All Posts

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/15/2013
BrilliantRain wrote:
The Demented One wrote:
Jen wrote:
I wonder if we will have a true Archery MA in 3e, I have no idea why Wood Dragon's form weapon is bow aside from because Wood-Aspected use bow, not to mention half of the charms have the Touch keyword emotion-12.gif

The Immaculate Dragon Styles had some issues. I'm hoping to atomic juggalo double suplex those issues into submission. ^_^


.....Tezri ;_;

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/14/2013
Gayo wrote:
That said, I would like to see some styles that use very different sorts of weapons (like Snake Style's seven-section staves and hook swords) but feel different depending on which weapon you're using, because that feels more like how a real martial art would operate.

There are a couple of Charms you are really, really going to dig if I'm not mistaken.

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/14/2013
WalrusJones wrote:
What about variable MA weapon styles, such as Path of the Arbiter?

Variable in the sense of not having one fixed form weapon, but one that you pick when you learn the style?

It could be done—not all styles are as rigorously focused on the details of their specific weapon as Righteous Devil, which was written that way to differentiate it from Archery Charms—but I think it'd really need to make sense for the style in order for us to do that.

[#][F] Holden - 10/14/2013
The Demented One wrote:
CascadingWavesOfIre wrote:
The Demented One wrote:
SpoonR wrote:

Guns/flamewands: Righteous Devil (will that be broad enough to include bow & sling?)

Deeefinitely not. A whole lot of Righteous Devil Style in 3e takes into consideration the fact that you are fighting with miniature flamethrowers—it definitely won't work as just a "generic Archery style!"


I always wondered, do you feel Righteous Devil would be compatible with pistols in a setting-appropriate Shard? What about the 3E edition if pistols were ever designed for it?

2E Righteous Devil, maybe. 3E Righteous Devil, definitely not. There are some things you can do with a firewand that just make no sense with a pistol.

(that said, I do believe I have a promise floating out there to convert Solar Firearms to Third Edition at some point, and I don't see why I couldn't also right up a Black Rain Style to go along with it)


You say promise, I say stretch goal :D

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/14/2013
Jen wrote:
I wonder if we will have a true Archery MA in 3e, I have no idea why Wood Dragon's form weapon is bow aside from because Wood-Aspected use bow, not to mention half of the charms have the Touch keyword emotion-12.gif

The Immaculate Dragon Styles had some issues. I'm hoping to atomic juggalo double suplex those issues into submission. ^_^

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/14/2013
CascadingWavesOfIre wrote:
The Demented One wrote:
SpoonR wrote:

Guns/flamewands: Righteous Devil (will that be broad enough to include bow & sling?)

Deeefinitely not. A whole lot of Righteous Devil Style in 3e takes into consideration the fact that you are fighting with miniature flamethrowers—it definitely won't work as just a "generic Archery style!"


I always wondered, do you feel Righteous Devil would be compatible with pistols in a setting-appropriate Shard? What about the 3E edition if pistols were ever designed for it?

2E Righteous Devil, maybe. 3E Righteous Devil, definitely not. There are some things you can do with a firewand that just make no sense with a pistol.

(that said, I do believe I have a promise floating out there to convert Solar Firearms to Third Edition at some point, and I don't see why I couldn't also right up a Black Rain Style to go along with it)

[#][F] The Demented One - 10/14/2013
SpoonR wrote:

Guns/flamewands: Righteous Devil (will that be broad enough to include bow & sling?)

Deeefinitely not. A whole lot of Righteous Devil Style in 3e takes into consideration the fact that you are fighting with miniature flamethrowers—it definitely won't work as just a "generic Archery style!"

[#][F] Holden - 10/14/2013
WhammeWhamme wrote:
Holden wrote:
Erinys wrote:
Holden wrote:
Demonic souls are pretty much the ontological signifier that you're a Yozi, by contrast.
But why is it harmful to the game for Infernals to be able to emulate the Yozi? Emulation does not require that Yozi and Infernals have the same charms or power level.


It's not, but the Solars don't have a Charm to grow four arms, you know? The Infernals move more in that direction than Solars do, granted, but why exactly would an Infernal -want- a soul hierarchy if it wasn't outrageously powerful? "Hey, my agata mount is just like your summoned one, except if mine catches an arrow I get partially lobotomized." Boy, let me just rush out to buy THAT Charm.


Arguably Solars should be able to grow extra arms... I mean, Tien and Goku grew extra arms in Dragonball (and as far as I can tell, did it through sheer martial arts mastery....).


As for 'why would you want a non-outrageously-powerful soul hierarchy?' :

- Independence: Summoned Demons are, ultimately, someone else's property and using them takes away from "not relying on anyone else". Plus extra security angle to cover if you want something secret done.

- So you can discuss things with yourself more effectively; assorted characters in assorted media have done the 'talk to different aspects of my personality' thing. Superior introspection FTW!

- Being in more than one place at the same time. Sometimes you want to be involved in what's going on in various different places, and you don't want to just dispatch a servant. Dispatching a 'me', even a 'lesser me' is a more personal touch.

- Sometimes you REALLY want to beat your insecurities unconscious. This is more straightforward if you can anthropomorphize them. (or, you know, "cut out the weakness" for a more hardcore variant)


Also: it'd be optional. People who see a use for it can take it, people who don't? Don't have to.


So then you don't need a pantheon at all-- Splintered Gale Shintai fulfills all these objectives quite nicely.

[#][F] Holden - 10/13/2013
paradim wrote:
So it's difficult for me to see the difference here, conceptually speaking. Which, to be frank, isn't a crisis or anything. You guys are operating on a lot more knowledge than I am, here. So I just want to be clear that I'm not trying to poke holes to win "points" or anything trollish like that. I'm just calling out particulars that I'm having difficulty in grasping for the position you and Holden are holding.


Infernals are to be about Infernals, not about Yozis, or about being Yozis. Maybe your Infernal can create or conjure goetic spirits out of the depths of his psyche to guard his inner world, or hold the tablets of its laws, or to link hands to become a radiant eye in its otherwise dark and all-devouring sky. Maybe they have a Shintai form that is three demons representing that which is brightest in their heart, that which is darkest, and that which they dare never show the world. Maybe they don't need demons in any capacity other than allies, adversaries, sycophants, and patrons. There are a lot of ways to do cool things with Infernals that don't involve just aping the gross structural qualia of Yozis.

[#][F] John Mørke - 10/13/2013
paradim wrote:
John Mørke wrote:


Okay, that's cool. There was an implication of no plausible logic, though, and the logic is plain as day.



Let me clarify.

From what I've seen expressed, creating your own servants from your soul is "ontological", that is pertaining to a branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence, to the condition of BEING a Yozi (well, Primordial-type entity). With just the statement that this is so. But, okay. No other entity really shows this characteristic.

But then it's also expressed that creating your own internal world within your soul is totally cool and thus, not "ontological" to the condition of being a Yozi (again, Primordial-type entity class, whatever). But we don't really see any other entity show this characteristic either. Only Primordials.

The separation of these two only seems to be, "We like this more than that." Which is arbitrary, in the fashion of "contingent solely upon one's discretion".

And let's be honest here. "Creating entire new worlds" kind of IS something Primordials are pretty well known for by now, e.g. see Creation, The Demon City and Autochthonia.

Ultimately, it's your guys prerogative to do what you guys see fit with the line. That's exactly what being the Developer of the game means. You get to create what you want, how you want, by whatever fancy you like. And that's perfectly okay. It's okay to be arbitrary about some stuff and to decide things will be "this way" just because "I like it this way." But saying this is "logical" implies there being a coherent stream of thought of "2+2=4" here, which isn't really what's presented that I can see and understand from my perspective.



Primordials don't create worlds inside of their souls.

I don't know how the point can be any clearer than that. When we said Infernals aren't using Yozi Charms, and that they don't become Charms, it follows pretty clearly that we'd give them Charms that don't model themselves as the exact powers of the Yozis. Like 99% of the Exalted Charms before Infernals, this Charm follows the mold of being established by the themes of, and in reference to a patron, but not the exact powers of that patron. This is what makes the Exalted unique. You are not playing the Unconquered Sun or the Maidens. Those Charm sets are an ekphrasis of the Unconquered Sun and the Maidens.

Similarly, there are things that sorcery can do that Charms really should not. We don't have Golden Solar Boat, but we do have a spell to summon a barque.

Why does Wyld Shaping Technique work? Why does the Inner world Charm work?

Because one uses the Wyld, and one uses your soul. These are established things, the Charms are not creating, so much as changing them, the way Crafts Charms change lumps of five metal ore into artifacts. They also work because Solars are chosen from the greatest of wo/men by the greatest of gods, and have the will to shape chaos into order, the way an Infernal can use the palette of her own soul to paint a dramatic picture of horror and majesty, and make it real. These are Solar themes and Infernal themes, but they are not UCS powers or Yozi powers. That's intentional, logical, and very much not an arbitrary decision, unless you think "Charms don't work the way they did in 2e for a vast number of documented reasons" is arbitrary. In which case, shrug.







[#][F] John Mørke - 10/13/2013
paradim wrote:
John Mørke wrote:


Okay, that's cool. There was an implication of no plausible logic, though, and the logic is plain as day.



Let me clarify.

From what I've seen expressed, creating your own servants from your soul is "ontological", that is pertaining to a branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence, to the condition of BEING a Yozi (well, Primordial-type entity). With just the statement that this is so. But, okay. No other entity really shows this characteristic.

But then it's also expressed that creating your own internal world within your soul is totally cool and thus, not "ontological" to the condition of being a Yozi (again, Primordial-type entity class, whatever). But we don't really see any other entity show this characteristic either. Only Primordials.

The separation of these two only seems to be, "We like this more than that." Which is arbitrary, in the fashion of "contingent solely upon one's discretion".

And let's be honest here. "Creating entire new worlds" kind of IS something Primordials are pretty well known for by now, e.g. see Creation, The Demon City and Autochthonia.

Ultimately, it's your guys prerogative to do what you guys see fit with the line. That's exactly what being the Developer of the game means. You get to create what you want, how you want, by whatever fancy you like. And that's perfectly okay. It's okay to be arbitrary about some stuff and to decide things will be "this way" just because "I like it this way." But saying this is "logical" implies there being a coherent stream of thought of "2+2=4" here, which isn't really what's presented that I can see and understand from my perspective.



Primordials don't create worlds inside of their souls.

I don't know how the point can be any clearer than that. When we said Infernals aren't using Yozi Charms, and that they don't become Yozis*, it follows pretty clearly that we'd give them Charms that don't model themselves as the exact powers of the Yozis. Like 99% of the Exalted Charms before Infernals, this Charm follows the mold of being established by the themes of, and in reference to a patron, but not the exact powers of that patron. This is what makes the Exalted unique. You are not playing the Unconquered Sun or the Maidens. Those Charm sets are an ekphrasis of the Unconquered Sun and the Maidens.

Similarly, there are things that sorcery can do that Charms really should not. We don't have Golden Solar Boat, but we do have a spell to summon a barque.

Why does Wyld Shaping Technique work? Why does the Inner world Charm work?

Because one uses the Wyld, and one uses your soul. These are established things, the Charms are not creating, so much as changing them, the way Crafts Charms change lumps of five metal ore into artifacts. They also work because Solars are chosen from the greatest of wo/men by the greatest of gods, and have the will to shape chaos into order, the way an Infernal can use the palette of her own soul to paint a dramatic picture of horror and majesty, and make it real. These are Solar themes and Infernal themes, but they are not UCS powers or Yozi powers. That's intentional, logical, and very much not an arbitrary decision, unless you think "Charms don't work the way they did in 2e for a vast number of documented reasons" is arbitrary. In which case, shrug.

*Edited typo.

[#][F] John Mørke - 10/13/2013
paradim wrote:
John Mørke wrote:


Does the Solar's native inability to hurl walls of holocaust flame and set things on fire with their eyes keep you up nights?



Blazing Solar Bolt and Fiery Solar Chakram, just writ large?

They can kinda do that stuff. Or at least, you can see the beginnings of it.


Yes, they kind of can, but you only see the beginnings. You see the implication, and the implication helps such strange powers to be plausible. Similarly, what kind of interesting things will the Infernals do that will allude to their origins?

[#][F] John Mørke - 10/13/2013
Inquisitive Englishman wrote:
John Mørke wrote:

Does the Solar's native inability to hurl walls of holocaust flame and set things on fire with their eyes keep you up nights?



Not really, but then those powers aren't all that interesting. When I look at the Unconquered Sun I don't immediately think: I *want* to play a character that can do that.

I would love to play a character that could cultivate multiple souls in emulation of their God.


Okay, that's cool. There was an implication of no plausible logic, though, and the logic is plain as day.

[#][F] John Mørke - 10/13/2013
paradim wrote:
Erinys wrote:

Isator Levi wrote:
There are apparently some tricks in those Heresy Charms that Infernals will still have, like internal worlds.
Where did a Dev say this?


Here.

They also said they won't get the Soul Structure thingie of your own personalized demon servants, which disappoints me a lot and hope they really reconsider, especially as it seems very arbitrary as what functions Infernals are keeping because "People like that" and "Infernals aren't Yozis".

"Infernals have soul worlds" because that's cool and "Infernals won't have personal demons" because they're not Yozis seems...

I don't get the logic. Just don't get it.


Does the Solar's native inability to hurl walls of holocaust flame and set things on fire with their eyes keep you up nights?

[#][F] Holden - 10/13/2013
Isator Levi wrote:
Holden wrote:
I fucking hate metanarrative comic book characters. It was funny-ish in Keychain, but Keychain is a gag strip. Things which make our setting feel artificial and fake are bad.


To be clear, what I mean is the idea of trying to draw an analogy to the raksha perspective by, say, comparing them to Batman, and how Batman exists in a medium that precludes him from really growing or changing beyond the key motifs by which people recognise Batman, even as continuous generations of comic books add on details and things.

I'm not talking about raksha who invoke following narrative devices, so much as "it probably helps to have some conceptual reference point for what 'dons ethics and passions like fashion' that doesn't fall into philosophical territory", and I imagine that drawing the comparison to how, say, Batman never develops beyond a code of no killing might help.

You yourself once offered the idea that no matter what the trappings of Batman he was always recognisably Batman as a way to imagine what a raksha who reshapes itself has as a consistency.emotion-4.gif


Yes, but there's a certain layer of detachment to the way raksha have always been examined since the 1e hardback that I am not sure is desirable.