Excellent 30, covering a wide range of different terrain are unique in the sense that they could only have evolved in a fantasy setting. I simply love fantasy so how could I not love this sub? Go to Comment
Also a huge secondary market for surplus military hardware, and a market to move obsolete equipment. Why just toss the obsolete skeletron models when you can get a few tens of thousands of credits each, rather than the few hundred credits they might be worth in scrap and recycled parts.
And on the human side, once someone is too old to work in the military, they go into the robo leagues, and start training the kids, the up and comers, and whatnot. Go to Comment
These type of posts are the most useful to me anyway. Being able to browse and choose one that fits the seen is so mush better than forcing the seen to fit the details encounter.
Thanks for the effort on this. Go to Comment
Ow. Cold shower for this article. I have a feeling that it will be re-written, so I'll withdraw my vote until then.
Another thing: assumptions. I suggest to make mention of all the assumptions you work with - the existence of all the supernatural creatures for instance, their politicking, acting on behalf of their own believers, etc. If one or more of them are not true for a given game world, the article can break apart.
As for the demonic faiths, how do you recognize those? How many sacrifices needs a deity (or the ancestors, or the sacred lake, or the Only God, or...) to be listed as evil? I think it wasn't that rare for people to be sacrificed to higher beings, for reasons far more numerous than a simple demon sponsorship.
The topic really doesn't hurt me in any way, I would even prefer more of it! Go to Comment
While it is true that most games model their faiths upon grecco-roman or catholic faiths (convience of modelling usually), not all do. I don't think anyone who is not extreme in their view will find this piece heretical. I do think people will find it less than useful.
You started numbering steps and then stopped. You didn't break out various sections.
My big problem is that the theory does not work for anything but Western Culture, and is not doing a great job for that. China went from step 1/1.5 to 5 (with touches of the earlier), and Hindism just breaks it. Sure Campbell implied many things, but elements of his work have long be discarded.
The sectioning is uneven, as are the write ups, in both tone and degree of content.
The Pagan write up sets the tone for the piece and does not apply itself throughout.
Celestrial and Demonic faiths take a Harsh Right Christian view of other cultures.
United Paganism is the only section that seems really useful.
The Messanic section does not make any useful sense to me. It is in need of a rewrite.
The Godless faith section has good points, but does not really do a good job of describing and manifesting the faiths.
This would really work out as a descriptive piece, rather than a model of change. Each segment needs to be expanded to be more useful, the cliff note versions are not working for me. You can imply linkage (X often changes to Y), but do not show that it is lockstep. Additions of other modes might be useful, especially when you break the piece out of the linear model. Go to Comment