Barong's page

I find the different ways people approach guided imagination to be interesting. Do you see your characters as wanting to exist forever with some subset of their memories intact, but are sad because the lore doesn't allow for it? Or do you imagine them wanting to eventually let go, and are sad at the thought of that time occurring? Or something else entirely?

I like the thought of my characters existing in some capacity forever in some sort of higher existence, but if they need to give up their memories for that, it would be sad but I'm okay with that. But it's the PF cosmology as I've read it that has all souls eventually being annihilated that I have issue with.

But I've let this thread get out of control, I haven't been able to post as much as I've wanted to. Since things are getting heated, I wouldn't mind if a mod closed the thread, it's also been going into some dark places. Figures I come back after a few years and start a mess.

wow...this discussion turned from an interesting view of the pathfinder metaphysics into a depressing discussion about morality...

Yeah, I didn't intend this thread to get this depressing, I'm sorry. You can of course do whatever you want with your own game, but when playing in Pathfinder Society and other official things like the PC game, you have to abide by the rules laid out by the game. The metaphysics of PF just made me kind of sad, and I just wanted to discuss if there was any other things I'd missed. I'm really not trying to power-game or anything like that with the system.

Oh, I didn't know I'd attract this many responses. Thank you all for your input! Thank you Mr. Jacobs, for clarifying about the 'anything can happen' attitude in the cosmology, it's made me feel better, although I disagree with this:

We also wanted to avoid setting something up where some players would see death as a "free upgrade" for their character, since that's what you're essentially talking about if your PC dies, then is reborn with their memories (and thus their class levels and all other things experience grants them) in a more powerful body like an angel or a demon than a mortal body. That's not a theme we wanted to make attractive for play in Pathfinder.

I don't want my character to continue just like he was, and I resent the notion I just want to use death as a way to get more power. Once he becomes a petitioner or other type of outsider, he would forget his class levels and stuff and essentially retire from what he was before(petitioners all forgetting their memories is another sticking point I don't like). I wouldn't be playing him anymore, I just like to think he has a happy afterlife with his friends and family.

Hello, I've been gone from the forums for a long time, due to something I read regarding the lore(as well as personal issues). I'd read before that in PF, souls go to the boneyard, get judged and sent to whatever plane they should go. Then they exist as petitioners or outsiders before melding with their home plane after a long time. I'd always assumed that the melding was simply them ascending to a higher state of spiritual existence, known only to the gods, leaving their essence behind to add to the plane.

But no. From the official sources, souls after the melding are broken down and added to the plane, where they become a non-sentient rock, for example, before being further broken down by the maelstrom to go back to the positive plane as raw energy to make new souls. In essence, they're extinguished. It was upsetting when I read this. My characters, who I played, according to the lore, were going to have a few millennia of paradise before deciding "Oh well, guess I'll stop existing now," and then becoming a chair for some celestial or other.

I know it's just a game, but I like getting into the lore of settings, and this seemed so bleak and depressing(which I have enough to deal with IRL) that I just stepped away from the whole franchise. A few years later I got into 5e, but was disappointed at some of their design choices(let's just leave it at that).

I don't want to start a RL religious discussion I've seen some other threads elsewhere devolve into(we're just discussing PF cosmology). I guess what I'm getting at is it the same way in PF2e? I saw changes here and there I liked, and I'd like to come back. I'm sorry if this is so long, thank you for reading.

Barong wrote:

In the Bestiary 2 there is an Entry for a draconic good outsider called a Draconal already.

Draconals are Chromatic in appearance (ironically), not metallic. They also live in Nirvana, whilst Apsu does not. So they a) can't be the ancestors of Aasimar with metallic dragon traits and b) can't be what Apsu's petitioners turn in.

Who said draconals and other agathions only live in Nirvana? They'll follow any good god who they feels aligns with their particular brand of good.

In the Bestiary 2 there is an Entry for a draconic good outsider called a Draconal already.

SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

Barong wrote:

"goblin babies"

I'd say they spring from "monster springs": places where Rovagug's imprisonment is a little weak and his essence is leaking through which births them in a mass of disgusting ooze and shadow. Imagine the scene of the Uruk-hai pits from the LotR movie. Dark lords and cultists find these places and use them to raise armies that don't have human frailties.

Or like the monster generators in the classic Gauntlet video game?

That's one thing I worried about, making it seem too 'video-gamey'.

Tacticslion wrote:

Hah! That happens one way or the other.

EDIT: to be clear, it's not just you.

Thank you. :)

CorvusMask wrote:

I find it interesting that quite lot of people remove at least one of short races, but not the dwarves ._.

Dwarves have a very-well-established story niche and cliche, while gnomes don't have a universal cliche/non-D&D presence and halflings don't have much of an story niche/individuality in Golarion.

Barong wrote:

The versions of these creatures in the monster manual I simply made spawn of Rovagug. They are souless, always evil, and reproduce by budding, skirting the issue of "goblin babies" that SilvercatMoonpaw brought up, allowing players to slay them with impunity.

I'd probably add further that they semi-mindless, not in the stat-block sense that there's not much to talk to them about (unless you're a dark lord offering them opportunities to destroy stuff) and they certainly can't be reasoned with.

As to the bit I bolded: too scientific for my tastes. I'd say they spring from "monster springs": places where Rovagug's imprisonment is a little weak and his essence is leaking through which births them in a mass of disgusting ooze and shadow. Imagine the scene of the Uruk-hai pits from the LotR movie. Dark lords and cultists find these places and use them to raise armies that don't have human frailties.

Probably the Hold of Belkzen wouldn't exist in this version. Instead it would be something like the Wasteland of the Whispering Tyrant: a hideous dead land overrun by monsters from the springs Tar Baphon used to create his army. Something like Mordor.

The budding thing was actually something I'd been puzzling over. I wanted to emphasize their monstrous, asexual nature and how they reproduce, but it didn't feel quite right. I hadn't had time recently to work on the details of my changes due to real-life issues, but once again you came up with a great idea :)!

Barong wrote:

The versions of these creatures in the monster manual I simply made spawn of Rovagug. They are souless, always evil, and reproduce by budding, skirting the issue of "goblin babies" that SilvercatMoonpaw brought up, allowing players to slay them with impunity.

I'd even make it so that they're only quasi-material and when dead explode into a shower of dust or shadowy fragments that blows away in a non-existent wind. No clean-up! (Because if I want blood and gore that means I want the players to notice it and be a bit uncomfortable about it.)

Oh man that is a great idea I am so using that thank you :)!

I apologize too. I've just heard that "go play warcraft" so much in a hateful manner I just reacted without thinking of the deeper meanings. It's made me just want to abandon Golarion and find some other setting, despite thought I've put into altering it.

To begin with, I put a Roman-themed goblinoid empire in the big empty area east and south-east of Iobaria.

Hobgoblins run the empire and are lawful-good.

Chaotic-good orcs left through a portal on their world(which was getting too close to the sun)and settled in the hobgoblin empire with local autonomy.

I really liked the aesthetics of bugbears in previous 3.X editions, so on the suggestion of a poster on the forums, I renamed them Barix(after a legendary hairy people), and I made them neutral-good members of the empire.

Goblins are chaotic-good members of the empire.

I made new stats for them so they'd be balanced PC races, though I still need more work on them.

The versions of these creatures in the monster manual I simply made spawn of Rovagug. They are souless, always evil, and reproduce by budding, skirting the issue of "goblin babies" that SilvercatMoonpaw brought up, allowing players to slay them with impunity.

sounds like just plain warcraft.

Why aren't you playing warcraft?

I just really hate people saying this. This was James Jacobs' response too when someone asked about good orcs.

The orcs in Warcraft have been dragged through the mud and are now evil and vicious again, with very few good orcs. Warcraft's setting is a mess of contradictions and I hate it.

I was wondering if anything was said about an analogue for the old The Great Beyond.

I love the Planes, so...

Me too :)

I make it far less human-centric as well. Since nobody in my group ever plays human, I pretty much only have them encounter humans if they're in an explicitly, overwhelmingly human area.

Oh, neat! Could you give more details? I've thought of making Golarion less human-centric by putting races in Osirion modeled after the animal-headed gods worshipped there.

There was a map that also summed up the countries(slightly NSFW because of profanity):

Here

I'm wondering how to communicate the changes I've made to my potential players. E-mail everyone a document with all your changes? Get everyone at the table(or together, if you're doing online)and say "Okay, I use the planescape cosmology in my setting and hobgoblins have a roman-style empire with orcs and bugbears and they're all good-aligned"?

I'm always afraid to alter things. I've already seen people react very negatively to things like good orcs and other things that people post that they change. What if my players act the same way?

Any word on the print release? I'm just wondering when to buy so I get the revised version.

Also,does this book have the half-elf/half-bugbear of Bastards and Bloodlines? That was my favorite race from that book.

Pnakotus Detsujin wrote:

I'm scared now! Very scared ...

Aboleths go to hell. Which means that hell possess, technically, access to the Aboleth ancestral memory: this explains so much, i must say! All that dread knowledge available to imps! to imps ...
I wonder how many devils are tempted to colony drop Andoran ...

Nope; all souls, aboleths included, lose their memories upon being judged.

But, in Chronicle of the Righteous, it says that "Gods hold total control of the memories of their deceased faithful, and petitioners who don't worship a god and are sent to the outer planes retain their memory in some fashion,"

It also says in the realm of heaven, that petitioners are reunited with deceased members of their family. If they lose their memories, how would they recognize them?

Ratfolk, Catfolk, and Vanara.

In the PF book "Blood of Angels", it says that while you'd normally assume tieflings and aasimars are natural enemies, they share being 'different' with mysterious origins, and ends with saying:

"...it's not unheard of for members of both races to find comfort and camaraderie across the imagined battle line."

Barong wrote:

Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.

If you're referring to Ms. Pleiades, I'm assuming that what she means is the implications of just how badly the gods manage Golarion due to the fact that PC's are needed to fix things so often.

Oh, okay, thanks :)

Nobody has answered my question of just what existential horror involving the gods exists. I already dislike all the lovecraftian stuff in Golarion, and something like this that involves the gods just might turn me off this setting completely.

Going with LazarX's approach to the question. I've got high standards when it comes to my religion, and none of the Golarion deities make the cut. It's part of the reason I point out the existential horror of the entire setting (and really any setting which puts out what the de facto metaphysical landscape is).

Oh, dear, what is this existential horror? Or metaphysical landscape?

I asked this once of James Jacobs(regarding good rakshasas and PCs who evolve into one with the rakshasa sorceror bloodline), and got something along the lines of 'since these are so rare, make something up'.

there is no known significant half-orc town,

That's not true. In the lands of the linnorm kings, there's the town of Averaka, populated by mostly half-orcs. On the pathfinder wiki, it even says 'the town is a haven of half-orc culture'.

Have you thought about as a possible future project doing a print compilation (once you have finished the zodiac)? I would love to see this in print (yeah I know I can print out the individual PDFs) & I know a lot of DMs that won't consider adding something in that is only available in PDF. It might even give you a chance to adding some things that you have thought of but didn't fit anywhere else.

Eric said this earlier in the thread on page 2:

I won't be compiling all of the information from the Animal Races PDFs into a single product. If and when I produce a hardcover entry in this series, it will reprint a small percentage of the content found in the PDFs, but will then move on to present entirely new material not found anywhere else.

That being said, I do have plans to eventually organize the PDFs in this series into product bundles (possibly in late 2015 or early 2016). That will allow folks to download groups of related PDFs all at once, as if they were chapters in a single book that has been broken into multiple PDF files for ease of viewing

Anyway, you're trying to do the Chinese zodiac, Eric? We'll see a clan of the rat, dragon, and cow eventually?

Oh dear, Halloween. That, and the name of their god I just looked up, really points to them being evil. I hope that's not the case.

Loved the additions to Clan of the Bear :).

Also, Eric, I hate to ask because others keep requesting things, but have any plans for a 'Clan of the Goat'? I think goat-folk would be cool.

I've only played a few characters, and I tend to play them as asexual as possible for fear of offending anyone. But sometimes I think it'd be fun to flirt with a NPC that we meet. But then, how much is too much?

Clan of the Bear has been my favorite so far. Although I dislike the fact that said their souls that aren't immediately raised as einharjar are either constantly reincarnated after they die, or sleep eternally in a frozen land of the dead. It's just that, I'd like races to by able to see their families on the other side. It's just a minor thing.

Yeah, hoping for something like that as well.

Me too!

Though much of this furious behavior is enforced by

orc culture, it cannot be denied that those rare orcs raised
apart from their kind, even from childhood, are often
still filled with the same animal rage. All it takes is a
momentary annoyance or minor frustration to drive an
orc to murderous fury . Their terrible ferocity makes it all
but impossible for there to be any lasting peace with orcs.
Sooner or later, even if they are cowed by the strength of
a greater power, something will send orcs into a rage, and
then blood will be spilled.

Why would Paizo write something like this? They've condemned an entire race to be nothing but XP fodder for players. This makes it clearer then ever I must homebrew away this tendency, and risk offending players who expect evil orcs.

I highly recommend them, CrinosG. I'll soon be running a game where the Therians are the PC races; no humans, elves, etc.

Would that happen to be a play-by-post game on this board by any chance? I don't have anyone in my area to play with :(

Barong wrote:

This always bothered me as well. I figured a solution in my game world. Orc, goblins, etc. are good, and in their place are what I call 'Children of Rovagug', beings of pure evil without souls that reproduce asexually by budding. The different types have the same stats as the bestiary orcs and goblins(I use either my own or 3PP stats for good orcs). Players can freely kill them with no guilt whatsoever. I'd really like to run a group through my world, but I'm afraid how they'd react to such differences.

Oh neat, you could in fact have them be Rovagug copies of existing races, but twisted in some way through chaos and malice. Do it for more than just the green skins.

Like that idea.

Hah, I didn't expect anyone to actually like my idea :)! Thanks!

This always bothered me as well. I figured a solution in my game world. Orc, goblins, etc. are good, and in their place are what I call 'Children of Rovagug', beings of pure evil without souls that reproduce asexually by budding. The different types have the same stats as the bestiary orcs and goblins(I use either my own or 3PP stats for good orcs). Players can freely kill them with no guilt whatsoever.
I'd really like to run a group through my world, but I'm afraid how they'd react to such differences.

I'm sorry I doubted you. You obviously know what you're doing. Now, if only I can find a DM who'll let me play these races...

Regarding your first question, larger creatures tend to be stronger. Not all members of the Bear Clans are Medium, but none of them are Small.

I also wanted to address this. This hints that one of the bear varieties is large size. I remember reading about a DM who didn't allow players to play large-sized characters because it was too difficult to keep track of what they were doing, along with other things like too long a reach. Is this true, that large-size characters are hard on the DM? I'd hate to have the STR-focused bear be unplayed because of that :(

A quick scan of Giant Panda images shows that they do tend to have some kind of darker spots under their noses. Perhaps the Dreamworks guys altered it so it didn't look like a mustache, which would make Po look older?

Well cut my calories and call me skinny, I just looked and they did have the darkish spots. You have to zoom in though to see them. I think it's the fur becoming sparse showing the black skin underneath. Anyway, I've derailed enough.

Been loving the Animal Races series so far :) !

Zhayne wrote:

Regarding your second question, a certain character voiced by Jack Black is one of my favorite animated bears.

Sorry this is off-topic but that character has always irritated me, with those moles above his mouth. Real pandas don't have them, why does he?

Epic Meepo wrote:

Ken Pawlik wrote:

Another in the 'question I totally get if you don't want to answer it because I should wait for the supplement' kind of way ... are Bears going to have a STR bonus for their basic racial attribute? There aren't a lot of STR options in the six supplements so far (that I can recall), and I'm hoping this will have one.

And ... are you filing Pandas under Bear? :)

Oh yeah, been wondering this too. I'd like to play a strong bear :)

I'm really wondering about the Realms too. What about the gods that were killed, like Mystra and Eilistraee?

There's something else too. My favorite god of 2E/3X was Meridar, god of the mongrelfolk and reformed evil humanoids. He was mentioned as being worshipped in the realms in a few books in 2E, but come third edition he wasn't mentioned anywhere in FR materials, not even in the official listing of FR deities.

I'm hoping he could make a comeback, but that's a longshot :(

It's like Fight Club.

The first Law of Man is: "Let no man be beholden to a god."

The second Law of Man is: "Let no man be beholden to a god."

** spoiler omitted **

Well I would love more support for Lizardfolk with feats and traits that accommodate the environments they live in, Large lizardfolk like the blackscale and small lizardfolk like the poisondusk. More support for gnolls would be great.

But above all else for me would be somesort of draconic race(aside from the half-faerie dragon) or a feat chain that turn your character into a half-dragon. Pathfinder has very few dragon options which is unsettling to me, dragons are basically the living essence of magic (IMO).

Doesn't the Dragon Disciple prestige class turn you into a half-dragon though?

But yeah, a draconic race would be cool. One that incorporates eastern dragon motifs too.

And yes gnolls too!

The third-party supplement 'The Quintessential Half-Orc' introduced Savraree, orc/elf hybrids.

Oh, yeah, Ifrits and Wikkawaks too! Also, I always thought it'd be cool for to have a race of dragon-folk that took their cue from eastern dragons.

Ahhhh, how could I forget orcs!?!

Barong wrote:

cheechako wrote:

Barong wrote:

I don't know, but reading this I find it pretty offensive. Could one of the creators shed some light on if this was intentional?

Serious question - with all the real-world mythos and lore (including world religions) that D&D and PF has drawn from, why is a creature based on space-aliens especially offensive?

Elohim is a name used for god. It's like slapping the name 'Jesus' on a monster that is made up of man-eating daisies.

The fact that we don't give a flying fark about the Titans, statted-up gods and demigods, and spiritual paths of other religions leaves us not particularly receptive to the idea that christian iconography is taboo. A lot of us are fairly secular around here and don't care.

But let's assume Abrahamics deserve extra special consideration; Elohim (literally "sons of El") are the children of El and Asherah (God's wife from back before Judaism came to be/became monotheistic) and were gods of a polytheistic Canaanite religion. They were kinda-sorta adopted into Judaism as a few more faces of the same One True God™ and then tabled with the "you can't say god's name," prohibition. This is how you DO polytheism-to-monotheism, the "all false gods are demons" part comes after you have enough converts to start making war on the infidel. And after you get people to stop using the names of their old family and tribal gods.

Of course, as cheechako so kindly pointed out, they're actually aliens from the Raelian cult. So if you're going to get angry, get angry at the real-world cult, not the people making fun of them for using them as a bunch of sociopathic, morally questionable god-children playing with reality and being weaker than a proper archangel, let alone a real god.

here's that link again.

It's also different than using jesus because it's a really obscure name, like seriously.

But feel free to get angry at whatever you want,...

I wasn't angry, I just wondered why they used a name taken straight out of the Torah for God. But I hadn't heard of these 'Raelists' and after reading about them and their 'Elohim', it seems Paizo did take these creatures from there.

Barong wrote:

I don't know, but reading this I find it pretty offensive. Could one of the creators shed some light on if this was intentional?

Serious question - with all the real-world mythos and lore (including world religions) that D&D and PF has drawn from, why is a creature based on space-aliens especially offensive?

Elohim is a name used for god. It's like slapping the name 'Jesus' on a monster that is made up of man-eating daisies.

I don't know, but reading this I find it pretty offensive. Could one of the creators shed some light on if this was intentional?

Catfolk, Ratfolk, Vanara, Gnoll, Wyvaran, Ogrekin, and a good version of the bugbear.