elminster!' Killing these annoying NPCs really made me feel free to use FR as I pleased. It was the deathknell of restrictive 'canon.' It sent a strong signal to the players that their PCs were the heroes who mattered, and that they could not count on NPCs to save the day.
You just became my favorite FP GM. I hated Elmister and all of the "Mary-Sue" characters. (Its why I refuse to buy anything Greenwood write unless its hidden among other people's stuff, like the APs)
Your idea is the BEST way to run Forgotten Realms...
Now I am happy!
You just became my favorite FP GM. I hated Elmister and all of the "Mary-Sue" characters. (Its why I refuse to buy anything Greenwood write unless its hidden among other people's stuff, like the APs)Your idea is the BEST way to run Forgotten Realms...
Now I am happy!
Thanks. I can provide a link to the background notes, if you like. It's just a page's worth of changes, maybe.
Oh, and by the end of that campaign the PCs' actions had led indrectly to a bloody civil war in Cormyr, although they weren't around to see it.
You might give Greenwood's 'Guns of Alkenstar' a chance. I'm enjoying the heck out of it.
I suspect he'd have given his FR villains a little more punch if TSR hadn't had that darned Code of Ethics in force.
I appreciate the corporate effort to restrain certain things in the name of good taste. That said, it seems to me that TSR in the 90s went too far in cleaning things up.
James M., OSR Pope, reviewed it recently;
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/03/blast-from-past.html
Some of the Code seems reasonable to me, but several other parts strike me as much too 'politically correct.'
What do you think?
I appreciate the corporate effort to restrain certain things in the name of good taste. That said, it seems to me that TSR in the 90s went too far in cleaning things up.
James M., OSR Pope, reviewed it recently;
Some of the Code seems reasonable to me, but several other parts strike me as much too 'politically correct.'
What do you think?
Hmmm... after getting flak for supposedly fostering devil worship and being accused of having caused a death, I can see that they wanted to be very careful about their ethics. I think much of this was implied before being formally codified, I can´t recall that many instances of, say, adventures that supported slavery or crime in general from the early 80ies. The exclusion of any and all topics considered "mature" (sex, drugs, over-the-top violence) or at least the reduction to these topics being only treatable as evil hurts the ability to tell stories that depend on these topics. All in all, it shows an attempt to make the game family safe. That this treatment irked the grognards is understandable, all the more if you see the success of darker games, Vampire foremost, in the 90ies, who had no trouble using all kind of dark topics in their games. Overall, it is too cautious and self-censoring IMO, but understandable given the accusations made earlier.
Stefan
Hmmm... after getting flak for supposedly fostering devil worship and being accused of having caused a death, I can see that they wanted to be very careful about their ethics. I think much of this was implied before being formally codified, I can´t recall that many instances of, say, adventures that supported slavery or crime in general from the early 80ies. The exclusion of any and all topics considered "mature" (sex, drugs, over-the-top violence) or at least the reduction to these topics being only treatable as evil hurts the ability to tell stories that depend on these topics. All in all, it shows an attempt to make the game family safe. That this treatment irked the grognards is understandable, all the more if you see the success of darker games, Vampire foremost, in the 90ies, who had no trouble using all kind of dark topics in their games. Overall, it is too cautious and self-censoring IMO, but understandable given the accusations made earlier.Stefan
I tend to agree, although a few items are just goofy. Number 12, for example. Do we really need a fantasy game to preach abolitionism to us? Come on, guys, stop being so damned PC. :)
I tend to agree, although a few items are just goofy. Number 12, for example. Do we really need a fantasy game to preach abolitionism to us? Come on, guys, stop being so damned PC. :)
I think you were referring to 13, right? But even then, I have no problem with racism and sexism (and demihumanism, and orcism) in the context of the game world. Most game worlds are set to represent a fantasy version of less-enlightened eras of history, where all these things, to say nothing of religious fanatism, were part of the society. That does not mean I would appreciate any such behaviour in reality, far from it. But I sure don´t need a game company enlightening me in that regard. These topics can be interesting to explore in a game, as it remains a safe environment. Again, Vampire has capitalized on it.
Stefan
...those who are already corrupt will have no problem with becoming liches.
The good guys will not do so, though.
Baelnorn. Archliches.
Still, not something entered into lightly.
Where in the core rules do I find those?
Nowhere, that's where! :P
These are a special case in one setting. They don't exist on Golarion, for example. There, liches are pretty much all evil.
I tend to agree, although a few items are just goofy. Number 12, for example. Do we really need a fantasy game to preach abolitionism to us? Come on, guys, stop being so damned PC. :)I think you were referring to 13, right? But even then, I have no problem with racism and sexism (and demihumanism, and orcism) in the context of the game world. Most game worlds are set to represent a fantasy version of less-enlightened eras of history, where all these things, to say nothing of religious fanatism, were part of the society. That does not mean I would appreciate any such behaviour in reality, far from it. But I sure don´t need a game company enlightening me in that regard. These topics can be interesting to explore in a game, as it remains a safe environment. Again, Vampire has capitalized on it.
Stefan
I was referring to the section on slavery, actually.Isn't that number 12?
...those who are already corrupt will have no problem with becoming liches.
The good guys will not do so, though.
Baelnorn. Archliches.
Still, not something entered into lightly.
Where in the core rules do I find those?
Nowhere, that's where! :P
These are a special case in one setting. They don't exist on Golarion, for example. There, liches are pretty much all evil.
Maybe they do exist on HIS Golarion, though.
|
I appreciate the corporate effort to restrain certain things in the name of good taste. That said, it seems to me that TSR in the 90s went too far in cleaning things up.
James M., OSR Pope, reviewed it recently;
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2010/03/blast-from-past.html
Some of the Code seems reasonable to me, but several other parts strike me as much too 'politically correct.'
What do you think?
I spent exactly $0.00 on 2e because of this. FASA made a bunch of money off me though. I was in my 20's, not ten, I didn't need my D&D sanitized.
These are a special case in one setting. They don't exist on Golarion, for example. There, liches are pretty much all evil.
Hehe. And I created two non-evil ones out on the planes. ;)