AMIA ARCHIVE
https://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/

Another one bites the Dust? (to 4E)
https://www.amiaworld.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=39202		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Dark Immolation [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 20:16 PM ]
Post subject:  Another one bites the Dust? (to 4E)
Someone who is a lot wiser and smarter than me please answer one thing.

What. The. Freak. Has happened to Aasimar, now called Devas apparently, in 4E?

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Aasimar


So....what? Aasimar are... immortal. Double-You, Tee, Eff?

Someone please tell me, not like I was ever gonna play under 4E rules, but is this supposed to be retroactive as well? Is it a result of the spellplauge that Aasimar(no, I will NOT call them devas) all look like something out of WoW?

Really, am I in the wrong to want 4E incarnated into a human form, so I could push it off a cliff?
Author:  TormakSaber [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 20:20 PM ]
Post subject: 
That is the new 'Aasimar', yes. They're angels who forever forsake their own immortality and life in Ceelstia to be endlessly reincarnated to fight evil. The utilize the collective knowledge of dozens, hundreds of lifetimes to help them in their fight blah blah blah....

I actually think it's a cool concept but they made a bad move by replacing Aasimar with them. They'd be better off as a different sort of angel.
Author:  Dark Immolation [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 20:32 PM ]
Post subject: 
Yes, the concept is cool, but like you said, it's the replacing it that's a bad move. I mean, just add it as a new race if anything.

The part that urks me is the retroactive implications. It's bad enough with the deity disguises lifted in 4E, but saying that a whole subrace is and has always been immortal is just... bizzare.

"Hey Aasimar, you know all those awesome adventures you went on, some of which may have very well involved you going to the Fugue Plane?"

"Yeah, what about them?"

"Um...you were never there... and you're immortal. And you now have glowing tatoos all over your body. No more blending in for you! You've live a thousand times, and you may have not always been the gender you are now! :D "

"I...am.... going to eat you. Yes, I'm going to eat your face."

Makes for a great fantasy Soap Opera, but I think I'm going to add an asterix when refering to 4E as D&D. As is:

"4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons*: Because making sense is overated."
Author:  TormakSaber [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 22:49 PM ]
Post subject: 
Tell that to *Genasi*.

"You're an Air Genasi? No... n you're not. You're a "Genasi". And you might be Windsoul. But you can manifest Earthsoul too, if you take a feat. Yes, you can be an Earth and an Air Genasi. Simultaneously."

"wat."

"Oh but now you have +2 STR and +2 int with no penalties."

"SIGN ME UP!"
Author:  IronAngel [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 23:05 PM ]
Post subject: 
Well, the deal with the races is quite weird. Same with elves: there are no elven subraces, there are eladrin and elves. Or something like that, I don't know. Eh, and you do know what they did to the Lower Plane denizens, right?

The concept of 4e is fine, really: it's a new game, an updated version of an old concept. There's no reason a new game should respect the rules and traditions of old games. Someone once made an arbitrary decision that Elves are like this, Planetouched are like that, and this is the difference between Devils and Demons. New designers thought it was silly, boring, or just that it was time for something new. So they made a new arbitrary decision and came up with something different. That's cool.

What isn't cool is the inevitable problem they'll face: there are many gameworlds, everything from Blackmoor to Eberron, Ravenloft to the Realms. These worlds have a lot of literature, campaign modules, fans and tradition related to them. They already exist quite independently in the collective consciousness of fantasy readers and gamers. Obviously, it's not a smart business move to launch a new setting and let go of huge money-makers like Greyhawk and FR, so the new game has to be forced into a world it doesn't fit. I guess you could do that more subtly than WotC have, but the result would still be inevitable: it won't be the same world, because the rules have changed completely. Granted, it might be just as cool or even better, but there will be loyalists like us who're just mighty pissed that they had to bring their new game into our old world.


It's a fun idea, but as you said: trying to forge a complete transition between classic Realms and 4e Realms is extremely awkward thanks to these different rules, and I think it's a lost cause. Some things will cross over really well, others simply won't. If I were to play the 4e Realms, I'd think of it as an entirely different setting that never followed the rules of previous editions. It's a new game, so I'd start in a new world too, even if it happens to have the same name and some of the features of the previous one. Those who seek a smooth historical explanation for the edition-jump will only condemn themselves to sleepless nights and gray hairs!
Author:  Kjetta [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 23:09 PM ]
Post subject: 
Luckily, I know the correct amount of lore to have fun without any worries!
Author:  BlackDahlya [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 23:12 PM ]
Post subject: 
IronAngel wrote:
Well, the deal with the races is quite weird. Same with elves: there are no elven subraces, there are eladrin and elves. Or something like that, I don't know. Eh, and you do know what they did to the Lower Plane denizens, right?

The concept of 4e is fine, really: it's a new game, an updated version of an old concept. There's no reason a new game should respect the rules and traditions of old games. Someone once made an arbitrary decision that Elves are like this, Planetouched are like that, and this is the difference between Devils and Demons. New designers thought it was silly, boring, or just that it was time for something new. So they made a new arbitrary decision and came up with something different. That's cool.

What isn't cool is the inevitable problem they'll face: there are many gameworlds, everything from Blackmoor to Eberron, Ravenloft to the Realms. These worlds have a lot of literature, campaign modules, fans and tradition related to them. They already exist quite independently in the collective consciousness of fantasy readers and gamers. Obviously, it's not a smart business move to launch a new setting and let go of huge money-makers like Greyhawk and FR, so the new game has to be forced into a world it doesn't fit. I guess you could do that more subtly than WotC have, but the result would still be inevitable: it won't be the same world, because the rules have changed completely. Granted, it might be just as cool or even better, but there will be loyalists like us who're just mighty pissed that they had to bring their new game into our old world.


It's a fun idea, but as you said: trying to forge a complete transition between classic Realms and 4e Realms is extremely awkward thanks to these different rules, and I think it's a lost cause. Some things will cross over really well, others simply won't. If I were to play the 4e Realms, I'd think of it as an entirely different setting that never followed the rules of previous editions. It's a new game, so I'd start in a new world too, even if it happens to have the same name and some of the features of the previous one. Those who seek a smooth historical explanation for the edition-jump will only condemn themselves to sleepless nights and gray hairs!


A friend told me that elves now have all the same "breed", but different cultures, which reminds me of Phearnum's thread some time ago about Specism.

I guess it means that the elven drow culture makes them... dye their skin, so they will look different than the elves?

Go figure!

And yet, in FR they appear as drow. So.. core there's only eladrin and elf, but FR has both plus drow? What about the Dark Elves who were "recreated" on Lisa Smedman's trilogy? I am yet to see mention of them in the FRCS.
Author:  IronAngel [ Fri, Jun 26 2009, 23:22 PM ]
Post subject: 
That's exactly the awkwardness of trying to force a game into a world that has different rules than the game. It simply fails, and the patchwork that results from them trying to specify some details, retcon others and explain inconsistencies will be even more confusing and complicated than the Realms before the transition: which is exactly what they wanted to avoid, or so they said.

The day we start seeing regular explanations and answers to player questions about the "exceptions" and inconsistencies with the past is the day I do something I very rarely do: I lol at WotC. >_>
Author:  BlackDahlya [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 0:11 AM ]
Post subject: 
@Iron
It's really a shame they did not use the story. The trilogy of The Lady Penitent was a good one.
Author:  Bravo21 [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 0:14 AM ]
Post subject: 
I see this as simply the resulting mindlessness that is the fate of all large organizations. Case in point, Microsoft has made this their business model for decades. Rather than correct an unstable operating system, they simply produce a new version with even more of the same mistakes as the preivious version. This is accompished by devoting more resources to the new version than fixing the old one in an effort to remain current. Most organizatons have a specific goal in mind when created, however as the organizastion grows the focus becomes serving the organization rather than the original goal.

WotC released 4E to have something in the marketplace, I wonder what the original goal was? It doesn't seem to be holding on to fans and loyal patrons....

*Sigh*
Author:  Yurell [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 0:35 AM ]
Post subject: 
TormakSaber wrote:
That is the new 'Aasimar', yes. They're angels who forever forsake their own immortality and life in Ceelstia to be endlessly reincarnated to fight evil. The utilize the collective knowledge of dozens, hundreds of lifetimes to help them in their fight blah blah blah....

I actually think it's a cool concept but they made a bad move by replacing Aasimar with them. They'd be better off as a different sort of angel.


I agree with this.

IronAngel wrote:
There's no reason a new game should respect the rules and traditions of old games.


There is if they intend to keep canonical continuity.

IronAngel wrote:
I guess you could do that more subtly than WotC have, but the result would still be inevitable: it won't be the same world, because the rules have changed completely. Granted, it might be just as cool or even better, but there will be loyalists like us who're just mighty pissed that they had to bring their new game into our old world.


They could have been less ... enthusiastic about it. The gap between 2nd and 3rd edition lore wasn't as an extreme rewriting as this IIRC, given by the fact we are often using 2nd ed lore.
Author:  Galenson [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 2:41 AM ]
Post subject: 
Orcs in 4e are just so much nastier with Gruumsh being the father of destruction now that Talos is gone.

This time the orcs might win against those pesky pointy eared fey wannabes calling themselves elves.
Author:  Nekhy [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 3:01 AM ]
Post subject: 
They should have simply made a new game with new worlds and creatures if they wanted these changes, not assrape the core bits of the old leaving a strange hybrid.

This kind of development of 4th edition lore is basically simulated evolution (in its biological sense). Take something old, twist it up and leave all sort of old bits hanging from it to end up with something that functions adequetly to serve a purpose but isn't quite the finished product you could have had you started from scratch (also one of the best arguments against intelligent design, btw; the 'design' is not intelligent by any standards, rather 'retarded design').

But why make it worse when you can do better? Me not understand, but me not have to understand. Me just skip 4th edition, except for the random rant.
Author:  IronAngel [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 8:57 AM ]
Post subject: 
Nekhy wrote:
They should have simply made a new game with new worlds and creatures if they wanted these changes, not assrape the core bits of the old leaving a strange hybrid.


This is pretty much it, I suppose. There's a good idea with 4e, and the signs of taking the right direction. From what I've seen (though I haven't studied the rules much), it's a good, fun game. When you're making a game, that should be the priority. Not "canonical continuity." You can't really be blamed for making money, either: it's your job, and a game that makes money is a game that people buy, so it's probably an entertaining game.

It would have been cool if they took these new ideas and created something completely novel. Another core setting with these core rules. I don't mind that the creatures are the same, that's pretty much a staple of the genre. Or if they were intent on using the old worlds, they could've done some "What If" alternative universe thing, Marvel-style.

Different versions of a game can co-exist quite easily. I have no problems having Final Fantasy IV and XII side by side on my shelf. Problem is, the worlds exist outside the games, too. They exist in literature, video games, people's home campaigns and servers like Amia, and most importantly in our heads. For people who want to continue their campaigns in the same world, but swap to 4e, are screwed. People who want to keep reading Realms novels and keep to the classic world, are screwed. People who're playing the 4e Realms but want to study its history, are screwed.

They should've had the balls to say the worlds for this new game are completely seperate from the old worlds. I guess it would still have been tasteless to do what they did to FR, but it wouldn't have bothered anyone: it's an alternate reality, and it's not connected to the classic world. There's no need to sort out inconsistencies and bridge the gap. But ideally, they should've gone all the way with a new game and created a new world.


And to answer Yurell: I don't think it would've mattered if they were more subtle with it. Classic Realms would still have been incompatible with the new rules. 2e-3e worked fine because there were minimal changes to the world and rules regarding it, the worst one being the cosmology retcon. Most changes concerned character classes etc. But if the premise is that Aasimar are now immortal Deva, that Gold Elves never existed but are called Eladrin instead, and that all the wilder stuff are the same Elven race, that Devils and Demons are no longer seperated by the Chaos/Law axis, both with their unique monsters, but instead demons are now gross and devils look human (or something), well.. you're not going to write that into the Realms and keep it the same. They shouldn't even have tried, IMO. The patchwork of half-arse explanations is much worse than violent retcons, too: ooh, so there are many cultures of elves, with physical and historical differences, but they're still the same races! It's just embarassing.
Author:  Dark Immolation [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 8:57 AM ]
Post subject: 
The real thing I wanna know is this:

I know the indentities of deities revealed in 4e is retroactive, just no one on Toril knows them during that time.

Is it the same for the races of Aasimar and Genasi then? As in aasimar -are- actually reincarnated spirits in 3e and just don't know it and genasi -can- manifest different elements, just none have?
Author:  Yurell [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 9:02 AM ]
Post subject: 
Dark Immolation wrote:
The real thing I wanna know is this:

I know the indentities of deities revealed in 4e is retroactive, just no one on Toril knows them during that time.

Is it the same for the races of Aasimar and Genasi then? As in aasimar -are- actually reincarnated spirits in 3e and just don't know it and genasi -can- manifest different elements, just none have?


Think 1984 - Wizard reached back into the past and said "this did not happen" as far as racial changes went, methinks.

Edit: Found the quote (1984 is Public Domain here so <3 Project Gutnberg)
"... the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or
that event, IT NEVER HAPPENED"
Replace 'Party' with 'WotC'.
Author:  IronAngel [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 9:07 AM ]
Post subject: 
No, it's not retroactive. It's a different game, and the deities in 3.5e aren't what they are in 4e. From 4e's perspective it is retroactive, because "that's how it's always been" but it's a different game and a different world.

It's the same as playing 2e with the old cosmology: you don't have the Great Tree just because 3e assumes "it was always like that." 2e plays with the Great Wheel, and you follow the rules of the edition you're playing.
Author:  Yurell [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 9:10 AM ]
Post subject: 
So my 1984 point was accurate?

But basically it can be summed up with another piece of doublethink: "Aasimar are Devas. Aasimar have always been Devas."
Author:  IronAngel [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 9:16 AM ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, I should say so.

It's a game. The rules exist here and now, as they're printed. If a new game is published, that doesn't change the rules of the old one (though the old one might affect the new one, if you want to use its help in interpretation). I don't get to use Gambits in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance just because they're in use in FFXII Ivalice.
Author:  GreatPigeon [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 10:11 AM ]
Post subject: 
I played tactics for Game Boy, I think the SP version though?
Author:  J.G. [ Sat, Jun 27 2009, 20:22 PM ]
Post subject: 
Forgotten realms should remain 3.5e but continue to move forward threw time(not the one WotC thought up), and Eberron should be the one to use 4e.

Eberron=4e

Forgotten realms=3.5e

:!: :!: :!:
Author:  Galenson [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 2:44 AM ]
Post subject: 
4e from what I've heard was wiping the clean slate so that it could attract new players. Hence I've heard the game itself is simpler and easier to pick up and play which is what the developers wanted.

Same applies to the lore aswell. The focus was to get new players on their feet without having to dig up 20 years of game notes. 4e makes everything prior to it irrelevant which is what the designers wanted.

Although there's some things in the 4e lore I really like, a cataclysmic tiberium xenophorming approach with the spell plague wasn't the best medium I think to kick in those changes.
Author:  Yurell [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 2:56 AM ]
Post subject: 
While the end results may have been 'good' (depending on perspective), the instigation was an awful, thinly-veiled Deus ex Machina.
Author:  Dark Immolation [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 3:35 AM ]
Post subject: 
Yurell wrote:
While the end results may have been 'good' (depending on perspective), the instigation was an awful, thinly-veiled Deus ex Machina.


Exactly. Shamelessly done, at that.

Along the same lines, can someone please tell me what the difference is in Eladrin and Elves in 4e? I know the latter is descended from the former, but what -is- the difference really?
Author:  FA_Frey_XC [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 3:40 AM ]
Post subject: 
Nekhy wrote:
They should have simply made a new game with new worlds and creatures if they wanted these changes, not assrape the core bits of the old leaving a strange hybrid.


Am I the only one who thought this was the best part of this thread ?

:lol:

Wait.. that doesn't sound right.. not right at all.

Carry on.

*sigh*

Regards,
Author:  Selvec Darkon [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 7:46 AM ]
Post subject: 
Should have made it a new game and named it "World of DnD".
Author:  Mountain of Madness [ Sun, Jun 28 2009, 21:24 PM ]
Post subject: 
4E was designed to mimic computer RPGs on pen and paper. I won't be surprised if 5th Edition is just renamed World of Warcraft. Because it mimics computer RPGs like World of Warcraft, most of the creativity you may have enjoyed with 3E is thrown out the window.

4E D&D rules center around combat only. All non-combat aspects of the game have been removed and is relegated to role play. That includes the removal of utility spells non-combat related skills. A lot of people like this because it removes "needless" dice rolling for many tasks. However, I dislike it because important aspects like riding a horse (or a gryphon) are second nature to anyone and everyone. Everyone knows how to ride a horse bareback. Everyone can cook a perfect soufflet.

It also means you can't make a skill-based character or a utility wizard.

They've simplified the combat rules. There is no difference between a Ranger with a bow and a Wizard using Magic Missile, both attacks are simply ranged attacks that you roll to hit (yes, you have to roll to hit with Magic Missile.) Pretty much everyone is some type of fighter, even the magic users.

Classes have very specific roles. A fighter is a fighter. A mage is a mage. A cleric is a cleric. Basically, you can't use classes as they weren't intended, like a Fighter that is really smart because you dumped a bunch of points into Knowledge ranks. Everything is very cookie cutter.

Just forget about multi-classing.

You'll probably be disenchanted with the magic items in 4E. They're also formulaic and boring since nearly all of them are combat oriented.


However, if you like World of Warcraft (which is obviously their target audience) you'll probably enjoy 4th Edition.
Author:  Galenson [ Mon, Jun 29 2009, 8:25 AM ]
Post subject: 
As I said. Starting fresh.
Author:  Kjetta [ Mon, Jun 29 2009, 8:41 AM ]
Post subject: 
Many details of 4e I don't like, but I've heard that post-spellplague Faerun is darker and more dangerous. That I dig.
Author:  Selvec Darkon [ Mon, Jun 29 2009, 21:54 PM ]
Post subject: 
Kjetta wrote:
Many details of 4e I don't like, but I've heard that post-spellplague Faerun is darker and more dangerous. That I dig.


And the cosmology isn't a god damned nightmare. Glad they cleaned it up. I personally also enjoy the new set up of gods. Sorry guy's, but FR had to many gods, and yes its upsetting many of our fav's are now dead, but fuck it if it's not easier to deal with now.
Author:  Yurell [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 2:22 AM ]
Post subject: 
Selvec Darkon wrote:
Kjetta wrote:
Many details of 4e I don't like, but I've heard that post-spellplague Faerun is darker and more dangerous. That I dig.


And the cosmology isn't a god damned nightmare. Glad they cleaned it up. I personally also enjoy the new set up of gods. Sorry guy's, but FR had to many gods, and yes its upsetting many of our fav's are now dead, but (censored) it if it's not easier to deal with now.


It's not the changes that annoy me so much as the way they were brought about. It's like playing a game and someone suddenly changes all the rules so the game completely changes before switching them back again (I'm not talking about the mechanics change).
Basically, Wizard ignored everything that was stopping this from happening - simply assassinating the Chosen of Mystra would have been a brilliant move to a more in depth conspiracy to make Spellplague an IC event rather than a nasty piece of deus ex machina to just rewrite the game.
Author:  TormakSaber [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 4:08 AM ]
Post subject: 
Selvec Darkon wrote:
Kjetta wrote:
Many details of 4e I don't like, but I've heard that post-spellplague Faerun is darker and more dangerous. That I dig.


And the cosmology isn't a god damned nightmare. Glad they cleaned it up. I personally also enjoy the new set up of gods. Sorry guy's, but FR had to many gods, and yes its upsetting many of our fav's are now dead, but (censored) it if it's not easier to deal with now.


Ugh, but the huge number of gods is what gave FR its flavor over other things.
Author:  Yurell [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 4:11 AM ]
Post subject: 
TormakSaber wrote:
Selvec Darkon wrote:
Kjetta wrote:
Many details of 4e I don't like, but I've heard that post-spellplague Faerun is darker and more dangerous. That I dig.


And the cosmology isn't a god damned nightmare. Glad they cleaned it up. I personally also enjoy the new set up of gods. Sorry guy's, but FR had to many gods, and yes its upsetting many of our fav's are now dead, but (censored) it if it's not easier to deal with now.


Ugh, but the huge number of gods is what gave FR its flavor over other things.


To be honest, the vast numbers of gods was (is, dammit! Is!) one of the things I loved best about FR.
Author:  Dwagin [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 5:31 AM ]
Post subject: 
TormakSaber wrote:

Ugh, but the huge number of gods is what gave FR its flavor over other things.


QFE

Monotheistic modern 'culture'.. limited attention span.. *curmy mutter*

There was tons of developed lore and in game flavor that they just threw away for no good reason. It is that stuff geeks like me dig, and it irritated me.

The only thing I can think of is they're going to try another MMO or spoon feed it in the new 'streamlined' for the younger generations. D&D was always the geek's game. Leave it geeky for pity's sake.

Its like someone chiseling Michaelangelo's 'David's' twig-n-berries off and them being put on a velvet pillow on display and expecting it to have the same effect as the whole piece of art.
Author:  Selvec Darkon [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 11:27 AM ]
Post subject: 
Well it was very cluttered, I mean, how many nature gods do you really need?

Also I believe two gods of war, more then three gods that basically held the "Justice" look and feel. Then nevermind the race gods which made no sense really considering most of them held EXACTLY the same portfolio's except for a race.

I think it makes more sense now.

Least we forget the planes, jesus, add those in and mess rain down. It did ruin a lot. But only a bit more then what 3.0 did to 2.0
Author:  Galenson [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 12:47 PM ]
Post subject: 
I agree with Selvec. FR had too many gods doing the same thing. For example:

Deities with destruction portfolios:
-Gruumsh
-Talos
-Umberlee
-Illneval
-That Demondude I can't remember the name of.

Deities with Death/Undeath portfolios:
-Velsharoon
-Yurtrus
-Kiaransalee


The kulling was great. Drow are now evil, Gruumsh is more powerful then ever, there's no more Mystra... but I didn't like the slaughter of the Duergar gods.
Author:  Nekhy [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 13:02 PM ]
Post subject: 
Why should you only have one flavour of juice? Or one brand of margarine? What are you people, communists preferring state-selected generic fits-all-sizes products?

It's not that you absolutely need to have more than one nature deity. I mean, you don't need other than EA games or pink dotty socks, either.

It's more fun to have a bit of selection and a bit of clashing and variety.
Author:  Galenson [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 13:16 PM ]
Post subject: 
I'm fine with variety. But why go to excessive amounts and create 250+?

Mielikki and Malar, perfect opposing combo. Are Nobanion and Eldath really needed when you think about it?
Author:  Nekhy [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 13:41 PM ]
Post subject: 
Are most of the things, like variety in weapons and spells etc., in this game really needed? Or are they just there for the fun of it?

Do you really need hundreds of flavours of ice cream or candy? Or do they just exist for the fun of it, to please our tastebuds?

With a game, the fun factor is more crucial than with flavours of ice cream. Fun is the raison d'être of the game, after all.
Author:  IronAngel [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 15:06 PM ]
Post subject: 
If anything, I wish there were more deities in FR. And that the local demigods, spirits and divine heroes that probably exist in abundance were more detailed. Why couldn't there be a protector deity of a single city or nation? And I'd really like to see several patrons saints and tiny deities for things like ale, livestock, pottery, logic and mathematics, and whatever you can think of. That's what would make the world seem even more alive.

The idea of a small, efficent and clearly defined pantheon is a boring fantasy cliché, and doesn't reflect the reality of polytheistic religions and myths worldwide.
Author:  Nekhy [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 15:41 PM ]
Post subject: 
That's how it goes in real life. We're far too used to globalisation of religion, and religion in the west and middle-east, to think outside the box.
Author:  Yurell [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 15:43 PM ]
Post subject: 
Nekhy wrote:
That's how it goes in real life. We're far too used to globalisation of religion, and religion in the west and middle-east, to think outside the box.


What they had going was good, it was certainly out of the box compared to the major monotheistic religions.
Although Aber-Toril = Earth (almost) just annoyed me.
Author:  TormakSaber [ Tue, Jun 30 2009, 18:45 PM ]
Post subject: 
Galenson wrote:
I'm fine with variety. But why go to excessive amounts and create 250+?

Mielikki and Malar, perfect opposing combo. Are Nobanion and Eldath really needed when you think about it?


Yes. Because they both represent aspects of nature not touched by Mielikki or Malar, just as Silvanus does as well.
Author:  J.G. [ Wed, Jul 01 2009, 2:44 AM ]
Post subject: 
Galenson wrote:
I'm fine with variety. But why go to excessive amounts and create 250+?


Good point Nekhy.

It would be like only having One type of melee weapon, one Offensive/Defensive/healing spell, one type of armor, etc...
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/