I have not read or played Wraith, but this really intrigues me.
Could try to make them more distinct from the Dual Monarchy, but yes.
How are the Wrath Deathlords portrayed moralwise, might I ask?
As Roman senators.
Which is to say, mostly a bunch of self-interested jerks, but not entirely.
For those folks who want to discuss Creation/the Underworld, etc., please go here
, to keep thread clutter to a minimum.
Yeup. This is a place to discuss the merits of Creation vs. the Underworld, to avoid cluttering the Abyssals feedback-collection thread up.
So, go ahead.
If people are really interested in a living vs dead / Creation vs Underworld debate, it'd be nice if they spun that out to another thread so it doesn't drown out the Abyssal discussion going on here.
Lafing Cat wrote: Arrakiz wrote:
And from what I recall, its about people wanting to be able to play Abyssals who can actually make death and the Underworld an alternative to life. Nobody objects it should be pretty bad at a starting point, but it would be neat to see abyssals have some way of making it better for the dead to the point of making the living jealous of what ghosts can have. And of course not only making it possible, but also one of relevant play-styles.
At such a time as being a ghost becomes objectively better than being alive, it becomes a moral imperative for *everyone*, not just Abyssals, to murder the world.
Which, I mean, is a thing. I'm not exactly sure it's a thing I want Exalted to be about.
I am so tired of binary arguments.
Limited Reagent wrote:
In general, "white elephant" refers to a burdensome thing that you can't get rid of, especially something that has a lot of upkeep. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant)
Indeed. For example, I gifted Holden with a copy of Dark Souls on Steam, because it was on sale and I know, and he knows, that he would hate Dark Souls.
And now it's in his Steam library forever.
John Mørke wrote:
Eldagusto was lurking for a second and I got excited.
Then he left
You got Eldagustowned.
Maese Mateo wrote:
Eric Minton said over RPG.net that while doing playtest, a single heroic mortal took down 100 soldiers by himself in Mass Combat without taking any serious injury.
Bandits, not soldiers.
Hecaton wrote: Holden wrote:
In 3e, Abyssals will trail rainbows after their sword swings, and rather than Crypt Bolts, they will fire kittens out of their fingertips. Their old Charmset will become the new Liminal Charm set. We thought that would be a fantastic idea.
(Come on, seriously? :p)
I think John might have gone about setting up his defense of that word choice in the wrong way. There's been a constant insistence that 'no, Abyssals were always alive' since that idea was thrown around.
Given the charm that's posted, would it be okay to assume a charm that, say, let a character ignore pain because corpses just don't give a fuck might be workable for both Abyssals and Liminals?
Wouldn't be very Liminal-appropriate because they're pointed in the other direction.
No, Chejop is totally Dirk Anger.
Synapse wrote: John Mørke wrote:
That'd make a really good Sci-Fi short story. "On being undead, a scientific breakdown."
I've seen it explained amusingly well as the product of a profane hybrid of Rabies and Toxoplasmosis.
I misread this as "a profane hybrid of Rabelais and Toxoplasmosis," and now I don't know what to think.
"Universally applicable" doesn't mean universal in design, actually. For example, in 1e, the plans of the Sidereals are universally relevant to Solars, Lunars, Abyssals, and Dragon-Blooded, but that doesn't mean Sidereals come off as generic. You're making assumptions.
Is every line writer going to turn in to some sort of small, adorable dog before the game is out?
"Navel of the Moon" yep, they got it right.
There's also some names that make sense in a different way. Cleveland was named after the dude who founded it (Moses Cleaveland), but "Cliffland" describes the local geography pretty well anyway.