"Scientific" might be the wrong word, even. Reverent vs functional , perhaps.

Somewhat related example -- Unicorn and other Rokugani both understand that horses are living things, but they view the relationship between rider and horse very differently.

E: Oh, and as I was musing above, I think the Lying Darkness could be kept in a form that doesn't make it the end-all, be-all of shady void magic...

"Functional" is probably a better word, yeah. I could see some families (the Kuni? the Tamori?) having more that kind of attitude.

Regarding the Lying Darkness, my answer to that is "Void magic should be weird, yeah." I'm one of the people who pushed for the optional rules where Void magic might misbehave; it bugged me that it basically just felt like a fifth Element you could cast spells in, not especially different from the other four. But I see that as distinct from Shadow.

Well, attitude wouldn't be a problem if the world took the Tenet of Honor seriously. According to Honor, you can do whatever you want and be whatever you like as long as you follow the other six Tenets. It effectively makes "opinions are like *ssholes" the most basic rule for the samurai - the only opinions that matter are the ones concerning your compassion/courtesy/courage/duty/honesty/sincerity.

In a way this might really start to diverge from the canon L5R and might end up just being homebrew for the heck of it.

Broader mysticism and different kinds of magic with more grey area, with the morality more about intent than the source of the power. Alchemy and talismans that are little tidbits hidden away by one school or another. "Heresies" based on things like the real-life Dao. In-Empire philosophical conflict between schools that practice deeply-religious magic, and those who view magic as a "science". Shadow magic that's not an automatic one-way ticket to blank-face-ville. That sort of thing.

Just more strangeness and "Wuxia mysteries" in general.

I'd be happy with just less automatic one-way tickets to $BAD_THING.

It's like, if it goes so badly, so quickly, so consistently... why do people keep trying it ? I mean, they say desperate people are willing to "do anything", but it still has to be something that might produce the outcome they want. Shadow and/or Shadowlands never produces the outcome they want. Why keep doing it?

e: and I think the "right way" to do the Lying Darkness would definitely be something that wasn't "Rokugani-centric" at all. The Lying Darkness, done right, is cosmic horror. In cosmic horror, your culture doesn't matter at all.

e: and I think the "right way" to do the Lying Darkness would definitely be something that wasn't "Rokugani-centric" at all. The Lying Darkness, done right, is cosmic horror. In cosmic horror, your culture doesn't matter at all.

I don't think that the Lying Darkness is a cosmic horror. Its goal and ways of thinking are all perfectly understandable with human thinking, and its three main drive (fear, desire, regret) are entirely humane. From a certain point of view, it is even a good guy or at least the most tragic bad guy of the setting.

In a way this might really start to diverge from the canon L5R and might end up just being homebrew for the heck of it.

Broader mysticism and different kinds of magic with more grey area, with the morality more about intent than the source of the power. Alchemy and talismans that are little tidbits hidden away by one school or another. "Heresies" based on things like the real-life Dao. In-Empire philosophical conflict between schools that practice deeply-religious magic, and those who view magic as a "science". Shadow magic that's not an automatic one-way ticket to blank-face-ville. That sort of thing.

Just more strangeness and "Wuxia mysteries" in general.

I'd be happy with just less automatic one-way tickets to $BAD_THING.

It's like, if it goes so badly, so quickly, so consistently... why do people keep trying it ? I mean, they say desperate people are willing to "do anything", but it still has to be something that might produce the outcome they want. Shadow and/or Shadowlands never produces the outcome they want. Why keep doing it?

e: and I think the "right way" to do the Lying Darkness would definitely be something that wasn't "Rokugani-centric" at all. The Lying Darkness, done right, is cosmic horror. In cosmic horror, your culture doesn't matter at all.

e: and I think the "right way" to do the Lying Darkness would definitely be something that wasn't "Rokugani-centric" at all. The Lying Darkness, done right, is cosmic horror. In cosmic horror, your culture doesn't matter at all.

I don't think that the Lying Darkness is a cosmic horror. Its goal and ways of thinking are all perfectly understandable with human thinking, and its three main drive (fear, desire, regret) are entirely humane. From a certain point of view, it is even a good guy or at least the most tragic bad guy of the setting.

Here's what I don't get.

Tengoku, the Celestial Wheel, Karma, the Fortunes, the Dragons, the Kami, that's all supposed to be "divinely correct", right?

And yet just like everything else, it's said to all exist as an eventual consequence of The Nothing's "Three Sins" -- all of "creation" supposedly comes from that moment of imperfection, of "incorrectness"... and that's also what twists The Nothing into the Lying Darkness.

To me, at least, that's a blatant discrepancy in the creation myth.

I'd much rather have the Lying Darkness be a celestial entity that "stared too long into the abyss".

Tengoku, the Celestial Wheel, Karma, the Fortunes, the Dragons, the Kami, that's all supposed to be "divinely correct", right?

Is it? "Correct" in what sense?

Setting Kharma and the celestial wheel aside for a sec (because it's not really clear if those are something "created" or rather a timeless natural law--unlike all the other stuff we never see it have a beginning and a creator, or demonstrate volition by taking specific actions), none of the other beings/stuff on your list is really ever shown or claimed to be infallible or morally "correct" by either our standards or those of Rokugan. Some of those entities are more or less caring and well-intentioned toward Ningen-do and humankind, and have various degrees of success in carrying out their good intentions, but that's not quite the same thing.

And yet just like everything else, it's said to all exist as an eventual consequence of The Nothing's "Three Sins" -- all of "creation" supposedly comes from that moment of imperfection, of "incorrectness"... and that's also what twists The Nothing into the Lying Darkness.

Sure. Every birth of every creature into the world(s) is determined by the entanglements of kharma (which is to say of the effects of desire, fear, regret etc. from previous lifetimes). If you manage to live a lifetime in which you finally clear all those away, you get to quit being reborn and dying over and over. So it makes total sense to me that those Sins would be at the root of material existence. Creation of the known world isn't really presented as a "good" or moral act. Rather, it's this big mess ("chaotic and formless") that was made by mistake and that everybody since, from Amaterasu and Onnotangu to the seven Kami down to humans, has been trying to impose some kind of order upon because at least that seems, to them, preferable to the alternative.

Creation myths in which the creations got out of hand and had unforeseen consequences for their creators, or in which the creators are amoral forces, aren't really that unusual, and they don't tend to preclude having some benign deities in the same cosmology either. They're just not necessarily the first fantasy "creation" templates one thinks of after growing up in a society where the dichotomy utterly dominating the public discourse is between the idea of a "godless" universe on the one hand, and the idea of a universe created by a loving and omnipotent God on the other.

Tengoku, the Celestial Wheel, Karma, the Fortunes, the Dragons, the Kami, that's all supposed to be "divinely correct", right?

Is it? "Correct" in what sense?

Setting Kharma and the celestial wheel aside for a sec (because it's not really clear if those are something "created" or rather a timeless natural law--unlike all the other stuff we never see it have a beginning and a creator, or demonstrate volition by taking specific actions), none of the other beings/stuff on your list is really ever shown or claimed to be infallible or morally "correct" by either our standards or those of Rokugan. Some of those entities are more or less caring and well-intentioned toward Ningen-do and humankind, and have various degrees of success in carrying out their good intentions, but that's not quite the same thing.

And yet just like everything else, it's said to all exist as an eventual consequence of The Nothing's "Three Sins" -- all of "creation" supposedly comes from that moment of imperfection, of "incorrectness"... and that's also what twists The Nothing into the Lying Darkness.

Sure. Every birth of every creature into the world is determined by the entanglements of kharma (which is to say of the effects of desire, fear, regret etc. from previous lifetimes). If you manage to live a lifetime in which you finally clear all those away, you get to quit being reborn. So it makes total sense to me that those Sins would be at the root of material existence. Creation of the known world isn't really presented as a "good" or moral act. Rather, it's this big mess ("chaotic and formless") that was made by mistake and that everybody since, from Amaterasu and Onnotangu to the seven Kami down to humans, has been trying to impose some kind of order upon because at least that seems, to them, preferable to the alternative.

The "Three Sins" as described in the RPG material, presented in a way that makes it sound like the "First and Greatest Mistake"... would seem to be the origin of ALL existence, not just material existence in Ningen-do, but rather the entire Celestial Order. When I say "divinely correct" I don't mean that the individual entities can do no wrong. I mean that their existence, their hierarchy, the spiritual realms, all of it, is always presented as if it's meant to exist as it exists -- even Jigoku exists because it must exist in the grand celestial order.

Of course, when we get to that part about imposing order on a chaotic universe, suddenly the five ancient races (Kenku, et al) come into the story...

Yeah, by "material existence" I meant all the Realms (Tengoku not excepted), which are after all made out of the same undivided chaos-stuff originally.

The three Nameless Gods come into being, look around at all the mess just starting to vaguely congeal into Realms, and go, "nope!" and call the Sun and Moon into existence to bring order to it, because order is presented as a better idea than chaos. But was chaos a better idea than Nothing? Not necessarily. Creation is making the best of an awkward situation. (Though we are also shown that running around trying to get back to Nothing by violently undoing what's been done, motivated by the same old foolish reasons, isn't necessarily the way to go either.)

I'm maybe doing a bad job of explaining what I'm getting at, on that subdiscussion. I shouldn't post while I'm that tired. Even if you don't agree that it's a discrepancy, am I at least clear on why I see it as one?

Tengoku, the Celestial Wheel, Karma, the Fortunes, the Dragons, the Kami, that's all supposed to be "divinely correct", right?

They are supposed to be correct. However, it does not mean that they are actually correct.

And yet just like everything else, it's said to all exist as an eventual consequence of The Nothing's "Three Sins" -- all of "creation" supposedly comes from that moment of imperfection, of "incorrectness"... and that's also what twists The Nothing into the Lying Darkness.

The Nothing was never "twisted" into the Lying Darkness. Or at least not more than into anything else in the world. This is pretty much the big tragedy of the Lying Darkness: it is just as part of the creation than the world it wishes to unmake, but it is unable to realize this. It is probably the only Bad Guy who literally can't win because its own existence is at odds with its goals.

It's also possible that I'm misreading the setting material on this subject, or bringing in outside baggage on the terminology used (such as "Celestial Order").

I'm maybe doing a bad job of explaining what I'm getting at, on that subdiscussion. I shouldn't post while I'm that tired. Even if you don't agree that it's a discrepancy, am I at least clear on why I see it as one?

There are plenty of examples in world history in which a story of the "indifferent" or accidental creation of the universe/Earth wasn't held to be incompatible with a religious/spiritual justification for earthly political systems. The part where the remnant of Nothing later on turns into an enemy of creation is a bit more innovative, but it doesn't really change the basic outline. Or, to take it from another angle, a generic medieval European theologian would probably have no problem agreeing that if humanity hadn't fallen from Eden there'd be no need for popes and saints and Holy Roman Emperors--without conceding that meant the whole holy infrastructure wasn't the proper way of things in the post-Fall world. (In that case, instead of a sort of inchoate natural law defining sin, you've got an active Creator at the top of the system and you have to account for how They let it all happen in the first place, of course--Rokugan actually dispenses with that potential source of confusion!)

This seems like a case in which, looking at the same stuff, you say "cognitive dissonance," and I say "interestingly nuanced"--those kinda rhyme; maybe we can turn it into a musical number.

This is the way that I have always read the creation of the world to which Rokugan is a part of from its origins. The Nothing actually never created the world, it only convinced itself that it did. This lie that it convinced itself is The Nothing's first actual sin. It takes more power to create, than it does to destroy. Had The Nothing created the world it would also have been able to destroy the world. I may have a different way of interpretting the origin story as opposed to the way others view the origins though.

There's a substantial difference between "what would I change about this game" and "what would I change about the setting." The former is (within the context of internet forum land, at least) pertinent because they are going to make a new version of the game and will be changing things. The latter? No indication that's going to change at all, except with the passage of time.

There's a substantial difference between "what would I change about this game" and "what would I change about the setting." The former is (within the context of internet forum land, at least) pertinent because they are going to make a new version of the game and will be changing things. The latter? No indication that's going to change at all, except with the passage of time.

If they don't change the setting, they are wasting a hugely beneficial opportunity that will never come up again.

If they don't change the setting, they are wasting a hugely beneficial opportunity that will never come up again.

This is really debatable. I know a lot of people who really enjoy the actual setting and I also really enjoy the setting. Yes, it's not perfect due to some picks from the CCG tournament but most of the time, it was really fine. I really like the fact that there's a lot of plot hooks in the current storyline, specially in the 4th edition timeline where there's the overall information. This gives a lot of flexibility to the Storyteller.

You might think it's benificial, but I think this more a risk than an opportunity. Why? Like I've said, there's a lot of plot hooks already and nothing stops the Storyteller to alternate the timeline. There's even alternate timeline in the 4th edition which is already the opportunity you're hoping for. You hate the current timeline? Just change it in your game and there's nothing wrong with that because this is how tabletop RPG works.

Besides a complete makeover, I don't see how a setting changes may be possible. Also, a complete makeover will mean a loss of plot hooks right at the start, which removes a lot of interesting points in the setting like the Lion-Crane War, the Yasuki War, the Dragon-Pheonix War, etc. Sure their will have new wars, but there won't have as many since it took years to have a storyline filled up as now where the communauty was involved. Sure, the RPG communauty barely got involved in the storyline development and this was a bad decision. If FFG keeps the idea of involving the communauty in some storyline branching, then everyone should get involved, not just the players from the card game.

But changing the setting as a beneficial opportunity, I don't think so...

You might think it's benificial, but I think this more a risk than an opportunity. Why? Like I've said, there's a lot of plot hooks already and nothing stops the Storyteller to alternate the timeline. There's even alternate timeline in the 4th edition which is already the opportunity you're hoping for. You hate the current timeline? Just change it in your game and there's nothing wrong with that because this is how tabletop RPG works.

This works the other way around too. If you don't like the new/revised setting then you can always return to the old.

On the other hand, some revision might finally hammer out the setting and nail down several things that currently don't make much sense. Like the role of the shugenja (see the other topic in this forum), or why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread.

This works the other way around too. If you don't like the new/revised setting then you can always return to the old.

On the other hand, some revision might finally hammer out the setting and nail down several things that currently don't make much sense. Like the role of the shugenja (see the other topic in this forum), or why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread.

This is why I've said it's a very debatable discussion. However, I think it may be hard to "return to the old setting" specially if the changes in the setting directly affects the mechanics. I'll take an example with the intention of explaining what I want to mean:

Let's say the new setting entirely remove the Unicorn Clan and Generic Storyteller A hates the current setting and decide to play in the old setting. What will he do with the Unicorn Clan? He cannot simply take the schools from the 4th edition since it may not work with the mechanics.

Of course, my example was about a complete makeover and not some revision, but from what I'm reading in this topic, it's not small revision here and there, it's major changes to the setting. Changes like "Removing the Nothing" is more than a simple revision. Also, for your " why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread. " I would say it's for the same reason it's happening in real life and even today it's still happening. Do we know everything about all our very own historical feuds where there's a lot of historical disinformations? Nope.

"Functional" is probably a better word, yeah. I could see some families (the Kuni? the Tamori?) having more that kind of attitude.

I think it would be an interesting source of interpersonal / interschool / interclan tension, as well.

You might think it's benificial, but I think this more a risk than an opportunity. Why? Like I've said, there's a lot of plot hooks already and nothing stops the Storyteller to alternate the timeline. There's even alternate timeline in the 4th edition which is already the opportunity you're hoping for. You hate the current timeline? Just change it in your game and there's nothing wrong with that because this is how tabletop RPG works.

This works the other way around too. If you don't like the new/revised setting then you can always return to the old.

On the other hand, some revision might finally hammer out the setting and nail down several things that currently don't make much sense. Like the role of the shugenja (see the other topic in this forum), or why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread.

The whole "Official history vs hidden truth" thing never made sense to me. Each clan is a subculture and almost a nation (in the ethic sense) unto itself. I'd expect each to have its own take on the history of the empire, its own secret and public libraries, and its own stories and legends and twist on the mythos. Each would have its own traditions of storytelling and keeping their version of history alive.

I don't think a Lion is going to let some Scorpion or Otomo tell him what happened to his own great-grandfather, when he's been hearing stories about the man since he was four.

Rokugan really is an empire, and not a nation state.

This works the other way around too. If you don't like the new/revised setting then you can always return to the old.

On the other hand, some revision might finally hammer out the setting and nail down several things that currently don't make much sense. Like the role of the shugenja (see the other topic in this forum), or why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread.

This is why I've said it's a very debatable discussion. However, I think it may be hard to "return to the old setting" specially if the changes in the setting directly affects the mechanics. I'll take an example with the intention of explaining what I want to mean:

Let's say the new setting entirely remove the Unicorn Clan and Generic Storyteller A hates the current setting and decide to play in the old setting. What will he do with the Unicorn Clan? He cannot simply take the schools from the 4th edition since it may not work with the mechanics.

Of course, my example was about a complete makeover and not some revision, but from what I'm reading in this topic, it's not small revision here and there, it's major changes to the setting. Changes like "Removing the Nothing" is more than a simple revision. Also, for your " why historical feuds are a thing in a world where historical disinformation is widespread. " I would say it's for the same reason it's happening in real life and even today it's still happening. Do we know everything about all our very own historical feuds where there's a lot of historical disinformations? Nope.

I don't think it hurts for any of us to wax hypothetical about what we would change and what we'd keep.

What's necessary today is for everyone to have the best day possible.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.

If they don't change the setting, they are wasting a hugely beneficial opportunity that will never come up again.

This is really debatable. I know a lot of people who really enjoy the actual setting and I also really enjoy the setting. Yes, it's not perfect due to some picks from the CCG tournament but most of the time, it was really fine. I really like the fact that there's a lot of plot hooks in the current storyline, specially in the 4th edition timeline where there's the overall information. This gives a lot of flexibility to the Storyteller.

You might think it's benificial, but I think this more a risk than an opportunity. Why? Like I've said, there's a lot of plot hooks already and nothing stops the Storyteller to alternate the timeline. There's even alternate timeline in the 4th edition which is already the opportunity you're hoping for. You hate the current timeline? Just change it in your game and there's nothing wrong with that because this is how tabletop RPG works.

Besides a complete makeover, I don't see how a setting changes may be possible. Also, a complete makeover will mean a loss of plot hooks right at the start, which removes a lot of interesting points in the setting like the Lion-Crane War, the Yasuki War, the Dragon-Pheonix War, etc. Sure their will have new wars, but there won't have as many since it took years to have a storyline filled up as now where the communauty was involved. Sure, the RPG communauty barely got involved in the storyline development and this was a bad decision. If FFG keeps the idea of involving the communauty in some storyline branching, then everyone should get involved, not just the players from the card game.

But changing the setting as a beneficial opportunity, I don't think so...

We have a storyline built up over years, but that's more harm than good at this point, because it creates a barrier to entry that's out of proportion to the rewards for looking into it, because there's a lot of history that doesn't make sense (whether due to CCG choices, or CCG direction, or not paying attention when making the setting, etc).

And YOU know a lot of people who like the setting. But that doesn't mean much of anything, and claiming that it's best to keep the old setting because the people you know like it is like Pauline Kael saying "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him." You don't know how many people don't like the old setting because they aren't in contact with the community. You don't know if there's a vision of the setting you would like better. Remember: L5R was dying. It did not have enough players to sustain itself. If the FFG version of the game just goes for the same audience of L5R players, then it will be stillborn. You cannot say that they should stick with what makes you, the dedicated and enfranchised and invested fan happy, because we know that there are not enough people like you to keep the game going.

And YOU know a lot of people who like the setting. But that doesn't mean much of anything, and claiming that it's best to keep the old setting because the people you know like it is like Pauline Kael saying "How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him." You don't know how many people don't like the old setting because they aren't in contact with the community. You don't know if there's a vision of the setting you would like better.

I would like to say, how does "I know a lot of people who really enjoy the actual setting and I also really enjoy the setting." means that I know how many people hates it? I never said that I know that answer and you cannot say how many people likes or hates the current setting, that's just impossible. I would like that you don't place words on things that I didn't say. I've just said that I know a lot of people that enjoy the actual setting, it's a fact that I do know them, that's all. I never said more than that.

One thing that I can say for sure is that I never had any good experiences to a game when the setting changes entirely. For example, I still play the Old World of Darkness and hates the New World of Darkness and I think that I know more what I like than you can think of what I like.

If I would want to bring something such as: "You're wrong, people like the setting." I would have said it that way. Like I've said at the very first sentences: "This is really debatable." I'll say it again, this is really debatable, because it's based on personal taste. I honestly think it will be very hard to find a consensus on this.