|
Can anyone please confirm for me about the derros being half human? I think it might make a good point in the aforementioned thread. Thanks.
There's more detail in a Dragon mag article called 'Legacies of the Suel Imperium' or similar, which also discussed other eugenics programs, such as the one that created the skulks (from crossing humans/dopplegangers?).
Can't remember the issue (late 200s) or the author, may have been SKR, since he did the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook for late 2nd Edition. The art was late 90's sepia-toned dungeonpunk, probably by tony diTerlizzi or r.k.post.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
All I ask for is human subraces. Where are my jungle humans, my ice humans, my lava humans?!?!? Or maybe we could have different stats for humans of different ethnicities! If an elf who likes to study can be a different species, why can't the Asian analogue humans be a different species?
Oh right. Because it's a dumb and generally offensive idea. I suppose translating it to non-human races makes it less offensive, but I'm not sure about the dumbness.
Count me in as a hater of subraces with different stats/abilities, particularly those based on environmental/elemental themes (and, a happy camper that Paizo will treat subraces as different cultures/ethnicities with the same base stats instead). If I never see another frost elf or hill dwarf or kabuto gnome, I will be happy.
The tiefling thing is irrelevant. Tiefling is a grab bag category of humans descended from extra planar creatures, which are themselves a grab bag of various monsters with different abilities and appearances. It's not as if they are a consistent race to start with, nor is it the case that they are different based on the environment they inhabit or the culture they come from. Once Pathfinder comes out with the ice tiefling, then I will be annoyed. But the betentacled tiefling descended from Cthulhu? Sign me up.
|
All I ask for is human subraces. Where are my jungle humans, my ice humans, my lava humans?!?!? Or maybe we could have different stats for humans of different ethnicities! If an elf who likes to study can be a different species, why can't the Asian analogue humans be a different species?
Oh right. Because it's a dumb and generally offensive idea. I suppose translating it to non-human races makes it less offensive, but I'm not sure about the dumbness.
Count me in as a hater of subraces with different stats/abilities, particularly those based on environmental/elemental themes (and, a happy camper that Paizo will treat subraces as different cultures/ethnicities with the same base stats instead). If I never see another frost elf or hill dwarf or kabuto gnome, I will be happy.
The tiefling thing is irrelevant. Tiefling is a grab bag category of humans descended from extra planar creatures, which are themselves a grab bag of various monsters with different abilities and appearances. It's not as if they are a consistent race to start with, nor is it the case that they are different based on the environment they inhabit or the culture they come from. Once Pathfinder comes out with the ice tiefling, then I will be annoyed. But the betentacled tiefling descended from Cthulhu? Sign me up.
Get out of my head sebastion (seriously if you look at all my posts in this thread we're practically saying the same thing).
As a great lover of elves, I'm actually surprised to agree with everyone who is happy to see the 'sub-races' disappear to a degree. I used to play a Sun Elf simply because it fit my view of elves, but now I can just use the same stats and be happy because I can choose the ethnicity of elf that I want.
But I hope that they do something similar with the Aasimar like they did with the Tiefling, though I'd love it if they put in rules for either race with a non-human base.
Can anyone please confirm for me about the derros being half human? I think it might make a good point in the aforementioned thread. Thanks.There's more detail in a Dragon mag article called 'Legacies of the Suel Imperium' or similar, which also discussed other eugenics programs, such as the one that created the skulks (from crossing humans/dopplegangers?).
Can't remember the issue (late 200s) or the author, may have been SKR, since he did the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook for late 2nd Edition. The art was late 90's sepia-toned dungeonpunk, probably by tony diTerlizzi or r.k.post.
Wrote about it in the thread Aaron refers to.
my postThe author was Roger Moore (no, still not the actor :-)), Dragon 241.
Stefan
|
|
Ya'll aware the PHB didn't have any subraces also?
Just wait few more books, then back to:
Moon elves, sun elves, gray elves, wood elves, wild elves, star elves, dark elves, aquatic elves, avarial elves, fey'ri elves, night elves, snow elves, bar elves, nightbar elves, disco elves, pub elves, tavern elves...etc.
and our favorite...the all female pole-dancing elves! they get +4 CHA and +2 Dex, +2 Con (they can go all night) -2 Wisdom, -4 Int!!
;)
|
|
Ya'll aware the PHB didn't have any subraces also?
Just wait few more books, then back to:
Moon elves, sun elves, gray elves, wood elves, wild elves, star elves, dark elves, aquatic elves, avarial elves, fey'ri elves, night elves, snow elves, bar elves, nightbar elves, disco elves, pub elves, tavern elves...etc.
and our favorite...the all female pole-dancing elves! they get +4 CHA and +2 Dex, +2 Con (they can go all night) -2 Wisdom, -4 Int!!
;)
I'm gonna make my next wizard an enchanter and use the all female pole-dancing elf. Or actually, I'll make a bard imagine that inspire courage.
Sub-races gone? Hardly, think about if the name of the race has a "Half-" in it, its a sub-race. Many of them races are still playable from 3.5, and many are still very well done. Now such sub-races as moon and sun elf are gone, but thats because they were never open, part of a setting and what not.
I think it be beeter to say that sub-races are gone from the campaign setting. But I've alreay made a distiction between the Pathfinder RPG and the campaign setting.
I think the problem with subraces was/is two fold.
1. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, Orcs, Goblins, all have subraces, looking at this culturally this is perfectly fine, but fantasy RPG's being what they are, and the fact for some reason all sorts of outsiders, elementals, humanoids, and just about any abberation you can think of all like to get 'busy' with one another you get such things as Half-Lava Elfs.
2. For some odd reasons Humans all stay the same. What's really wired about this is all my gaming life, 80's, 90's all the way up until I actually started playing DnD (yeah kids DnD isn't always everyones first game) the joke I heard from DnDers was the humans mate with anything. There have been notable exceptions to this, Conan being the best, but I do like the fact that the Pathfinder campaing setting also have a lot of human cultures. I think this problem comes from the fact that adding multiple human cultures to a setting with so many alien ones leds to over thinking the situation and thus killing the suspension of disbelife in game. For some reason this simply dosent apply to other races.
Like them or hate them I think really comes down to why a sub-race exist. Not flavor mind you, but biological vs. socialogical. What I mean by this is that biologically speaking their is little differance from one human to the next, hence game mechanics wise no differance either. However if a sub-race exist more from socialogical/cultural differances then there should be a great many.
I tend towards the latter, do I see much diffrance in wild elf vs wood elf, no not really but if their respective cultures are differnt enough then yeah sub-race/sub-ruleset is very much needed. In my game I have what is in effect a Romen people, and a Pict type of human people(actually I have a lot more then that but this is just an example) I could simply keep one set of stats for both and say role play it out. But a lot of players wont, they'll do things that one or the other race simply will not. Moreover if both races have been around for long enough certain tradtions or 'traits' would be passed down, espically cultural ones that do give a game distiction.
Don't get me wrong I don't fault someone going the other way and saying its all bilogical so an Elf is an Elf is an Elf, but not me. As to the critism that their is very little differnce one to the other I never did understantd why a racial discription stat block simply said, all common racial traists except as follows. Add the one or two things that make it differnt and move on.
Speaking of which......
TTFN DRe
I think a number of subraces came about because they didn't fit into the stereotype that has built up around each race. People assume that an elf has to behave as elitist and condescending towards younger races. I've seen people get bent out of shape because some one wasn't playing their character to a racial stereotype. So, in order to have a different take on elves, they make a subrace to get what they want and not move out of anothers comfort zone.
One of the reasons I like Eberron is because it presented races in ways that was different in cases (Elven necromancers, Orc druids, Halfling warriors, evil Gold Dragons) without making subraces. I'll be truely happy with no subraces if the racial stereotypes go with it.
Subraces FTW!
It all started back in 2e with the tallfellow, stout and hairfoot halflings methinks...or was it 1e?
I'm just stating the obvious here, but of course, that all started with Lord of the Rings.
...the Hobbits had already become divided into three somewhat different breeds: Harfoots, Stoors, and Fallohides.
And of course, Tolkien established that the elves in Rivendell were a different race from those of Mirkwood, etc.
|
|
It's worth pointing out that in PRPG and, more specifically, in Golarion, the derros are not a subrace at all. They're very much their own race. In previous editions, they were half dwarf, half humans, I think. That's not the case in PRPG at all.
Great James..I always had a soft spot for the mad little buggers and now they get a racial niche all of their own...and can plot for world domination..Bwhahahahahahaha
Places little finger at corner of mouth
and yes the division of Halflings into three sub races was a 1e Monster Manual thing that became a character thing in 2e...god I've been playing this game way too long
|
I'm not sure if the subraces were in the 1e phb, but if subraces weren't there, they were in the Dragonlance core book for 1e, so it predates 2e.It all started back in 2e with the tallfellow, stout and hairfoot halflings methinks...or was it 1e?
They had some stuff in the 1e DMG and MM; like grey elves get higher int; that sorta thing.
Well, I thank you all for your answers. I now feel foolish for not checking the most obvious source, my current Monster Manual. And the 3.0 version states the origin of Derro even more plainly than 3.5. I never noticed, because I never used Derro.
Anyway, I'll be using this in that other thread.
Well there's a difference between not having subraces in Golarion and not having them in the rules. If there aren't any rules on sub-races in the bestiary I'll be disappointed, but I'll deal with it. However I am trying to have more cultural differences rather than more sub-races in my worlds.
However, it's important to consider that a lot of racial traits are in fact cultural differences. For instance stuff like "Hatred" and "Weapon Familarity".
|
|
Well there's a difference between not having subraces in Golarion and not having them in the rules. If there aren't any rules on sub-races in the bestiary I'll be disappointed, but I'll deal with it. However I am trying to have more cultural differences rather than more sub-races in my worlds.
However, it's important to consider that a lot of racial traits are in fact cultural differences. For instance stuff like "Hatred" and "Weapon Familarity".
You know it's funny but it got often ignored in the 3.5 players handbook they even said that if you had a human raised by dwarves or a gnome raised by humans, that you'd want to drop or add the cultural traits based on character history, so you could have a human with hatred and stonecunning, and a dwarf without them. I don't know if that language made it into the Pathfinder RPG as I haven't read it cover to cover like I did the 3.5 book.
|
|
Actually, on a serious note, I have always liked the idea of "human sub-races." It really brings out the personality of the various ethnic and cultural groups. For example: Chardians are a hardy and outgoing people, but their habit of ignoring things that would rather not know makes them slow on the uptake. They get +2 Con, +2 Cha, and -2 Wis. On the other and Ventarians are quick and observant, but standoffish. They get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha. It actually gives a little depth to the game and makes humans just as different from each other as they are from elves and dwarves.
I'm okay with sub-races, but they don't need racial stats and feats.
Moon Elves live in a dark forest and are rarely seen during the day.
The humans from Whereevertheheck will "roll" high strength stats, whereas the volcano cultists of Someplaceoverthere are all level one Adepts.
Oh right. Because it's a dumb and generally offensive idea. I suppose translating it to non-human races makes it less offensive, but I'm not sure about the dumbness.
Would it be too much to ask for a more sophisticated criticism than "it's dumb"?
Sub-races are fine, but you really don't need to be applying modifiers to everything. You can "play" the Chardian and the Ventarian without artificial stat bumps to make them.
Do you feel the same way about elves, dwarves, and orcs?
Oh, right. Gotcha.
Please paizo never never never never never never never bring back the eight million different statistical versions of subraces.
Amen.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Oh, right. Gotcha.
My post above has the main reason I don't like them: subraces don't make sense for humans, so I don't see why they make sense for non-humans.
On top of that, they're lazy game design. Slapping the word "frost" in front of a standard non-human race, adjusting the ability scores, and giving them cold resistance is useless. On top of that, the subraces generally have either the most generic and obvious flavor ("they're frost elves, which makes them less emotional than regular elves and they value survival because of the harsh conditions in which they live") or a very narrow flavor ("the berserker dwarves are all very angry, and that anger shows through in their abilities.")
I can't think of a single sub-race, ever, that I've liked. They've been uniformally dull, unimaginative, tied too strongly to a setting I don't use, or built to allow a person to build a race/class combo that is disfavored by the core rules (e.g., a dwarven bard or an elven barbarian). I can't justify including a sub-race in my campaign to satisfy the handful of people who want to play such a character, and I wouldn't ask a DM to include a sub-race in their campaign to accomodate my desire to play such a character.
Plus, in general, I'm against adding any additional races to the game unless I can avoid it. When I create a campaign, I already feel like I need to say "okay, the dwarves are over here, the elves are doing their thing in this forest, etc." to provide players the options to just use the core races. Having to go further and say "uh, okay, the gold elves are over here, and the new spahti race are over there" is way too much for me.
So, those are my reasons. I don't think subraces are a good tool for a DM, I think they're a cheap patch for certain players, they're hard to integrate into the game, and they raise the issue of why humans don't have subraces, which, if followed to its logical conclusion, opens up a whole category of offensive racial stereotypes.
Or, to be brief, they're dumb.
To be fair, there are about six different 'subraces' of Human.
They are all pretty indistinguishable from each other except in specific circumstances, but flavourwise the strong humans from Foobar and the charismatic humans from Barfoo are subraces of "human" as much as Sun and Moon elves are subraces of elvenkind.
Or maybe there aren't. It all depends on how you, as the GM, want to run your gameworld.
Oh, right. Gotcha.My post above has the main reason I don't like them: subraces don't make sense for humans, so I don't see why they make sense for non-humans.
On top of that, they're lazy game design. Slapping the word "frost" in front of a standard non-human race, adjusting the ability scores, and giving them cold resistance is useless. On top of that, the subraces generally have either the most generic and obvious flavor ("they're frost elves, which makes them less emotional than regular elves and they value survival because of the harsh conditions in which they live") or a very narrow flavor ("the berserker dwarves are all very angry, and that anger shows through in their abilities.")
I can't think of a single sub-race, ever, that I've liked. They've been uniformally dull, unimaginative, tied too strongly to a setting I don't use, or built to allow a person to build a race/class combo that is disfavored by the core rules (e.g., a dwarven bard or an elven barbarian). I can't justify including a sub-race in my campaign to satisfy the handful of people who want to play such a character, and I wouldn't ask a DM to include a sub-race in their campaign to accomodate my desire to play such a character.
Plus, in general, I'm against adding any additional races to the game unless I can avoid it. When I create a campaign, I already feel like I need to say "okay, the dwarves are over here, the elves are doing their thing in this forest, etc." to provide players the options to just use the core races. Having to go further and say "uh, okay, the gold elves are over here, and the new spahti race are over there" is way too much for me.
So, those are my reasons. I don't think subraces are a good tool for a DM, I think they're a cheap patch for certain players, they're hard to integrate into the game, and they raise the issue of why humans don't have subraces, which, if followed to its logical conclusion, opens up a whole category of offensive racial stereotypes.
Or, to be brief, you dislike them.
Which I suppose is what "they're dumb" means anyway, so as far as elaborating goes, you've done pretty well. :)I respect all of those reasons, even if I don't agree with any of them. However, you sound like a person who isn't particularly fond of fantasy races to begin with.
It's just hard for me to understand why giving very different stats to very different races is okay, but giving slightly different stats to slightly different races is dumb and offensive. But if even the existing elf/dwarf/orc/gnome/halfling/human setup is already pushing it for you, then it makes sense that you wouldn't want any more.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Or, to be brief, you dislike them.
Which I suppose is what "they're dumb" means anyway, so as far as elaborating goes, you've done pretty well. :)I respect all of those reasons, even if I don't agree with any of them. However, you sound like a person who isn't particularly fond of fantasy races to begin with.
It's just hard for me to understand why giving very different stats to very different races is okay, but giving slightly different stats to slightly different races is dumb and offensive. But if even the existing elf/dwarf/orc/gnome/halfling/human setup is already pushing it for you, then it makes sense that you wouldn't want any more.
Okay, okay, dislike is probably the more appropriate term, but dumb is more fun to say.
As for offensive, subraces are a step in the direction of racial/gender insensitivity. Asserting a bioligical difference between various ethnicities of humans is a dicey claim in the real world, and equally dicey when extended to a fantasy world. If you give your dark-skinned humans a bonus to Constitution and a penalty to Intelligence, that's going to raise some eyebrows. Similarly, gender differences exist in human species, but implementing a game mechanic to represent those differences is controversial.
I'd much rather have a system of traits that anyone in the race could purchase. They use up significantly less space, allow me to customize the subraces to the use of my campaign, but also allow me to keep the existing races intact if I don't want subraces. Similarly, differences in stats can already be accomodated by reshuffling where you assign your stats without digging into the stat bumps themselves.
|
|
Actually, on a serious note, I have always liked the idea of "human sub-races." It really brings out the personality of the various ethnic and cultural groups. For example: Chardians are a hardy and outgoing people, but their habit of ignoring things that would rather not know makes them slow on the uptake. They get +2 Con, +2 Cha, and -2 Wis. On the other and Ventarians are quick and observant, but standoffish. They get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha. It actually gives a little depth to the game and makes humans just as different from each other as they are from elves and dwarves.
The Scarred Lands setting had an optional rule that Humans from various regions could have a +2/-2 stat adjustment (say, +2 Cha/-2 Wis for Calastians, IIRC) in place of a bonus Feat.
With the new Pathfinder / 4E stat adjustment norm of +2/+2/-2, that would probably be a better choice, as you've already described above with the Chardians and Ventarians.
Indeed, it could even be made into a racial Feat, choosable by Humans, to get a +2/+2/-2 based on region. (Ulfen, +2 Str, +2 Con, -2 Int?)
I'm not really in love with the idea myself, just tossing out ideas, and it is kinda ironic that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting has two page write ups for Azlanti, Chelaxians, Taldans, Tien, Vudrans, Ulfen, Kellids, Mwangi, Keleshites and Garundi (despite the Azlanti, Tien and Vudrans not even being 'on the map' yet!), and yet there's a tempest in a teapot over the notion that elves with gills might have different stats than elves who live in the woods...
You don't feel that that applies to existing races, though?
I'm sure I'm not the only one here who has heard the "dwarves are jews, orcs are blacks, gnomes are asians" quips. But I'm certainly not going to let any sort of silly racial satire or missplaced white-guilt ruin my enjoyment of the game, and I don't see how subraces are any different.
Subraces make sense. In nature, it's very easy to find groupings of closely-related species adapted to different environments, who all share many characteristics but are still physically distinct. That's a fact.
Stating that fact does NOT mean I'm saying that human ethnicities are the same way; this does not in ANY way imply that skin color in the real world is anything more than skin-deep. That's a malicious and irrational conclusion for anyone to jump to.
Asserting a bioligical difference between various ethnicities of humans is a dicey claim in the real world, and equally dicey when extended to a fantasy world.
And that's exactly the conclusion you leap to here. Statements about fantasy races are NOT "extensions" of statements about real-world races.
If it just makes you uncomfortable, then fine. If you simply dislike it, fine. But to claim that races in fantasy are in any way an allegory for real-world racial prejudice is an outrageous disservice to this genre's founders.
|
|
Similarly, gender differences exist in human species, but implementing a game mechanic to represent those differences is controversial.
[tosses out 'not afraid to ask for directions' gender Trait idea...]
I'd much rather have a system of traits that anyone in the race could purchase. They use up significantly less space, allow me to customize the subraces to the use of my campaign, but also allow me to keep the existing races intact if I don't want subraces. Similarly, differences in stats can already be accomodated by reshuffling where you assign your stats without digging into the stat bumps themselves.
This sounds right to me. Sarcasm above aside, Regional Traits are definitely the way to go.
However, whenever someone tries to play a renegade drow, the rest of the group screams "DRIZZT!".
Maybe because the player in our group named her character "Grazzt" then right after the complaints about LA (which the GM waived) she asked "What do you mean I have to take a -4 attack penalty on all my dual scimitar attack rolls?!?"
Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in other groups.
However, whenever someone tries to play a renegade drow, the rest of the group screams "DRIZZT!".Maybe because the player in our group named her character "Grazzt" then right after the complaints about LA (which the GM waived) she asked "What do you mean I have to take a -4 attack penalty on all my dual scimitar attack rolls?!?"
Just because you haven't done it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen in other groups.
Very true, very true. It would be pretty silly of me to say that no one ever tries to build drizzt. =)
However, in my experience, you can't play a chaotic good drow without people rolling their eyes. Drizzt cast a HUGE shadow on the game, and I've personally found the backlash against drizzt clones to be far more troublesome than drizzt clones themselves.
|
|
Actually, on a serious note, I have always liked the idea of "human sub-races." It really brings out the personality of the various ethnic and cultural groups. For example: Chardians are a hardy and outgoing people, but their habit of ignoring things that would rather not know makes them slow on the uptake. They get +2 Con, +2 Cha, and -2 Wis. On the other and Ventarians are quick and observant, but standoffish. They get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha. It actually gives a little depth to the game and makes humans just as different from each other as they are from elves and dwarves.Sub-races are fine, but you really don't need to be applying modifiers to everything. You can "play" the Chardian and the Ventarian without artificial stat bumps to make them.
Well, arguably the same could do the same with elves, dwarves, etc. You can "play" them without an artificial stat bump as well.
|
|
Actually, on a serious note, I have always liked the idea of "human sub-races." It really brings out the personality of the various ethnic and cultural groups. For example: Chardians are a hardy and outgoing people, but their habit of ignoring things that would rather not know makes them slow on the uptake. They get +2 Con, +2 Cha, and -2 Wis. On the other and Ventarians are quick and observant, but standoffish. They get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, and -2 Cha. It actually gives a little depth to the game and makes humans just as different from each other as they are from elves and dwarves.The Scarred Lands setting had an optional rule that Humans from various regions could have a +2/-2 stat adjustment (say, +2 Cha/-2 Wis for Calastians, IIRC) in place of a bonus Feat.
That is actually where I got the idea from.
Subraces make sense. In nature, it's very easy to find groupings of closely-related species adapted to different environments, who all share many characteristics but are still physically distinct. That's a fact.
Basically, I don't think this is worth debating from the "race versus species versus whatever" end. The bigger issue is that people were using the subraces to min-max more than to roleplay and this is what bugs people.
Whether you use them that way or not I don't know but I've had way too many players pick their elf subrace based on what class they are. As far as I'm concerned good ridance.
Well, yea.
That or they pick their class based on what race they are (wild elves were just about the only thing that could get me to play a ranger).
Either way, class/race synergy isn't a new thing, and making a statistically solid character doesn't mean you aren't roleplaying.
The problem with Drow is that so many people think "I want to play a Drizzt clone!" instead of playing, you know, an actual Drow.
No. The problem is that a lot of people see drow and transform into raving madmen with foam at the mouth, barely getting the words "DRIZZT CLONE!" out through their clenched teeth. Doesn't matter if the drow is anything like drizzt or not, it's always a "Drizzt Clone." Nevermind that with that definition, it's impossible to create a character that is not a "Clone" of someone. If you think like those people, a character is "original" if he is a clone of less than 20 other characters. And few are.
I blame the authorities for not putting those people to sleep.
All of the elves in our group passed on the Kareem Abdul-Jabaar option.
What? Who? Huh?
aqua elf... all that is just fluff IMHO.
But they'll drown! (only fluff means no water breathing :P)
Ya'll aware the PHB didn't have any subraces also?
Just wait few more books, then back to:
Moon elves, sun elves, gray elves, wood elves, wild elves, star elves, dark elves, aquatic elves, avarial elves, fey'ri elves, night elves, snow elves, bar elves, nightbar elves, disco elves, pub elves, tavern elves...etc.
No. Not in official PF products.
I've seen people get bent out of shape because some one wasn't playing their character to a racial stereotype.
Another great example of people we need to send to a big island without a way to get back or to communicate with civilisation so humanity as a whole can become better.
Too bad all the really big islands are settled now, we'd need a lot of space ;-)
In my games, when someone insists on playing a bad stereotype - like playing a racist elf or dwarf - and thinking they're the only true specimen of their race, I turn them into social outcasts in their own race: "Look at that a%#*+#%, he gives the whole race a bad name"
Doesn't matter if the drow is anything like drizzt or not, it's always a "Drizzt Clone."
If someone wants to play a Chaotic Good drow who dual-weilds scimitars, then I am going to call it a Drizzt clone no matter how much they deny it.
Because that's what it is.
If they instead wanted to play, say, a Lawful Evil drow, or a drow wizard, or basically a drow that isn't a Drizzt clone, then we would have no problems. Hypothetically.