Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Asian Pantheons

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kyman201 View Post
    Spoken like someone who hasn't actually looked at the incredible range that even a single Calling gives you. A single Calling is more broad and gives you more tricks than a single D&D class. And you get three of them.

    Here, let me boot up my copy of Hero... And let me use a random number generator... Okay, got 11. On the list of Callings, the last one is... Warrior.

    Let's look at what the Warrior Calling lets you do, through its Knacks.

    First: The Hero Knacks.
    • The Biggest Threat: A Knack that upon use, lets you mark yourself to all enemies, so they have increased difficulty to attack your foes. Tanking duty.
    • Close the Gap: Gives you additional Stunts you can use in the fight. The effects are below, and give great bonuses to Combat Movement.
      • Rush an enemy without spending an action
      • Enemies lower tier than you (so at Hero, that's Mortal foes) can't disengage from you for a turn.
      • Avoid the penalties of difficult terrain for one movement.
    • Death by Teacup: ANY item you get in your hand can be as effective as a professional weapon. Kill someone with a mop, be unstoppable.
    • Enhanced Impact: If you deal damage to a foe, knock them back a range band. Perfect for strategic positioning.
    • Master of Weapons: Give your weapons additional tags, letting them do blatantly impossible stuff, such as firing sword beams. This CAN stack with Death by Teacup.
    • Trick Shot: If you make deliberately tricky shots with a ranged weapon, what would be a difficulty increase becomes bonus successes.
    • Tempered: Gain a rank of Soft Armor, which makes you tougher to kill.
    So, those are your basic bread-and-butter abilities that your Calling Ranks can get you. "What else is there?" asks the strawman. Well, glad you asked. Here, let's take a look at the IMMORTAL Knacks!
    • Army of One: Ignore the penalties to being outnumbered. And when fighting a large number of foes, you can Imbue a Legend Point to make the entire battle a Feat of Scale. For those unfamiliar, a Feat of Scale lets you increase your Scale, which is a measure of how overwhelmingly powerful you are. At Legend 1-2, Scale 1 gives you 2 bonus successes against weaker foes.
    • Hurl to the Moon: If you're a hulking strong thrower type, this lets you Imbue your Legend to use a Feat of Scale to hurl heavy objects for a scene. Large objects can be thrown out to Medium range, which is y'know pistol range. Any smaller thrown weapons can be thrown out to Long Range, which is Sniping Range. So throw an ax or a javelin at a target from a city block away. You are MIGHTY.
    • Perfect Defense: Once per fight, you can simply declare that an enemy attack didn't hit you. If you spend a point of Momentum, you can use this a SECOND time in a fight.
    • They're Everywhere: Fighting a stream of foes? When you have this Knack, whenever a new enemy enters the field you're fighting in, you get a free attack against them, unaugmented by other Knacks to make extra attacks. You can make any number of attacks, but only one attack per foe.
    OKAY! So, just look at those. Breathe them in. And yes, a Calling is limited, so you can't have ALL of those active at a time.

    BUT you can swap them out between sessions. Anything you need to prep for, you can handle with these Knacks.

    And a Hero can have three Callings, each one even more versatile than this one, since honestly Warrior is the most limited in its themes of "Break faces".

    So, Sessha, I ask of you... What in the name of Mimir's greatest wisdom is restraining about these? Even in 1e, which mechanically was a hot dumpster fire, you only had so much XP. Even with your broadest PC concept, you were generally picking one, two, MAYBE three things to be Good at. Just like, shocker, there's three Callings.
    I am not sure what Sessha meant. But my reading of what Sessha said is that the categorization of Callings as depicted in Scion Origins is that they compartmentalize concepts into a certain way. This addition complicates the Character Creation Process because the tendency, very often, is to use the mechanics to inform one's concept. And the addition of Callings can be seen as restrictive categorization in this instance.

    I agree with Sessha in this regard, but the restriction can also spur creativity so I see it positive aspects as well.


    How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
    -Zhuangzi

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Ostarion View Post

      I am not sure what Sessha meant. But my reading of what Sessha said is that the categorization of Callings as depicted in Scion Origins is that they compartmentalize concepts into a certain way. This addition complicates the Character Creation Process because the tendency, very often, is to use the mechanics to inform one's concept. And the addition of Callings can be seen as restrictive categorization in this instance.

      I agree with Sessha in this regard, but the restriction can also spur creativity so I see it positive aspects as well.
      You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The very free form nature of 1e was a draw that would allow me to tailor my character to my specifications. Not have everything predetermined from start to finish. Which means everything is predetermined by my deific parent. Where as in 1e my deific parent was a starting point the when the ST said "GO!" it was all me after that. Plus if I purchased an ability I had that ability reguardless of weather it was useful or not. I had it. I didn't have to change it out for something else. It allowed me a greater degree of flexibility. Now all that said time to play a little bit of devil's advocate.

      Some of them I think are very good and far more useful. For example the redoing the Norse PSP to use a runic fate type thing that benefits the character and the party is a MASSIVE improvement over the previous one. Honestly I never saw that as very useful in the slightest. Plus I've always had a fascination with Runes and such so...yeah... Also because I'm a fan of the Dresden Files novels the new Shen PSP just cracks me up every time I think about it. It turns the Shen Scions into Bureaumancers. Which in the novels Harry Dresden refers to Bureaumancers as the most evil kind of wizard out there. So yeah the very idea of this amuses and tickles my funny bone to no end. The massive amount of new Lore that they did for the all new gods is pretty impressive and I am very happy with the expanded god list for many of the pantheons.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sessha View Post

        You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The very free form nature of 1e was a draw that would allow me to tailor my character to my specifications. Not have everything predetermined from start to finish. Which means everything is predetermined by my deific parent. Where as in 1e my deific parent was a starting point the when the ST said "GO!" it was all me after that. Plus if I purchased an ability I had that ability reguardless of weather it was useful or not. I had it. I didn't have to change it out for something else. It allowed me a greater degree of flexibility. Now all that said time to play a little bit of devil's advocate.

        Some of them I think are very good and far more useful. For example the redoing the Norse PSP to use a runic fate type thing that benefits the character and the party is a MASSIVE improvement over the previous one. Honestly I never saw that as very useful in the slightest. Plus I've always had a fascination with Runes and such so...yeah... Also because I'm a fan of the Dresden Files novels the new Shen PSP just cracks me up every time I think about it. It turns the Shen Scions into Bureaumancers. Which in the novels Harry Dresden refers to Bureaumancers as the most evil kind of wizard out there. So yeah the very idea of this amuses and tickles my funny bone to no end. The massive amount of new Lore that they did for the all new gods is pretty impressive and I am very happy with the expanded god list for many of the pantheons.
        So you get one Calling from your divine parent at Origin, and post Visitation you get one of their Purviews. That's all your divine parent informs and determines.

        That's far less than what 1e did to tell you to be a copy of your divine parent. If you wanted to go in a different direction from your divine parent? Fuck you, pay more experience. This determined not just the Boons and Epic Attributes you spent less experience on, but ABILITIES too. Yeah, remember that? Your divine parent in 1e determined your Favored Abilities.

        None of that in 2e. You get one Calling from your divine patron in 2e. At Origin tier this may be a touch annoying, but I made several Origin characters who all did what I wanted with no trouble. And once your character becomes a Scion, the options explode.

        Frankly, there's literally nothing 1e does that 2e doesn't do better, IMO.


        Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

        Comment


        • #19
          We've wandered far from the topic. That said:

          In 1e, knacks were tied to the Epic Attributes. You still didn't have the freedom to take whatever knack you wanted. 2e isn't more restrictive than 1e in terms of what knacks you can have; it just restricts you in a different way.


          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sessha View Post

            You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The very free form nature of 1e was a draw that would allow me to tailor my character to my specifications. Not have everything predetermined from start to finish. Which means everything is predetermined by my deific parent. Where as in 1e my deific parent was a starting point the when the ST said "GO!" it was all me after that. Plus if I purchased an ability I had that ability reguardless of weather it was useful or not. I had it. I didn't have to change it out for something else. It allowed me a greater degree of flexibility. Now all that said time to play a little bit of devil's advocate.
            Your Divine Patron determines a single Calling and let's you Choose a single Innate Purview that you don't need to channel... that is literally it, not even getting into the fact that you can change Callings over the course of play so even the first is not an obstacle if you choose to deny your Divine heritage. Where, in what universe, are you seeing everything being determined by your Deity choice? Compared to 1e's XP tax, 2e let's you be incredibly flexible and go completely out of your Parent's areas of power without any penalty. And this is all just in regards to Callings... you are ignoring Purviews, Pantheon Signature Powers and Birthrights... pray, tell me how all of those are somehow locked in stone from your Deity Choice? Besides PSP, which is controlled by Deity Choice since it's tied to your Pantheon, but unless my knowledge of 1e is completely leaving me (which I would not mourn) that was also the case back then... and at least in 2e depending on who your God is, you can even get your choice of that (Hello Yama who has 4 PSP options for his Scions, and various other deities present in multiple Pantheons).

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sessha View Post

              You pretty much hit the nail on the head. The very free form nature of 1e was a draw that would allow me to tailor my character to my specifications. Not have everything predetermined from start to finish. Which means everything is predetermined by my deific parent. Where as in 1e my deific parent was a starting point the when the ST said "GO!" it was all me after that. Plus if I purchased an ability I had that ability reguardless of weather it was useful or not. I had it. I didn't have to change it out for something else. It allowed me a greater degree of flexibility. Now all that said time to play a little bit of devil's advocate.

              Some of them I think are very good and far more useful. For example the redoing the Norse PSP to use a runic fate type thing that benefits the character and the party is a MASSIVE improvement over the previous one. Honestly I never saw that as very useful in the slightest. Plus I've always had a fascination with Runes and such so...yeah... Also because I'm a fan of the Dresden Files novels the new Shen PSP just cracks me up every time I think about it. It turns the Shen Scions into Bureaumancers. Which in the novels Harry Dresden refers to Bureaumancers as the most evil kind of wizard out there. So yeah the very idea of this amuses and tickles my funny bone to no end. The massive amount of new Lore that they did for the all new gods is pretty impressive and I am very happy with the expanded god list for many of the pantheons.
              I don’t know what text you read but 2E Scions are MASSIVELY more free to determine their own divine role and purviews than their 1E counterparts.

              As far as 1E presented it in text, Scions tended to be copies of their divine parent with pun-names.


              Check out my expansion to the Realm of Brass and Shadow

              Comment


              • #22
                In an effort to return to the topic at hand, and to reduce the friction developing, let me shed more light on my own misigivings. The use of archetypes or Callings instead of epic attributes in order to gain access to knacks and other abilities is certainly insightful, at least to me. But archetypes such as Guardian, Warrior, and Trickster have a restrictive effect because of the connotations that they have, where as epic attribute based knacks on Strength and Dexterity don't have those connotations on the story of a character the way archetypes do.

                Now, the Asian application is this. Let's say I wanted to make a Scion of Sun Wukong, or his common alias The Monkey King. His callings are Liminal, Trickster, Warrior. Right away this limits me, not to mention the fact that most of the Callings as Archetypes are defined by comparative mythologists like Joseph Cambell who try to come up with universal archtypes to fit in with every culture and people and their myth. I disagree with this notion. Why should I acknowledge that Sun Wukong was a Trickster when that could not be farther from the truth? and many of the other achetype Callings applied to the other Chinese gods. And I think even Samudra would admit that the Callings as Archetypes are a poor explanation of the vast discrimination (as the Upanashads put it) that comes into being when describing the various forms of divinity used in the very pluralistic cultures of India. It is just one example of many that must be 'shoehorned' into the the Asian pantheons so that the game functions. It is an RPG after all, and the majority of the audience is without doubt primarily English native speakers, so I put up with it. In many ways I enjoy the actual written material for the game, even though I think the systems complexity is too restrictive

                It is this vast potential of myth boiled down into these confining Callings that feels restrictive, whereas if it wasn't there and knacks were a bit more free form then that might have been a more interesting approach.

                Having said all that, there are alot of other areas that the game is expanded and very insightful, hence I will be running a game soon. But I can certainly see how restrictive some of the choices are as Sessha puts it.


                How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                -Zhuangzi

                Comment


                • #23
                  First, gonna not critiquing your argument, but your example. Sun Wokong is so definitely a Trickster, I don't understand what you mean him not being one. Maybe it's different interpretations of what it means being a Trickster but I remember three events he did that would so qualify, him erasing his name from Yama's book, him eating the peaches of immortality, and him tricking Ao Guang to obtain his signature weapon. How are those acts not of a Trickster, definitely that last one? Sure he is one of the most badass warriors ever but you can't ignore his heaven level mischief.

                  Now as for your argument, sure they can sound restrictive but they are not trying to shoehorn all of a characters in one though, but spread out through multiple, with all of them being quite broad themselves in interpretations. Sure it's Archetypes, but isn't saying that this guy is the Warrior or this one is the Leader, it's more that this person contains traits of both a Leader and a Warrior, and maybe Trickster as well, That gives you a concept that by using elements of all three gives you a very unique interpretation of a character then any of those three individually. To me what Callings are a just descriptors that you use to create what you want in your character you want, that to me isn't that restrictive to me at least. That's just my opinion anyway


                  .

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Iceblade44 View Post
                    Maybe it's different interpretations of what it means being a Trickster but I remember three events he did that would so qualify, him erasing his name from Yama's book, him eating the peaches of immortality, and him tricking Ao Guang to obtain his signature weapon.
                    It is indeed the work of interpretation, which makes this a conventional case of cultural appropriation, or to be more specific, the decontextualization of the archetype from its specific cultural contexts. The trickster archetype is particularly insidious because so many anthropologists and mythologists apply this template to indigenous cultures around the world. As if it is some kind of magic key that allows you access to the kingdoms of native thought; hubris at its finest, in many ways. I would much rather individually understand each god through its own interpretation instead of playing the game of "spot the trickster" that some writers engage with as they look for more them around the world.

                    All archetypes ultimately have his problem, and its one of the many reasons that I am quite critical of comparative mythology as a discipline.


                    How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                    -Zhuangzi

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      The problem comes from having to fit the complexity of the myths into the framework of the game. There is naturally going to be some compromise, and not everyone's going to agree on those compromises - perhaps Sun Wukong isn't a "Trickster", but that fits the game's definition of a being who plays tricks on those in power, regardless of motivation or greater context. You could do without the archetypes, but that makes it tougher, I think, for people not familiar with the myths themselves to envision how they will play certain characters [especially since a majority of people associate RPGs with games that use "classes" to define abilities]. As I've said before, it isn't a mythology text book; it's an RPG, but maybe it will prompt some to do more research, and learn more about the myths themselves.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Purple Snit View Post
                        As I've said before, it isn't a mythology text book; it's an RPG, but maybe it will prompt some to do more research, and learn more about the myths themselves.
                        I mean from the work they put into it, they want the game to be as faithful as reasonably possible. Like a line from the Hero book that's repeated in the Companion outline: "Be as respectful to these myths as they are to themselves. Which sometimes isn't very, admittedly."


                        Disclaimer: I'll huff, grump, and defend my position, but if you're having fun I'll never say you're doing it wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I would also point out that 2e has a much more open framework than 1e did, meaning that not as many compromises need to be made. But yeah, you do still need to make the occasional compromise.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully understand the standardization requirements for an RPG based on rules, I guess I just didn't like how much piling there was, so I though might say something about it.

                            Anyway, personally I am quite happy with how it mostly turned out and I do hope that we get those additional Asian Pantheons. Definitely looking forward to the Yazata and Mongolian ones. I am also hoping for additional options farther north in the Siberian regions of the world mostly because it feels underserved and unremarked on.

                            Now, on the more monotheistic front, would Christianity, Islam, and Judaism all be considered Asiatic in terms of geographical boundaries of continents in precisely where they started? My reason for asking is because there seems to be some misdirection on Christianity being a European Product, and I don't see how that is, especially considering that the Indian and Ethiopian strain of Christian thought are proven to be older than the European ones.
                            Last edited by Ostarion; 06-07-2018, 04:16 AM.


                            How can I know if what I claim I know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I might not know? How can I know if what I claim I don't know to be true is rejecting the idea that there is something I do know?
                            -Zhuangzi

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Sort of? The problem of considering whether or not Christianity would be European or not has to do with how while Jesus himself lived in the Middle East, the religion really only got organized a little after that in Rome itself and most mainstream Christianity traces itself back to the spreading by the Roman Empire when it converted and then to the multiple kingdoms that took it's place.


                              .

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Hey guys so I'm back and-

                                *pauses

                                Whoa. A few days in real life can see a lot of stuff happen in the internet.

                                With regards to the monotheistic religions; the gods who inspired or were inspired by Christianity are going to have a pretty solid foothold in at least South Korea, that I can vouch for. I mean, a lot of neighborhoods in our capital city has a church cross glowing in the night every block or so. I wouldn't be surprised if the Elohim's main stronghold in Asia turns out to be Seoul.


                                MtAw Homebrew: Even more Legacies, updated to 2E

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X