Thorri Grimbeard's page

Do you have a quote for me from a different book that backs what you say?

A quick Google search showed that real-world gorillas use tools. That's what I meant.

But, to try to phrase my points better, this is a fantasy game, and orcs and the others are imaginary creatures. So a GM can say "I'm following canon, which says X, and based on that I'm going to say orcs are not inherently evil", and that's fine. Or a GM can say "I don't find inherently evil humanoids plausible, so none of the 'races' in my game will be inherently evil" and that's fine too. But it's also fine for a GM to say "In my house setting, 'orcs' are 'inherently evil' (which means, for example, that they think that killing other sentients is amusing, are incapable of seeing anything wrong with it, and regardless of their upbringing they will end up trying to kill innocents for fun), so there's nothing wrong with killing orc pups, which shouldn't be mistaken for 'babies'" and that would also be OK. Arguing "a humanoid species that we can communicate with that is inherently evil is impossible, and if you play that way at your table you're doing it wrong" is silly when you're talking about a completely imaginary species in a completely imaginary setting, and especially when you consider that "evil" is a social construct.

Arguing "a 'race' that was actually sociopathic/evil like that would kill itself off in a few generations", well, I tend to agree with that, actually. And I find it hard to imagine a species that's good enough at tool use to create and use swords and plate armor but isn't "intelligent" evolving in reality. But, fantasy.

D&D/Pathfinder's scale of intelligence is not realistic at all. But, then again, this is a game where cheetahs use claw attacks.

It's kind of funny that we have some people explaining post-structural theory in the same thread as other people are outraged that anyone should think that "sentience" exists as something other than a social construct. A very self-serving social construct, I might add.

According to The Inner Sea World Guide, slavery is "commonplace" in Rahadoum. That makes it unambiguously evil by any normal standard. They have their "reasons" why? I'm sure they do. So did the Confederacy, apartheid South Africa, late Republican Rome, and any number of other states.

It's amazing to me how willing people are to make excuses for commonplace slavery because the slavers are "atheists".

Also, it should be noted that religious folks aren't necessarily executed.

Oh, I'm quite sure we're not. Again, slavery is "commonplace". Where do you think they get so many slaves from? Not by restricting potential slaves to atheists.

Would I immigrate to Rahadoum? Hell no--I want all that divine magic to keep my PCs healthy and happy. Yet I can also see the nobility in their mission (if not their method)

Yeah. You see, I wouldn't (voluntarily) immigrate to Rahadoum because I wouldn't want to be tortured and enslaved or killed. That you see "nobility" in a "mission" not to end oppression, but to become the oppressor, while dealing torture and slavery to those less fortunate than yourself, as long as it's "atheists" killing and enslaving "religious" people...

As a "confirmed bachelor" who is straight, I think it's pretty ignorant to go around assuming you can tell the orientation of other people, particularly strangers and casual acquaintances, based on whether they're in a relationship or not.

Oh, and the real world association of "confirmed bachelor" and "gay", to the extent that it holds, holds because gays were banned from marrying until very recently. In a world where gays were not discriminated against, there's no reason to think gays would be more likely to be single than straight men. So the proportion of "confirmed bachelors" that are straight in such a world would be similar to the proportion of adult males who are straight.

You really think that saying "I am making great sacrifices" without any cost for the character is a fulfilling role playing experience?

Yes. In games like Pathfinder and 3rd, we do this throughout character design. The place where the characters make sacrifices that cost them is during play, not character design.

Any choice that "hurt the real life enjoyment of the game by all of the players and the DM" isn't a good idea, but that has very little to do with the power of a choice. There are powerful choices and options that will hurt my enjoyment of the game way more than a VoP and having a weak monk in the group.

Fair enough. But you may want to consider that a lot of other peoples' real life enjoyment of the game is hurt by the presence in the game of badly suboptimal choices -by the "power of choices"- and it's not just the player who's made the suboptimal choice that suffers, but potentially other players (see the OP) and/or the DM who has to deal with wide disparities in character effectiveness. It's the reduction of real life enjoyment that makes this a problem. If it's not a problem for you, great.

** Alice's Handy Dandy Guide to LGBT in Pathfinder **

** Why are LGBT people being included in Pathfinder?
Here's why:
There are a number of reasons, but primarily because Paizo believes that people should be represented in their game, no matter what majority or minority groups they belong to or identify with. Some of the Paizo staff and their customers are LGBT, after all.

Yeah. I'm autistic, and, this may seem strange to you, that's how I identify. Gender, orientation, sex - all secondary. I'm currently straight & male, these things probably won't change but they could. However, I'm going to be autistic for the rest of my life. So, well, Paizo may believe what you say they do, but, if so, from my point of view, they've failed. I don't care whether Paizo include LGBT characters in their products or not (unless that gets in the way of the gaming, which it hasn't), but if they or their fans get all preachy about how "inclusive" that is I'm going to roll my eyes at them.

This especially applies to those people who are saying "LGBT characters exist in real life, so it's bigoted not to include them in the game." Autistic people exist in real life, but I don't see you including us in your games. And I don't think that you should include us in your games just because we exist in real life. Put us in one of your games if that improves the story. If not, don't bother. A good analogy, I think, would be movies. I understand "Brokeback Mountain" included gay characters, but I doubt it included autistic characters. And the recent version of "True Grit" included an autistic character but no obviously LGBT characters. And both movies were better for concentrating on something the writers cared about and doing it well. A D&D campaign is like a movie, not an encyclopedia: it doesn't have to have everything.

On the other hand, it’s quite true that including and not including LGBT characters are both political decisions, while including autistic characters is not. (If Paizo were to include an autistic character in a product, no one would get upset about it.)

However, you must remember, that for some people waving the banner is as, or even more, important. They won't be fine with having a PC that acts like a member of the player's faith would, they want to be able to say loudly "I smite thee in the names of Jesus Christ!"...

And since the gaming world doesn't provide that, they're getting disgruntled at seeing other groups included. And so it happens, that they turn their frustration against that one group they consider to be "immoral" IRL (because let's face it, "get blacks/women/democrats/cat owners out of Golarion because they are immoral" would never find any major support these days). So it's the LGBT who get the full dose of "get out".

Way to caricature those who aren’t like you! The longstanding convention of fantasy RPG theology is that there are several pantheons of anthropomorphic gods, and because the vast majority of people in North America and Europe are monotheist or atheist, not polytheist, that's neutral, doesn't offend anyone, and has the added bonus of potential plot hooks if the DM wants. But Paizo chose to go out of their way to shoehorn "atheism" into their setting (even though it doesn't make any sense there at all, in the same way that a PC not believing in faster-than-the-speed-of-light travel wouldn’t make any sense in a Star Trek campaign), presumably so that people who identify as atheist in RL can play "atheist" characters in Golarion. The equivalent of that, for a monotheistic player, is not playing a character who worships one of a pantheon of fictional anthropomorphic gods that were written for entertainment purposes. The equivalent is playing a character who shares their particular brand of RL monotheism. (Not that every Christian player would want to play a Christian character, just as not every Atheist player wants to play an Atheist character. But that's the equivalent level of choice.) Even as a polytheist I'd be more invested in my characters if they worshipped deities from pantheons that RL people have worshipped than the for-the-lolz deities Paizo has written. I don't think it's that big of a deal, but I think it's fair to say that Paizo's concern for inclusivitivity (or at least their success in implementing that concern) extends to atheists but not to theists.

Interesting to see that the villains doesn't seem to have a love life.

No reason to spend the time detailing the love lives of villains unless there’s some reason that the PC’s will learn of them.

claymade wrote:

"... Okay, taking it from the top."

"For two thousand years, dragons ruled over all. Their sorceror-wyrms

Dragons and elves don't have even anything close to remotely the same flavor and implications to them.

THAT one is easy. "For two thousand years, drow ruled over all..."

T-rexes battling Frogemoths in wild jungles located in deep caverns of Underdark miles beneath the surface doesn't make sense either, but you know what? That's OK, because it's fantasy.

And what Gorbacz likes is the only One True Way of doing fantasy, and people who don't like what he likes shouldn't post, apparently.

Is there a list of the Races in the book?

See post #496 (defaults to being almost at the bottom of page 10)