All dwarves are stereotypical dwarves. They're exactly the same in every setting.
Thank goodness. one thing I can't stand is the tendency of homebrew and third party worlds to change traditional races in some lame attempt to be creative.
"Gee, look, my dwarves raise ostriches and rope cacti on the pampas!"
If you're going to change them that much, make a new race. Changing an old one to something new is retarded.
I twist races all the time; it's far better then staying boring.
So, the campaign setting I've recently been building up. Only a small fraction of elves live in forests, and they tend to be far more distant to human lands. The ones that are vaguely neighboring are draw more out of mesoamerican aesthetics, jungle dwelling elves who's own empire collapsed during a world-shaking cataclysmic event. Even the forest dwelling elves are more in common with navajo aesthetics then the bizarro psuedo-celtic psuedo-Tolkein psuedo-Aryan Superhuman ones they get in most other settings. Elves are also distantly related to humans (thus half elves).
Dwarfs are not related to humans. Many standard dwarf stereotypes are still present such as dourness and enjoyment of alcohol. What they are, however, to a single dwarf, is religious - and religious to a feverishness that most other races cannot comprehend. The dwarf religion of Arkantaghloan brags itself as the most powerful and prolific religion simply because there is not a single living dwarf that is not a member of it; it is almost literally bred into them. Conservative and xenophobic, Arkantaghloan claims that dwarves were the first race made in the Second World, and that the others were made by the Immortals of other lands as crude mockeries to steal their birthright. The religion has...toned down some of the more violent aspects in time, but even the idea of a non-dwarf worshiper is seen as strange, liberal, and in some circles outright abhorrent. While not a "hive mind," it is true that all dwarfs live and breath their religion, and the church always comes first.
So yeah, two classic races, and I think I've managed to change and twist them enough to make them familiar, but still vaguely unique.
In the world I created, the dominant Dwarf culture is very Roman-like and their religion is a lot like Catholicism. The race itself was inspired by the Sundered Dwarf in 2e Complete Book of Dwarves and their racial abilities are adjusted to reflect that.
Another group of Dwarves who were separated from the dominant group are desert dwellers in a setting akin to the Maztican setting.
On the other side of the world the only dwarves are reclusive, slightly xenophobic, mountain dwellers.
I also have three kinds of Elves so far. Elves as a race originate from behind a Veil that separates their world from "ours". The Veil world mirrors ours and the Elves who stay there live for the 800 years or so that our "traditional" Elves live. Elves that come across the veil for an extended amount of time lose this long life. They still have a longer life span than Humans but not nearly the difference and they mature at the same rate.
The races of Elf that exist in the world are Wood Elves (which have kept the traditional culture of the D&D elves), the Wild Elves (their culture is akin to the Indian who lived in the North American Plains), and the Picti (a small clan of Celts that are slowly being wiped out by the Dwarves).
I twist races all the time; it's far better then staying boring.
Allow me to disagree. The current ideal of "always play against type" and "make it your own" are far, FAR more boring to me than "play within type".
One of Pathfinder's greatest strengths was the whole Revisited thing: a lot of species were being revised in a way that makes them new and interesting while at the same time staying true to their basic nature.If they're staying true to their basic nature, then they haven't really changed.
Golarion elves, halflings and gnomes (among others) prove you wrong.
I have the revisited set. I like what it did with the races because most of the changes were small.
I don't know about small. I know about significant and brilliant.
Example: Goblins. While they're still the weak, evil little menaces they were before, their awesome dial was turned up to 11 with their special brand of insanity (fear of dogs, horses, love for fire, their messy garbage collecting obsession and makeshift weapons)
While they're recognisable as good old goblins, Paizo made them awesome.
Dwarves have a certain set of racial features that I think defines them:Short
Stocky
Live in mountains
Love Ale/Metals/Beards/axes/hammers
Hate goblins/orcs/giantsThere was a campaign setting out for a few years called Sovereign Stone that made the dwarves into a desert-dwelling race. That's too big a change for me.
You're completely missing the point: I'm not asking for dwarves that are dwarves only in name. They can remain the dwarf-shaped, bearded guys who live underground (but not too deep), traditionalists that are accomplished smiths and warriors.
What is missing is that infusion of awesome that turns them from an aeons-old, stagnated relic of the distant past into a vibrant classic that combines the best of the stories with some new and fresh ideas.
I'm inclined to agree with everyone on this one. I really dislike it when people take races that have an established lore (that we love them for) and then try major re-writes. That's how you end up with stone-bodied sparkling vampires.
However, making minor tweaks to make them fit firmly in your setting is fine. Sometimes adding a subrace or variant (called out as such) is a very good idea, even if you note that the traditional race either doesn't exist in your world or is a minority. Splitting races into different cultures of the race, much like humanity, is entirely valid and probably more logical than having an entire race of conformists.
In my own campaign, I have a race of desert dwelling elves. They're nomads who move about regularly based on astrological signs and conditions, and they practice unique traditions of magic and poison-brewing. They have a very specific culture, and slight variance from elves (and are mechanically closer to wild-elves), and exist in the world alongside traditional elves. This makes both versions of these elves stand out more.
Dwarfs are not related to humans. Many standard dwarf stereotypes are still present such as dourness and enjoyment of alcohol. What they are, however, to a single dwarf, is religious - and religious to a feverishness that most other races cannot comprehend.
I love Discworld dwarves.
Those claim to be not religious at all - but being a dwarf is a religion all by itself. They have elevated law (or, more appropriately, lore) and tradition to more than an art form. It's their way of life and their religion.
Of course there is infinitely more going on with dwarves in those books.
They wouldn't quite fit Golarion - they're not quite the right tone for a classical fantasy setting - but they'd be a great source for inspiration!
I'm inclined to agree with everyone on this one. I really dislike it when people take races that have an established lore (that we love them for) and then try major re-writes. That's how you end up with stone-bodied sparkling vampires.
However, making minor tweaks to make them fit firmly in your setting is fine.
This is exactly what I'm saying.
Adding a "special brand of insanity" to goblins is, ultimately, a minor tweak. The "changes" to elves and halflings and gnomes are ultimately not really that huge.
If you want Dwarves to also produce the best hair bands in Golarion, sure, I can go with that, as long as they lose none of what they are at heart.
At the same time, if dwarves are all the same, and elves are all the same, and magic all works the same, and everything is just derivitive of "high fantasy," are you even really "fantasy" at that point? Is your setting "fantastic" in the slightest?
Eventually, people get bored of "high fantasy," and good riddance to it as well.
Certainly going beyond common stereotypes gave us sparklepires. But it also gave us the movie Nosferatu, an astonishingly brilliant work of art that flew in the face of many "vampire" conventions set up in Dracula.
One idea I played around with for a while was elves having a yearly ceremony of renewal.pjackson, that's a terrific approach.
You might look into the Warhammer RPG. The elves there can consciously delete specific parts of their memory. It keeps their immortal minds from getting too cluttered.
I set up a side discussion on how people might have revised dwarves in this thread:
Elven society would see no need for industry and production.
While a human weaponsmith might produce 3 longswords per month, an elven smith might make take a year or more to make 1. He would pick up the project, lovingly work on one component at a time, perfecting it and redoing it until they have the results they want.
Odds are good that they would generate mostly masterwork items.
Orcs: We declare war on you, mildly perfumed elven scums!
Elves: Oh, sheesh! Could you come back in half a century, please? Because, you see, we need more swords and bows, after that flood that pushed us out of our ancestral lands. And, well, we like to take our time, you know, in order to give them this nice artsy elven look...Orcs: Oh! Ok, no problems! Cliché oblige, I guess. I'll tell my children to come back!
Seriously, any race that could not produce on a industrial scale would be extinct in a matter of years in a medieval fantasy world where war is often the normal situation.
At the same time, if dwarves are all the same, and elves are all the same, and magic all works the same, and everything is just derivitive of "high fantasy," are you even really "fantasy" at that point? Is your setting "fantastic" in the slightest?
Eventually, people get bored of "high fantasy," and good riddance to it as well.
Certainly going beyond common stereotypes gave us sparklepires. But it also gave us the movie Nosferatu, an astonishingly brilliant work of art that flew in the face of many "vampire" conventions set up in Dracula.
Well fantasy is anything not real, arguably. However, many of us (and I've not grown my proper grognard horns yet) really enjoy the races for what they are. I had a GM mention to me that elves in his campaign were all xenophobic humanoid-flesh eating barbarians. He said it was that way just to rail against the elven "stereotype".
The thing is, to many of us, it's not a stereotype, it's a description. I mean, Pathfinder made humans more interesting by breaking them up into different ethnic groups, but they're still humans with minor variances. Like juanpsantiagoXIV noted, the changes to the creatures in Pathfinder have for the most part (thankfully) been kept rather minor, which lets them remain firmly what they are and flavored appropriately.
For example: The Kyton was originally a devil in the 3.x game. In Pathfinder, the kyton isn't actually a devil, but it's still pretty much the same evil outsider, used the same way, and so forth. They just have a colorful bit of flavor to them, and they've been made into their own monster - but it's still a kyton.
If you're going to take it very far, then make something new. Using Twilight as an example again, many vampires in fiction have been modified and tweaked in their various incarnations, but most fans of vampires expect certain staples to be followed, with some being more critical and key than others. The reason people mock Twilight vampires so fiercely is because they've overstepped their bounds fiercely, to the point they're questionable as vampires in the sense of the genre. Virtually everyone I know in real life (including my friends who love the books) thinks the "sparkly vampires" is probably the worst aspect of the books because it's "stupid and not vampires".
Occasionally you'll write something that's borderline but you somehow manage to make it work. For example, I'm a fan of the vampire hunter D films which really put a very different spin on the gothic village vampire theme (mixing advanced technology, demons, mutants, cyborgs, vampire noble houses, villages and farms, and high tech for what is a beautiful) but the vampires feel like vampires, even more than Twilight's, and that's because the vampires were so by more than name.
When I think of a dwarf, I think of a dwarf. Why do I want a new edition to re-invent the wheel? The best dwarf lore I read was from the PFCS, and the tradition of "Clandreggin" stuck out to me as something new and interesting which seemed to totally fit dwarves, and made me immediately want to play one.
Subraces are great for this sort of thing. If you really want dwarfs who are different, use a subrace. Duegar are way different from normal dwarfs, but they have enough similarities to note them both as dwarfs. Gray elves are different from Wild Elves, but are both obviously elves. Chelaxians are different from Varisians, but are both obviously humans.
But change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea, in my experience.
Elven society would see no need for industry and production.
While a human weaponsmith might produce 3 longswords per month, an elven smith might make take a year or more to make 1. He would pick up the project, lovingly work on one component at a time, perfecting it and redoing it until they have the results they want.
Odds are good that they would generate mostly masterwork items.
Orcs: We declare war on you, mildly perfumed elven scums!
Elves: Oh, sheesh! Could you come back in half a century, please? Because, you see, we need more swords and bows, after that flood that pushed us out of our ancestral lands. And, well, we like to take our time, you know, in order to give them this nice artsy elven look...
Orcs: Oh! Ok, no problems! Cliché oblige, I guess. I'll tell my children to come back!Seriously, any race that could not produce on a industrial scale would be extinct in a matter of years in a medieval fantasy world where war is often the normal situation.
Very true. Notice that most campaign settings usually have elves being somewhat reclusive as a whole. The mention of elves in classic fantasy circles usually invokes thoughts of expert archers, magicians, hidden fortress cities within forests or well protected lands. Most elven lore in fantasy RPGs suggest they train for war (renown archers and swordsmen, in our RPG they are automatically proficient with several martial weapons including the longbow) but are rarely noted for actually engaging in wars. Even the drow (who are probably the most violent and militaristic of all) rarely seem to actually start or engage in outright wars rather than small skirmishes, raids, and engagements.
Why might this be? Because they have a lot to lose - as a species - to be anything but highly defensive. Keep your lands and borders safe, deal with major threats, and survive. At least, I think that's the most common reasoning, but individual campaigns may vary (and have lore to compensate).
Totally stealing this for a future campaign.I had a GM mention to me that elves in his campaign were all xenophobic humanoid-flesh eating barbarians.
Dwarf Fortress?
|
There was a campaign setting out for a few years called Sovereign Stone that made the dwarves into a desert-dwelling race. That's too big a change for me.
Seriously? That's too far?
Man, you would hate my homebrew.
I don't know, the idea of seriously expecting all races to cleave to stereotypes in every setting just seems an outright alien concept to me in literature and gaming, especially since it hamstrings one of the greatest advantages those mediums have: imagination.
It always mystified me how some settings could get so much hate over not wanting to do the same-old thing all over again. I loved Eberron's take on orcs, goblinoids, and elves(hell, as someone who has ALWAYS hated the idea of any race being Always Chaotic Evil, it was a breath of fresh air as far as D&D goes), but apparently some folks absolutely detested the setting for exactly that. And I'm not just talking about someone going "It just doesn't work for me." I'm talking about people wishing death upon the setting and holding grudges against its creator. Hell, the discussion page for the module Baker wrote couldn't even get by without at least one person taking a shot at him for having dared to make Eberron.
But moving on...
Someone mentioned Twilight as an example of why creative twists are bad. I really don't think using Twilight works as a condemnation of doing things differently so much as it is a condemnation of flat out stupid ideas.
Personally I've always been frustrated with folks expecting fictional creatures to work the same in everything they appear in. Going back to vampires, I've lost count of the number of times I've wanted to slam my head on the desk when someone moaned about vampires in one setting not working exactly like vampires in their own setting of choice(or whatever setting first made them familiar with vampires), whether it's Buffy, Hammer Film's Dracula, Lost Boys, Castlevania, Dresden Files, @#$%ing Twilight, 30 Days of Night, or whatever. Just the notion of everyone having to cleave to some set of universal stereotype seems antithetical to imagination.
Hell, I've seen people get worked up over the concept of dwaves working with wood. Just recently we had someone in a game get hung up over the idea of dwarves building boats.
It's like "Sure we're traditionally good with stonework but that's not all we're about."
It was mentioned upthread that one thing we need less of is cultural and ethnic homogeny in the nonhuman races. I wholeheartedly agree there, for a number of reasons:
1. The notion that ethnic and cultural diversity is monopolized by humans makes my head want to explode. I hate the Humans Are Special stereotype in fantasy settings just as much as I hate the Elves Are Better Than You cliche.
2. Every single one of the core non-human races is typically portrayed as fair-skinned, almost always. Oh, except for the half-orc. You know, the poor guy who always gets mostly negative descriptors in his write-ups compared to the other races? (which is another reason why I'm such a rabid advocate for non-evil orcs)
-Most elves in my homebrew are dark skinned. Anyone whose sensibilities are offended by that is probably not someone I'd want to game with anyway. Sadly one poster on these forums had exactly that experience when she wanted to play a "black" elf.-
3. It's simply more believable and interesting. Personally I love the idea of severe values dissonance happening between dwarves from the Borman moors and the dwarven fishermen from the Shattered Shores or whatever. Far more than just "dwarves vs elves" and "dwarves vs orcs" anyway.
4. And not all of us run or want to run a completely humanocentric world. Diversity within all the races helps with that.
|
|
Dwarf Fortress?Totally stealing this for a future campaign.I had a GM mention to me that elves in his campaign were all xenophobic humanoid-flesh eating barbarians.
Not sure yet. It's kind of just rattling around in my head right now. I'm thinking perhaps something curses the elves somehow, and they eventually fall into the insane barbarism and humanoid-eating traits for some reason.
It'll be interesting to see how it all comes together.
Maybe there's room for a call back to their scary Fair Folk roots as well?
Maybe set up an Arawn-like racial diety, that venerates a Wild Hunt of sorts for humanoid prey....
But change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea, in my experience.
And yet traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism is equally poor.
Change for the sake of variety, change for the sake of something new being better, that is entirely worthwhile.
See, you're using Twilight, but it doesn't work. The problem isn't that "vampires are different," the problem is "it's hilariously terrible writing and a hilariously terrible idea." Dresden Files has some very dramatically different vampires, but they aren't railed against. If anything they're loved because they subvert or twist what it vampires are.
Besides that, the stereotypes are usually really boring and unfilling. Let's look at dwarves; what are their stereotypes?
Gruff
Like alcohol
Live underground
Have you gotten a rich and varied panting of an interesting race just on that? I doubt it. What about halflings?
Like humans but short
Hmm, that really doesn't cover much at all. Gnomes?
Different in literally every single setting
Whoops! Gnomes don't even have a set archtype. Just about every setting you go into, their gnomes are going to be different, weird, and/or unique.
Totally stealing this for a future campaign.I had a GM mention to me that elves in his campaign were all xenophobic humanoid-flesh eating barbarians.
You may want to check out the Darksun Campaign Setting as well if you like that. Darksun has a very setting specific twist on virtually all the races, including halfling cannibals who resemble small children (and yet are strangely familiar). It's not your traditional D&D in any way, but it's a lot of fun.
Mind you, Darksun doesn't try to suggest that it is either. It's very much noted that it's a very different kind of campaign with a very different set of themes. Golarion is noted as being different and yet very familiar, and it's designed to have something for everyone (depending on where you set your campaign in Golarion you can have massive theme and flavor differences).
You may want to check out the free 3.5 PDF for Darksun. The main sight is down at the moment, but this link will at least let you check out the pdf (which is normally available for free on the site).
But change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea, in my experience.And yet traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism is equally poor.
Change for the sake of variety, change for the sake of something new being better, that is entirely worthwhile.
See, you're using Twilight, but it doesn't work. The problem isn't that "vampires are different," the problem is "it's hilariously terrible writing and a hilariously terrible idea." Dresden Files has some very dramatically different vampires, but they aren't railed against. If anything they're loved because they subvert or twist what it vampires are.
I know several people who are avid fans of the books, noting them being great stories (except for the vampire changes). Really, the only thing they have making them "vampires" is they drink blood. That's pretty much it. Everything else seems to point to some sort of uber crystal-skinned mutants with a secret society. They have no weaknesses or abilities of vampires, and other than the blood-drinking thing, they're not vampires. They could be called "crystal mosquito men" and it would be about as accurate as "vampire".
Why do I bother to note this? Well, basically because "hilariously terrible writing and hilariously terrible idea"s are pretty much varied. One guy things making dwarfs vastly different from what dwarfs are established to be is another guy's perception of sparkling daylight dwarfs.
Let me put it another way.
Unicorns are fifteen feet long, two and a half feet tall, with thick scaly skin, with four legs and a tail, with an alligator-like body, two hands, a horn growing out of its body between its necks that juts out some two feet. They primarily feast on virgin elephants (because they taste better), which they kill by shooting with magic lightning bolts from their horn.
Unicorns are beautiful horse-like creatures with a long horn on their head, and beautiful flowing tails. They are peaceful creatures that watch over forests and use healing magics from their horns to aid innocents. They are sometimes seen by young virgins lost in the forest.
Ok, let's see. Unicorn checklist.
Ok, so we can see both are obviously unicorns, right? Right? No. Show the creature I described to anyone and they will not tell you it's a unicorn. Ask them what the latter is, and they will say a unicorn. That's because we know what a unicorn is. It has an established lore. Tweaking it a bit like Paizo did with unicorns (explaining the virgin bit to be a misconception) makes them a bit unique, but they changed little to nothing that really makes them unicorns.
My point is, "better" is entirely subjective. No one decides what is "better" in a sense of aesthetics. The writer of twilight probably thought twilight vampires were better (maybe "different is better" to the writer) and creative, something fresh and new, but for most we find it stupid or too alien from what we actually already like and know as the vampire. We see a laughing stock, a sham. A piece of literary crap that tarnishes what has over the years developed into a sort of sub-genre of its own.
(That's a paraphrasing of what most of my associates think of it. I haven't had the money to go out and buy the books (a friend is lending his to me in the near future), but from what I've seen of the films, it initially seemed little more than a thinly veiled girlish fantasy involving a pair of handsome guys with hangups who both like you, compete over you, and are both dangerous and mysterious, which adds drama to your otherwise boring and/or empty life without your family and no real social circle. YMMV.)
THAT BEING SAID:
I agree with Mikaze as well however. I'm an avid fan of Eberron. It's different and yet everything is also very familiar and seems natural to the setting. The major thing I must stress however is Eberron is a campaign setting that is not the norm and makes that very, very clear. It stresses that many of the classical archtypes and established norms are challenged and/or changed in various ways, specific to that campaign setting. It even has a pretty large portion of the book dedicated simply to the changes and/or differences with most established campaign settings and concepts.
Pathfinder should not change much in the way of the established norm because it is meant to appeal to those who liked the established norm. To quote the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, "an old new world". It goes on to say that Golarion is a new world, but they specifically want it to feel comfortable, familiar, and understood.
They likely recognized that re-inventing the wheel, while trying to keep the spirit of the wheel alive, is probably a self-defeating goal. I imagine that for the most part, they assumed what would be natural: if you're playing in a campaign that has a different spin on the races - such as Eberron - then it's campaign specific. They wanted their setting to feel familiar and fresh at the same time, and I think they succeeded.
Seriously? That's too far?Man, you would hate my homebrew.
Probably. That's why I try to avoid playing in homebrew worlds.
Most elves in my homebrew are dark skinned. Anyone whose sensibilities are offended by that is probably not someone I'd want to game with anyway. Sadly one poster on these forums had exactly that experience when she wanted to play a "black" elf.
Most elves that I play are green-skinned. Skin tone doesn't really make me bat an eyelid.
It's a diverse world out there... learn to be a bit more open minded.
There's a difference between "open-minded" and "you must learn to appreciate this". A big difference.
Diversity of cultures does not make your campaign setting better or worse than "Generic World #3". To be truly "open-minded" you must also accept without question traditional ideas and genre ideals.
Totally stealing this for a future campaign.I had a GM mention to me that elves in his campaign were all xenophobic humanoid-flesh eating barbarians.
Hey! I'm already using that!!!
I used to be really into the everything needs to be different in homebrews but later on I've discovered that tropes and stereotypes aren't inherently bad. Tropes and Stereotypes are only bad if the underlying story is bad. In many cases they actually help connect the reader (or gamer) to a setting.
Further for many gamers, there is a tendency to play elves as pointy-eared humans and dwarves as short bearded humans. Standard fantasy tropes such as the arboreal elves and underground dwelling dwarves borrow from an extant body of fantasy literature and in some cases actually help break the demihumans out of their "humans but different in appearance" tendencies.
The simple fact of the matter is that very few GMs (or authors) have the ability or inclination to do Tolkien level world building. Time spent making a unique race of elves is time not spent on other game aspects.
Different just to be different also tends to lead to difference overload because if everything is special and unique then nothing is special and unique. In many cases going with a fairly standard high fantasy template and switching up a few details rather than wholesale revisions of the base universe assumptions get better player buy-in.
Honestly a lot of gamers really want Tolkien and Howard pastiches. It's the same reason why high fantasy schlock litters the shelves of book stores. People say they want something different (and some people might even mean it) but many gamers want stuff that cleaves to the standard D&D high fantasy template (ala Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk and Golarion). Even stuff like Eberron is just pretty standard high fantasy with steampunk layered on top.
Gruff
Like alcohol
Live underground
Three good reasons to love dwarves as they are.
|
110 years starting age. What do they spend a century on before reaching the competence of a human teen? Are elves functionally disabled? Do they spend all that time practising aloof expressions in the mirror and brushing their hair? :P
You know i see this a lot like a cow comparing itself to a human
"15 years starting age, what do they spend ten years learning how to walk and groom themselves? Are Humans born retarded? do they spend all that time practicing how to chew and swallow?"
Twilight is horrible for a variety of reasons beyond "Our Vampires are Different", a lot of urban romantic fantasy is basically "My Boyfriend is the Coolest" and Twilight is no exception.
Yes sparkle-magic super vampires are an abomination but the books are pretty much crap for a ton of reasons other than the authors twist on vampires.
The writing is vapid, the literary allusions are pathetic, the main character (and author avatar) has the agency of a rock, and it's not even particularly inventive (just positioned well in the marketplace).
It's probably comparable to the Laurel Hamilton Anita Blake series (which has basically turned into soft core romance novel porn) which is pretty much the adult, non-mormonized version of "My Vampire Boyfriend is Special".
As wretched as the movies are they are actually vast improvements on the original source material. I actually listened to the books on CD D:<
@ snobi which ones which?
Twilight is horrible for a variety of reasons beyond "Our Vampires are Different", a lot of urban romantic fantasy is basically "My Boyfriend is the Coolest" and Twilight is no exception.
Yes sparkle-magic super vampires are an abomination but the books are pretty much crap for a ton of reasons other than the authors twist on vampires.
The writing is vapid, the literary allusions are pathetic, the main character (and author avatar) has the agency of a rock, and it's not even particularly inventive (just positioned well in the marketplace).
It's probably comparable to the Laurel Hamilton Anita Blake series (which has basically turned into soft core romance novel porn) which is pretty much the adult, non-mormonized version of "My Vampire Boyfriend is Special".
As wretched as the movies are they are actually vast improvements on the original source material. I actually listened to the books on CD D:<
+1, by and large. Someone I love very much love Twilight to pieces, everyone else in my life can't stand it or uses it as an example of the downfall of society, when it really is no such thing. We've seen stuff like Twilight before, and we will again. There are more than a few comparisons that could be made between it and my own beloved True Blood(at least in novel form).
Like juanpsantiagoXIV noted, the changes to the creatures in Pathfinder have for the most part (thankfully) been kept rather minor
Like I said: They might not be big, sweeping changes, but they are sufficient to make the stuff interesting again - while, at the same time, staying true to its roots.
And that's the point, really! As I said a couple of times already, it's about the balance of new ideas and old stuff that makes Pathfinder so awesome. It's a kind of magic, really, to show something old in a new light, so that while remaining what it was, it looks interesting again
And dwarves don't have the right mix. They're something old in the same old, stale light.
For example: The Kyton was originally a devil in the 3.x game.
More originally, they weren't devils. They were LE outsiders hanging out in the hellish plane, but they weren't devils. 3e lumped them in with devils into that misnomer.
Pathfinder went back to the roots here.
The reason people mock Twilight vampires so fiercely is because they've overstepped their bounds fiercely
Again, this justification of extremes with other extremes...
Sure, taking, say, something like hobgoblins and calling them dwarves (it's just an example. It might just as well be taking a worm that walks, change the worms for bugs, give them a shapechanging ability, and call the resulting mess "lamia") is an extreme that is not desired. But the only ones who bring something like this up is those who want to justify the other extreme: A verbatim copy of the old flavour text, maybe blotting out old setting names and pencilling in new ones.
Again: What Pathfinder is (usually) about is neither the extreme of total stagnation, but neither is it slapping old names on completely new things.
Pathfinder's genius lies in a middle way.
Pathfinder dwarves failed in that regard. They're too close to the extreme of the carbon copy.
The fact that I don't like it doesn't mean I cry for hobgoblins in dwarves' clothing.
When I think of a dwarf, I think of a dwarf. Why do I want a new edition to re-invent the wheel?
I don't want them to re-invent the wheel, but enough with stone disks. Listen to what the wainwright has to say about less archaic materials
Subraces are great for this sort of thing. If you really want dwarfs who are different, use a subrace. Duegar are way different from normal dwarfs, but they have enough similarities to note them both as dwarfs. Gray elves are different from Wild Elves, but are both obviously elves. Chelaxians are different from Varisians, but are both obviously humans.
Duergar are duergar are duergar. We're talking about dwarves here.
But change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea, in my experience.
Who said anything about "change for the sake of change"? It's clearly change for the sake of getting rid of these cobwebs.
It's this silly "If you're not for one extreme, you're for the other" thinking again. The world is not binary. Not everything is a switch.
but apparently some folks absolutely detested the setting for exactly that.
I mainly detested it for its X-Treme branding, magical trains and overabundance of robots ;-P
I've wanted to slam my head on the desk when someone moaned about vampires in one setting not working exactly like vampires in their own setting of choice(or whatever setting first made them familiar with vampires), whether it's Buffy, Hammer Film's Dracula, Lost Boys, Castlevania, Dresden Files, @#$%ing Twilight, 30 Days of Night, or whatever.
Dresden Files vampires totally rock. Everyone who thinks otherwise is the son of a hamster or something! :D
1. The notion that ethnic and cultural diversity is monopolized by humans makes my head want to explode. I hate the Humans Are Special stereotype in fantasy settings just as much as I hate the Elves Are Better Than You cliche.
Humans are the only ones who aren't stereotypes is the human stereotype. It IS the human version of "elves are better than you", "halflings are thieves" and "dwarves are bloodthirsty drunkards".
2. Every single one of the core non-human races is typically portrayed as fair-skinned, almost always. Oh, except for the half-orc. You know, the poor guy who always gets mostly negative descriptors in his write-ups compared to the other races? (which is another reason why I'm such a rabid advocate for non-evil orcs)
Well, Pathfinder at least narrowly escaped that one. There are dark-skinned elves in Garund (I don't talk about drow, but about elves with a colouration similar to what you expect from a Garundi)
And because drow are basically unknown to the surface world of Golarion, these "black" elves don't have to fear being confused with drow.
And even if stuff becomes known, it should be quite easy to spot the difference, since the drow skin colour is quite unnatural - suntanning turns your skin quite dark, but not usually jet black. Demonic eyes and white hair helps keeping it separate.
4. And not all of us run or want to run a completely humanocentric world. Diversity within all the races helps with that.
One of my gripes with Golarion. The dominance of humans is starting to get old. I understand why it's done, but a world that's still dominated by elves, or one that is dominated by, say, halflings who have replaced humans as the movers and shakers, would have been interesting.
And I can.. the problem is the out and out rejection of someone else's ideas and beliefs simply because they don't match your preferred "traditional" model, especially if one hasn't even given the new material a fair looking over. I know that many of the more strident Twilight accosters for example have seen nothing other than commercial trailers to base their judgement on. The material isn't exactly my cup of tea, but it doesn't bother me that other people enjoy it.
Well, they're not going to waste good money to prove themselves right, now will they?
Humanocentric Euro-themed campaign settings are typically used for a variety of reasons:
1)Gygax/Tolkein did it that way- Gamers, especially D&D gamers are a traditional lot
2)Designers are lazy- Inventing a culture, particularly non-human out of whole cloth is difficult. Creating a world where the humans aren't dominant requires a good deal of creativity.
3)High Fantasy Euro-centric campaigns still sell- There have been some successful campaign settings in other venues but it still seems that generic, kitchen-sink settings are the reliable seller.
Combined with other standard high fantasy tropes, such as medieval stasis, elven seclusion/retreat, our elves are special, always evil races, Good/Bad dichotomy and it's kinda a wonder we get as much variety as we do ;)
Elven lifespan should be dramatically shortened as should the rate of maturity unless they are going to be an entirely alien race (D&D rarely depicts them as anything other than slightly magical humans). You can incorporate immortal elves but keep them as NPCs (kinda like Shadowrun/Earthdawn does). That way you can still have ancient elves struggling with ancient wizard liches without littering the setting with a plethora of 100+ year old 1st level elf warriors.
Here is how I have come to view the starting age difference for elves. It's very simple and has real world equivalency:
Elves and humans physically mature on the same time line. Emotionally though elves are like the kids that don't move out of their parents home at 18. They stay at home and their parents wash their clothes and take care of them while they go on to college. So they're adults but haven't been exposed to the "real world" of paying bills, buying their own food, working 40+ hours a week, etc.
Think about the differences between people that you know. If you could take the same person and place them in two scenarios: one on their own at 18 and the other, their parents taking care of them until 22-24? Different levels of maturity. now compound that to fit an elves lifespan.
This also ,for me at least, explains the +2 to intelligence. They Spent more time "in school".
|
Dwarf ... out of sight out of mind
Not really. The dwarves in other settings didn't really bother making the push for the surface, they seemed to have just ended up there. Golarion dwarves actually DROVE themselves to the surface to see the sky. Most dwarves in other settings rarely have a castle outside the mountains, much less one IN THE SKY like the sky citadels. A small difference at first glance but with MAJOR indications.
Nobody will argue that your average human is smarter now then he was then
Ever hear of the Flynn Effect?
But change for the sake of change is rarely a good idea, in my experience.And yet traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism is equally poor.
Your'e both right.
Change for the sake of variety, change for the sake of something new being better, that is entirely worthwhile.
Right again. The problem is what constitutes "better" or "worthwhile".
See, you're using Twilight, but it doesn't work. The problem isn't that "vampires are different," the problem is "it's hilariously terrible writing and a hilariously terrible idea." Dresden Files has some very dramatically different vampires, but they aren't railed against. If anything they're loved because they subvert or twist what it vampires are.
Almost right again (imo). Love the Dresden files and the three (well, 2 now) different "courts" of vampires. The problem here is that they do fulfill classic vampire tropes. Just different ones :) Nosferatu (Black Court), succubus / incubus (White Court), and standard bat type thingy (Red Court).
Besides that, the stereotypes are usually really boring and unfilling. Let's look at dwarves; what are their stereotypes?Gruff
Like alcohol
Live undergroundHave you gotten a rich and varied panting of an interesting race just on that? I doubt it.
It's pretty easy to expand on that basic stereotype and make them different / interesting but still hit the classic points. To account for the official shorter lifespans of Elves and Dwarves in later editions I put a curse in the backstory of my world shortening their lifespans. My current Dwarves are all adolescents filling adult roles. They have "The Cannon of Dwarvin Tradition" that lays out *all* the possible roles they can play in Dwarvin society. It's all written down, very lawful. Everything specified including attitudes, names, gender, etc. If they change roles they have to have a ritual funeral and become a "new Dwarf". That gruff, tough, testosterone laden Dwarvin fighter might just be an adolescent girl wearing a (really good) fake beard who's actually terrified. But they never let it show. They live up to their roles. The ultimate actors. That shriek going into battle is a war cry. Really. My Dwarves have no theater of their own (it would be kind of redundant), but they are avid theater goers (human theater). They admire good acting. The only acceptable outlet for non role behavior / activity is when they're drunk. Getting drunk is a vacation for them :) All the stereo types with some fun stuff on the side.
What about halflings?Like humans but short
Hmm, that really doesn't cover much at all. Gnomes?
Different in literally every single setting
Whoops! Gnomes don't even have a set archtype. Just about every setting you go into, their gnomes are going to be different, weird, and/or unique.
All the races in my game have their quirks. But they all fulfill the classic roles on the surface.
Drifting back towards the original topic...
I think that elves (at least the adolescent ones) would behave more like the literary character PETER PAN.
"Always" young, learning swashbuckling and just getting into mischief to avoid boredom. A forlorn elf could become a ledgendary Peter Pan type figure, running a gang of street urchins and orphans in a human city, with the local theives guild master being a "Captain Hook" type of character.
I always felt the 110 years' starting age for elves is moronic. It's easy to see why:
They have bonuses to intelligence, so it's not because they are stupid, have a learning disability or anything like that.
PC elves are meant to represent the very pinnacle of drive and passion the race has to offer, so it's not because they are slow as rocks, unmotivated, or mushroom addicts.
They age physically at about the same rate as humans, so it's not because of decades of diaper changing.
No other race absolutely demands being a master in a craft to allow people to adventure, so it's not because they are "learning a trade" or the like.
If elves are physically mature at 25, then THAT should be their starting age. 110 years may be what the elves THINK adulthood should come at, that does not mean the world will comply. In competition with other races, elves will have to adapt, and claiming that they haven't is the same as saying they're dead. I can see why a 25-year old elf would flee a society that will pay him no respect until 85 years into the future, but very little reason for him to stay there.
In short, 110 years is sheer stupidity, a leftover from the earliest editions, and something that should be abolished. If I consider it, yes, I would love to play an elf trying to cope with the concept of centuries of lifespan, especially when faced with party members of races with much shorter lifespans. It's just so boring that every D&D setting just assumes that every elven character has already figured this out, something that requires being older than (almost) all humans could ever hope to live.