Fine-tuning Ancestries

JudiciousGM wrote:

Can I suggest that ancestral beliefs be called something different than "edicts" and "anathemas" to differentiate it from religion? Perhaps "traditions" (or even "folkways") and "taboos" instead?

Edict and anathema suggest explicit commands, "Thou shalt..." or "Thou shalt not..." Cultural values are almost always implicit, an internalized sense of should and shouldn't that generates feelings about actions.

Edicts and Anathemas are stepping up in PF2R to take some of the place of Alignment. It’s my understanding that most characters will have Edicts and Anathema from several places; Ancestry, Class, Deity, hand-written…

I have no problem tying labels of personal values in characters to the Edicts and Anathemas system. Unity in Rules (to paraphrase Aristotle’s Poetics) makes them faster to understand.

Nevertheless, as a GM who runs Paizo adventure paths, I need a quick model of a personality of an NPC. The main antagonists have a page in an NPC Gallery giving their biography, and secondary antagonistcs have a few sentences describing their role in the story, but for lesser antagonists and allies I have to guess based on their alignment and their purpose in the story. Thus, I hope that the expanded Edicts and Anathemas will provide the clues that alignmetn currently provides.

"Keep your clan dagger close" does not provide meaningful information about behavior beyond always wearing the clan dagger. Is it supposed to symbolize respecting the clan? If so, I would phrase it as, "Honor your clan dagger and the clan for which it stands." (Yes, I borrowed some words from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.)

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

If I see a dwarven gate guard in a module with Edict "hunt the enemies of your people," then I would envision them as someone who trained as a warrior to fight enemies. And this guard would be upset over being stuck on guard duty rather than out in the field actively hunting enemies. They would be hoping that strangers approaching the gate are enemies, and thus, have a hostile attitude until they prove not to be enemies.

On the other hand, what would be a reasonable edict for a dwarven gate guard who is supposed to be friendly to the adventuring party? "Fortify your home against your enemies"? Custom edicts would fine-tune their game roles, but standardization also have merits.

Would every NPC have a custom edict based on the popular edicts? Will this extend to PC, too? This could lead to the classic problem of a player making their character undermine the party with the excuse, "It's what my character would do." With a custom edict, they can even point out that they had written it down in black and white. Hm, at least the GM would be forewarned.

For anthemas witch mechanical effects I imagine the class feature or feat that gives that anathema will have it written what is the mechanical cost. If an anthema doesn't list it having a mechanical consequence than i imagine there won't be. These Edicts and Anthemas were always roleplay guidelines, to add flavor and narrative ideas to the character, the consequences were always listed in the mechanic as well.

Just to riff off this idea...

Maybe I'm reading too much into it and the term "Ancestry" is supposed to do exactly that. I dunno. But when helping players make characters, I always introduce those elements as cultural rather than ancestral.

I think part of what is going on might be that Pathfinder is going to be pretty informed by Golarion, regardless of how generic some people might want it to be.

So while humans are likely going to get all sorts of nations and national attitudes, traditional dwarves are going to be mainly influenced by the values shared by the Sky Citadels. Traditional elves are going to be influenced by Kyonin. Traditional Gnomes by... I don't know, their shared need to avoid the Bleaching, I suppose?

Players wanting to play rebellious dwarven teenagers or worldly dwarven travellers influenced by their time abroad would just pick different beliefs.

Not really my cup of tea, particularly on an ancestry level, as the world is a large place and different regions should feel differently.

But to be frank, I am likely not the target audience and prone to ignore a lot of writeups like this when I build a character (ancestry is rarely a super relevant aspect for the characters I tend to play).

I love the tweaks here and ultimately, getting alignment out of ancestry is good.

That said, will you be adding any language to localize statements about ancestries? Saying "Dwarves are family-oriented and have a strong sense of justice" is great to say about the Inner Sea dwarves but I don't think it's realistic to apply that to every dwarven culture in Golarion. To compare to Earth, I don't think there is any statement you could make about a culture that applies to every human culture except "They are social and like to eat and sleep."

Obviously if every dwarf worships their creator Torag, there would be some uniformity but an old faith like that would have many different sects.

I have no problem tying labels of personal values in characters to the Edicts and Anathemas system. Unity in Rules (to paraphrase Aristotle’s Poetics) makes them faster to understand.

I would absolutely agree if we were talking about rules, but it sounds like we are talking about descriptive text, so I still favor something with a little more nuance. It's not a hill I'll die on though.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it and the term "Ancestry" is supposed to do exactly that. I dunno. But when helping players make characters, I always introduce those elements as cultural rather than ancestral.

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

Luis Loza wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

The words "enemies" and "your people" are very broad on purpose here. These enemies could range from a dangerous, rival adventuring party to monsters from the Darklands to the agents of a sovereign state.

You may be on safer ground by reframing it in more morally positive terms. For example, "pursue justice for your people" or "pursue justice for the wrongs done to your people" instead of "hunt the enemies of your people", which I will agree, sounds a bit genocidal.

Yeah...it's the kind of edict I'd expect as part of the Sith Code. It clearly encodes hatred, there are only so many ways to interpret a word like "hunt."

So instead of alignment, which everyone viewed as stupid for pigeonholing people, we're going with "Most dwarves love art/hold grudges". Really setting ourselves apart from the pack here. This is why people are going to have to pay 250$+ and we're pulping the old core rulebook?

I think I'll stick with alignment.

You think the new books are coming because Paizo really just wanted to ditch alignment... THAT is your take away from what they are doing with PF2e remasteted and why?

Ignore all the other elements and focus on stripping out OGL so it can be done safely under ORC... nah just totally about alignment and that is why the new books are being made -laughs-

I do wish that Paizo would make a clearer distinction with the Ancestries between your ancestry/species, and the culture of your ancestry. Saying "Dwarves believe this" comes across as weird and a little racist sometimes. But saying "many Dwarven cultures value this deeply" gives you a sense of what growing up in a Dwarven household might be like, both for Dwarves and those who may grow up in Dwarven society. Otherwise, it comes across like old D&D saying "Drow are evil," "Dwarves hate Elves," "Orcs are dumb brutes," etc. which takes away some player agency. And sure, you can take it in your own direction and do as you will with the ancestries using what the book says as a guide to the general culture, but I'd really like it if the book straight up treated it as a cultural thing, and not a genetic thing. Maybe I'm reading too much into it and the term "Ancestry" is supposed to do exactly that. I dunno. But when helping players make characters, I always introduce those elements as cultural rather than ancestral.

It literally calls them out as specifically being "popular". Not biologically essential.

I'm hoping your personal edicts and anathema's interact with new Hero Point rules. The current rules are lacklustre, but I love stuff like WoD tying Willpower to your characters Nature and Demeanour.

What reason would a character have to voluntarily take an edict/anathema from their ancestry?

I think it's called “role-playing”.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

What reason would a character have to voluntarily take an edict/anathema from their ancestry?

I think it's called “role-playing”.

Exactly. That said, optional rule is optional. So...

Do people also read the alignment page raw as how their character must act?

Anyway I love this update! Especially knowing that underperforming feats will be looked at. Thank you! I look forward to the remaster more and more!

Do people also read the alignment page raw as how their character must act?

People absolutely do, yes. That is one of the reasons alignment is disdained for a lot of people, they see it as a restrictive straight jacket.

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

That is what Heritage already is, and they certainly could have anathema/edict as well there if they want. Just like champion and champion type adds tenets to an priority list. They could even go so far as add them to backgrounds too, a soldier never leaves anyone behind, a farmer never wastes daylite, etc.

Twiggies wrote:

Do people also read the alignment page raw as how their character must act?

People absolutely do, yes. That is one of the reasons alignment is disdained for a lot of people, they see it as a restrictive straight jacket.

... You know what yeah that's true lol

Twiggies wrote:

Do people also read the alignment page raw as how their character must act?

People absolutely do, yes. That is one of the reasons alignment is disdained for a lot of people, they see it as a restrictive straight jacket.

Speaking for myself here, I wasn't a fan of the way it erased moral nuance, so I'm happy to see it go. Conceptualizing people as inherently good or evil, lawful or chaotic just didn't work for me. Planar beings, sure. But free-willed mortals?

It literally calls them out as specifically being "popular". Not biologically essential.

And it sounds like a replacement for the existing "You might..." and "Others probably..." roleplay hooks, they also serve no mechanical benefit.

JudiciousGM wrote:

I think it would help (and Paizo has an opportunity here) to separate species and culture (which are currently conflated as "Ancestry"). There is no reason that the dwarves of the Five King's Mountains would have the same cultural values as dwarves in Osirion or a country in Tian Xia simply by virtue of both being dwarves—unless they shared some fairly recent common history, and I don't think they do in current lore.

That is what Heritage already is, and they certainly could have anathema/edict as well there if they want. Just like champion and champion type adds tenets to an priority list. They could even go so far as add them to backgrounds too, a soldier never leaves anyone behind, a farmer never wastes daylite, etc.

This is a great point, two great points actually! I, personally, would prefer to see edicts and anathemas attached to specific cultural backgrounds like Heritages or Backgrounds rather than biological ancestry, which suggests either a globally shared species-culture (which could conceivably come from a species-specific deity/pantheon) or a biological basis for culture, which is thin, thin ice.

Not really my cup of tea, particularly on an ancestry level, as the world is a large place and different regions should feel differently.

But to be frank, I am likely not the target audience and prone to ignore a lot of writeups like this when I build a character (ancestry is rarely a super relevant aspect for the characters I tend to play).

I mean the example they give shows it's set of guidelines because you know not every dwarf has a clan dagger.

How will the Higjhelm book feed into this? Visa versa?

I do kinda wish comment section would stop sniping on alignment x'D Everytime that happens I'm tempted to write homebrew on it but its hard for me to finish self motivated products to release stage

Personally, I'm glad that it's at least possible for suggested edicts/anathema to be a bit on the darker side of grey. The average dwarf is morally neutral. The average person is morally neutral. Different cultures value different things, some of which can and do clash. The real world is full of cases where two people can point at each other and have each think themselves good while thinking the other evil. I'd rather have a Golarion where we can accept that the dwarves might disagree with us about what is and is not morally good as much as our own relatives and neighbors do (if perhaps not on the same topics).

I like what I'm seeing out of edicts and anathema, and I hope that they do have at least some sort of rules implications, somewhere - even if it's only some of the edicts/anathemas. I also hope there's some sort of mechanic for realizing that that's no longer the person you are and changing, preferably one that's at least a little more in-depth than "shrug, erase one, write in another".

I'm also pretty stoked about the level of re-vamp they're suggesting on racial feats. I look forward to seeing more as it comes.

Maybe I'm not reading the feat correctly, but based on my initial interpretation of the new feat, it seems that a Chain Lightning effect wouldn't fulfill the trigger for the reaction, but a Polar Ray or Finger of Death would, which is...bizarre. Nor would the feat seem to trigger on critical hits/failures, which is even more bizarre.

I'm otherwise fine with the write-up. It's vague enough to make it apply to a broad spectrum, but specific enough to define the ancestry (though maybe some more Ancestry feats involving the Clan Dagger would be nice if it's meant to be a crucial part of their culture). People reading into more than what's written up sounds more like personal problems than objective issues to me.

Hmm. I'd like to know two things.

1. With the larger role of edicts and anathema, will they have mechanical weight for more characters? In 2.0, I think it's just champions, clerics, druids and barbarians that have mechanical consequences for breaking anathema. But I could see something like "get a hero point for pursuing an edict or refusing to break an anathema even if that is detrimental."

2. With ancestral feats getting a touch-up, will the weapon feats auto-increase with class-based proficiency increases?

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

'family' is not specifically Clan, it would seem.

That would empower 'found family' tales, which is an adventuring staple.

“Hunt the enemies of your people” isn’t that, though.

Hunt the enemies of your people doesn't need to be ancestry based unless that it where you take it. It could be named enemies, individuals that have done wrong by you or your people, it could also be other dwarven clans - its only ancestry based if you bring that to it.

What reason would a character have to voluntarily take an edict/anathema from their ancestry?

Roleplay. It is to inform yourself, the GM, and the other players at your table what your character values.

It is like writing down LN or CG on your character sheet - but it has a lot more information in it. And it is information that you yourself chose for the character, and so it means much more precisely what you intend for it to mean.

With the larger role of edicts and anathema, will they have mechanical weight for more characters?

Given that the edicts and anathemas of ancestries seems more roleplay-specific than mechanics-specific, I suspect that the consequences will likewise be roleplay-specific than mechanics-specific.

For example, some towns (or residents of the same ancestry as you, at least) might look unfavorably upon you or act against you if you don't follow the edicts or embrace the anathemas of your own ancestry.

I expect that there will also be certain prewritten Edicts and Anathema that do have mechanical impact. Ones that are generally available to all characters rather than only ones specifically for particular classes.

But the ones that players make up on their own for their characters - even if it is based heavily or even copied directly from an example list - will not have mechanical impact more than what the players themselves decide to have for it.

I'm glad to see alignment go. And I know that the goal of the remaster is to keep things broadly as much the same as possible while removing traces of OGL material.

That being said, I would have liked it if Paizo had taken the opportunity to split "Ancestry" into physical and cultural components. For instance, I was just looking at Kobold Press's "Tales of the Valiant" preview -- which is their get-off-OGL product -- and they do it by calling the physical part "Lineage" and the cultural part "Heritage." So Lineage (as per TotV) determines your size, speed, lifespan, and physical abilities; while Heritage determines things like languages, common belief systems, and the like -- and in the new Pathfinder Remaster would also logically cover edicts/anathemas.

I like this distinction, whatever one chooses to call the two parts, because it makes it easier to create, say, a dwarf raised by wood elves, or a human adopted into a dwarven family.

Anyway, just a suggestion to ponder, possibly for a future edition if there is one.

I expect that there will also be certain prewritten Edicts and Anathema that do have mechanical impact. Ones that are generally available to all characters rather than only ones specifically for particular classes.

But the ones that players make up on their own for their characters - even if it is based heavily or even copied directly from an example list - will not have mechanical impact more than what the players themselves decide to have for it.

That'd be cool... and it opens up space for interesting new feats and/or AP-specific shenanigans as well.

Like, a feat that starts with "adopt this edict and..." or an NPC or group of NPCs who ask you to swear to follow a certain anathema and then have some way of perceiving if you ever break it. Spells, too - Geas is a thing, and I could absolutely imagine some sort of Asmodean contract magic that might interact with them in entertaining ways. Lots of ways to work in interesting interactions between various organizations and specific associated edicts/anathema

It might also be cool if some of the mind-affecting magic out there was easier to resist if it went against your edicts/anathema, and harder if it went *with* them. Heck - I could easily imagine a low-level mind-affecting Divine or perhaps Divine/Occult spell that would only work if it was telling you to do something that your edicts/anathema were already telling you to do... or a somewhat higher-level one that would only work if it was ordering someone to do something that the caster had an edict/anathema for. All sorts of possibilities, really.

Oh... and we're really going to need a word for "edicts/anathema" because that's a bit of a mouthful, and a bit awkward in type, too.

That being said, I would have liked it if Paizo had taken the opportunity to split "Ancestry" into physical and cultural components.

The physical components are just the stuff like "starting HP", "move speed", "any special senses", "any special attacks you get from your anatomy", etc. that are in the sidebar of the ancestry (or a trait, like the Azarketi being amphibious).

A heritage can have something physical in it (some of them change your size), but "what an ancestry can be" is pretty broad already.

Ross TenEyck-McDowell wrote:

That being said, I would have liked it if Paizo had taken the opportunity to split "Ancestry" into physical and cultural components.

The physical components are just the stuff like "starting HP", "move speed", "any special senses", "any special attacks you get from your anatomy", etc. that are in the sidebar of the ancestry (or a trait, like the Azarketi being amphibious).

Also a bunch of feats like "You have a tail that you can beat people to death with", "you can fly with those wings" and "you are capable of transforming into a spider". Natural spellcasting is sometimes physical, sometimes cultural. Certain other aspects, even relatively rare ones, can also be lineage (like, say, the "Zon-Kuthon is watching you" feats from the human ancestry - he follows bloodlines).

That said... I look at where they would have had to make the split, and it really doesn't work well at this point. Like, it's a *huge* amount of churn, in ways that would have made people *very* unhappy (If nothing else, any attempt to balance it would have made at least some characters simply unbuildable). As far as Paizo is concerned, it woudl have been all lose, no win.

It... *might* be worth doing for PF3? Maybe? I'm not convinced it would be worthwhile even then. Like, somewhat more elegant, yeah, but if "Heritage" is "who you grew up with" then what do we do with the geniekin?

Jacob Jett wrote:

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

I’m also concerned about this, but it’s worth saying that my thread raising issue the Vengeful Hatred feat dwarves get and a few things around that did wind up locked a good while back.

I definitely don’t like seeing it further enshrined in the Remaster as core to dwarves - who are the “enemies” of the Dongun, Kulenett, Mbe’ke, and Taralu, the dwarf cultures we’ve spent PF2 with so far?

EDIT: This worry only grows larger with Orcs also coming in Player Core. I don’t want someone onboarding with the Remaster to feel like there’s a setting expectation that they should mistreat their ‘ancestral foe.’

Hopefully those different dwarf cultures have different enemies, rather than it being as simple as all dwarfes hate all orcs.

Also, with the monster density of Golarion there's no reason why the enemies even have to be humanoids as opposed to demons, gugs, cave worms, or what have you.

Then is the term Anemthema being reworked so that it is no longer used in cases where there ARE actual mechanical consequences so that this kind of confusion is avoided or are they recycling "plain language" with mechanical terms?

I'd argue that there is no realistic world where that word can be considered plain as it is not a commonly known term at all which itself represents a problem if the Ancestry articles are meant to be understood at a base-level reading. Middle or High School age kids are 100% going to have to stop reading the Ancestry section in order to google the term if it isn't properly explained what it means right up front, context is helpful here but it won't be a panacea for less well read consumers or most youth.

One of the things that I like(d) about role-playing games was that they seemed to have a natural effect of naturally expanding the vocabulary of the people who played it. When I was myself in Junior high, about the only others around my age (and yes, it was a long time ago) the only people my age I could have discussions about 'Probability' were gamers. I would never hold, having someone taking the time to look up a word or two to understand its meaning better as a bad thing in my view.

Winkie_Phace wrote:

It literally calls them out as specifically being "popular". Not biologically essential.

And it sounds like a replacement for the existing "You might..." and "Others probably..." roleplay hooks, they also serve no mechanical benefit.

Actually, they could serve the 'mechanical' benefit of encouraging players to think through their character to give their motivations more depth and therefore give the whole story for other players a more believable/enjoyable play.

--------------------------

I like the sound of having 'popular/commonplace' edits and anathemas for typical members of the ancestry (or specific heritages). It seems obvious they are as presented not required for all members of the ancestry. I also am glad they aren't all whitewashed away and can have some grey to them. I wouldn't want them written to be unconditionally vile, but for typical non-holy ancestries, why would their cultures be unblemished? Anyone honestly know of any culture with no blemish in their past when their past is fully known. With the particular Edict in question, maybe replacing 'hunt' with something less dehumanizing might be a worthwhile consideration. 'Crush', 'Suppress', or 'Repulse' might be options that some might view as leaving open options other than 'inhumane-termination' which some might associate with the term hunt, especially one with knowledge of past dwarven portrayal.

I think some of the fact that since they are presented as suggested/optional/examples, the Vagueness is quite intentional and important. For instance... the wording of enemies and people are both vague enough it could be interpreted by a particular individual of that ancestry in completely different manners but might represent a common cultural value, but different life experience. Also take for instance the mention of family, rather than Clan... this is because some individuals might focus more on their close-knit family, while others might focus on their clan as a whole. Others yet might care not about the desires of any of their current clan-mates and instead care only about brining THEIR CLAN back into what they perceived its former GLORY from their past!

I love the idea of Backgrounds being able to include suggested Edicts and Anathemas too. I presume that the classes where violation of Edicts and Anathemas will clearly indicate that only violations of applicable class-based violations would impact class-based abilities mechanically.

Just thinking about it, I wonder if might makes sense for certain 'lessons' for witches might have options that might have Anathema or Edicts that might come with the particular feats/choices? As a consequence of your having access to this sort of magic you might have a specific anathema or edict tied to your ability to use that ability.

Even non-witches might have access to some sort of Fae Pact type feats that might impose some Edict or Anathema on the individual partaking of the Pact, and having access to some 'benefit' that the Pact gives them.

I like the whole concept as it makes it so Anathema and Edicts are no longer a Paladin thing (or spread from Paladin to other clerics, etc.). But as mentioned a way to help portray your character, but in some cases it may also give an opportunity for certain mechanical benefits, if opting into it by class choice or other such selection.

keftiu wrote:

Jacob Jett wrote:

Hmmm, I suppose I'll be "that person" and ask if Dwarves really need an edict like, "hunt the enemies of your people", which seems very much like encoded racism to me...

YMMV

I’m also concerned about this, but it’s worth saying that my thread raising issue the Vengeful Hatred feat dwarves get and a few things around that did wind up locked a good while back.

I definitely don’t like seeing it further enshrined in the Remaster as core to dwarves - who are the “enemies” of the Dongun, Kulenett, Mbe’ke, and Taralu, the dwarf cultures we’ve spent PF2 with so far?

EDIT: This worry only grows larger with Orcs also coming in Player Core. I don’t want someone onboarding with the Remaster to feel like there’s a setting expectation that they should mistreat their ‘ancestral foe.’

Hopefully those different dwarf cultures have different enemies, rather than it being as simple as all dwarfes hate all orcs.

Also, with the monster density of Golarion there's no reason why the enemies even have to be humanoids as opposed to demons, gugs, cave worms, or what have you.

I think ultimately I'm wondering what "hunt your enemies" edict teaches the average tween or teen playing this game versus a more positively worded edict like "protect your family members". Hopefully sensitivity readers will be employed for the revised book texts (not that they're a panacea for these issues). Games do not exist in a vacuum away from the rest of society. Positive role modeling is a thing.

YMMV

Ultimately, these are roleplaying guidance and suggestions.

This is something PF2 needs more of. Roleplaying guidance. Especially ones that fit the game.

I'd also be keen to see if there was something positive tied to having an edict or anathema as well. Just to help GMs push adoption of these.

Oh... and we're really going to need a word for "edicts/anathema" because that's a bit of a mouthful, and a bit awkward in type, too.

It looks like they are called Beliefs in the blog up there.

I'm curious how the team came to the conclusion that rolling back to old testament style lists of obligations and prohibitions goes beyond a morality compass including altruistic and selfish behaviors, tradition and freedom.

These are not things you have to follow, other dwarves might shun you or be less amicable to someone who breaks with cultural norms, similar how a village might shun bad behavior in their children etc. this is obviously not "obligations and prohibitions " and this seems to be a really bad faith argument to make here.

Cyrad wrote:

I'm loving this. I was worried the removal of alignment would be a missed opportunity to replace it with something better. If every character will have personal edicts and anathemas, then I'm all for it! It would be interesting to see if any mechanics key off of it, such as enchantment spells having differing effects and limitations based on the target's edicts and anathemas.

Don't you feel that mechanics keying off of edicts/anathema will just drive players to pick the edicts/anathema that give them the mechanics they view as beneficial, likely diluting roleplay?

Many other games have mechanical carrots to incentivize characters to be roleplayed a certain way. I don't see how this is different.

Case and point:

I'm hoping your personal edicts and anathema's interact with new Hero Point rules. The current rules are lacklustre, but I love stuff like WoD tying Willpower to your characters Nature and Demeanour.

Also, if Core doesn't explicitly do this, I'm writing a guide on how to make this work on PFI. CofD tying Willpower recovery to Virtue/Vice is a design feature I love and Hero Points is a great way to use that in Pathfinder.

Oh... and we're really going to need a word for "edicts/anathema" because that's a bit of a mouthful, and a bit awkward in type, too.

axiom

Ummm isn't having "racial beliefs" suuuuuper problematic? Like it is the exact same reason why racial alignment is bad.

Plus this should really be sitting under culture and not ancestry. But it probably should not be there either.

Hell it would make more sense under background than ancestry. And it would still make no sense there.

Might want to check with a bunch of cultural consultants before you walk face first into this one. You have done a lot of good work Piazo. Don't ruin it.

As long as it's optional and there's no carrot/stick for GMs to use to force every player at their table to adopt them, it should, mostly, be fine. The optionality of all of this is honestly its best feature. If I wanted a CoD style mechanic, I'd simply run one of the many CoD games.

What I’m reading is, for example, if I created a Dwarf Barbarian, I would typically add together the edicts and anathemas of both the Dwarf ancestry and the Barbarian instinct (assuming they don’t conflict) and use this combined set, plus a bit of tweaking, as the specific edicts and anathemas for my character.

I’m assuming that, in the case of a conflict, a non-ancestry edict/anathema would have priority over an ancestry-based edict/anathema?

Sanityfaerie wrote:

Oh... and we're really going to need a word for "edicts/anathema" because that's a bit of a mouthful, and a bit awkward in type, too.

axiom

creed
credo
idealogy
dogma
tenet

Yuh-huh and no-no.

I hope and expect--however foolishly it might be--that the majority of Pathfinder players will look at language which includes the words 'tend to' and 'often' and draw the conclusion that these generalizations are not a rule of behaviour but rather a general guideline by which to understand the cultural values of a given ancestry.

It may make more sense to key these values to cultural background rather than ancestry directly, but in reality we're operating with a system where an elf from sovyrian and an elf from the Crown of the World still have a mutually intelligible language, so at some point, the generalization must needs gloss over some details which can and could be added into particular culture's descriptions, such as for example "the dwarves of this region do not follow the practice of carrying clan daggers and instead ..." etc.

What I’m reading is, for example, if I created a Dwarf Barbarian, I would typically add together the edicts and anathemas of both the Dwarf ancestry and the Barbarian instinct (assuming they don’t conflict) and use this combined set, plus a bit of tweaking, as the specific edicts and anathemas for my character.

I’m assuming that, in the case of a conflict, a non-ancestry edict/anathema would have priority over an ancestry-based edict/anathema?

From my understanding its more like a Barbarian will have their barbarian instinct and your character may have other edicts and anathemas if you choose to give them one, and you may take inspiration from your characters dwarven ancestry and pick some of the popular/common anathemas for dwarves but you can just as much come up with your own ones not even in the book.