|
Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.
Huh?
Where do you get this idea from?You can play a Cleric of an evil God who is most likely evil too. Nothing stops you from playing an evil Barbarian, Fighter, Monk etc. Only the Paladin is limited there.
Also see the Assassine Presige Class. Clearly a Class for an evil PC.
Is it because there is no Blackguard?
One prestige Class?
|
There's No possible way for Paizo to republish every book printed for 3.x
If they reprint the moajority of the ideas and make them better for many of the mainstream books, great.
There are scores of modules for 3.x which are a quick conversion to Pathfinder. That's backwards comaptibility in action.
If someone wants to use a PrC from a Complete book of X...that's a pretty easy conversion also...backwards compatibility
If someone wants to use a +1 ECL race from a Races of X Book...now they will be on par (or close enough) to allow use of the race without a penalty...that's better than backwards compatible.
These are my observations, make of them what you will, but they're opinions...
(and will reprint all the rules you need in case you DON'T have the APH)
I expect nothing less.
Even WotC, of all companies, wasn't wankery enough to put weird splat classes and/or rules in any of their adventures without full details to run them. I fully expect this to be the case for Paizo's APs and modules.
But I'm reading through "Crypt of the Everflame", a Pathfinder adventure for first-level characters. And I GMed some Pathfinder Society adventures at GenCon. And they don't work right using baseline 3.5 rules. The villains use spells and supernatural abilities that they don't have in 3.5.
Just ignore those changes. Suddenly, the fire sorcerer doesn't have a fire ray any more.
Now, can I *adapt* Pathfinder adventures to 3.5? Oh, sure. Heck, Kae Yoss, I can adapt AD&D 2nd Edition adventures to 3.5. (Probably 4th Edition, too, if I set my mind to it.)
That's not the same, though. PF is closer to other incarnations of 3e than 2e, or 4e, or anything else.
I've been using beta rules with 3.5 adventures for months now, and it's not a big deal.
staying conservative on balance issues and power levels
You mean lack-of-balance issues, right? Because a lot of 3e just wasn't right.
(Example: Favored Class.
Your argument is flawed. Sure, the old rules "encouraged" a level of fighter for a dwarf rogue in that you aren't hit as hard in that regard. But I don't call that encouraging.
It's one of the few things I don't like about PF. The new FC rules don't make sense. That's okay. I just don't use them. Now no one has favoured classes, and multiclassing is simply free.
Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.
Wait.. what? I thought we addressed this in the other thread. The restriction on PCs playing evil alignments has been in every Player's Handbook published by TSR or WotC. It is not a creation of Paizo. Also, as in every version of the game, individual DMs are more than welcome to allow them anyway.
This may be one of those times that it does hurt to help, but I'll risk it: I think the confusion comes from having both a strict use of the word core and a loose use of it. James, if we ever do get that Psionic Masters of the Dark Moon adventure path, maybe it would confuse people less if, instead of saying the Psionics and Moon books were "core" for this adventure path, you just say this adventure path, unlike others, requires the use of the core books plus the supplemental Psionics and Moon books, making the AP the exception instead of the technical term. I hope you don't mind the observation. (Leaving aside other concerns and just focusing on the terminology usage.)
I have to agree with those that don't appreciate an announcement for new core material in the same week that the brand new Core Rulebook is released.
I don't appreciate my neighbour stealing my doomsday device.
Now what do those two statements have in common?
Right! Both talk about things that never happened. APG is not core. It's supplemental.
It was the thought of having a complete game in one volume that attracted me to PF.
And you have, unless you mean "complete" means "everything there is, was, or ever will be". In that case, you will never have a complete game. Unless you create it yourself and never share it. Because with every house-rule and homebrew rule someone else creates and doesn't share, your game becomes less "complete".
And since Pathfinder is an open game system, meaning people can create commercial products using its rules, it gets even crazier.
The other side of that coin is the distasteful sensation of having to buy an entire book for one character class
Well, then don't. That stuff is open content. Just get the class from somewhere - legally.
Perhaps you're right, published "adventures don't define what is in the core," but, if I follow your logic correctly, published adventures will or have already defined what is not going into the core from now on.
???
"...published adventures will or have already defined what is not going into the core from now on..."Do you mean that, from what I said, you think published modules have already been including explanatory info to cover things that were not expected to be in the core? Or that published modules have, somehow, influenced what will or will not be in the core?
I can't tell if you're following my logic because I can't tell what you're saying.
The core of PFRPG is pretty much what the core was in 3.0 and 3.5. It's a core defined by edition tradition, not by Paizo's own published campaign setting or adventures.
I fail to see how the base classes included in the Core Rulebook are more "core" than the base classes that will appear in this upcoming publication.
Because they're not as widespread. That's what Jason said about it. They're niche roles.
That and the fact that Paizo just won't assume that you have access to those classes. They do assume you have access to sorcerers and barbarians and rogues, but not oracles and so on.
I've already been assured by Mr. Jacobs that the hardcover books in this subscription line will be campaign neutral:
Let's put our cards on the table. What do you mean by "Core"
Usually, it means "The core rules you are required to play the game".
While you could say that setting neutral stuff is "core" stuff, that's not a definition that is used very widely here.
As to the game I play now... This! Is! PATHFINDER! *chestkick*
I have a great wallpaper for that!
Ahhh, and there's the rub! The distinction, in your opinion, comes from application in published adventures (i.e., the Golarion campaign). This seems to fly directly in the face of what Mr. Jacobs said regarding the campaign neutral status of the entire PFRPG subscription line of products.
As my contact lense solution says: No rub!
You misunderstand what is said and meant.
The RPG line will be campaign neutral, meaning they will work well in any type of campaign (well, at least reasonably well - depening on how far the campaign moves away from normal Pathfinder, it might not work. There are campaigns where there is no divine magic, and non-human humanoid races just don't exist. An oracle wouldn't fit there, but then again, clerics and druids wouldn't fit there!).
That doesn't mean they won't work in Pathfinder Chronicles. Pathfinder Chronicles is pretty close to "Vanilla Pathfinder", so pretty much everything will work there. And some of the stuff from other books will certainly be used there.
But that doesn't mean it's not campaign neutral.
It doesn't mean it's core stuff.
The difference will be that if, say, Jade Regent will have an Oracle of Madness NPC, you won't need APG to use that NPC, as all the necessary rules will be reprinted.
It will be just like all the other stuff Paizo has used. There were Thaumaturges (or is it Thaumaturgists? I mean that demonic summoner class), there were creatures like decapusses and the like in PF. But you never had to buy the books they were in. It never made those classes PF specific.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've been using beta rules with 3.5 adventures for months now, and it's not a big deal.
Howdy, KaeYoss. I really appreciate the care you've taken to reply to my concerns. I want to address this one straight up.
Running 3.5 adventures (say, "Entombed with the Pharaohs") with the Beta-test rules, or even with the Pathfinder ruleset, should be easy. That's one of the design goals, the "backwards-compatibility".
(ASIDE: The implementation is leading to some unnecessary difficulties. For example, the Pathfinder feat "Cleave" is nothing like the D&D 3rd Edition feat of the same name. I'm betting that it uses the same name so that 3.5 stat blocks that reference a feat named "Cleave" port over to Pathfinder with less work for the GM. But right now, the reuse of that name is getting a lot of people thinking that characters possess a familiar ability, when a new, more descriptive, name would have let them know that this was not the same ability.)
But Pathfinder is not necessarily, ah, "frontwards compatible." That is, running PFS #30, "Cassomir's Locker," under straight 3.5 rules doesn't work well. (EDIT: Example removed) Since the PFS modules were, in fact, designed to showcase the new rules, that's not surprising.
This is similar, but more severe, than the 3.0 / 3.5 conversion issues. Pathfinder half-orc rogues are simply better than analogous 3.5 half-orc rogues. They have more capabilities, they sneak attack undead, they have more hit points, and so on and so on. Heck, everybody's tougher. That's what I meant by balance.
--+--
In 3rd Edition, dwarves are assigned "fighter" as a favored class. In the campaign with which I'm familiar, it means that many dwarves, at some point in their adventuring career, take a level of Fighter (as opposed to Ranger or something). This reinforces tropes about dwarves common to the literary resource material.
--+--+--
Incidentally, a pedantic note, not necessarily to Kae Yoss: when discussing 3rd Edition D&D (or 2nd Edition AD&D, for that matter), I'll keep using present tense. The rules still exist. The SRD isn't going away. There are still a butt-load of active D&D games playing.
It irked me when the 4th Edition crowd started referring to 3.5 in past tense. ("Fighters used to be limited to this thing, but now they can do this other thing.") It irks me when Pathfinder aficionados do the same thing.
Note: None of the books I offhandedly mention above are on any schedules yet, so don't hold it against me if we never do a psionics book or a Moon book!
But what about my Psychic Warriors of Luna adventure I want to run??? (Take that, "Warriors of Mars"! My PC-classed, psionically andowed characters will wipe the floor with your NPC-classed losers. The Red Planet will run Red with your Blood! Assuming, of course, your Blood! is red. If not, the Red Planet will run Some Other Colour with your Bood! It will henceforth be called "Planet in Some Other Colour")
Psychic Warriors of Luna...
Hey, bub, I got dibs on the AP title. See above.
Creative Director
|
This may be one of those times that it does hurt to help, but I'll risk it: I think the confusion comes from having both a strict use of the word core and a loose use of it. James, if we ever do get that Psionic Masters of the Dark Moon adventure path, maybe it would confuse people less if, instead of saying the Psionics and Moon books were "core" for this adventure path, you just say this adventure path, unlike others, requires the use of the core books plus the supplemental Psionics and Moon books, making the AP the exception instead of the technical term. I hope you don't mind the observation. (Leaving aside other concerns and just focusing on the terminology usage.)
The slipshod use of the word "core" is something that has caused confusion, I agree. It's one of those game terms, like "epic," that is unfortunately easy to misinterpret, misuse, and misunderstand for gamers. It's something I fear the industry's more or less stuck with.
Paizo is going to continue treating its supplements the same way we have been all along. If you liked how we handled things with Dragon & Dungeon, and liked how we handled things with Pathfinder when it was 3.5... you'll like how we handle things going forward.
First, I don't agree that it was in every edition TSR produced. I may be wrong, I'll have to search for the books to find out for sure, but I don't recall OD&D or AD&D First Edition having these "warnings." That was probably inserted after the highly publicized D&D suicide of the 80's and the subsequent right wing religious backlash that claimed D&D supported satanism. These were aspersions that were soundly defeated in both a court of law and in the court of public opinion. There was even a mainstream article in Psychology Today supporting D&D shortly thereafter. My point is that if this is the reason the warning has appeared in the past and still reamins in the present, then this is a very, very poor reason for having it.Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.Wait.. what? I thought we addressed this in the other thread. The restriction on PCs playing evil alignments has been in every Player's Handbook published by TSR or WotC. It is not a creation of Paizo. Also, as in every version of the game, individual DMs are more than welcome to allow them anyway.
I didn't say 'every edition', I said every Player's Handbook. OD&D and BECMI both lack Evil alignments, so I intentionally excluded them.
As for 1st edition, I am fairly certain that the restriction is in there, I looked it up when we last discussed the topic. But, I'm certainly not above looking again, and I will as soon as time allows.
I harbor no illusions here *backs up horse, raises lance, charges at windmill once again* I'm well aware that most people on these boards are involved in Paizo's "premade adventures" and that this creates a lot of revenue for Paizo. I just don't think it justifies this particular distinction.
Dude, that's not a horse, and *that* is not a windmill.
And that's your problem.
My point is that if this is the reason the warning has appeared in the past and still reamins in the present, then this is a very, very poor reason for having it.
The only one claiming that is you.
You claimed that Paizo is saying this, as if it was part of Paizo's Infernal Plan to... I seriously have no idea what it would accomplish. It isn't. It is an old "rule".
No one said that Paizo has it there just because it is tradition. We're saying that Paizo didn't come up with that one.
Howdy, KaeYoss. I really appreciate the care you've taken to reply to my concerns.
You were lucky it was early in the thread. After reading through it, I can't help but shake my head. But let's continue this discussion.
(ASIDE: The implementation is leading to some unnecessary difficulties. For example, the Pathfinder feat "Cleave" is nothing like the D&D 3rd Edition feat of the same name. I'm betting that it uses the same name so that 3.5 stat blocks that reference a feat named "Cleave" port over to Pathfinder with less work for the GM. But right now, the reuse of that name is getting a lot of people thinking that characters possess a familiar ability, when a new, more descriptive, name would have let them know that this was not the same ability.)
Well, they're the same ability in spirit. Very spiritual, your 3e/PF! :P
Anyway, though it can confuse people, it does mean, as you say, that you have less conversion work. Old character has cleave, new character has cleave. Yay! No need to rewrite that part of the stat block (or use another feat).
Once you've read through your class section, and through the feat section, it should be clear enough to note what has changed.
Using new names could be confusing, too, and you couldn't use the old names that often fit quite well, for something that is supposed to replace the old mechanic.
This is similar, but more severe, than the 3.0 / 3.5 conversion issues. Pathfinder half-orc rogues are simply better than analogous 3.5 half-orc rogues. They have more capabilities, they sneak attack undead, they have more hit points, and so on and so on. Heck, everybody's tougher. That's what I meant by balance.
Ah!
Well, not everyone is tougher. Clerics, for example, cannot go Divine Favour/Divine Power/Righteous Might/Boots of Speed ONN GIBB IHM!
In 3rd Edition, dwarves are assigned "fighter" as a favored class. In the campaign with which I'm familiar, it means that many dwarves, at some point in their adventuring career, take a level of Fighter (as opposed to Ranger or something). This reinforces tropes about dwarves common to the literary resource material.
I know. I personally liked the beta way to handle favoured classes better, too. The new ones have lost all flavour.
But you can still say that most dwarves in your campaign are fighters. Nothing in the rules that forbids that.
Incidentally, a pedantic note, not necessarily to Kae Yoss: when discussing 3rd Edition D&D (or 2nd Edition AD&D, for that matter), I'll keep using present tense. The rules still exist. The SRD isn't going away. There are still a b*&*-load of active D&D games playing.It irked me when the 4th Edition crowd started referring to 3.5 in past tense. ("Fighters used to be limited to this thing, but now they can do this other thing.") It irks me when Pathfinder aficionados do the same thing.
Well, unlike 4e spin doctors who set out to destroy 3e, I don't think we do this out of malice. Of course the rules exist. But for most of us, PF is the successor to D&D. D&D used to rule, but now PF rules. Past and present.
I'm sure no one here wants to disparage 3e.
EDIT: This reminds me of one of our GM's pet peeves: He can't stand people asking him "What was your name again?". He always insists on them saying "What IS your name again?" because he hasn't had his name changed during the conversation, and he didn't die, either.
<wanders into thread trailing jellyfish>
Why is everyone talking about 'burying'? Burying is soooo vintage edition a term. These days the text on 'Terror' reads: Look. Check it for yourself if you don't believe me: *link*
Ummm, we were talking about Magic: The Gathering here, weren't we?
Somedays, KaeYoss entertains me so much.
"I am KaeYoss, I will now respond to everyone in this one mighty post, in order."
OT
EDIT: Chris, I wish you'd post your language complaint in its own thread, so it can get discussed by folks who won't see it here.
|
Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.
In my opinion, inexperienced DMs should avoid "evil" campaigns and characters because those can be difficult even for experienced DMs. Numerous forums are sprinkled with threads discussing the problems they've encountered with evil characters wrecking campaigns and/or evil campaigns that fell apart.
If you're inexperienced, the best advice is to start out with what's easy and work your way towards what is hard. That advice applies to nearly every field of endeavor.
-Skeld
|
|
grrr, the post monster assaulted me once again.
So, new try:
Perhaps you're right, published "adventures don't define what is in the core," but, if I follow your logic correctly, published adventures will or have already defined what is not going into the core from now on.
I think that this is not completely correct. The thing to remember is that the Core was already defined by the 3E rules when Paizo started publishing adventures.
Paizo's campaign setting revolves around this core and the Pathfinder RPG is not a definition of a new core but a continuation of the core defined by 3E.
So their decision not to make the new classes "core classes" did basically not happen because those things aren't in their campaign setting yet. It happened because those things never were in the Core first place.
Now I remember that when they published the beta version of their PrCs, Jason gave us some short explanations for the reasons that some of the old ones didn't make the cut (basically for space reasons, if I remember correctly; they chose the Dwarven Defender because of the race restriction which doesn't seem to fit in the core environment; the Archmage, because he got integrated into the wizard core class, and so on); For the Blackguard the explanation was that this was a PrC deserving to be full statted out as its own base class.
Now we could argue that then the Blackguard should have been included into the Core Rules as a core class. But the main point I'm trying to make is that I don't have the impression that this decision was made because of the Blackguard's alignment. The Assassin PrC gives us a hint that they don't mind including those classes into their system.
Now I can understand your disappointment 'cause it seems that the Blackguard is an important element in your campaign world. But to their credit, I don't believe one second that they chose to take the Blackguard as a sales argument for any following book or because they didn't think it appropriate for their own world. In fact, in Golarion there exist much worse things than Blackguards (Mammy Graul, I'm NOT looking at you) and I guess that we can agree that you can play pretty evil characters without the Blackguard option.
As far as the burying thing is concerned: I can relate to the OP in so far as I also think that it won't take too long before my last 3.5 game has finished. On the other hand, Pathfinder feels quite 3.5ish to me. So this will help me overcome the sorrow. In fact, I think I'll be quite fine.
Why do these discussions continue to run down off topic courses? For example the use of the word "core" and "why evil alignments should/shouldn't be played". I'm really getting confused........
|
|
[OFF-TOPIC]
Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.In my opinion, inexperienced DMs should avoid "evil" campaigns and characters because those can be difficult even for experienced DMs. Numerous forums are sprinkled with threads discussing the problems they've encountered with evil characters wrecking campaigns and/or evil campaigns that fell apart.
If you're inexperienced, the best advice is to start out with what's easy and work your way towards what is hard. That advice applies to nearly every field of endeavor.
-Skeld
Oh you're telling me...I ran the Kobold series...with an evil group...they had a blast, I had a headache, I had to improvise so much, and had to change motivations, timelines, etc, just to keep the game moving...
"oh no, we're hurt..."
"Let's leave and we'll come back in 2 days..."
"I'm going to make Kimmy my slave!"
"Who cares if the the other kids die...we just need X kid..."
"Kill that halfling bard, he looks like a pedo anyway"
Evil...so...umm..."interesting" [/OFF-TOPIC]
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
I think the biggest problem with the Paizo definition of 'Core' comes from the very segregated nature of the WotC OGL rules.
In 3.0/3.5, Core is anything in the SRD. Period. You legally can't reprint any base class, prestige class, feat, or spell from any other WotC source, so any oddball classes, feats, or spells in their adventures needed to be statted out. They assumed you already had the SRD, or Core material, and therefore didn't need to explain those terms when they appeared.
If I'm not mistaken, Pathfinder RPG is ALL OGL and campaign neutral; the previous yardsticks have been removed. But James defined it quite well... Core is in the Core book and the Bestiary. Anything else will be explained if it appears in an adventure.
I don´t think that a game can be called "dead", as it does not live by itself. It lives through the people playing it. There is no way to get 3.5 books (or 3.0, or 2nd Ed for that matter) fresh off the printing presses, however. This will lead to fewer people playing the game - especially new players, as they have no reason to bother locating OOP stuff to play a game when they can just walk into a shop and buy similar stuff brand-new. Folks playing the old game will get fewer over time.
Pathfinder tries to continue 3.x in a new shape, based on the OGL. So, it continues 3.x in a way. I´d rather say 3.x evolved into pathfinder, rather than burying its predecessor, if you want to keep that picture.
Stefan
<collects her lettuce and sea-slugs and wanders off>
|
|
I don´t think that a game can be called "dead", as it does not live by itself. It lives through the people playing it. There is no way to get 3.5 books (or 3.0, or 2nd Ed for that matter) fresh off the printing presses, however. This will lead to fewer people playing the game - especially new players, as they have no reason to bother locating OOP stuff to play a game when they can just walk into a shop and buy similar stuff brand-new. Folks playing the old game will get fewer over time.
Pathfinder tries to continue 3.x in a new shape, based on the OGL. So, it continues 3.x in a way. I´d rather say 3.x evolved into pathfinder, rather than burying its predecessor, if you want to keep that picture.Stefan
well put steb.
I don't see 3.5 being "buried". I am actually looking forward to discussing with my group whether certain books/feats/classes we have avoided as being "overpowered" may now be allowed. While we will be playing Pathfinder, and therefor not calling our game 3.5, we could end up using more 3.5 material then we ever did in our 3.5 game!
|
|
Why do these discussions continue to run down off topic courses? For example the use of the word "core" and "why evil alignments should/shouldn't be played". I'm really getting confused........
I guess because at least the first term runs on a tangent to this topic. Dogbert started this thread saying that
"Pathfinder may be many things, but it isn't 3.5, it's not even a Variant Players Handbook because it's not the same system (it doesn't even share 3E's mission or vision)."
I guess it's safe to say that to make such a statement you must be of the opinion that the game has changed at least some core assumptions. Others disagree with this opinionion. Both sides try to explain what they think the core assumptions are. Examples are used to explain your point. It's just a small step to a discussion of the "core" rules while the evil alignment thing may fall under the core assumption debate.
And the rest is thread drift.
They make me cwy...
First, I don't agree that it was in every edition TSR produced. I may be wrong, I'll have to search for the books to find out for sure, but I don't recall OD&D or AD&D First Edition having these "warnings." That was probably inserted after the highly publicized D&D suicide of the 80's and the subsequent right wing religious backlash that claimed D&D supported satanism. These were aspersions that were soundly defeated in both a court of law and in the court of public opinion. There was even a mainstream article in Psychology Today supporting D&D shortly thereafter. My point is that if this is the reason the warning has appeared in the past and still reamins in the present, then this is a very, very poor reason for having it.Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.Wait.. what? I thought we addressed this in the other thread. The restriction on PCs playing evil alignments has been in every Player's Handbook published by TSR or WotC. It is not a creation of Paizo. Also, as in every version of the game, individual DMs are more than welcome to allow them anyway.I didn't say 'every edition', I said every Player's Handbook. OD&D and BECMI both lack Evil alignments, so I intentionally excluded them.
As for 1st edition, I am fairly certain that the restriction is in there, I looked it up when we last discussed the topic. But, I'm certainly not above looking again, and I will as soon as time allows.
Ok, it seems I was wrong about 1ed, and so must concede that perhaps the inclusion in later editions was a reaction to the Dallas Egbert suicide and the incorrect/bad press that followed, much as the removal of demons. Regardless, it is a part of the game and has been for at least 9 years (Not going to look into 2ed at this time, being so horribly wrong once is quite enough for a day, I think). Suffice to say, it was not a creation of Paizo, so railing against them for it seems a bit off.
Having said that, with all respect to Mr. Mona I withdraw from this particular debate.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Paizo appears to be making a value judgment that certain classes get limited exposure or, typically, should not be played by players at all (i.e., evil alignments). In my opinion, this is arbitrary. I can't help but feel that inexperienced DMs, who are putting together their own campaigns for the first time, are going to take these value judgments to heart and that, in my opinion, is inappropriate. It is for the individual DMs to decide, not Paizo.
Where do you get this idea from?
From page 166 of the Core Rulebook and from PFS rules.
Now, it is true that you're not allowed to play evil characters in Pathfinder Society organized play, but that's not about a moral issue—it's largely about helping ensure that when you get some random folks together at a con, they can play together without killing each other, even if one of them is a Paladin. But that restriction applies only to PFS play, and is not in the Core Rulebook.
The Core Rulebook says that "With the GM's permission, a player may assign an evil alignment to his PC, but such characters are often a source of disruption and conflict with good and neutral party members. GMs are encouraged to carefully consider how evil PCs might affect the campaign before allowing them."
As you say, it's for the individual GMs to decide, and that's exactly what we're saying.
|
|
I bring this up, not for shock value or for a history lesson, but because I firmly believe that the warnings (in the Core Rulebook) and restrictions (in PFS) are remnants of the reaction TSR had immediately after this tragic incident. I also firmly believe that it was never Paizo's intention to include them for this particular reason (I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the Paizo staff and those that post on these boards weren't even born when all this happened).
Uhh...I don't think so.
Your blowing a lot of smoke here. I survived through that "dark tyme", - it wasn't that dark. If anything it helped spike interest and curiosity to help sustain a game beyond what amounted more or less to a high school/college fad. That plus it was fun to play.Running an evil campaign or evil PCs is like hmmm, how can I put this? ...running Otyugh characters.
See, D&D is human-centric, at least it was in 1st ed AD&D (check your DMG). The world, the threats, the monsters...all based upon the premise that PC were human, or human-like and at least neutral. Not evil characters, not minotaurs, not half-dragons and not Otyughs.
In earlier editions most modules, items and threats were designed along that premise. Sure there were tools for evil characters but the game was just not designed or written to support the premise of evil characters. That was before the "dark times", it just wasn't done (unless you want to retcon history). And it wasn't done for very PRACTICAL reasons. You have limited product you can put out, as a company do I want to put out a product which a minority of gaming groups can use (Kill good king, destroy good guys, retrieve evil artifact) or do I try to get "The Village of Hommlet" and "Against the Giants" out to as many gaming groups as possible?
As the game moved into the age of hysteria and into 2nd ed, yeah they did drop demons, devils, half-orcs, etc. I don't know if that was exclusively out of fear or more re-imagine AD&D as a family (and Christian) friendly game. TSR was also really ramping up their alternate RPGs, board game and toy output during this time so it was a sound and practical business decision. At the time.
If anything with 3.0, BOVD, Necromancer Games, etc, I think the game took a darker turn and tried to even up power and eliminate the bias against non NPC evil characters/classes which was built into earlier editions.
I don't see PFRPG moving to a more conservative "dark time" stance out of some notion of fear or concerns that players will harm themselves because their character "Blackleaf the Thief" fell into a pit and died.
Evil PCs (and Otyughs) are impractical to run. Maybe as one-offs, or in a special campaign or under certain conditions, then yeah. As a DM I don't get super excited when I see the updated PFRPG stats for a Shedu which I am going to throw at my group of necromancers and blackguards for Saturday's game. I'm sorry, it just isn't there. Unicorns, good fey, celestial creatures don't do the same thing for me (again as a DM) as evil dragons, devils and demons...and all the other hideous abominations in between. Sure they are interesting, just not the same.
Evil characters usually need an experienced DM to run the campaign and some experienced players to play it. So that decent objectives can be laid out, and so that the game doesn't end after the first opening encounter when every badass PC decides to cut each others throat at the first slight. It can be done - As a game company I would provide some tools but I wouldn't build product on it.
So I would say that those restrictions/suggestions are placed there for practical reasons. Practical as in swords designed to fit human hands, good or neutral village that needs to be saved module, etc. You write to "something", not a vacuum and not to a 100% open premise for characters. Experienced DMs can adjust anything, again - in a basic written product I wouldn't spend much type or space covering the "what if the PCs are evil", the "what if the PCs don't want to get involved" liner notes will already cover that.
I survived through that "dark tyme", - it wasn't that dark.
Hee-hee. Not to downplay all the Chick-style nonsense, but in those dark days, we were given our Church's teacher supply office every "family night" to gather and carry on our campaigns in locales such as White Plume Mountain, the Barrier Peaks, Geoff...