|
1.) Elves "meditating" is not part of the OGL, and so Paizo CAN NOT use it. Paizo, (and this goes for #2 also) did invent their own backgrounds and story, so feel sure? Greenwood Elves? uh huh? PS, don't even bother looking up PathFinder Drow. . .
2.) Reread #1 and transplant Gnomes/Elves. There is a lot of background and story reasons that Gnomes are what they are. Read up on the Bleeching, for example. I do not understand your 2nd sentence at all. Paizo actually made an effort to reapply some of the Fae/elemental aspects to the race, and WoW? Ok?
1 & 2 have a little personal preference, but #3 is pretty much just that. I disagree?
I'm also not fond of guns, spaceships, and more than half the gods. :)
They can, d&d stole it from Tolkien, it isn't their's to begin with. I am glad they ditched it though.
|
|
I hate the fact that there's no faith. We know for a fact that the gods exist. That is boring and extremely limiting on what kinds of adventures can be done. The evil cleric of the good church (Richeleu in the 3 musketeers or the Hunchback's master in the Hunchback of Notre Dam) is the one not casting spells (not to mention radiating evil) unless he makes a deal with something evil.
LE Cleric of Abadar anyone? Or Evil Cleric of Pharasma? Both are more than capable of fullfilling the Richelieu role easily enough, with no aura of Evil to speak of (from Undetectable Alignment, which is even on their spell list).
Such people (or slightly less evil, but no less antagonistic, versions) are also potentially doable as a particularly harsh LN, opening up the Lawful Good gods as patrons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms. I just get twitchy whenever there's a gun in a fantasy world. Even hand crossbows make me flinch.
|
LE Cleric of Abadar anyone? Or Evil Cleric of Pharasma? Both are more than capable of fullfilling the Richelieu role easily enough, with no aura of Evil to speak of (from Undetectable Alignment, which is even on their spell list).
Such people (or slightly less evil, but no less antagonistic, versions) are also potentially doable as a particularly harsh LN, opening up the Lawful Good gods as patrons.
I think the point they are trying to make is that an Evil character serving a Good (not N) church/faith/deity does not have spells, stands out in the crowd to any magical detection (even if they can get some sort of antidetection magic up on a daily, 24 hour basis some other way, that's pushing it), and are essentually a high level commoner. The rules do not allow for such a Cleric to play Emporer Palpatine and that ruins a lot of story potential.
I agree, but not sure if that is what they actually mean?
Not only that, Bards can be priests too and anyone with Profession (priest) could serve as a ley priest for churches with an organization that includes such people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually fairly easy for a an Evil character to serve a good god.
For one, the Cleric worships a Concept that the goddess personifies, but realizes that his own actions in service to her, forbid her from granting him spells. If you've ever seen the Big Damn Movie Serenity, you'll recognize this quote:
The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
I'm actually playing a wizard right now with this same philosophy. He desires to be a good man, but seems he's got to be the one that makes the tough decisions, and do the dirty work. When Diplomacy fails, torture works.
The other option is to simply houserule it. If your GM is ok with you playing an Evil Cleric that does the dirty work for a Good God, then that's okay. That is why this is a roleplaying game, not a rollplaying game.
Also, the Cardinal from the Three Musketeers was an Adept, not Cleric. Just saying.
|
|
A bard's spell list is distinctly different from a cleric's. I've never heard of an organization of oracles. I've always envisioned oracles as fairly rare. And I think a cleric would be able to tell if someone is an oracle or a cleric. As for houserules, I could rewrite the entire setting so that nothing bugs me, but in a thread named "what about Golarian bugs you?" That seems beside the point.
'Priests' of the Prophecies of Kalistrade are an organization of Oracles, as are several other followers of philosophies. The leader of Druma is called out as such in Inner Sea Magic, for example.
And I agree, pointing out the in-setting reasons for (or ways around) someone's problem is one thing, but suggesting house-ruling is a bit...odd considering the nature of this thread.
|
|
The rules do not allow for such a Cleric to play Emporer Palpatine and that ruins a lot of story potential.
I agree, but not sure if that is what they actually mean?
This may apply to Clerics, but there are other divine spellcasters these days. Oracles - particularly organizations of oracles - allow for this kind of thing.
That's kind of a cop-out answer that completely defeats the point, (as I understand it) though. Besides highlighting how broken Golarion is (see the various threads about Oracles as the current priests of Aroden, Oracles in "aethieist nations" or similar things), but individuals should be able to tell fairly easily (common sense) when the Oracle/Bard/Adept/Commoner/whatever telling them what their god or faith says isn't actually a Cleric (a mouthpiece, crusader, and evangelist for that faith that is held accountable by that faith by say, loss of all spells and powers). At least a Druid has the same moral restriction. There is also still the Alignment issue.
|
|
The rules do not allow for such a Cleric to play Emporer Palpatine and that ruins a lot of story potential.
I didn't say this. At all.
That said, you're assuming that people can tell at a glance the difference between, say, a Cleric and an Oracle. Which they really, really, can't. Yes, a true Cleric of Iomedae can't be a LE monster, but a LE Oracle can worship her and still be that monster. She doesn't approve, but you'd need some powerful magic to tell that at all, and even more powerful to prove it.
|
|
The rules do not allow for such a Cleric to play Emporer Palpatine and that ruins a lot of story potential.I didn't say this. At all.
That said, you're assuming that people can tell at a glance the difference between, say, a Cleric and an Oracle. Which they really, really, can't. Yes, a true Cleric of Iomedae can't be a LE monster, but a LE Oracle can worship her and still be that monster. She doesn't approve, but you'd need some powerful magic to tell that at all, and even more powerful to prove it.
I did, sorry. I put the quote portion in the wrong place.
That being said, while people can not tell that a Cleric and Oracle are different, at a glance, they can tell fairly easily, especially in cases where it might matter, say when the Paladin is questioning some divine orders handed down by the church that just don't sound right. Or, in your Iomedae example, I see that lasting a whole not even one level, as such an Oracle would stand out in the LG faith of goodness and paladins and fluffy bunnies like nothing else. Rules aside, I don't see a realistic way of rationalizing it, but that's something else completely.
While such an Oracle could exist, it can not fullfill the function of the hidden, (and still powerful spell-wise) corrupted priest, without the GM basically forcing their story to make the PC's powers and control of their characters thoughts autofail.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1- The Shackles being a den of Piracy makes no sense, as there is no trade for them to attack anywhere near their island fortresses. All the trade is in the Inner Sea, which they are not a part of. They have to sail hundreds of miles, around this eternal storm, and then through these teeny tiny narrow straits that Cheliax should be able to control, to get to any real trade. Same for the Linnorm Kings, although to a lesser extent.
2- Rahadoum being an atheistic nation makes little sense in a world where the Gods are very much real. I should have preferred either a) The Gods cannot be proven to be real, like in Eberron; or b) the Rahadoumis had formerly been extremely devout followers of Aroden, who had come to their lands early on and encouraged a humanistic philosophy to dominate over the petty worship of unknowable "gods". With his death, the humanists took a much harder line and modern Rahadoum emerged.
3- FR style Gods are not interesting or cool... again, I think Eberron's model is much better and should have been emulated.
4- Whatever that merchant kingdom theocracy is... that's not interesting, which is why I can't remember it's name.
5- The trade route from the Linnorm Kings/Mammoth Lords to the Dragon Empires is ludicrous. Who would walk over ice and snow when it is much easier to just go east and get on a boat over there? There's even these two giant northern lakes that a fella can use to ferry his stuff on. I know they built a pretty nifty AP out of the concept, but please... I can read a map.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humanocentric setting. It's even more blatant than in the settings of old.
1- The Shackles being a den of Piracy makes no sense, as there is no trade for them to attack anywhere near their island fortresses. All the trade is in the Inner Sea, which they are not a part of. They have to sail hundreds of miles, around this eternal storm, and then through these teeny tiny narrow straits that Cheliax should be able to control, to get to any real trade. Same for the Linnorm Kings, although to a lesser extent.
The comment 'All the trade is in the Inner Sea' is just false.
1) There is a ton of sea trade that never even goes near the Inner Sea.
2) The Shackles sits on the sea trade route that goes down to Southern Garund.
2- Rahadoum being an atheistic nation makes little sense in a world where the Gods are very much real. I should have preferred either a) The Gods cannot be proven to be real, like in Eberron; or b) the Rahadoumis had formerly been extremely devout followers of Aroden, who had come to their lands early on and encouraged a humanistic philosophy to dominate over the petty worship of unknowable "gods". With his death, the humanists took a much harder line and modern Rahadoum emerged.
Actualy I think their reaction makes complete sense considering their history...I am surprised that other fantasy setting have not explored the idea of the gods are just not worth it.
5- The trade route from the Linnorm Kings/Mammoth Lords to the Dragon Empires is ludicrous. Who would walk over ice and snow when it is much easier to just go east and get on a boat over there? There's even these two giant northern lakes that a fella can use to ferry his stuff on. I know they built a pretty nifty AP out of the concept, but please... I can read a map.
So you have seen the complete map of Golarion where there is a whole continent blocking that route? I think you should look at that map again. It is on Page 204 of the Inner World Guide.
While such an Oracle could exist, it can not fullfill the function of the hidden, (and still powerful spell-wise) corrupted priest, without the GM basically forcing their story to make the PC's powers and control of their characters thoughts autofail.
Who says all priests cast spells(IE are cleric)?
Who says Clerics get the spells from the gods they think they are getting them from?
There are alot of ways to run this plot on Golarion without the PCs powers or thoughts being on auto-fail.
3- FR style Gods are not interesting or cool... again, I think Eberron's model is much better and should have been emulated.
I kind of agree with this. However, there would be those who would say just the opposite.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure some of this has already been brought up(I know some of it has, in fact), but here we go.
There's a certain pigeon holing of certain races-> orcs, goblinoids, drow, etc, into the always chaotic evil slot. I prefer these races like I prefer humans, dwarves, and elves; predominantly neutral with truly good and evil individuals being the outliners. I personally find the idea of good and evil being drawn on racial lines to be offensive. It's racism as a game mechanic. I especially didn't like the "if an elf becomes evil enough they'll turn into a drow" thing. Daemons, demons, devils; these and other fiends are the creatures that truly embody evil. Orcs, goblins, gnolls, drow; these are mortals possessed of free will with the same capacity for good and evil as any other creature. So that was one of the first things I changed when I started picking and choosing for my home brew.
I don't like some of the fantasy counterpart cultures. Osiron, I think has been mentioned as being too cookie cutter, which I tend to agree with, though I do love the aesthetic. I'm actually not a fan of Andoran or Galt. I like what they're going for; haven't seen a fantasy setting tackle revolutionary America or France before. I just don't care for the way they're doing it. At the very least I think Andoran should be on the North American stand in continent.
Going back to the racial thing, I don't think there's enough cultural melding. Dwarves, humans, elves, so on so forth sharing and being a part of each other's culture. While I think it is important to have their separate cultures exist, there needs to be some blending both ways. I borrow a lot from The Elder Scrolls to fix this issue, myself.
There's a general human-centricness that I've seen brought up. Humans are always my least favorite part of any fantasy setting. Now, I do like that humans only rose to power because of aboleth backing, that was interesting, but still. I play up other races(especially orcs, due to my own admitted favoritism), and tone down human significance.
The single continent focus bothers me, and the fact that that continent is the Europe stand in bothers me more. Now, I'm not saying they should have done a full world; two continents would be fine. But you pick one and you pick the same one that is the focus of every single other game. This point's been made and debated already so I won't dwell on it any more.
I don't like paladin's being lawful good only. I'm sure this is going to draw some heat, providing anyone pays attention to this post, but I prefer the "paladins as champions of their deity" model as opposed to "paladins as exemplars of lawful good" model. Granted, as I say this I'm currently DMing a game where I'm using the paladins have to be lawful good model, but that's because I don't trust the player playing the paladin to act responsibly if I don't have a code of conduct to lasso him with.
Minor thing, but I'm not a huge fan of Asmodeus being a misogynist character quirk. So while I overall prefer Golarion's model of hell I tend to use Asmodeus' D&D characterization or at least closer to it. He's pretty much my favorite god so it's a bit of a gripe for me.
There are a few other things, I'm sure. There is quite a bit I like; I like guns. I like gunslingers. I like numeria and the crashed alien ship and the robots. I like most of the gods, large swaths of the world. There's a lot that I borrow and steal for my homebrew where I play.
I don't like paladin's being lawful good only. I'm sure this is going to draw some heat, providing anyone pays attention to this post, but I prefer the "paladins as champions of their deity" model as opposed to "paladins as exemplars of lawful good" model. Granted, as I say this I'm currently DMing a game where I'm using the paladins have to be lawful good model, but that's because I don't trust the player playing the paladin to act responsibly if I don't have a code of conduct to lasso him with.
I not argueing...just curious. If you go with the "paladins as champions of their deity"...would that not have a code of conduct based on that deity to lasso that player in?
|
|
The comment 'All the trade is in the Inner Sea' is just false.
1) There is a ton of sea trade that never even goes near the Inner Sea.
2) The Shackles sits on the sea trade route that goes down to Southern Garund.
1) Where from? How can there be colonies on the far side of Azlant? Storms, psycho elves, ancient evil... ain't going to be me getting on that boat...
Nidal is an awful place. Nobody is going to trade there. Northern Cheliax is poor and sparsely populated compared to southern Cheliax. Varisia is... well... fun for stabbing. There ain't much trade outside of the Inner Sea.
2) The Inner Sea World Guide makes it quite clear that the Eye of Abendego is a massive navigation hazard. Ships don't go near or around it. Moreover, the paucity of information on Southern Garund (and more particularly, South Western Garund) implies that little trade from that region goes to the Inner Sea. There's a giant near-abandoned colony down there, whose entire reason for being in the game is that Cheliax forgot about it 100 years ago...
so... what trade?
Actually I think their reaction makes complete sense considering their history...I am surprised that other fantasy setting have not explored the idea of the gods are just not worth it.
we'll have to agree to disagree, but from my perspective, the benefits of clerical magic far outweigh the dangers of meddling priests.
So you have seen the complete map of Golarion where there is a whole continent blocking that route? I think you should look at that map again. It is on Page 204 of the Inner World Guide.
Yes, there is a whole continent... which is warm and settled, and much nicer to drive a caravan across than a perilous ice road north of the arctic circle, which is also much, much longer.
|
|
I kind of agree with this. However, there would be those who would say just the opposite.3- FR style Gods are not interesting or cool... again, I think Eberron's model is much better and should have been emulated.
It seems to be a big split on the D&D community. I recall going to the FR Forums on WotC, and seeing endless pages talking about the deities and their various feuds, etc.. Some people really like that model, but it's not my thing.
So you have seen the complete map of Golarion where there is a whole continent blocking that route? I think you should look at that map again. It is on Page 204 of the Inner World Guide.Yes, there is a whole continent... which is warm and settled, and much nicer to drive a caravan across than a perilous ice road north of the arctic circle, which is also much, much longer.
I believe it's the mountain range along Tian Xia's west coast which makes the overland trip more profitable.
I dont have a source or anything, but I seem to remember reading that it is essentially impassable and that this is why people tend to cross the crown of the world when moving from continent to continent.
The comment 'All the trade is in the Inner Sea' is just false.
1) There is a ton of sea trade that never even goes near the Inner Sea.
2) The Shackles sits on the sea trade route that goes down to Southern Garund.
1) Where from? How can there be colonies on the far side of Azlant? Storms, psycho elves, ancient evil... ain't going to be me getting on that boat...
Nidal is an awful place. Nobody is going to trade there. Northern Cheliax is poor and sparsely populated compared to southern Cheliax. Varisia is... well... fun for stabbing. There ain't much trade outside of the Inner Sea.
2) The Inner Sea World Guide makes it quite clear that the Eye of Abendego is a massive navigation hazard. Ships don't go near or around it. Moreover, the paucity of information on Southern Garund (and more particularly, South Western Garund) implies that little trade from that region goes to the Inner Sea. There's a giant near-abandoned colony down there, whose entire reason for being in the game is that Cheliax forgot about it 100 years ago...
so... what trade?
I had a similar view to you at first. Based on some of the Garund based modules/APs I think the justification for a steady stream of trade is based around a whole "Northern, imperialistic countries exploiting the resources of underdeveloped Africa" thing. Whilst I find that implausible, it's nonetheless an in-game reason.
|
|
I had a similar view to you at first. Based on some of the Garund based modules/APs I think the justification for a steady stream of trade is based around a whole "Northern, imperialistic countries exploiting the resources of underdeveloped Africa" thing. Whilst I find that implausible, it's nonetheless an in-game reason.The comment 'All the trade is in the Inner Sea' is just false.
1) There is a ton of sea trade that never even goes near the Inner Sea.
2) The Shackles sits on the sea trade route that goes down to Southern Garund.
1) Where from? How can there be colonies on the far side of Azlant? Storms, psycho elves, ancient evil... ain't going to be me getting on that boat...
Nidal is an awful place. Nobody is going to trade there. Northern Cheliax is poor and sparsely populated compared to southern Cheliax. Varisia is... well... fun for stabbing. There ain't much trade outside of the Inner Sea.
2) The Inner Sea World Guide makes it quite clear that the Eye of Abendego is a massive navigation hazard. Ships don't go near or around it. Moreover, the paucity of information on Southern Garund (and more particularly, South Western Garund) implies that little trade from that region goes to the Inner Sea. There's a giant near-abandoned colony down there, whose entire reason for being in the game is that Cheliax forgot about it 100 years ago...
so... what trade?
I get the exploitation of Garund, but the most logical place to do that from is... Garund. Eastern and Northern Garund, places like Nex and Osirion are probably knee deep in slaving and oppressing distant peoples in Mwangi and elsewhere.
On the other hand, Cheliax? SOOO far away. It makes no sense.
Cheliax isn't any further than osirion if the mountains are high enough and filled with enough dangerous monsters. Similarly it would depend on the politics of the various nations. After all, holland is technically further away from South Africa than Egypt, yet the Afrikaners attend Dutch orthodox churches.
I'm not trying to persuade you as such - "feel" isn't something one can really argue about. Nonetheless, if you mentally squint a bit, things like this might resolve themselves for you.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of in-depth exploration of the most strange locations (ie, the Mana Wastes and Numeria, for example).
I dislike that we have to wait for an AP to eventually take place there before we get any kind of detail on what is there. even though these are clearly prime locations for extraordinary adventures.
It was the same for Irrisen and the Eye of Abendego before their respective APs.
So in the meantime, my PCs only get to adventure in the local equivalent of Greyhawk. Mind you, it is done in an excellent way, but that makes the lack of a similar development for other more interesting parts of the world even more jarring.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that bugs me about Golarion, is that it is too modern in feeling.+1
I often come across modern things which I find really jarring. Such as when they describe how the government of Andoran manipulates the interest rates of its banks,
Just to be clear, there's nothing modern about that. See, for example, medieval Venice and its banking system.
I wish there were more exploration possibilities. I'd like to have my characters explore somewhere where no one else has been before.
|
|
Cheliax isn't any further than osirion if the mountains are high enough and filled with enough dangerous monsters. Similarly it would depend on the politics of the various nations. After all, holland is technically further away from South Africa than Egypt, yet the Afrikaners attend Dutch orthodox churches.
I'm not trying to persuade you as such - "feel" isn't something one can really argue about. Nonetheless, if you mentally squint a bit, things like this might resolve themselves for you.
Someone has to stock those massive slave markets in Katapesh...
Plus, I love the imagery of undead Gebbite Slavers driving the living to flesh entrepots on the coast.
Hand crossbow as an exotic weapon.
Paladen being lawful good only.
And lack of limits on spell component pouches or other items that don't have a consumable limit.
Is what bugs me.
But that is not really about Golarion. so what bugs me about Golarion is that it to focus on the analog of our world and human race. And not enough information on the other races and there place in the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like the drow not worshiping loath
And I don't like the gods not having stats, power tiers, that kinda stuff
I don't like it being impossible to ascend other than the test of the starstone which they haven't told us anything about
Actually, that last part isn't true. There are gods that have ascended or come into being without the Starstone. Nethys and Irori are the two best examples, with the former using magic to ascend and the latter attaining enlightenment in an almost Buddha-esque manner. Both were human* and simply ascended without the Starstone.
* According to Lost Kingdoms, it is suggested that Nethys wasn't actually human. Although they don't give many hints on his origins, he was said to have purple skin and golden eyes.
|
|
Thank you, let me rephrase it is impossible for PCs to ascend
Or to rephrase further there is no rules in place for the PCs to do so, in 3.5, heck in 2e there were rules for that and they were awesome, and I'm not just on a "give me more power" trip, those campighs were some of the hardest I have ever played, and they involved fairly lifttle actual combat, you did all you could to avoid angering those many times more powerful than yourselves best RP ever
Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the humanocentric nature of Golarion around here, which I was surprised about at first.
And yeah, some people really like the idea of their players ascending due to the option existing in older editions like Lord Foul II mentioned.
Fair enough. I hope with Mythic Adventures coming out, this'll be a great chance to test those waters for something beyond that. Personally, I'm okay with not statting up deities. Not because of the "If you stat it they will kill it" mentality, but I feel it'd be difficult to write up omnipotent beings while still making them feel omnipotent. Idk, might warm up to it after Mythic Adventures hits the stores.
I don't mind the human-centric world, but I am disappointed in the lack of treatment for the other races. While I do get sick of haughty elves and tsundere dwarves, I feel that they could do so much more with them. Especially dwarves, although sadly James really dislikes dwarves so I'm not holding my breath :(
I don't like the drow not worshiping loath
Do you mean Lolth? That would be kinda of hard to do as she is copyrighted by WotC. Though there is nothing preventing you from using her in your homegames.
And I don't like the gods not having stats, power tiers, that kinda stuff
Wait till Mythic is out.
Thank you, let me rephrase it is impossible for PCs to ascend
Or to rephrase further there is no rules in place for the PCs to do so, in 3.5, heck in 2e there were rules for that and they were awesome, and I'm not just on a "give me more power" trip, those campighs were some of the hardest I have ever played, and they involved fairly little actual combat, you did all you could to avoid angering those many times more powerful than yourselves best RP ever
Wait till Mythic. Also there is nothing preventing you or anybody from using those 3.5 or even 2nd ed rules in a Golarion campaign. Also 2nd ed or 3.5 did not exactly have gods stats and 'How to become a god' rules in the core books...as I said wait till Mythic.
Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the humanocentric nature of Golarion around here, which I was surprised about at first.
Shrug it is what it is. I don't mind it...as I would not mind a non-humancentric world. Actualy I find it fun to play a non-human in a humancentric world.
And yeah, some people really like the idea of their players ascending due to the option existing in older editions like Lord Foul II mentioned.
As I said there is nothing preventing you from using those rules.
Seems I am not the only one who dislikes the humanocentric nature of Golarion around here, which I was surprised about at first.Shrug it is what it is. I don't mind it...as I would not mind a non-humancentric world. Actually I find it fun to play a non-human in a humancentric world.
Yeah, but I saw some PFS people complain about how few humans are around despite the canon population numbers pretty much saying against it.
As in, canonically there shouldn't even be so many non-humans running around Avistan yet there they are, doing all the missions and such in PFS games.
And yeah, some people really like the idea of their players ascending due to the option existing in older editions like Lord Foul II mentioned.As I said there is nothing preventing you from using those rules.
Things are much less likely to be allowed in home games if they do not have official support. See the stigma 3PP stuff and homebrews have even to this day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I present that as an option to people, but it's not the point of this thread :P