It's a real battle, in the sense that people actually get stabbed, but they're expected to refrain from delivering killing blows. The Exalted resistance to dying of bleeding or sepsis comes in handy.
Originally posted by Isator Levi
I'll admit, the notion that they divided the legions evenly always struck me as rather odd
I see what you did there.
Tepet Ejava makes a great deal of sense as a candidate for the throne in a situation where there's been open war for a couple of years, and the economy has been fucked, and a lot of the clever plans and lofty ambitions of the houses going into the war have just shattered against the reality of the situation, and a few matriarchs have fallen to assassination, and hey, look, here's this competent, charismatic general who's endured and prospered and proven herself valuable in a bunch of situations and whose apparent personal integrity has impressed a lot of folks who want, more than anything, for the war to end, and she's starting to look like the one who can do that.
She makes very little sense as a candidate before the war's started.
You’ll have to go to the Kickstarter page and click the “Updates” tab. The first update has the link to the first preview. As you are now a backer, you’ll get emails about updates as they’re released from now on, but you don’t get email notifications of updates released before you pledged.
Yeah you might want to go one house at a time.
Originally posted by Ekorren
Who wrote the chapter fiction of the Empress in her bedroom? I liked that a lot.
Neall was temporarily unchained from Scion development to write that one and the Tepet Arada fiction that's been previewed already.
When that Tepet preview went live I remarked that all the other Great House writeups were just as good. Was I wrong?
(Talk about the preview contents, y'all! We worked really hard on that stuff!)
Okay, having seen it? It's pretty much just A Movie About The Wyld. Yes, the obvious shimmering edge border is more blatant than the border between Creation and the Bordermarches. Everything else in the movie is what the Wyld looks like.
Originally posted by Sith_Happens
Yeah, that's the other thing: while I'm not going to claim my research on the subject was especially comprehensive, the idea that the Realm is somehow unique in having denominations suitable for day-to-day use does not seem to track to real life history at all. Rather, anywhere with a sufficiently developed economy is going to.
Now, maybe the idea is supposed to be that each developed-enough Threshold state will have its own rough equivalents to the siu and/or yen, but the book makes it sound more like someone in Nexus or Great Forks is just SOL if they want to pay cash for anything worth less than 1/8 dinar.
Hence bar tabs.
As the guy who spearheaded 3e's handling of Resources: It's not so much that 3e shifts the way Resources works absolutely from 1e and 2e as it is that 1e and 2e were inconsistent on how Resources works, and I tried to make 3e's Resources consistent with one of the ways 1e's Resources worked... but this means all the inconsistent bits about 1e's handling of Resources stand out more.
The Thousand Fang Army was, in 1e and 2e, a pack of Lunars operating around Mahalanka and under the tutelage of Raksi. And, yeah, Chaya is an edge-of-the-Scavenger-Lands thing.
The almost complete lack of anything in the Southeastern savannah and the complete lack of anything interesting is why we put the Dreaming Sea there in 3e. Like, literally all we know about it across all of 1e and 2e is that it’s referred to as the Southeastern savannah.
Originally posted by TheCountAlucard
Why should a pantheon of colorful, storied titans be so lockstep identical?
Originally posted by Ghosthead
Not totally wrong, but I would argue you are edging towards simplification to imagine that before modern science, there was not a rich dialogue going on within theologians, about the importance of non-rational, and rationally unprovable, revelation. (Revelation and personal spirituality and faith in ideas that you cannot reason your way towards were not taken to be something that was unnecessary in the face of sufficient reason.)
The idea of faith as belief in revelation and personal experience of spirituality that overrides the rational is not ersatz modern development to cope with science; people in the past well before modern science were well aware that revelation and spirituality was radically at odds with rational experience, and they developed ideas around this which have long are part of religious faith.
(I'm struggling a little to not crudely represent this but it feels like in the raw form your have presented it you may have the risk of getting towards some kind of "Conflict Thesis" in which Christian or Abrahamic religion, after the birth of modern science, is seen as allied to a kind of force against scientific "progress", and the idea of "faith" - belief in living power of revelation and personal spiritual experience over the rational - is close to a kind of willful ignorance.)
Yeah, sorry, that was probably more reductive than is useful in the long term.
The idea that faith means belief in the unverifiable or "Believing what you know ain't so" is largely the invention of modern religious thought in the face of scientific knowledge shrinking the space in which the God Of The Gaps can exist. Throughout most of history of Abrahamic religion, the idea of the Abrahamic God's unverifiability would be nonsensical -- theologians went to elaborate lengths to construct logical and philosophical "proofs" of God's existence or various true statements about God's nature, and the idea that such truths are somehow invalid because they're just thought experiments not backed up by empirically verifiable physical experimental evidence is, itself, an anachronism if you assume it's in place before the ascension of the formal scientific method in use today. For a long time, logical proofs were considered more sound than experimental proofs, not less so.
Faith means trust. It is literally a synonym for trust. Hence "Breaking faith" as a synonym for betrayal or reneging on an agreement.
Having faith in a god means having trust they'll hold up whatever end of the bargain you've been taught they've made with you or your culture.
There is, ironically, a powerful disincentive in the setting for large populist religious movements about things other than transactional relationships with local gods -- local gods, who don't want local people distracted from their transactional worship.