Alynia's page

So with this war, are we going to see Cheliax take more beatings and stop being a threat, or be utterly defeated and another big bad empire is removed from the board?

I am afraid about the same thing to be honest. "Hellbreakers" sounds a lot like Cheliax will loose this. And removing the last "Big bad evil empire" might feel good while doing so in the story itself, but leaves a big hole afterwards narrative-wise.

Doodledibob wrote:

As it stands, I have little faith in Paizo's commitment to existing lore and the previous stories that were told in the setting.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

As someone who has been with Starfinder from the beginning, I assure you that we're committed to our lore and setting. We're not deleting drow, we're making legally necessary changes that will better improve the setting. Also, spoiler, Apostae isn't going anywhere. We have plans.

That Post alone was so so helpful to me. Thank you a lot for that. Because deleting old lore, here Apostae, is one of my big worries.

That, combined with what we heard/read about knowing about the different baseline. Only the spaceship-combat is now left to worry for the moment. I am looking more positively in the future now.

So again: Thank you.

Thurston's already discussed over on the SFS forum that the people of Apostae aren't likely to see anything more than a name change and the houses becoming more corporate. They're actually unique in this setting so they don't need real changes.

Can you link where that was discussed. I couldn't find it and am VERY interested :)

The drow part will probably have to go no matter what, because of OGL reasons. Paizo weren't happy about this in PF either, but they don't really have a choice.

The argument in the debate about the Pathfinder-Drow was "No worries they will stay in Starfinder, maybe with adjustments, but they are more unique there". Removing them now after that would be really... not fine. Because then it would feel like another: "We keep you all in suspense, but already know that it will happen and don't even try to find a way around"

But maybe it will be at least a cool plotline removing them this time or the replacement will feel cooler than "Snake-People who made the drow up."

edit: But i will admit that in the threads to drow-removal no one from paizo explicitely stated that they would guaranteed stay in SF. I reread some of them on the fly to check my own recollection of the debate.

The FAQ mentions something literally world-shattering. I hope Apostae isn't the world shattered, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Would also provide an angle to resolve the immense levels of slavery present on Apostae, which not all freelancers are comfortable having to write for.

I get not feeling comfortable writing in/for that setting-part.

But "not using", in my opinion is always better than "destroying". But we will see. Thank you for the input <3

Does this mean we will also lose the Apostae-Setting or have it replaced with Snek-People also? I really would be sad, because "evil weapontrader-mercenery-elves in space" were cool. In my opinion way cooler than the same trope with Lizard- or Snakepeople could be.

For everything else: I will wait. As long as Itemization, Starships and the unique classes will still be there, I think i will be fine with a change fo PF2E-Rules. If all these go missing because of the compatibility-issues...then big oof

I can't speak for other people. And I, personally, don't "need" them to be elves. Another species can fit this niche fine. I think elves work good here, because the elven cliché is "light", "good"," noble" and drow subverted the cliché. So "Subverting what you would believe from this species" is part of the appeal. Sekmin don't have a "good appeal" that is subverted with their design.

And: "Evil snakepeople with an empire, trying to pull the strings" on the other hand feels just a bit too close to comfort, because a frightening number of people believe this exact thing to be true in our Real world.

... I really hope we get to have future Champions who still care strongly about law and chaos more than good or evil even though there's nothing in the alignment box.

PS thank you for the most coherent back-and-forth discussion/debate I've had on here in days

I share your hope. At the end of the day i really hope the new system for alignment-replacement and champions in particular will not bring more: "do whatever you want" arbitrariness but another system of codes, especially for characters as the champion.

And you're welcome. As I am relatively new to post here, I am happy to have discussions like this one with you.

I understand where you're coming from. I have a tendency very much of falling on the side of "The flavour of the game matters to me, so please don't ignore the flavour of your...

Thanks for replying.

I admit, the example wasn't as good as it could be. But i want to emphazise again: It was a "to me"-argument. Not an "objectively it is the same as"-argument. As you pointed out there are measurable differences between the champion-example and my barbarian/wizard-one.

To me it was really as simple as: "You want liberator powers, your characters inner self has to be chaotic, so on the "Bah, laws are to restrictive"-side of the scale. So the "price" of having to play a chaotic character to get the Liberator-skill or to play a lawful character to get the paladin-skill was fine. Yes it was a compromise, but none i thought overly harsh or restricting. At least not more than: "You have to follow the edicts/anathemas of your god:dess to..."

And because while there was alignment these things were parts of how the universe worked, i was fine with it.

I had a Champion player whose alignment shifted from LG to NG for RP reasons, but then shifted back to LG later because the retributive strike made more sense for the character. In this case, alignment having discreet mechanics was an impediment to the character's story, since he couldn't both have the mechanics and alignment that suited his character at once.
[...]
and punishing them with mechanics isn't going to get somebody to play a lawful character who didn't originally care about hierarchy, nor a chaotic character who didn't originally care about rebelling. These players already had the option to ignore both by picking neutral unless the deity they liked didn't allow it.

To be honest the whole "But the rules conflicted with the story of my character" point often didn't resonate with me.

In my, 100% subjective and personal, experience and opinion people often want to have the cake and eat it. To me: "If you want this specific benefit, you have to adhere to specific rules" never was impeding per se. (But it could be in some instances)

so here, saying: "if you want specific Champion-Power X you have to adhere to a specific code of behaviour" is fine. It is nothing different than saying: "If you want the social benefits of being a member of an organization, you have to adhere to their code". And if the situation or the roleplay demands it you can break it, but have to live with the repercussions for a while.

So: "I cannot play a NG character and be a Liberator" was, to me, nothing different than "I cannot play a Barbarian and cast wizard spells".

I agree, that these mechanics should not be applied or used solely as some kind of punishment or "education"-tool. But: "If you don't follow X, you don't get the benefits of X" is not inherently punishing to me.

edit: corrected some spelling errors and one wrong term

Putting this behind a spoiler tag since it's going to be a wall of text... but here's some historical context to help folks understand Paizo's history with drow a bit better.

While the "pain" of such a hard retcon still remains and i personally am still very much frustrated with the change and the Snakepeople-alternative, I thank you a lot for explaining and contextualizing here.

After Paizo and much of the rest of the TTRPG industry made strides in getting away from racial stereotyping, linking edicts and anathemas to ancestry of all things feels like a major step backwards. What are the edicts of humanity, and who issued them? It's difficult to even make sense of those questions without turning each ancestry into a monoculture.

In my personal opinion by saying: "Typical edicts are" they are not stereotyping the whole ancestry. Because they are not saying "every dwarf adheres to this!". But I think saying that some things are "typical cultural norms" for "Species A" in "Setting B" is not inherently bad. That helps to differentiate. What is the difference between a "typical Golarion dwarf" and "a typical golarion human" is a question that, for roleplay reasons, is valid. As well as the question: What is the difference between a typical Golarion dwarf and a typical Faerun dwarf, for example. And to answer that some things have to be defined as "typical for ancestry A in Setting B", imho.

Typical human edicts could center around being versatile communities for example. And edicts in this sense are nothing that is "issued". These are, as said, typical cultural norms.

edit: And maybe we will see heritage-ideas for edicts/anathemas as well.