| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you limit races that way why not classes?
Even if you only include PC classes I am sure the distribution of PC classes in golarion is very different from the usual party composition.And it's even worde in other games. For example shadowrun: There are about 2% magic users in the population. When applying this to players that would mean no one may play a Spellcaster ever because you never have enough mundane PCs in your game to even it out. You'd need a party size of 50 to allow one of them to be a mage. Is that really what we want?
If you discount that everyone should play a commoner by the law of averages (which would make for a rather quick a deadly game in which you TPK after the 6th minute of the 15 minute adventuring day) I would actually prefer a game that more accurately represent the class demographic of Golarion. Unfortunately I don't actually know what that is, and even if I did it is unlikely that the group would agree that there can only be 1 caster because 3/4 of all people are martial. I also feel that class is far more important to a character than race (or at least it is with my group). My friends and even myself all choose a class we want to play, and then decide to what race to be based on what synergizes well with it. Race is the secondary concern, it is usually a funny looking human.
As well, none of us are particularly competent at role playing something that is far outside of the human psychology, and its hard to imagine what life is like or the society of creatures so different from humans. Paizo helps this by providing companion books. In which humans get a lot of love, they have many civilizations which have been detailed in several companion books such as "Qadria: Gateway to the East", and "Cheliax: Empire of Devils" etc. The same love has been extended to all of the core races with Dwarves of Golarion, Gnomes of Golarion, Halfings of Golarion, Elves of Golarion. All of which allow you to play a more realistic member of those races. But beyond those core we have sparse books for races. Orcs, Tieflings, Aasimar, Goblins, Kobolds, and Dhampir. And to that extent I don't have a problem with those races at all. It's the other races that get a paragraph about them and end up being played as human with different mechanical benefits. And that just really bothers me. You're free to disagree with me, and thats fine. You don't have to run your games the way I do. But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.
But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.
I have to admit that this stance is even less comprehensible to me than anything else in the thread. If all your opinions are totally inflexible and cannot be altered by any example or logic or looking at things in a new light, then why discuss them?
Come to think of it, Aragorn was 87, but still youthful due to his unusual racial background. So that makes Boromir the only 'normal' one, and look what happens to him.That's something I've noticed among players up where I am. Too often they equate normal human with "Red Shirt."
Well, the normal human in LotR did get killed by orcs with arrows...
Aragorn was close to 1/2 Elf (as he had elf in his bloodline).
But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.I have to admit that this stance is even less comprehensible to me than anything else in the thread. If all your opinions are totally inflexible and cannot be altered by any example or logic or looking at things in a new light, then why discuss them?
Because the initial post seemed to inquire if other people had a similar or dissimilar opinion.
Perhaps I've just misunderstood this entire time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you limit races that way why not classes?
I do this quite often in my campaigns. For example, in Yorheim there are no firearms of any kind in the world. So no Gunslinger class is allowed.
Several campaigns in which I have played banned Samurai and Ninjas because they just didn't fit the idiom of the world.
Totally acceptable.
But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.I have to admit that this stance is even less comprehensible to me than anything else in the thread. If all your opinions are totally inflexible and cannot be altered by any example or logic or looking at things in a new light, then why discuss them?Because the initial post seemed to inquire if other people had a similar or dissimilar opinion.
Perhaps I've just misunderstood this entire time.
Damn, ninja'ed. That said, it is difficult to find the value in simply stating a view if there's no possible discussion on it.
If a forum thread were an appropriate place to count sides, and confirm whether you're in a majority or minority of thought on something, sure, there's gain by shouting "I (dis)agree" but well, why the counting? Does one need affirmation by numbers?Still, the opinion in question:
And to that extent I don't have a problem with those races at all. It's the other races that get a paragraph about them and end up being played as human with different mechanical benefits. And that just really bothers me. You're free to disagree with me, and thats fine.
Honestly, I personally would agree - it's hardly roleplaying to completely ignore everything that makes the race without reason. What is actually gained by saying "my character is a Hobgoblin" if none of their traits or culture is brought up (worse yet, if you have nothing to work with)? It smacks like playing a Cleric and never paying heed to what your deity thinks.
Although, I don't think you're calling it a specific person's problem but it merits pointing out: It's rather impossible to roleplay a character's race at all if only you do. For example, I had a Half-Elf who was, by racial traits, a Half-Drow. Not once did anyone, DM or fellow players, respond to the resultant physicality. So admittedly, playing an exotic character is a demand of your table. But so is any quirk you can introduce.
Did someone say something about the Western genre?!
I do have to say though, I thought you TOZ was your alias.It's a schizophrenic life we lead.
I think it's closer to a DIDs life rather than a Schizophrenic.
Otherwise, carry on. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a forum thread were an appropriate place to count sides, and confirm whether you're in a majority or minority of thought on something, sure, there's gain by shouting "I (dis)agree" but well, why the counting? Does one need affirmation by numbers?
Honestly, I personally would agree - it's hardly roleplaying to completely ignore everything that makes the race without reason. What is actually gained by saying "my character is a Hobgoblin" if none of their traits or culture is brought up (worse yet, if you have nothing to work with)? It smacks like playing a Cleric and never paying heed to what your deity thinks.
Although, I don't think you're calling it a specific person's problem but it merits pointing out: It's rather impossible to roleplay a character's race at all if only you do. For example, I had a Half-Elf who was, by racial traits, a Half-Drow. Not once did anyone, DM or fellow players, respond to the resultant physicality. So admittedly, playing an exotic character is a demand of your table. But so is any quirk you can introduce.
Well, in response to the first part I was looking for affirmation myself, but I was willing to give it to the OP that I at least don't think he's crazy or ridiculous. Sometimes, it's comforting to people to know you're not the only one.
To you second/third part we see to be of very similar opinion, and I agree that it's a group effort to make race/culture/etc things that are explored during play, but as you noted it's near impossible if no one knows that that is.
I will say if all the races had their own "Companion, Blanks of Golarion!" then I would probably just say have fun with whatever you like. Until that time...I just don't like it.
But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.I have to admit that this stance is even less comprehensible to me than anything else in the thread.
I meant to imply that I don't think I have any opinions, on any topic, that are not subject to change if I'm shown evidence that there are different/better/more accurate/more useful ways of looking at things. (Shrug) YMMV.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you weren't sarcastic? Okay. Fine. If you honestly think all other races that aren't humans only get played like funny humans anyway and are way too exotic, why are you and I having this discussion?
Mostly because you seem to be misrepresenting people quite a bit. Not ALL of them, but some of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant to imply that I don't think I have any opinions, on any topic, that are not subject to change if I'm shown evidence that there are different/better/more accurate/more useful ways of looking at things. (Shrug) YMMV.But also know, that nothing you say will dissuade me from opinion either.I have to admit that this stance is even less comprehensible to me than anything else in the thread.
Can I take a second and just say off topic that I post way to quickly and it makes me look like an idiot with terrible grammar who can't spell. Now, I can't spell to save my life but I blame my work for not having a browser with built in spelling correction. Now...
Let me more accurately state nothing can change my opinion on this topic. Some people think it impinges on other people's fun, I do not. I'm admitting there is no amount of discussion that could convince me to change my stance because I do not disagree that it may reduce some peoples "fun". However, it does not reduce fun for my group and playing races that have been covered by the Companion books gives players material to draw from to create believable characters with perspective on culture and doesn't act just like a human.
I am more than willing to concede to good ideas on a wide variety of topics, especially when the idea is demonstrably better than my own. Recently I revised my house rules about no crafting of magical items and instead instituted someone else rules in terms of Magical Item Encumbrance. It also had the benefit of allowing you to ignore Wealth By Level Rules, and I believe you also commented in that thread. It's a Wonderful System. But I don't believe there is something like that for this topic.
Still you are right in general, I shouldn't claim to be intractable. So instead I shall say it is highly unlikely like you shall dissuade me from my current position on this topic.
Claxon,
Thank you for the clarification -- after reading that, it definitely appears that further discussions with you promise to be interesting and informative (as opposed to the waste of time I was initially afraid of).
Thanks again!
The most problematic races I can think of to begin with are Oreads with the feat chain to earth meld and Strix with their flight. The ability to circumvent normal impediments is always strong.
Hmmm...
I pointed out all my Races and you pay for the race out of your starting Atribute Points. Humans cost 0. The other CORE races are just a few points, usually having additional traits from the ARG, with Dwarves costing an additional 2 points and Elves 5. The more exotic races actually have a point or more worked into the cost. Current crew runa 3 Humans, one Elf, a Dwarf, a pair of Halfling Rogues and a catman (agile, sees in low-light). A Fetchling is on the horizon.
Bye the Bye, this is based on a post by Umbral Reaver.
If a forum thread were an appropriate place to count sides, and confirm whether you're in a majority or minority of thought on something, sure, there's gain by shouting "I (dis)agree" but well, why the counting? Does one need affirmation by numbers?
Honestly, I personally would agree - it's hardly roleplaying to completely ignore everything that makes the race without reason. What is actually gained by saying "my character is a Hobgoblin" if none of their traits or culture is brought up (worse yet, if you have nothing to work with)? It smacks like playing a Cleric and never paying heed to what your deity thinks.
Although, I don't think you're calling it a specific person's problem but it merits pointing out: It's rather impossible to roleplay a character's race at all if only you do. For example, I had a Half-Elf who was, by racial traits, a Half-Drow. Not once did anyone, DM or fellow players, respond to the resultant physicality. So admittedly, playing an exotic character is a demand of your table. But so is any quirk you can introduce.
Well, in response to the first part I was looking for affirmation myself, but I was willing to give it to the OP that I at least don't think he's crazy or ridiculous. Sometimes, it's comforting to people to know you're not the only one.
To you second/third part we see to be of very similar opinion, and I agree that it's a group effort to make race/culture/etc things that are explored during play, but as you noted it's near impossible if no one knows that that is.
I will say if all the races had their own "Companion, Blanks of Golarion!" then I would probably just say have fun with whatever you like. Until that time...I just don't like it.
That's true. It just seems unnecessary to air it for that sake. Particularly when there's that possibility that under the surface, all the people agreeing with you ARE crazy. But maybe I need more self-affirmation to not worry about that.
See, I have no disagreement but, with the other two concepts - a part of me does think though, with all the posters protesting "it's because of my campaign world!" that the rationale of not letting players use a race falls short. If you're developing a campaign world, I'd indeed say it's a hallmark of great crafting if you take an obscure race to make something interesting of them.
Take Samsarans. In Golarion, they have very little to say for themselves. In a custom campaign setting, I could see a race that reincarnates all the time as a great element for some sinister form of government.
I guess we should get back to 'exotic race dislike.'
One point that I haven't seen come up yet - in part because the Pathfinder crew has worked a lot harder to avoid it than, say, the writers of 3.5's Savage Species - is the occasional situation where an exotic race has an ability that looks harmless until it's in play, and then turns out to tear holes in plots. Obviously if the campaign is designed entirely around the notion that one PC is... oh, let's say a mind-reader... this won't be an issue. But it is for GMs running APs or other pre-written adventures for the customary races. I'm sure somebody can give an example of this happening - with a custom ARG race, if nothing else...
As given above, Strix have a nasty trick through flight. Although a personal thought is they can be fixed by just quietly asking your player doesn't play them ranged. That flight is still awesome early on but well, it's easier to balance and, hopefully, will encourage some imagination other than "I go up high and shoot."
Anyway, to actually contribute and mention a race - since the SLA thing - Aasimars and Teiflings, and more SLA races now screw a lot up.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the occasional situation where an exotic race has an ability that looks harmless until it's in play, and then turns out to tear holes in plots. Obviously if the campaign is designed entirely around the notion that one PC is... oh, let's say a mind-reader... this won't be an issue...
Granted, every wizard of 3rd level or above, or sorcerer of 4th+, is potentially a mind reader.
Some of the more disruptive things are natural invisibility (pixies), because it's hard to find a minimum level at which a permanent 4th-level combat-applicable spell is a "level-appropriate" ability.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the main thing I said in this thread was that most people choose race based on mechanics, and I never made any kind of value judgment about people who do so. Even most people that love the "flavor" of various races really just like the mechanics that create that flavor.
For example, I, as a child, was guilty of the "I ONLY LIKE ELVES" problem that is so common among fantasy fans. But to be honest, what I really liked was the Dexterity stat in AD&D and being pretty (and in particular, the kind of pretty implied by high Dexterity).
I loathed dwarves, again, mostly because of their Con bonus and what it implied. I had a preference for avoiding hits over absorbing them, so in my young brain, Dex > Con, and being "tough" suggested a certain look that, well, certainly isn't pretty.
It's actually the mechanics that most people are into, more than the flavor, even if they think it's flavor.
I know what you're saying is based on personal experience, and I respect that. However, I don't think any of us can speak for "most people" and I don't know about your "all fluff boils down to stats and mechanics" viewpoint, if you'll excuse me for paraphrasing.
Tieflings (being one of the exotic races lucky enough to have a player companion dedicated to them) are much more to me than just a +2 dex, +2 int, -2 cha, not counting heritages. They are neither intrinsically evil, nor intrinsically good, but shaped by a society that meets them with distrust and hate wherever they go because of a heritage that they themselves have no control over.Tieflings of Absalom will hold lavish wedding ceremonies to be as much in the other races' face as possible to show them that tieflings love too. Chelaxian tiefling slaves hold their ceremonies in private with each part bringing a knife (one silver, one cold iron) that they use to cut open their arms and share blood, after which they will let the wounds heal naturally to form scars. If a tiefling dies, even enemy tieflings will enter a truce and show up for the funeral pyre to grieve the loss of a kindred.
Then comes the variant heritages, which are all described with some fluff in form of a stereotype or typical behaviours, depending on how you look at it. I like to believe that this is because the stronger connection to the fiend that spawned them extends beyond just abilities, but in many cases may influence their way of thinking and behaving as well.
I have to admit that if I choose a heritage, it's likely because their stats are right for whatever class I'm making.
I guess that while they share the basic fluff of standard tieflings, most of the heritages' additional fluff doesn't speak to me much, and then they're just tempting because of the altered stats and mechanics. It's hard to say no to that shackleborn's +2 con and charisma when you're making an intimidate-based barbarian. (Although I would happily overlook grimspawn not having a charisma bonus and make it a bard just for the image of a grimspawn bard with the Rheumy Refrain masterpiece).
@the OP: I've never GM'ed myself and even my playing experience is limited compared to most other people at these boards, but if you're really that concerned with being too strict and boring if you don't let them pick non-core races, why not give it a try and see if it works? Maybe have them be subject to GM approval, depending on that crucial information they have yet to give: their backgrounds and motivations. If the Vanara has no compelling reason to be on the north pole, that player simply gets to write a new background or choose another race.
Tieflings of Absalom will hold lavish wedding ceremonies to be as much in the other races' face as possible to show them that tieflings love too. Chelaxian tiefling slaves hold their ceremonies in private with each part bringing a knife (one silver, one cold iron) that they use to cut open their arms and share blood, after which they will let the wounds heal naturally to form scars. If a...
Love this and it'll be in my game when the party meets again!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like exotic races and have never seen the need to limit their use. Many of the races can be very human-like - Kitsune, planetouched, changelings, and dhampir could all plausibly pass for human - and adventurers are typically odd, anyway. Some of the weirder characters I've seen have been human. The undead bloodline human sorcerer who ate sand and fish bones and bathed in brine and the literally-raised-by-wolves human cleric are at the top of the list.
I still see only the player perspective here. DMs are supposed to accomodate precisely any race setup, but players aren't supposed to have to adapt in any way. Because if they have to, "hello? Hello? Why are you leaving?" Doesn't strike me as a particularly classy attitude. Especially considering how many complain about there being too few willing to put in the effort of DMing. It is very easy to forget that the point is having fun - and that definitely includes the DM.
My GM's perspective is informed by my player's perspective, and vice-versa.
As a player, I appreciate being able to play the character I want to play. As a GM, I try to make sure my players can play the characters they want to play, adjusting the campaign where reasonable.
As a GM, I appreciate my players making their characters a believable part of the world. As a player, I try to make my characters a believable part of the world, adjusting the character where reasonable.
Hypothetical Example: The player wants to be a goblin noble. The GM has not planned on having goblin nobility in the campaign, but maybe some soft-hearted duchess, a cleric of Sarenrae, adopted a goblin in an attempt to demonstrate how they could be uplifted. Or a noble somewhere was reincarnated as a goblin and founded a new line. But maybe these don't sound plausible - maybe the campaign's nobility is drawn from only one race (Humans? Elves? Hobgoblins?) and it would be too disruptive to create an exception. Maybe the player doesn't care whether their character's nobility is acknowledged, but only wants to play a goblin with the affectations of nobility. In this case, the goblin could believe they are a noble, or aspire to be a noble, keeping the core concept unchanged and also providing conflict in a world that will never accept the character as he/she sees him/herself.
It ends up looking a lot like Kirth's consensus model, except it's often just one-on-one discussion & compromise.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno guys, it really seems rather simple in my head. A lot of you guys raised good points, and hell, I've been guilty of picking a race just to garner attention or just because I needed a crutch for roleplaying. Yes, sometimes I get lazy, or didn't have the time to prepare anything else, or just because I wanted to try something different. However, and here's the however, at the end of the day, when I reach for the Advanced Race Guide nowadays, I don't look at the stats so much, unless they're annoyingly crippling (which is why I don't ply kobolds or drow, for instance, as I don't want to wear snow-goggles ll day to avoid being dazzled by sunlight), I look to see what looks cool and interesting.
Something about a big green guy with tusks dressed in the garb of a buddhist monk and speaking quietly and peacefully despite his monstrous appearance is a cool idea. I run with it. The idea of a seductress who can change her shape into a fox-like creature and borrows heavily from old Japanese fairy tails of kitsune (find and seduce men in power, get far up in the court, and flee when revealed to be a shapeshifter and a liar) might intrigue me. Or perhaps I just dug out my old Brian Jacques books and thought: "huh, I wonder if I could pull off Martin the warrior. I'll be a ratfolk fighter or paladin and go from there." Honestly, I pick these races because they're cool.
I can get some good ideas from them that I just can't from humans sometimes. And sometimes humans are right for the job as well. Sometimes I want to be like Samuel Vimes, and be a man out of his depth trying to navigate through the politics of creatures fundamentally different than me to get to the bottom of a breech in the law, and I need an anchor of normality for that to work (which humans are great for). Or if I want to be like Simon the Digger and extol the virtues of never giving in, the endless march forward against all odds and sometimes against common sense itself. I'd go human here, because that idea is coolest from the perspective of a species which is short-lived, adaptable, and never says never.
My point is, yes, some people do it to power game. Yes, some do it to stand out or as a crutch to roleplay. But the fact of the matter is, there is a world of opportunity that exists among the more bizarre races, more characters and traits just ready to be used that just wouldn't be as cool if they weren't a particular race. Some of these ideas just can't be achieved with the core. They can be approximated, but why bother approximating when you can, legally in game terms, achieve the same thing by being a ratfolk or a goblin or what have you? That, I think, is the virtue of the exotic race: a chance to try something new and exciting, a chance to play something inspired by a work that doesn't use humans, and, at the end of the day, because the idea of this race with this class looks really cool in your head and you want to give it a go. Or maybe you just like that race. There's nothing wrong with that. And to deny players that choice might, just might, deny them the opportunity to give that neat idea life.
I dunno. Just my two coppers, so to speak. Carry on, fine people, carry on.
What I do not really get is why it is seen as bad to pick a race because of what it can do.
For example I want to play a martial pc with arcane strike since the FAQ allowed it to qualify via SLA. To do this I need a race with SLAs. Is this in and of itself a bad approach?
One of my GMs rules that some races like the aasimar and the tiefling have divine SLAs because of their divine fluff, so they are out. I'm no gnome fan, even less for martials, so they are out, too. In the end I found the duerga, liked it and decided that he would make a cool wildshape druid.
Every step to this result included mechanical considerations besides fluff ones. Will this PC be bad because of this?
Hmmm...
I pointed out all my Races and you pay for the race out of your starting Atribute Points. Humans cost 0. The other CORE races are just a few points, usually having additional traits from the ARG, with Dwarves costing an additional 2 points and Elves 5. The more exotic races actually have a point or more worked into the cost. Current crew runa 3 Humans, one Elf, a Dwarf, a pair of Halfling Rogues and a catman (agile, sees in low-light). A Fetchling is on the horizon.
Bye the Bye, this is based on a post by Umbral Reaver.
So your solution is to make Humans even BETTER mechanically than they already are?
Love this and it'll be in my game when the party meets again!
Then you should check out Blood of Fiends if you get the chance. The first half is pure non-mechanical fluff and very flavour- and insightful.
So your solution is to make Humans even BETTER mechanically than they already are?
Another poster upthread suggested giving humans an additional bonus feat, if I'm not reading the post wrong.
our group gives an extra feat, or an extra +2 to an ability, players' choice, to improve humans.
They are neither intrinsically evil, nor intrinsically good,
Like humans.
but shaped by a society that meets them with distrust and hate wherever they go because of a heritage that they themselves have no control over.
Like a different ethnicity of humans, say, in real life, Romany.
Tieflings of Absalom will hold lavish wedding ceremonies to be as much in the other races' face as possible to show them that tieflings love too. Chelaxian tiefling slaves hold their ceremonies in private with each part bringing a knife (one silver, one cold iron) that they use to cut open their arms and share blood, after which they will let the wounds heal naturally to form scars. If a tiefling dies, even enemy tieflings will enter a truce and show up for the funeral pyre to grieve the loss of a kindred
None of this is racial--that's all cultural. The race is irrelevant to this, just the cultural place of a downtrodden race hated by the majority with defiant cultural signs.
What I do not really get is why it is seen as bad to pick a race because of what it can do....In the end I found the duerga, liked it and decided that he would make a cool wildshape druid...Every step to this result included mechanical considerations besides fluff ones. Will this PC be bad because of this?
Some folk feel that any mechanical decision not wedded to a roleplaying consideration is somehow anti-roleplay. I can only surmise they feel the two are somehow mutually exclusive. Personally as someone who enjoys both rather independently of each other, it's a hard viewpoint to fathom.
Yes, this is all cultural—it's the culture of the race. Goblins thinking reading is evil is also cultural. It's part of what makes up the race and gives it flavour, and if you won't count culture as fluff, then I guess all I can say to that is no wonder you think fluff is only in the mechanics.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but shaped by a society that meets them with distrust and hate wherever they go because of a heritage that they themselves have no control over.Like a different ethnicity of humans, say, in real life, Romany.
And you know what we call different ethnicities of humans IRL? Different races. And the prejudice that some ethnicities encounter is racism.
Fantasy races fill the same role in the world as real-life human ethnicities (races!), except that sometimes it's about having horns or tusks instead of skin colour or epicanthal folds. Though skin colour can be a problem, too - look at drow!
None of this is racial--that's all cultural. The race is irrelevant to this, just the cultural place of a downtrodden race hated by the majority with defiant cultural signs.
There is some overlap between race and culture IRL. In fact, we have this thing called ethnoculture in which members of a distinct race/ethnicity also maintain a distinct culture. Just google black/african-american culture, latino culture, native american culture, or jewish culture (also an ethnoreligious group!) for some examples of cases in which a particular ethnic group is associated with a particular culture.
Can these cultural details exist in a world without fantasy races? Yes, for the most part. However, some details are difficult to translate to human cultures / ethnocultures. For example, tieflings are actually descended from evil outsiders, and may feel real antipathy towards their ancestors rather than just internalizing racism.
And if you're going to dismiss most of the flavour attached to non-human races as "just cultural, irrelevant to race" then of course you're only going to see the mechanical interest in playing nonhumans. Because if the outcast mentality is irrelevant to tieflings, what is a tiefling besides +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Cha, Darkvision, and a prehensile tail?
Me: What's your character's favorite color?
C.K.O.: Who knows? Who cares?
My half-orc druid likes green, for obvious reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What are you talking about, all he has to do in the forest is strip down naked, and he's basically invisible! That's awesome for a druid, of all things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT:
I'm sad no one commented on The Dreadful.
I'm happy someone commented on Brian Jacques.
None of this is racial--that's all cultural. The race is irrelevant to this, just the cultural place of a downtrodden race hated by the majority with defiant cultural signs.
I'd like to comment on this for a moment. Not directly to mplindustries, but on the ideas that seem inherent within this comment that have been espoused by a number of posters - even some valid points and ideas.
First, while direct comparisons are impossible (there is no human race related to literal fiends with the ability to create spheres of darkness) there's a reason Sci-Fi and Fantasy are popular: they allow us to explore themes without exploring history. This is a basic function of Role Play and Science Fiction and Fantasy in general.
Let's say, for example, we look at the Wookie genocide and enslavement in the Star Wars universe (before the movies).
Now, does this relate to real world events? Yes. There are lots of examples of genocide and enslavement based on racial differences throughout human history. But you know what? I'm not particularly comfortable talking about that. Why? Because it's still an ongoing thing. There are people, in the world, today, who either have direct family history involving racial inequality or are experiencing it directly now.
Instead, the Wookie allows us a "safe" manner to explore those themes. We can all look at Wookies, agree that what happened to them is wrong, and affirm within ourselves that things like oppression is wrong and mean and bad. It is a safe environment to discuss and become enlightened. And it's also fun.
You know what else is fun? Taking a Wookie into a rage and totally demolish the daylights out of Storm Troopers. It's cathartic. It feels good. And I don't have to have the "too close to reality for comfort" of having an <insert real ethnic group here> facing <insert ethnic group here> justifiably because <real world problem>, which could cause all sorts of problems in relating to your fellow real-life gamers that sit right across the table and could be extremely offensive to them. Especially if you're not the ethnic type in question, and/or if someone else is.
Now, to be clear, Wookies (and any other fantasy race) do not map directly to any given real life race. The oppression and murder of the Wookies is comfortable, because nothing like Wookies actually exist.
It's because it doesn't match perfectly that we can explore the same themes, yet not offend or harm (wittingly or not) those around us. By using fantasy races to explore real life themes, we can actually be more inclusive as a group, allowing people to play that would otherwise be turned off.
This is the same reason that Sci-Fi and Fantasy works on a broader scale. Tech, Science, or other things don't allow <insert scenario here> to occur? How would people react. Well, knowing people, they'd react <insert speculative way here>. (Secretly, of course, we know that, or at least hope that, because <insert real life thing here>.)
This is the basis of all fantasy (and science fiction).
If you're argument boils down to, "Don't get exotic races in my fantasy, they're lazy." I will kindly ask you to either leave the Fantasy and Science Fiction genres entirely, or else accept the fact that you're holding a double standard: which, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with a double standard, but it should be acknowledged. The fact is, you're missing a large part of the reason for such genres in the first place: to tell stories that don't work with humans as humans, or don't work comfortably - and by "comfortably" I mean, "It would probably be outrageously offensive if you tried to map it to real life."
While some groups would be okay with that, many won't be.
I mean, you know, we don't exactly condone breaking down people's doors, killing them, and taking their stuff, but in Pathfinder that's kind of okay in the right contexts, and even necessary in certain ones. Because the normal way we handle things doesn't always apply here.
All that said, by all means, do what's fun for your group. But citing it purely as laziness, for stat bonues, or "to be a special snow flake" is a false tricotomy (). It could very well be any of those things. It could also be to teach ourselves a valuable lesson.
Perhaps there's another reason entirely that I can't think of.
And here's one of the best things: it might not be on purpose. Perhaps someone can't define why they want another, exotic, race. Perhaps they don't have the words for it. That still doesn't narrow their reasons down into a single category (or even several categories) that you () define for them.
So, just wanted to mention that as another possibility. Carry on. :)
EDIT:
That's not just "cultural", it's something "in the blood", and it'll hit the character even if they're completely raised in the idyllic town of Niceville.
Hey! What does our completely homebrew town in our homebrew world (that was later mapped to Wheloon in FR and explained as a name change by a fussy baroness) have to do with any of this!
EDIT:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff about fantasty/sci-fi racism
Thank you. I think you very aptly described why I like to think that most humans in-game won't care much if someone belongs to a different ethnicity (even if they might have to take a second or third look at the Osiriani who just walked into town in the Lands of the Linnorm Kings)—as long as the cultures don't clash, I prefer to think that even if people take some distance from them, they would also be met with a lot of curiosity—yet I'm perfectly fine with the prejudice, hate and fear that tieflings are met with. Racism is just easier to deal with when the victims don't exist in real life and are obviously and provably related to devils, demons, and all sorts of nasty evil stuff.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to the Star Wars thing, let's look at the original party. It consists of the only high level member of his character class in the known galaxy; a farmboy, who happens to be a fabulously talented pilot, and his apprentice; a former Wookiee freedom fighter who through contrived circumstances ended up the first mate of...; a veteran military officer/deadly gunslinger/smuggler/rogue; and a powerful aristocrat and government official, who is secretly a rebel partisan and a deadshot. This is undeniably an unlikely group of heroes, most of whom individually have complex and self-serving backstories. But they are mostly human.
So let's look at LOTR. You have a hobbit rogue with the most powerful artifact in the world; one of five wizards in the entire world; an elven lord, even though elves have mostly left the world; a dwarf warrior and noble scion; and two human nobles, one of whom is an active military leader, and the other of whom bears the most famous sword in legend. Again, the most unlikely cast, each of whom has an incredibly improbable and self-serving backstory, with the possible exception of Boromir. Humans (real humans) are a minority; Gandalf is a member of a race with approximately a dozen living members.
The Round table? A boy destined to be king, wielding a one of a kind sword; a wizard said to be the son of the Devil; the world's greatest swordsman; a chieftain almost his equal with a rage like no other man's... etc.
So what's the take home message here? The idea that the a group of PCs would be a "party of freaks" is a shaky premise to begin with. Simply by being PCs, they are protagonist material; that is, by concept alone, most fantasy characters in classic stories are one-in-a-million heroes.
The only real objection to the party of treants and half-clockworks and kobold aasmiar is on aesthetic grounds. If the GM and the players can't agree entirely, or if the players can't barter amongst themselves, then some kind of compromise may be in order. One way to handle it is literally a feat tax: the GM can just require one feat to be expended if you want to play anything that is, in his opinion, weird, nonstandard, or unduly attention-seeking. Want to be the albino scion of a dying, evil, magically adept race? A good, surface-dwelling member of a race of evil, subterranean elves who despise other humanoids? A paladin in a world where knights are mostly (non-magical) fighters and cavaliers? A sorcerer with mysterious and wild arcane powers in a world where wizardry is an arcane science learned from books? Spend a feat. Congratulations.
But mostly, I just try to accommodate my players. If I can't, I apologize, and try to help them find an acceptable alternative.
If you're argument boils down to, "Don't get exotic races in my fantasy, they're lazy." I will kindly ask you to either leave the Fantasy and Science Fiction genres entirely, or else accept the fact that you're holding a double standard: which, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with a double standard, but it should be acknowledged. The fact is, you're missing a large part of the reason for such genres in the first place: to tell stories that don't work with humans as humans, or don't work comfortably - and by "comfortably" I mean, "It would probably be outrageously offensive if you tried to map it to real life."
I don't know where any of this is coming from. I never said people shouldn't play exotic races, I just said race is generally a mechanical choice.
I also implied, though never said, that I don't really like that fact and would prefer if race had no mechanical advantages/disadvantages. While I do generally want to play humans, I dislike that there are sometimes better mechanical choices and I can't take them without playing a race I'm not happy with.
|
I also implied, though never said, that I don't really like that fact and would prefer if race had no mechanical advantages/disadvantages. While I do generally want to play humans, I dislike that there are sometimes better mechanical choices and I can't take them without playing a race I'm not happy with.
I wouldn't mind a campaign where there were no mechanics involved. Just characters being heroic, especially as I am not an optimizer/min/maxer by any means. I pick a race because it's interesting to play and I enjoy an RP challenge. I play Serpentfolk Magus (Bladebound, Kensai, Dervish build) Which is a very strong class choice for a full blooded Serpent Folk. But what breaks the game are those who choose these races and are unable to restrain themselves from trying to do everything better, faster and stronger then the other players.
Granted some choices are impractical but in the end we are just playing a game so to those who let their players have free choice. That's awesome.
To those who choose to keep a more (Enter a good non-offensive words here as I am brain dead) and you and your players are happy. Thats Awesome too. As I play in an all elf game on the boards as well and it is most enjoyable, mainly because of the challenging fights, story and RP value.
Now by no means do I not have those moments where I want to shine! But most the time just because I have dominate person, I don't dominate someone everyday because I can.
@mplindustries A game that has an interesting setup for different stats for Humans is Iron Kingdoms d20 rpg from Privateer Press, each region has different humans with different stats. It may take time to adjust them to pathfinder but at least you can offer a new option to your dm. ;) Hope you check it out its a cool setting~
If you're argument boils down to, "Don't get exotic races in my fantasy, they're lazy." I will kindly ask you to either leave the Fantasy and Science Fiction genres entirely, or else accept the fact that you're holding a double standard: which, by the way, there's nothing inherently wrong with a double standard, but it should be acknowledged. The fact is, you're missing a large part of the reason for such genres in the first place: to tell stories that don't work with humans as humans, or don't work comfortably - and by "comfortably" I mean, "It would probably be outrageously offensive if you tried to map it to real life."I don't know where any of this is coming from. I never said people shouldn't play exotic races, I just said race is generally a mechanical choice.
I also implied, though never said, that I don't really like that fact and would prefer if race had no mechanical advantages/disadvantages. While I do generally want to play humans, I dislike that there are sometimes better mechanical choices and I can't take them without playing a race I'm not happy with.
Let's look at this again.
I'd like to comment on this for a moment. Not directly to mplindustries, but on the ideas that seem inherent within this comment that have been espoused by a number of posters - even some valid points and ideas.
I wasn't saying that you were saying that. I was saying based on the ideas that you seem to be espousing, and thus my argument.
I'd like to point out that I wasn't trying to pick on you, but the idea that everything can be reduced - comfortably - to humans is wrong.
In fact, by this point I wasn't even responding to your specific arguments (the only thing I pulled out of your post was the "humans are just as viable" comment, which I quoted), but more comments like,
Therefore, a desire to play an "exotic" race must either be motivated by a human desire to "stand out" and be "unique" among a gaming group, or to optimize.
Or
Exotic races seem like an easy (read: lazy) way to inject some creativity into an otherwise bland character. I'd prefer to see players take the more challenging path of creating a good backstory and personality than rely on gimmicks like horns and wings to make their character special.
... which had not been addressed in the way I addressed them, at least to the best of my memory and reading comprehension.
These (and similar) arguments made on this thread come with the implication (if not intent) of "doing it only with humans makes it better", which, frankly, isn't inherently true. Might be for your group, though. For most, it's uncomfortable.
EDIT:
Or rather silly posts like this...
I think you are missing my point. The "elf" outliving lover role can be played by a human. There's a reason humans connect with the character. And the same story COULD be told with a human. The 18 year-old PC is in love with a 65 year-old human. She has to choose what to do. And her decision may not be socially acceptable among her family. Yes, a human can play the role.
The goblins, there's a reason we think they are sometimes funny and end up doing unintentionally funny things even though they don't mean them to be. And they are often played for comedic effect. We can relate to them. They are buffoonery. It's akin to making a comedy segment out of the keystone cops. The role of goblins can be played by humans. Just change the window dressing.
The tropes, the clichés, the stereotypes -- they all exist for a reason. Because they are relatable human emotions, feelings, scenarios. They are placed in writing, literature, movies so that you can make a point but mask that you are making a point about the state of human emotion or being. But they are human relatable if they are the good guys.
At the heart of the matter is the human heart, and the rest is simply window-dressing, SFX, or a race description.
... which miss the point that due to the powerful ability for exaggeration of reality which Fantasy and Sci-Fi holds, entirely new scenarios come up which can't be directly assessed with only-human elements*. While the specific points (longevity v. not*; inherent destructive social mores) were addressed, the underlying elements of why "humans are just as viable" in a general sense was not.
* Heck, in Sci-Fi it's totally possible to have "only human" stories which directly compare and contrast "immortal" humans from "mortal" ones, but, again that's a different story altogether. Plus, it's kind of stretching the limit of the definition of "human" by that point.
Actually, now I'm curious. How many GMs out there are running campaigns wherein you would allow a player to play an undead exoskeleton of a human-sized termite (presuming it's a 0-HD race)?
Actually, now I'm curious. How many GMs out there are running campaigns wherein you would allow a player to play an undead exoskeleton of a human-sized termite (presuming it's a 0-HD race)?
Honestly, I'd be all over it. Would have to find a place that makes sense for it in the world (and probably make it rare), and make sure it's balanced (it actually having all those Undead immunities would be pretty unbalanced from 1st level), but it sounds hella cool.
A little weird, yeah, but is it really any weirder than the Half-Eldritch Abomination covered in eyeballs and weird tentacles (Qlippoth spawn Tiefling, which is also coincidentally a rare type of Tiefling) in the grand scheme?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to curate the race and class choices for campaigns I run, because I am usually trying to build something thematic.
Examples:
Skull & Shackles: Core Races. Tengu, Tiefling, Kuru, Ratfolk and Vanara also acceptable. No Ninja. No Samurai.
Jade Regent: Core Races. Races from Dragon Empires acceptable but need to take a specific trait (Minkai Exile). Samurai & Ninja must have "Minkai Exile Trait". Tengu, Aasimar and Tieflings also accepted.
Kingmaker Anything goes but requires GM approval first. (Kingmaker is supposed to be the ultimate sandbox so giving players free reign seemed best).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skull & Shackles: ... No Ninja.
Butbutbut PIRATES VS NINJAS MAN!
YOU RUINED IT!
|
|
Skull & Shackles: ... No Ninja.Butbutbut PIRATES VS NINJAS MAN!
YOU RUINED IT!
The thing about a joke is that it's only really funny the first time you hear it. I like ninja, I think they have a place in the world but Skull & Shackles is the big pirate AP where Pirates are the heroes I don't want some dumb guy in a body stocking and a ski-mask taking any spotlight time at all from the piraty pirateness of piracy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about a joke is that it's only really funny the first time you hear it. I like ninja, I think they have a place in the world but Skull & Shackles is the big pirate AP where Pirates are the heroes I don't want some dumb guy in a body stocking and a ski-mask taking any spotlight time at all from the piraty pirateness of piracy.
Skull & Shackles: ... No Ninja.Butbutbut PIRATES VS NINJAS MAN!
YOU RUINED IT!
Y'know, one of my fallback PCs for our Skull and Shackles campaign is a runaway Red Mantis Assassin-flavored ninja. ;)
(he'd be keeping that association on the downlow and go "plainsclothes" for the most part of course, but still)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing about a joke is that it's only really funny the first time you hear it. I like ninja, I think they have a place in the world but Skull & Shackles is the big pirate AP where Pirates are the heroes I don't want some dumb guy in a body stocking and a ski-mask taking any spotlight time at all from the piraty pirateness of piracy.
Obviously you just need to divorce the ninja from black pajama-wearing dudes with ski masks then.