| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mean to sound snippy, but I've written out my little thinkpiece on Death of the Author, like, three times now. So I'm just gonna repost it instead of spending the next half-hour trying to find yet more synonyms for "canon" and "theory". :P
I do think that the "We know the secret, but nobody else does, and we'll never reveal it, so there," attitude from Paizo sort of rings of insecurity. As I've said elsewhere, if you don't put it down on paper, it's not canon—just a theory. Death of the Author, guys. Death of the Author is what has enabled millions of wonderful fan theories about everything from Portal to Lord of the Rings to The Great Gatsby, and when an author shows this sort of "Nuh-uh" attitude towards theories, it hurts that sense of real mystery.
Keith Baker understood how this works. I really respected and admired his take in the Last Issue of Dragon: "What caused the Day of Mourning? I hope we never find out. I have my theories, and you have yours." It made the setting feel more fluid, more flexible. James Jacobs's insistence that his answer is Right and Official makes it a lot less fun to speculate. Paizo could learn a lot from Baker's attitude toward secrets—there is no "right" answer. We each have our own explanation for the Day of Mourning, and I've both seen and played in games where GMs explored just that, because they felt free to do so.
This is why J.K. Rowling's "Oh, yeah, Dumbledore is retroactively gay" declaration isn't real representation, by the way. It's just an author's interpretation. It's also why we can ignore parts of the Star Wars universe that we think are dumb, like the prequels, or the Force-sensitive droid. It's why I'm able to pretend Buffy the Vampire Slayer ended after the fifth season. It's why we ignore Ray Bradbury's idiotic "damn newfangled televisions is ruining books" interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 (seriously, he thinks that's the moral his story about book burning gets across).
Paizo's theory is likely very sound and very well-crafted, since they built the whole setting around it. But until they either put enough clues into their setting to make it guessable (as Alex Hirsch, creator of Gravity Falls, would recommend—why bother with an unsolvable mystery?) or just outright reveal it, it will never be canon. They would do well to accept that.
Please don't pull my teeth. I'm not an expert on Greyhawk, either, and now their wiki's down. :(
If you're running a Greyhawk campaign, guess what? You're the expert for the campaign you're running. Anything you don't already know or don't want to look up - define it. If you're not willing to take on that role for the setting you're running in, you're better off not running.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read it as "We're right, you're wrong", the opposite actually. If they never reveal the events surrounding Aroden's death then the people making their own don't have to worry about being "wrong", because Paizo will never tell. I think at first they did say no to various theories, but as time went on it's now "not saying".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and for context (since it's clear people are reading around my central point), this is the attitude I'm objecting to:
There is no official explanation for what killed Aroden. Like what caused the Day of Mourning, it's intended to be a mystery to all. Paizo isn't just sitting on the secret vault containing the cause of death. The secret is open for all GMs to invent and pick at.
Not true, Cleaver. Jacobs said that they do actually know why Aroden died and they keep it so that everything they publish about it will make sense if it somehow ever gets leaked/revealed, but that he believes there arent nearly enough clues to actually make any reasonable guess as to why in anything presently published.
With all respect and regard to Snakers, who I'm sure didn't mean to offend that pissed me right off. Paizo doesn't have The Answer. They have their own private theory, just like we have our theories. Treating it as anything more than that is both frustrating and hostile towards creativity.
I'm really into Death of the Author as a literary theory. It informs how I consume a lot of my favorite media—such as Portal, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I find this conversation very interesting as a result of that, but I hate the idea of taking Paizo's little private notions as the Official Truth.
|
|
Oh, and for context (since it's clear people are reading around my central point), this is the attitude I'm objecting to:
There is no official explanation for what killed Aroden. Like what caused the Day of Mourning, it's intended to be a mystery to all. Paizo isn't just sitting on the secret vault containing the cause of death. The secret is open for all GMs to invent and pick at.Not true, Cleaver. Jacobs said that they do actually know why Aroden died and they keep it so that everything they publish about it will make sense if it somehow ever gets leaked/revealed, but that he believes there arent nearly enough clues to actually make any reasonable guess as to why in anything presently published.
I'm actually not seeing a difference here. If they never reveal the cause of death there effectively is no official explanation. The cause of the Day of Mourning and the cause of Aroden's death are the same in that regard.
Exactly. There is no official explanation. It is very important that we remember that when James Jacobs, or our fellow posters, claim differently. That's all. :)
And thats the part I think they misshandled. You have an answer to a mystery your never going to reveal thats fine but dont tell everyone you have the answer and are never going to tell them it.James Jacobs has openly stated that Paizo "knows" the "true" answer, but will never share it, and that it's not guessable.
I think that depends on your psychology. To me, that's them telling me "Here are the keys. It's yours now. You decide how Aroden died for your Golarion."
Yeah, I agree with this. There is definitely an upside to declaring some unknowns "things we'll never reveal" - specifically that, if you're running your own adventures but using a published campaign setting you can play around in those areas without the concern that you'll end up down the track with a sourcebook of very little value (since it conflicts with what you did).
In my case, I like tweaking settings but in an additive way. So I like putting things in Golarion that Paizo haven't, but I want everything they publish to be true also (as much as possible, anyhow).
I think it's an aesthetic difference though and a creative choice, not a case of doing it right/wrong or making an "error".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually not seeing a difference here. If they never reveal the cause of death there effectively is no official explanation. The cause of the Day of Mourning and the cause of Aroden's death are the same in that regard.
There could be a difference. As I understand it there is a canonical answer precisely so, when they produce adventures which touch on the central mystery, everything will be internally consistent. In the case of the mournland there was deliberately no canonical answer.
I think the difference lies in how close to the mystery the publisher can go down the track. WotR is all about the Worldwound - Paizo could do that based on their own knowledge about how it all tied in. Similarly, they could publish an "expedition to calm the eye of Abendego" module (or not - they know if such is possible) without worrying that the resolution of such will contradict the logic behind WotR and its resolution.
With Eberron they really can't get as close to 'peripheral' mysteries around the Day of Mourning without coming to some sort of internal understanding about what's actually going on.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aroden's death set up the current era, but we aren't interested in telling stories about Aroden's death. That's why we had that event occur a century BEFORE the current in-game year. We are more interested in telling other stories in a world that, 100 years ago, had a significant change take place.This makes the Gap's centuries of distance from Starfinder's starting point even more curious. Will it have similar distance from the official setting's storytelling?
I'm not part of the Starfinder team and was not involved in the Gap, so I can't say one way or another there. You'll have to talk to folks on the Starfinder team, I guess.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But right now, I'm feeling disappointed and slapped.
Understood. Because I do too after reading this thread.
AKA: Sometimes, if you feel disappointed and slapped, disappointing and slapping others isn't the best way to get your concerns addressed.
And thats the part I think they misshandled. You have an answer to a mystery your never going to reveal thats fine but dont tell everyone you have the answer and are never going to tell them it.James Jacobs has openly stated that Paizo "knows" the "true" answer, but will never share it, and that it's not guessable.
I think that depends on your psychology. To me, that's them telling me "Here are the keys. It's yours now. You decide how Aroden died for your Golarion."
But then, my other favorite campaign setting is Greyhawk, another campaign setting that sketches in a lot of framework but leaves a lot of definition up to the GM.
The thing is there's supposedly a TRUE answer and makes sense of absolutely everything.
"Oh, but you can ignore it and make your own".
Exactly.
I can also ignore prophecies aren't supposed to work. I can also ignore the Worldwound. I can ignore that Aboleths exist. I can ignore that Golarion is a round planet, and not a flat-Earth.
In my headcanon, as people call it, I can do anything.
That's why this argument falls flat in my book. It's a non answer. A "just because".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But right now, I'm feeling disappointed and slapped.Understood. Because I do too after reading this thread.
AKA: Sometimes, if you feel disappointed and slapped, disappointing and slapping others isn't the best way to get your concerns addressed.
I mean, they're not really slapping anyone. They're just stating their frustration with something in Golarion's lore.
|
With Eberron they really can't get as close to 'peripheral' mysteries around the Day of Mourning without coming to some sort of internal understanding about what's actually going on.
Thing is with the stance of there never going to answer what happend to Aroden they cant really get to close either.
Personally I thought the Aroden mystery was pretty good at the start but as time has gone on its grown less and less interesting over things were much more likely to get answers to such as the fate of all the runelords (Both are mysteries but the fact I know one may have an answer given someday as opposed to one that wont makes the first one more interesting.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, while my PCs don't remember Aroden's death, one of my major NPCs does. Or ought to. (I'm talking about Shalelu in Jade Regent, who is written as 130 years old. But I had to bump her age up because the AP allows a "younger sibling" as a starting PC. Since an elven PC has to start at at least age 116, but Shalelu as written has a lot of levels...) I don't have material to use for her, though. And the PC should have grown up with adults who sighed about such things, and the player doesn't even know who Aroden is because I haven't been able to make this BIG BIG BIG part of the setting vivid for her.
I really wish Paizo was willing to explore his death more. I really do. It's frustrating that it's {as I now know} just an airy explanation for all the weirdness in the setting.
No one in the setting knows what happened either. All they have as evidence is all the weird stuff that started happening. You can flesh out an NPC reacting to all the changes in the world without knowing the reason why they happened.
I'm pretty neutral on the question. While I would love to have the answer sometime in the future, I am happy putting together my own theories and watching publications for any scant evidence to test and refine them. I probably won't ever put my theories into play, but I'm okay with that. I'd rather figure out how to go on without him that find a way to bring him back.
|
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, they're not really slapping anyone. They're just stating their frustration with something in Golarion's lore.But right now, I'm feeling disappointed and slapped.Understood. Because I do too after reading this thread.
AKA: Sometimes, if you feel disappointed and slapped, disappointing and slapping others isn't the best way to get your concerns addressed.
"Shoddy work, Mr. Jacobs" sure felt like a slap aimed directly at me, especially when the whole concept of Aroden and his death was not part of the setting that I created.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they probably assume it's your work because you are often positioned as the "head" of Golarion lore. It's an important clarification to make. But criticism of someone's work isn't generally intended as an attack on them. The criticism can become more "directed" if the critic feels like they're being ignored or dismissed, though, which I suppose is how bitter lily is feeling.
"If you don't like it, play someone else," is a rather absolutist response to people criticizing a single small aspect of a vast setting. It has a very dismissive tone, especially since few of them were saying "I hate the entire world because of this one thing."
These are people who like Golarion and wish that this one element of the setting they like had been done differently. The defensive tone you took probably made them feel like they weren't welcome to talk about it.
I personally hate how personal this thread seems to have gotten on both sides.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, give it up.
James has a point but you're so locked in to arguing.
Keith Baker understood how this works. I really respected and admired his take in the Last Issue of Dragon: "What caused the Day of Mourning? I hope we never find out. I have my theories, and you have yours." It made the setting feel more fluid, more flexible. James Jacobs's insistence that his answer is Right and Official makes it a lot less fun to speculate. Paizo could learn a lot from Baker's attitude toward secrets—there is no "right" answer. We each have our own explanation for the Day of Mourning, and I've both seen and played in games where GMs explored just that, because they felt free to do so.
Have you considered the possibility that Jacobs was driven to this kind of response because you all kept pushing the topic, and weren't satisfied with his first answer of "unrevealed"? If he has stated that the answer will NEVER be revealed, than there is no reason not to simply come up with an answer for your own campaigns IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED. Which it might not be. It isn't relevant to any Golarion campaign I run or intend to run in the future.
James said maybe Golarion's not for us if we have a problem with it... but I feel like that's a dramatic overstatement, because Aroden and his mystery is so unimportant it basically doesn't even factor into whether or not I like Golarion.
That's how I feel. I really never cared for Aroden, and he has nothing to do with what I like of golarion and what I don't like about it.
It somewhat surprise me that some people take it so seriously to actually being angry about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just disappointed people are still being so harsh about it.
KC I especially expected better from.
Thing is with the stance of there never going to answer what happend to Aroden they cant really get to close either.
With Eberron they really can't get as close to 'peripheral' mysteries around the Day of Mourning without coming to some sort of internal understanding about what's actually going on.
I don't know - Wrath of the Righteous is one of my all-time favorite APs. The worldwound is of particular use to me as I have one player who (regardless of setting) just loves the 'hordes of demons spilling into the world' trope. As the campaign setting stood I would have been leery to write a campaign on that, despite it being right up his alley - since I know it's related to Aroden's death somehow, so perhaps my resolution will conflict with future plot reveals. When Paizo publish it I still don't know 'the big picture' but I do know that WotR is consistent with whatever that big picture is.
In Eberron, WotC weren't able to do anything whose resolution relied on knowing the answer to 'what caused the mournland' since by design they themselves didn't know.
Things like the worldwound AP are what I was referring to.
James Jacobs's insistence that his answer is Right and Official makes it a lot less fun to speculate. Paizo could learn a lot from Baker's attitude toward secrets—there is no "right" answer. We each have our own explanation for the Day of Mourning, and I've both seen and played in games where GMs explored just that, because they felt free to do so.Have you considered the possibility that Jacobs was driven to this kind of response because you all kept pushing the topic, and weren't satisfied with his first answer of "unrevealed"?
I don't see where James said that, actually. Personally I think it's people (like me) who want to know his answer who are somehow elevating his answer beyond everyone else's. Above, in this thread, James said:
...as a GM, you DO have the power to know everything in your game. In your version of Golarion you WOULD be able to know the truth behind Aroden's death, and what you did with that would be up to you. We wouldn't know what your truth was unless you told us, and for your game that's the truth that matters.
I've also heard from some GMs that they're frustrated with the fact that they don't feel empowered to make Golarion their own because of fears that the way they develop a region might some day in the future be "changed" or rendered "incorrect" when we later publish more info on that region that contradicts the GM's vision. The mystery of Aroden is one such thing that GMs will never have to worry about us contradicting, so that should be a good thing.
I really don't see that as "insisting that his answer is right and official". One of the upsides of Paizo's stance is DM empowerment over the cries of better-read "canonistas".
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keith Baker understood how this works. I really respected and admired his take in the Last Issue of Dragon: "What caused the Day of Mourning? I hope we never find out. I have my theories, and you have yours." It made the setting feel more fluid, more flexible. James Jacobs's insistence that his answer is Right and Official makes it a lot less fun to speculate. Paizo could learn a lot from Baker's attitude toward secrets—there is no "right" answer. We each have our own explanation for the Day of Mourning, and I've both seen and played in games where GMs explored just that, because they felt free to do so.Have you considered the possibility that Jacobs was driven to this kind of response because you all kept pushing the topic, and weren't satisfied with his first answer of "unrevealed"? If he has stated that the answer will NEVER be revealed, than there is no reason not to simply come up with an answer for your own campaigns IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED. Which it might not be. It isn't relevant to any Golarion campaign I run or intend to run in the future.
His "first answer" is the same answer that was given a long time ago. The rest of the thread has been discussing whether we like that answer or not.
Clearly, a lot of people do not. Largely because of what you yourself said. They do not like it because "It's not relevant" when it really should be.
No matter how much you would like it if everybody shut up the second James said something, that's not your call, and it's not something anyone should expect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, give it up.
James has a point but you're so locked in to arguing.
I'm just deeply unhappy with the tone that is being set here by James Jacobs and the detractors.
Have you considered the possibility that Jacobs was driven to this kind of response because you all kept pushing the topic, and weren't satisfied with his first answer of "unrevealed"?
Not really? He can ignore the thread if he wants. We were having a perfectly productive and fun conversation about whether or not we like the mystery (and remember, I do like the mystery).
If he has stated that the answer will NEVER be revealed, than there is no reason not to simply come up with an answer for your own campaigns IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED. Which it might not be. It isn't relevant to any Golarion campaign I run or intend to run in the future.
Sure. But we're just talking about whether the mystery improves the setting or not. Some people feel strongly that it doesn't. Others, like me, like the mystery but dislike how folk tend to view it. And others like it unconditionally. That's why we were, y'know, having a friendly argument about it.
I'm just disappointed people are still being so harsh about it.
For someone who's usually very helpful in keeping threads light, you've chosen to take this argument very personally.
And you're being unusually harsh, what the hell man.
Step back and ponder for awhile.
I was able to admit when I was being rude.
And James is right, Erik Mona did Aroden. Maybe you should go verbally harangue him for a while, or maybe tell him he slapped your kitten when you were ten, or whatever that other person said.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No matter how much you would like it if everybody shut up the second James said something
I am struggling right now to put into words that are less confrontational how I feel about this argument's current direction. Because it is so difficult, I'm just going to use simple statements of fact until I find a better way about it. Bear with me. Or don't. I'm not your boss. I'm not doing this for an emotional appeal, I just really want it to be clear what sort of place I'm writing this post from.
I feel hurt and unwelcome. I don't feel angry. I don't feel afraid, but I do feel startled. I am surprised and confused, though not that confused. I feel alienated. Okay, I think I have a grip on these feelings. Now let's go and break this down.
When complaining about elements of Paizo lore or rules, people have a tendency to be overly harsh initially. I have myself fallen victim to that when discussing Pathfinder Unchained. Because we expect not to be heard, we are overly aggressive with our language—partially out of frustration over that certainty. When we are unexpectedly heard, as has happened here, many of us regret the way we went about our original complaints.
I have throughout this thread maintained a tone I believe is friendly and in the spirit of literary conversation, because I find the topic deeply interesting and enjoy arguing over it. I know some people who also have complaints to levy have been more aggressive or more hostile. That's not great. I have worked very carefully to stay civil and friendly, and, more importantly, to avoid using casual humor or remarks that could come across as aggressive or hostile. Nonetheless, I have been accused of "verbally haranguing" James Jacobs.
And now I feel like I am being pressured to, as the honorable Captain said, "drop it". There is a great deal of respect on these forums for James Jacobs, which I understand—he is a major presence and a major voice and he has created a setting many of us love. But I do not think he has handled this thread well. I think he is making people feel unwelcome. I think he has seen the aggressive language and taken very strong offense where none was truly intended, and now this thread is spiraling as those who originally spoke mildly in the Secret's defense now treat us like abusive trolls. Or something. I don't know what I'm being attacked for.
Don't tell me to drop it. Don't tell me to drop it. Don't try to shut me down, shut me up or deny me the right to challenge. Nobody is attacking James Jacobs. Nobody is attacking anybody. You don't need to defend him.
All my love to everyone. Can we bring back the conversation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even a conversation about how the conversation has gone downhill would be better than the current tone. Please, if there are things I have said that really do come across as attacks, write them up and let me know. I will read and I will listen, and I will respond with an open mind. Hell, PM me, if you prefer. But this "Just stop" attitude is only going to make people feel like they're being talked down to.
Oh, and also, clarify how you feel about this argument. Are you asking us to drop the argument about Aroden and Golarion's weaknesses, or just drop the argument about who slapped who? Because both are complicated requests.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope it's not like the end of LOST. Something really banal like "Aroden was in you all along" "Aroden is in all of us" "Aroden is a polarbear in a jungle" etc
Conscience goblins have taken over KC HQ and are forcing a decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Woah. This just... exploded.
I would like to formally apologize if I, in any way, harmed the positive experience of anyone here or on staff - that was not my intent, but rather to communicate my current feelings on a particular bit of the setting and lore and the events surrounding that.
I recognize, in retrospect, how that could cast poor light on someone's work, and, frankly, that's not my intent, and I'm sorry for any word choice that implied otherwise - I think that, over-all, the team does fantastic work, even when they put that work or spin it in ways different from my preferences. I like Golarion, and I like what is written and how, for the most part. It's why I keep buying the stuff, when I can afford it.
For the rest - I'm just going to peace out. Thanks to everyone who participated in a civil and pleasant manner.
Well, they probably assume it's your work because you are often positioned as the "head" of Golarion lore. It's an important clarification to make. But criticism of someone's work isn't generally intended as an attack on them. The criticism can become more "directed" if the critic feels like they're being ignored or dismissed, though, which I suppose is how bitter lily is feeling.
"If you don't like it, play someone else," is a rather absolutist response to people criticizing a single small aspect of a vast setting. It has a very dismissive tone, especially since few of them were saying "I hate the entire world because of this one thing."
These are people who like Golarion and wish that this one element of the setting they like had been done differently. The defensive tone you took probably made them feel like they weren't welcome to talk about it.
I personally hate how personal this thread seems to have gotten on both sides.
Well, I'm sorry. I originally read this as more critical.
I see now I was wrong. :-)
Edit: You do need to stop living your life according to Death By An Author though.
I love Fargo, but you don't see me starting a turf war in the middle of nowhere.
That's more of a February activity.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm stress-eating cookies right now. When I get stressed over an argument, it's usually a sign that I've done something wrong. Or I'm arguing about the swarm-splash weapons thing again.
So, a few clarifications, first off. This is gonna be a bit rambly. I'm not in my best "proofreading" mode right now. *munches cookies*
- I never blamed James Jacobs for this element in the lore. That is primarily because I enjoy the element. My mentions of James Jacobs have been restricted to a conversation I had with several others about Death of the Author.
- I have disliked the hostile or aggressive tone some chose to use to complain about things in the lore they disliked. I've mentioned that a few times, but I never really undertook any effort to call it out for its own sake—always, my comments were as sidenotes and disclaimers. "Those people are being rude, sure, BUT..." That was wrong. It is not good to take on a hostile manner when complaining about game developers' choices. They are people and they might well read what you write. It's an understandable error that I myself have made, but it's not appropriate.
- I hadn't read the whole thread when I started posting here. As such, there might well have been context I've missed. Forgetting that and arguing anyway is a rookie error.
- I was projecting a little bit. James Jacobs spoke in seeming condemnation of the thread just a few posts after my criticisms of a post of his. I linked them together. It was reckless to do.
So here's the thing. I think that criticism of the setting is perfectly healthy and enjoyable, and I think that some people—including James Jacobs—have taken it personally because of the aggressive way some other people argued it. But my post on the "who-slapped-who" issue was unnecessary, and my followup posts rambles about those criticizing me was, well, rambling and pointless. I apologize to James Jacobs, and to all of those I've offended or annoyed. I misstepped.
I might have a better apology, or defense of my sort of awkward handling of all this, in the morning. I hope this will suffice in the meantime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they probably assume it's your work because you are often positioned as the "head" of Golarion lore. It's an important clarification to make. But criticism of someone's work isn't generally intended as an attack on them. The criticism can become more "directed" if the critic feels like they're being ignored or dismissed, though, which I suppose is how bitter lily is feeling.
"If you don't like it, play someone else," is a rather absolutist response to people criticizing a single small aspect of a vast setting. It has a very dismissive tone, especially since few of them were saying "I hate the entire world because of this one thing."
These are people who like Golarion and wish that this one element of the setting they like had been done differently. The defensive tone you took probably made them feel like they weren't welcome to talk about it.
I personally hate how personal this thread seems to have gotten on both sides.
Well, I'm sorry. I originally read this as more critical.
I see now I was wrong. :-)
Maybe we're just stupid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry I made you stress eat.
I also overreacted due to the general tone.
My sincerest apologies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, hell, not eating makes me stress eat. Don't worry about it.
Maybe we're just stupid.Well, they probably assume it's your work because you are often positioned as the "head" of Golarion lore. It's an important clarification to make. But criticism of someone's work isn't generally intended as an attack on them. The criticism can become more "directed" if the critic feels like they're being ignored or dismissed, though, which I suppose is how bitter lily is feeling.
"If you don't like it, play someone else," is a rather absolutist response to people criticizing a single small aspect of a vast setting. It has a very dismissive tone, especially since few of them were saying "I hate the entire world because of this one thing."
These are people who like Golarion and wish that this one element of the setting they like had been done differently. The defensive tone you took probably made them feel like they weren't welcome to talk about it.
I personally hate how personal this thread seems to have gotten on both sides.
Well, I'm sorry. I originally read this as more critical.
I see now I was wrong. :-)
I hear a turf war in the middle of nowhere is a great stress reliever. You betcha!
My wife got me the first two seasons for Christmas, I've been watching them a lot since school resumed. :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, I'm dyslexic, with words.
Mostly I accidentally skip a word or three, sometimes I get them jumbled, or what I want to say is not what actually comes across.
What happens when I read is my brain will add words, skip words or it will come across in my brain a different way in tone.
It's something i've been working on, a lot, here actually, but it's still a struggle.
So if I ever come across as superior or egotistical, I'm sorry, that's not how I want to come across, it's not an easy medium for me to communicate with, but I'm getting better at it. :-)
I'm mostly just cranking this nonstop.
Try Bambous if you need a change. Like many things I enjoy, this was introduced to me in the context of TF2.
Good band.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah. This just... exploded.
I would like to formally apologize if I, in any way, harmed the positive experience of anyone here or on staff - that was not my intent, but rather to communicate my current feelings on a particular bit of the setting and lore and the events surrounding that.
I recognize, in retrospect, how that could cast poor light on someone's work, and, frankly, that's not my intent, and I'm sorry for any word choice that implied otherwise - I think that, over-all, the team does fantastic work, even when they put that work or spin it in ways different from my preferences. I like Golarion, and I like what is written and how, for the most part. It's why I keep buying the stuff, when I can afford it.
For the rest - I'm just going to peace out. Thanks to everyone who participated in a civil and pleasant manner.
Hey, if anyone has to apologize its me for opening the rabbit hole in first place :'D Like, I was afraid people would be really rude and stuff because they are more often than not people seem to get really easily angry on public forums, but I felt I had to ask it for my own selfish reasons. I love the setting and all, but I'm really prone to feeling like a weirdo or an outsider to communities (I don't think there is any community I don't feel outsider to... I don't really have many friends and people are scary) so I'm prone to being anxious about "Am I only one who thinks like this?" so I wanted confirmation on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How Golarion has handled Aroden seems too academic for the medium of a tabletop roleplaying setting. Okay, sure Aroden's death caused x, y, and z which leads up the current state. But it doesn't seem to affect anything Now.
And since there will never be answers on it, there's not really much to inspire plot hooks that would make it relevant to current golarion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the decay that happened to the Serpent Folk after the 'death' of Ydersius, I am honestly surprised that more humans are not attempting to find out what happened to Aroden and fix it, before the same decay affects humans. Or maybe it already has. Hrrm. Interesting thought: perhaps the assassination of Aroden was a potentially successful attempt to destroy all humans?
|
|
Before posting I had actually thought I was only one who thinks like this and upon posting this thread I would get called out stupid or something worse..(thats why I was already being really defensive in opening post) I didn't think some would actually agree and that it would lead to really passive aggressive debate about it... I'm now feeling even worse I brought it up than I would have been if everyone had just called be stupid instead... I'm sorry everyone..
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before posting I had actually thought I was only one who thinks like this and upon posting this thread I would get called out stupid or something worse..(thats why I was already being really defensive in opening post) I didn't think some would actually agree and that it would lead to really passive aggressive debate about it... I'm now feeling even worse I brought it up than I would have been if everyone had just called be stupid instead... I'm sorry everyone..
Don't stress. We're each responsible for our own posts, you don't bear any responsibility for what the rest of us have posted just because you started the thread.