Is PFRPG Core Rulebook campaign neutral?

[Wu Chi]

This question has come up quite a few times. It would be nice if someone from the Paizo staff addressed it.

I've heard people say that Golarion is the campaign attached to the core rulebook and that references to it should be included in the core rulebook. This side claims that their position has been stated by Paizo several times before.

I've heard people say that Golarion is NOT the campaign attached to the core rulebook and that, in fact, the core rulebook is campaign neutral and should not include references to Golarion. This side also says that their position has been stated by Paizo staff several times before.

How do you feel?

I've stated before on these boards that core rulebooks should be campaign neutral. And, for the most part, this is what I see in the new core rulebook. The two exceptions I have found are the deity list under cleric domains and the Pathfinder Chronicler Prestige class. There may be more, but I haven't seen them yet.

For DMs who run their own campaign, the deity list is unnecessary because they (the DMs) will decide what power sources are assigned to the various cleric domains. The origin of the Pathfinder Chronicler is readily apparent. While this doesn't preclude DMs from dropping the Pathfinder name and including Chroniclers in their campaign, I consider it too specifically tied to another campaign to include it in mine.

Paizo, please give us a definitive answer.

[Locke1520]

I know you wanted an official answer but I thought I'd point out that the Core Rulebook is as setting neutral as the D&D books were in 3.0 and 3.5.

Golarion is only as present as Greyhawk was in the last edition.

[James Jacobs]

All of the rulebooks in the line, from the Core Rulebook to the Bestiaries to all the other upcoming hardcovers will be campaign neutral. In cases where campaigns are necessary to illustrate a point or provide flavor (such as the case for deities for clerics), we'll draw from Golarion, but that should be relatively rare.

[Wu Chi]

Locke1520 wrote:

I know you wanted an official answer but I thought I'd point out that the Core Rulebook is as setting neutral as the D&D books were in 3.0 and 3.5.

Golarion is only as present as Greyhawk was in the last edition.

Actually, I think there are fewer references to Golarion in the new edition than there were to Greyhawk in the last edition. If I'm not mistaken, spell names and magic items included many references to Greyhawk. I haven't seen any spells or magic items that specifically reference Golarian, unless I just missed them.

[Mosaic]

Including the Pathfinder Chronicler did strike me as odd, as that is a Golarion-specific organization.

[stardust]

Mosaic wrote:

Including the Pathfinder Chronicler did strike me as odd, as that is a Golarion-specific organization.

Or... it could be a reference to a Chronicler from the game Pathfinder, in the case of the core book.

[Wu Chi]

James Jacobs wrote:

All of the rulebooks in the line, from the Core Rulebook to the Bestiaries to all the other upcoming hardcovers will be campaign neutral. In cases where campaigns are necessary to illustrate a point or provide flavor (such as the case for deities for clerics), we'll draw from Golarion, but that should be relatively rare.

Thank you for the prompt response! I agree that they are relatively rare, especially in comparison to previous editions of D&D.

Personally, I have always hoped for illustrations to be generic and not tied to any particular campaign setting. The only reason I say this is because I think it recognizes the level of time and effort that DMs put into their own campaigns; however, I'll settle for "relatively rare" since this is a big improvement over past editions.

Thanks again!

[Locke1520]

Mosaic wrote:

Including the Pathfinder Chronicler did strike me as odd, as that is a Golarion-specific organization.

Yes and no. Yes it has a Golarion flavor but is still generic enough to fit in any number of settings.

Golarion has Pathfinders, The Realms has the Harpers and Eberron has the Wayfinders, the prestige class in the Core Rulebook could find a home in any of those settings and organizations.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

Hmm...seems to me that illustrations are the one thing that it is really tough to keep "generic". There are always cultural assumptions in them, by necessity.

[stardust]

We could always draw stick figures.

[Dennis da Ogre]

The biggest bit of Golarian is the gods and I think there needs to be some gods in the book and since they couldn't use the greyhawk ones...

Much like in 3.5 the gods serve as a place to hang domains and that's about it, there is no real flavor bits associated with them.

The Chronicler is somewhat Golarian Specific but not entirely and it's all of 2 pages.

[TriOmegaZero]

stardust wrote:

We could always draw stick figures.

Finally, to have my art published for all to see!

[Lanx]

Mosaic wrote:

Including the Pathfinder Chronicler did strike me as odd, as that is a Golarion-specific organization.

For me, the inclusion of the Pathfinder Chronicler in the PFRPG is what the inclusion of the Red Wizzard in DMG 3.5 was. Both classes hail from a specific setting (FR/Golarion), but they are described in a mostly edition-neutral way in their respective books.

So, the PFRPG is as neutral as the old 3.5 PHB and DMG.

[Wu Chi]

Are there any other PFRPG product lines (I'm thinking subscriptions) that are campaign neutral?

[Ross Byers]

Wu Chi wrote:

Are there any other PFRPG product lines (I'm thinking subscriptions) that are campaign neutral?

Sort of.

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules are designed to be as setting neutral as possible.

The other Pathfinder products (AP, Chronicles, Companion, and Modules) are all set in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting.

The Gamemastery lines (cards and maps) are not only setting neutral but rules-neutral.

[Wu Chi]

Thanks! You guys are on the ball with your prompt responses.

[Wu Chi]

Now that I've had a chance to look at the Game Mastery decks, I notice that many of them are entitled with the names of Golarion supplements (Kingmaker, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Legacy of Fire, etc). Are you saying that these cards are both campaign and rules neutral?

[Ross Byers]

Wu Chi wrote:

Now that I've had a chance to look at the Game Mastery decks, I notice that many of them are entitled with the names of Golarion supplements (Kingmaker, Curse of the Crimson Throne, Legacy of Fire, etc). Are you saying that these cards are both campaign and rules neutral?

Yes. While they are tied in to a given Adventure Path in terms of what items are present in the set, there is no rules content (or spoilers) on the cards. For instance, the Legacy of Fire deck has a number of Arabian-style items in it, but it doesn't require you to be running the Legacy of Fire AP to be useful.

Take a look at the preview images for Elements of Power. They show you both sides of the cards. One side has an image, the other has a brief description and a space for GM and player notes. Nothing at all system-specific like 'This is a +2 longsword' or setting specific like 'Forged by the bloatmages of Kaer Maga.'

The item card lines do feature things like potion vials, wands, rods, and staves that have specific meanings in 3rd edition, but these are still usually represented in some fashion in any fantasy roleplaying game.

[Skaorn]

I'd think that Pathfinder Chronicler is there to provide something more attractive for Bards to take. Sure, Arcane Archer or Shadowdancer are workable, but they don't actively compliment the class. Also the adventurer PR department seems like an easy fit to any game.

[Wu Chi]

Funny you should use Elements of Power as your illustration, it is the one I'm most interested in! Thanks again for the prompt response.