Goblin Squad Member
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, Goblinoids of all Shapes and Sizes!
Gobbocast is proud to present Episode 11, entitled The Man Behind the Monk. Krow was honored to conduct an interview with the famed Harad Navar, a man of much intrigue and monastic reknown. You'll find he's quite handy with a map, too.
Listen in here on the Gobbocast Website and feel free to leave comments either there or here!
- Krow
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I sound like that?? I actually said that???
Sorry for the clipping of the first words of each phrase. It is possible that my microphone voice-activation threshold is set too high. I failed to mention a second possible build for the monk in EE. The monk has the best saves of any archetype in Pathfinder TT. All the saves a are "good", instead of just one (or in the cleric's case two). If you are thinking of a monk-like build that has good saves you can use a cleric/rouge build. The saves are still 1 less than an actual monk, but they are all in the good category.
My thanks to Krow for asking me to speak. I am grateful for his contribution to this community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He was not the first, but I read it in a book by Noah ben Shea, Jacob the Baker. He compiled a lot of ancient wisdom, mostly from the Jewish traditions, but also from even older sayings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
He was not the first, but I read it in a book by Noah ben Shea, Jacob the Baker. He compiled a lot of ancient wisdom, mostly from the Jewish traditions, but also from even older sayings.
"Knowledge can explain the darkness, but is not the light." ` Harad Navar
Although the concepts of this quote can be found in the Bible, Aristotle, Plato and in Star Wars, the synthesis quoted above is unique enough to be attributed to Harad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"See the light" has become such a common-place phrase that I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite actually carried more rhetorical weight: "See that which is illuminated".
I really like the Harad Navar quote "Knowledge can explain the darkness, but is not the light". The key difference between the Physical and the Spiritual is that the Spiritual is untestable - there are no hard rules by which one can reliably predict the outcome of a given interaction. It is enough for me that Knowledge is able to explain that difference.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"See the light" has become such a common-place phrase that I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite actually carried more rhetorical weight: "See that which is illuminated".
But who is it that determines what is illuminated and what remains in the dark?
Now I'm looking at the rhetorical weight of "See the person who directs the light."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"See the person who directs the light."
I believe the original meaning of the idiom "see the light" referred to finally being able to see the light rather than just what was being illuminated - in the sense of finally being able to see the Source of the beauty in Nature and in Man's Heart. So that your phrasing there captures, I think, the original meaning, and restores some amount of rhetorical weight to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will be giving it a second listening to, some time tonight. There just seemed to be so much information, that it requires multiple listening s.
On a totally joking note..... I think you used your Ki powers to stun Krows into some kind of mesmerized state, he hardly spoke for more than just a few minutes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hah! You wound me with your words, Gentlemen ;)
In defense of myself, I try to speak only when it's necessary; guiding the conversation, assisting the interviewee in direction or feeding in questions that may lead to hidden gems of insight.
Harad is definitely not a man that needs guiding, direction or leading ;)
(I had to listen to it several times myself, Bludd, not just on an editing standpoint. Harad covers some excellent, deep discussions that deserved at least another listen. It was truly an epic interview, and worthy of all previous Gobbocast Interviews!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the listeners would agree that Harad carried his interview well without the interference of my musings (well, without a lot of interference from my musings).
That said, comparing a man to Congress, Mr. Being, is grounds for war* ;)
- Krow
*The views expressed here-in are the views of one Ezekial Krows, and do not reflect any organizations aptitude for violence, any organizations views on policy, nor even that said Krows was serious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I derailed this thread with my joke, and observation, I apologize. I meant only to imply that Harad's interview was so absorbing, it was better to just let him talk.
I personally could not say as much without it becoming a ramble inter dispersed with tangents.
One topic I had hoped Harad would have asked, because we know GW listens to Gobbocast, is if there could be stand alone building structures like Monasteries? Or if a fort, which is already planned, could be skinned to appear like a Monastery.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If monasteries were included in the game at the same time as the monk archetype, functioning as training facilities located inside settlements, would you be ok with that?
Because with similar reasoning and wishes that underlie the sentiment that monasteries should be constructable as PoIs, it could be argued that mage towers, barbarian camps, druid groves, ranger lodges and more would be equally suitable to construct and inhabit outside of settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They're definitely planning to let players build free-standing structures in POI that aren't connected to a Settlement. The blog talks about them having their own PvP windows.
That depends what you mean by "players" and "connected".
Q. Can individuals, groups, or companies own structures in the wilderness? In settlements?
Most structures will be located in player settlements. However, each potential settlement hex is ringed by half a dozen or so wilderness hexes, each with a "point of interest" site where a free-standing structure such as an outlying farm or watchtower can be built. Naturally, it takes a settlement to build a structure in a settlement, but a group or company can claim the point of interest site in an unclaimed wilderness hex and build an appropriate structure there.We expect there will be many more players than space to build individual structures, so we have strict limits on what individual players can "own." There will be a few structures that can be fully owned by a single individual (such as those with the Tavern Owner reward from the Kickstarter), but these will be the exception rather than the rule. In general, structures will be owned by venture companies or settlements, and individual members of the settlement or company will manage the structure on the behalf of their group
An "independent farm" may require that the owning venture company is not connected with a settlement. If they later join a settlement and later leave/get kicked/get conquered, ownership gets messy.
I expect that a group owning a POI building will be treated as a 'settlement' in terms of politics, warfare and diplomacy.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If monasteries were included in the game at the same time as the monk archetype, functioning as training facilities located inside settlements, would you be ok with that?
Of course, if that were the only place monasteries could be built. No monk is an island. I may have to reevaluate the Nettles as it would require a venture company to build/own a future monastery, whether it was a watchtower/fort in a PoI or a building in a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If monasteries were included in the game at the same time as the monk archetype, functioning as training facilities located inside settlements, would you be ok with that?
Because with similar reasoning and wishes that underlie the sentiment that monasteries should be constructable as PoIs, it could be argued that mage towers, barbarian camps, druid groves, ranger lodges and more would be equally suitable to construct and inhabit outside of settlements.
Hear! Hear! <pounds table rhythmically> Let the man speak!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being, you made me smile. :D
However, in case I came across as proposing great variety in PoIs I must have expressed myself poorly. By stating that it could be argued that plenty of other type of "class" structures would be just as suitable as monasteries as PoIs, I wanted to argue that allowing PoI monasteries might not be a great idea.
This was in a way in response to some earlier posts where support was lent to the idea of a PoI monastery.
I don't see how monks should be so privileged compared to other "classes" as to have their own special PoI structure when it could be argued all have equally strong claims to it. And the "fair" alternative of allowing specialized PoI structures for any "class" does not come across as very attractive to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And the "fair" alternative of allowing specialized PoI structures for any "class" does not come across as very attractive to me.
No, not just for specific classes, you are correct. But, if all a "Monastery" is is a skin, for an already existing structure, then it and a variety of others is not really that labor intensive to make.
A Fort, with all of its resource costs and the mechanics that is grants, can be skinned to look like a Monastery, but it is still a fort.
A fort, can be skinned to look like a "Wizards Tower", but still have all of the functions of a fort.
And so on...
The question is, why a POI and not a settlement hex? Someone looking to build / own a Monastery or a Wizard's Tower, does not necessarily want all that goes along with building a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also think that there is a valid tactical advantage to building watchtowers around a potential settlement hex to claim land before it is possible to start building settlements. If the mechanisms for construction settlements comes 4 months into EE, then building structures in PoI to claim hexes between month 1 and month 4 makes some sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is an example of exploiting said tactical advantage assuming that the initial EE area is as depicted in this map:
1) Harad Navar forms the venture company, the Nettles.
2) The Nettles are against slavery. Therefore they would be looking to build a wathctower (eventually a fort) either in the last settlement hex south of Alejia's Crossing or in the PoI hex just north of that. (Time for hex numbers on the next map!)[EDIT: Because this is the road from Fort Inevitable]
3) Fort Sarenrae begins to patrol road to look for slavers as well as clearing out the surrounding hexes.
4) When settlement construction becomes available two things are possible:
a) The Nettles start their own settlement in the settlement hex just south of the fort, or
b) They convince another venture company (or group of companies) to build their instead, negotiating an agreement that Fort Sarenrae will support that settlement in exchange for that settlement banning slavery completely within its influence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have revised the Hypothetical PFO Initial EE Area to include hex numbers. The revised text from the previous post follows (edits in bold):
1) Harad Navar forms the venture company, the Nettles.
2) The Nettles are against slavery. Therefore they would be looking to build a watchtower (eventually a fort) either in the last settlement hex south of Alejia's Crossing (320912) or in the PoI just above it (320811). This location is chosen because this is the road from Fort Inevitable.
3) Fort Sarenrae begins to patrol road to look for slavers as well as clearing out the surrounding hexes.
4) When settlement construction becomes available two things are possible:
a) The Nettles start their own settlement in the settlement hex, or
b) They convince another venture company (or group of companies) to build their instead, negotiating an agreement that Fort Sarenrae will support that settlement in exchange for that settlement banning slavery completely within its influence.