|
'Bastards of Golarion' .......'PC' ......'Mongrels of Golarion,'etc.
It's funny, this has been done quite a few times now but it always pops up.
'Bastards' would simply be inaccurate for half-orcs, half-elves and any other half- species.
A bastard is someone who is born out of wedlock. It can thus, by implication mean illegitimate in other contexts.
However, 'mongrel' would be entirely accurate.
It's not 'political correctness'; it's simply using accurate vocabulary.
|
Laying uncharted beneath all this type of discussion is the idea of racial levels as transformation (I really, really loved this about Malhavoc Press' Arcana Evolved). Whenever a player tells me he wants to play as a vampire (or a werewolf, or a ninja weretiger), rather than slapping him with the template and making his new favorite character disappear until the rest of the party catches up, I write up a 6-8 level progression describing his long, slow transformation....
In short, good idea for someone else to print.
Have you checked out Rite Publishing's racial books, for instance, "In the Company of Minotaurs." They contain racial paragon classes to emulate a typical racial progression from 1-20 levels and rules for each race to be playable at 1st level.
We also have a thread going at the moment asking for suggestions for future offerings in this line.
Creative Director
|
In Golarion? Because the assumption is that hobgoblins are the bad guys.
Does this hold true for both Kobolds and Lizardmen?
For kobolds, yes. For lizardfolk, not really, but neither are they generally thought of as GOOD guys. Neither race has a big presence in most human cities.
That said, tinkering with expectations and having tribes of normally monster encounter type things in not so much combat encounters is a great way to add variety to the game. That doesn't mean that they're good PC choices, though. Note that in Kingmaker...
In any case, we ARE going to put out a goblin-themed Player's Companion later next year. And we already did one for orcs. We'll certainly be watching how these products do in reviews and sales to determine if it's a good idea to do more books along those lines. But for the most part, we won't be re-invisioning things—the game, in my opinion, BENEFITS from having bad guy races you can count on as both a GM and a player to be the bad guys.
|
Creative Director
|
But for the most part, we won't be re-invisioning things—the game, in my opinion, BENEFITS from having bad guy races you can count on as both a GM and a player to be the bad guys.To each their own I suppose. Personally, I'm more inclined to a morally grey type game, where you can't really count on ANYTHING except Fiends (and maybe color coded dragons, still debating on that one with myself lol) to be a 'bad guy.'
Note: I'm not saying "All orcs and kobolds in Every game are evil all the time." I'm just saying that's more or less the way of things in Golarion.
How orcs work in other game worlds is 100% up to those world's creators. As the creative director for Golarion, though... I just prefer the standard being "evil orcs" so that now and then when and if we want to do "not so evil orcs" then the exception means something.
|
Creative Director
|
Second of all, I didn't buy the orcs of golarion companion because it didnt address the biggest issue: monstrous races are mechanically inferior to core races (Orcs = awful). If the goblionoid companion DOES make PC goblinoids a viable alternative (on par with core races, tengu, etc), then I'd buy it in a heart beat.
Goblins won't be getting any "upgrades." Some races are intentionally less powerful overall than humans, just as some are more powerful overall than humans.
|
How orcs work in other game worlds is 100% up to those world's creators.
YES. Sometimes I feel as though today's GMs treat tabletop rpgs rules as MMOs: they cannot rule on their personal game, but must comply to "Blizzard" ala the rpg company, for even the smallest move (yet b%*#$ when it's not how'd they rule the move).
|
YES. Sometimes I feel as though today's GMs treat tabletop rpgs rules as MMOs: they cannot rule on their personal game, but must comply to "Blizzard" ala the rpg company, for even the smallest move (yet b!@*! when it's not how'd they rule the move).
How orcs work in other game worlds is 100% up to those world's creators.
I've had players want me to rule on things, that when I glance at it, don't understand or see why a rule was made that way in the first place, I assume being that I have not invested the pure amount of time in the rule thought process that I am probably not seeing the reason it was made that way to begin with. Thus, I don't change it.
You're attempting to publish support of purposefully inferior products,
Hey Varthanna,
I must disagree that a product focusing on a "non-optimized" race is an inferior product. The quality of the product is in the presentation of value of the ideas, not in how min-maxy the race is.
I would *love* to play a goblin. Would it hit as hard as a minotaur? No. Does that make it inferior? Maybe for the way you play, but not for the way I play.
Does that make the product that presents goblins inferior? Not by any stretch of the imagination.
Its fun to play a giant talking bird.
Buy the Sesame Street Campaign Setting.
|
|
In Golarion? Because the assumption is that hobgoblins are the bad guys.
Does this hold true for both Kobolds and Lizardmen?
For kobolds, yes. For lizardfolk, not really, but neither are they generally thought of as GOOD guys. Neither race has a big presence in most human cities.
That said, tinkering with expectations and having tribes of normally monster encounter type things in not so much combat encounters is a great way to add variety to the game. That doesn't mean that they're good PC choices, though. Note that in Kingmaker... ** spoiler omitted **
Kingmaker Module 1 Spoilers...sorry
As far as Lizard Men. Back in 1987 or so, when I played 1st ed, one of my favorite characters ever was when a DM let me play Neraka, a Lizard Man Fighter. I had an iguana at the time, and made him less carnivore, more badass vegetarian lizard. Subbed the bite for a tail-swipe attack (Anyone who has ever encountered an angry iguana knows of what I speak)
.
Great memories...And Roleplaying moments. See, we did stick with the 'Lizardmen eat people' motif for most of them, thus, when folk encountered a member of this non carnivorous tribe, I got a lot of prejudice. Today, I would take ranks of Diplomacy.back then, at 17, I just roleplayed it on the fly.
-Uriel
|
|
For anybody who loves Goblins, the little guy or just seeing the 'bad guys' portrayed in a different light/things from their point of view, I cannot recommend this series highly enough.
Rule 3: 'Never, EVER challenge a Goblin to a duel...' Hehehe
http://www.amazon.com/Goblin-War-Jim-C-Hines/dp/0756404932
-Uriel
|
Creative Director
|
I never said anything about humans, just core races in general, which feature a wide range of power, as you noted. I understand (and applaud) the design decision, but as a business decision it strikes me as strange.
You're attempting to publish support of purposefully inferior products, and based on their success, are going to decide if you will create more similar products? I'm not a business man, but that seems like you'd be setting yourself up for disappointment... Then again, as I write this, I realize that Orcs of Golarion must have sold better than I'd think, else you wouldn't be making a goblionoid one.
That said, I think a Tengu of Golarion (or equally above-average non-core race, just using them because they stick out) supplement would be a better measure for the potential market than substandard orcs and goblins.
Our interpretation of goblins has been one of Paizo's greatest successes; they're VERY popular, and one of the things that a lot of folks identify with. Whether or not a goblin is precisely balanced with the other core races, I predict this book will sell VERY well because the goblins have a lot of fans out there.
Furthermore, simply saying that a race is hands down "less powerful" than another is kind of narrowminded. You look at a pixie, and that race is a TERRIBLE choice for barbarian, but it's more or less perfect for sorcerer. A 1st level pixie barbarian will die more or less in the first fight, I suspect, while a 1st level pixie sorcerer will crush an adventure and among equal level PCs will dominate every encounter. Of course, pixies are an extreme example since their abilities and stat mods are so high and varied, but looking at the orc you get the same thing. If you make an orc fighter or barbarian, for example, the penalties to your three mental ability scores are more or less things you can ignore; the only real hit you take is a penalty to your Will save, and that's something that a fighter's bravery power or a barbarian's rage can help cover up.
Not everyone plays the game only to play the best character, in other words. Of course, the proof will be in the sales once the book is out, but in the case of goblins, I think this book is pretty much a no-brainer for success. By the exact same reasoning, a book about tengus would be a terrific risk; we simply haven't done enough with tengus to make them a safe choice for an entire book yet. Maybe some day, but there's an awful lot of other races that we'd want to do first.
|
|
When playing Kingmaker, our group was testing out what is essentially a Bestiary party. We had a Teifling, Aasimar, Hobgoblin, Tengu, and a Drow. We were a pretty odd bunch, but had fun.
With over half of the group playing what could normally be considered "bad" races, we actually got along well with the Kobolds. They needed help and were being picked on. Our characters identified well with that as they were also used to being picked on by humans, dwarves, and elves.
Playing this sort of group opened up a lot of RP opportunities that wouldn't normally be available. We've already had three people look at the Bestiary 2 "... Characters" races and talk of playing a Dhampir Paladin, Grippli Druid or Ranger, and any of the four half-genie races in various combos for another "Bestiary" party setup like we'd had before. I've also got a Goblin Ranger in the works that I'm looking forward to (lots of flaming arrows...).
However, there are certain regions in Golarion where monstrous races are more common and could arguably be playable by the PCs. Playing a more civilized Gnoll in Katapesh is a possibility as one example
|
|
It's fine for non-core races to be made for PCs that are inherently evil. Some players like to play evil campaigns. Just make it clear in the book that they are EVIL and for one to be non-evil is extremely rare.
That allows for, say, Sarenrae followers to try to raise evil races from egg or infant and reform them.
|
|
It's fine for non-core races to be made for PCs that are inherently evil. Some players like to play evil campaigns. Just make it clear in the book that they are EVIL and for one to be non-evil is extremely rare.
That allows for, say, Sarenrae followers to try to raise evil races from egg or infant and reform them.
Golarion is a bit more of a "serious" world as apposed to a "furry" one so the number of PC races isn't going to be that large.+1
I don't go with a 'human centric' norm so I like lots of variant PC races.
I book like this that had maybe a page or two for each race would be an immediate buy from me. PDF and paper.
I'm not looking for a Savage Species. That's a whole different discussion.
SM
So among the TONS of creatures in the Beastiaries, we can only have Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings as player races? There are no others?
I'd say a future bestiaries should have a short section at the end for player races.
What I'm saying is that we should not be looking at a future cover of the Pathfinder game and have it resemble that of Everquest. And I don't think Golarian can or should remake itself into Talislanta 6.0 either.I'd say a future bestiaries should have a short section at the end for player races.
See, here's the deal:
Bestiary and Bestiary 2 are Pathfinder RPG products, not Pathfinder Campaign Setting products.
Therefore, inclusion of player races (or a subsection detailing adjustments to make certain races playable as a PC) doesn't affect Golarion one whit.
Even then, it doesn't matter - if Paizo doesn't publish APs, modules or other CS material that actually utilizes those playable races, then they're not affecting Golarion, since the only canonical source of Golarion non-rules content is what's published by Paizo.
The game is supposed to be about options, hence the APG, Ultimate Magic, etc. Whether or not a race is suitable for Golarion shouldn't be considered in the decision to make races playable or not.
|
stuff
Except that Paizo has been rather upfront about the fact that the RPG line exists in large part as support for the AP line. As such, I really doubt that we'll see much from Paizo itself that doesn't make an appearance in Golarion.
But good news! There are quite a few very good third-party publishers putting out Pathfinder material.
stuffExcept that Paizo has been rather upfront about the fact that the RPG line exists in large part as support for the AP line. As such, I really doubt that we'll see much from Paizo itself that doesn't make an appearance in Golarion.
But good news! There are quite a few very good third-party publishers putting out Pathfinder material.
Perhaps good news and perhaps not.
I would say if that is Paizo's attitude, that is very short sighted.
|
Golarion is a bit more of a "serious" world as apposed to a "furry" one so the number of PC races isn't going to be that large.+1
I don't go with a 'human centric' norm so I like lots of variant PC races.
I book like this that had maybe a page or two for each race would be an immediate buy from me. PDF and paper.
I'm not looking for a Savage Species. That's a whole different discussion.
SM
What does wanting a little variety, something different from the same old fantasy tropes have to do with people who dress up as stuffed animals?
SM
Didn't you know? They'll be talking all about it in the "Furries of Golarian" supplement from Wiseass Publications. Featuring: New Feats (Improved Yiffing, Combat Skritching), New Skills (Anthropomorphize, Detect Gender) and Prestige Classes (Sexy Furry, Furry Fury). Just what every GM needs to set up his/her very own furry cults all across the Pathfinder universe!
And having put it out there, I am now suitably terrified that someone will actually do this... *shudder*
stuffExcept that Paizo has been rather upfront about the fact that the RPG line exists in large part as support for the AP line. As such, I really doubt that we'll see much from Paizo itself that doesn't make an appearance in Golarion.
To be sure, but they've also been rather upfront that the two lines were seperate, and that while there may be some bleedover from the AP/CS line (flavoring of stuff, etc), that the RPG was not Golarion-specific/CS-specific.
I like these kinds of products, and I hope paizo continues to do them. As for my vote on what to see...PLEASE make a Pathfinder version of warforged!!!!!
I like these kinds of products, and I hope paizo continues to do them. As for my vote on what to see...PLEASE make a Pathfinder version of warforged!!!!!
is the soulbound doll close enough for you right now in the meantime?
I like these kinds of products, and I hope paizo continues to do them. As for my vote on what to see...PLEASE make a Pathfinder version of warforged!!!!!
Gearsmen of the Silver Mount? :)
|
|
It's fine for non-core races to be made for PCs that are inherently evil. Some players like to play evil campaigns. Just make it clear in the book that they are EVIL and for one to be non-evil is extremely rare.
In my opinion, this would be wrong for a bestiary to define as the main RPG line is world neutral because you can use it for any campaign setting. If Golarion wants to define in the PF Chronicles or PF Player Companion series that these races are always evil and should only be played by evil parties, then more power to them. But, world neutral books should just say that this race tends to be LE, NE, or CE and leave the judgement of allowing players to use it in a "good" party up to their local GM.
Hell, humans, dwarves, gnomes, and elves are not always GOOD and we run into non-good ones all the time as players. Tribes, regions, and especially individuals vary even in Golarion.
I like these kinds of products, and I hope paizo continues to do them. As for my vote on what to see...PLEASE make a Pathfinder version of warforged!!!!!
Call them something like the Children of Brigh and convert them over yourself. With a deity like Brigh already lurking in the wings of the pantheon it's not too far out of the question to have something akin to the Warforged wandering somewhere in Golarion shrouded in hooded cloaks to keep their mechanical faces hidden.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I like these kinds of products, and I hope paizo continues to do them. As for my vote on what to see...PLEASE make a Pathfinder version of warforged!!!!!
Well Warforged are closed content. Monte gave us the ironborn, updated by Rite publishing here
I'm hoping the gearsmen will be PCable, when they show up. That's Golarion-based, in Numeria. Of course, they are robot men from space/the future, not magical constructs.
A 1st level pixie barbarian will die more or less in the first fight
Mesa gonna die???!
Yep.
*Slay Living*
A 1st level pixie barbarian will die more or less in the first fight
Mesa gonna die???!
Yes, yousa going to die
|
|
I really hope they don't. Over the last decade the game has been getting more and more politically correct towards the monstrous races, which I think is pretty ridiculous. By the time we saw 4th edition, kobolds were nothing but poor victimized bufoons and goblins were more misunderstood than they were evil. Paizo has made the monsters monstrous again, and personally, I'd like to see them stay that way.
And I really hope they do, the entire race=evil, is too simplistic, and dont make a lot of sense.
Gearsmen of the Silver Mount! :D
I really do want to see a balanced construct or construct-like player race without LA. Warforged laid some of the ground for this kind of oddity, but I think Paizo can do their own take on it quite well if they want to.
Warforged was very much not balanced.
That said, I wouldn't mind a construct race that wasn't broken.
Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm sure Paizo can do a nonbroken gearsmen PC race.
And having put it out there, I am now suitably terrified that someone will actually do this... *shudder*
Your fears are entirely justified. I was (tangentally) involved with producing a (parody) game called "Macho Women with Guns". In it, referece was made to (non-existant) supplements "Macho Women with Main Battle Tanks" and "Macho Women with Ground Attack Aircraft". Customers began demanding to know when the supplements would be out.
This eventually lead to the publication of "Renegade Nuns on Wheels" (for combat vehicle rules) and "Batwinged Bimbos from Hell" (for flight rules).
So be afraid ...
Handling a concept like this as a Pathfinder Player Companion is an interesting idea, and much more appealing to me than trying to do a book where hobgoblins and black puddings are treated as though they were equally viable player races. It also follows the Player Companions' trend with its subseries of Orcs, Elves, Humans, etc. of Golarion. We've got some ideas for this topic coming up in 2011, but not in as broad a scope as discussed here. But a world and player focused race bestiary Player Companion... hum.
I would love to see such a book, especially if it's got Lupins in it. That stated I know there are far more important books for Pathfinder, and it's not like there aren't third party books available (The Anumus, etc.) to cover the topic.
Heck, if you just want 'the look', you can always go with polymorph as a curse, like Radovan's old boss ("You act as cruel and greedy as a wolf, now share a wolf's face!") and/or that [i]Blessing of Lamashtu{/i] spell that was posted on the forums a few years back.
Our interpretation of goblins has been one of Paizo's greatest successes; they're VERY popular, and one of the things that a lot of folks identify with. Whether or not a goblin is precisely balanced with the other core races, I predict this book will sell VERY well because the goblins have a lot of fans out there.
Actually the treatment of goblins (all the goblinoids actually) in Pathfinder has personally been my least favorite element of the game. But then I also don't use the game to play in the Golarion setting. Frankly I guess this ties to one of my other least favorite element of the the product line is that even the books that are setting neutral that I've seen, mostly the core books, keep Golarion in mind too heavily.
I guess I just find it annoying that the question is how will this effect Golarion? Personally I don't care how it will effect Golarion nor do all the Pathfinder players I know.
But then that is my game and I'll modify goblins, hobgoblins and kobolds as I see fit. In all honesty it's not exactly hard to develop a PC race.
Personally I'd like to see a big book of PC races. But I really hope it's not done with just Golarion in mind. Add a side bar for races that fit into Golarion, if they don't fit no side bar.
Add me as a +1 for "Odd Races of Golarion" ;) I'd like to see some races beyond the norm ... I think WotC did a neat job with some of the races that appeared in books like Sandstorm or the Expanded Psi Book ... I'd especially like to see intelligent apes as one playable species in general, as well as semi-official/Paizo ratkin (yeah, I know about ToS from Adamant) ;)
I can honestly say I am of two minds on this. So of my most fun games to play in were "monster" races..back in 2E when Complete Monster came out I played an Ogre Magi, and later a Flind, and they were some of the most fun characters I ever had, simply for the role play of their VERY alien POV in a mostly human dominated world. Later we did a 3E version of the game, with a minotaur monk (who out grappled an owlbear..). The point is they were not always 100% balanced on an even playing field..but they were FUN.
When Savage Species came out, I was less then impressed. We tried it out..and stayed that way. It was more balanced..but the players had less fun being monsters for x levels, than they did being monster WITH x levels. Our minotaur loving player liked playing his character..but liked it less than when he played it as a classed character from the start.
Having said all that...I personally would buy a "monster race" book in a heart beat, although I think it would better serve Paizo if it was a 3rd party book. So my question is this..is there a way to make them balanced..and not retard their class levels as well? Some version that is a mixed compromise of Complete Monster and Savage Species?
|
|
I really hope they don't. Over the last decade the game has been getting more and more politically correct towards the monstrous races, which I think is pretty ridiculous. By the time we saw 4th edition, kobolds were nothing but poor victimized bufoons and goblins were more misunderstood than they were evil. Paizo has made the monsters monstrous again, and personally, I'd like to see them stay that way.And I really hope they do, the entire race=evil, is too simplistic, and dont make a lot of sense.
You're not alone. :) It's an aspect of the game I've always hated.
I would definitely be down with an "other races" book.
I figure this kind of material is always useful, be it for those players who do want to play different races (after all, if you don't want to allow them in your game you don't HAVE to), or for DMs to create npcs that are a little deeper.
As for monster alignment, if you like a black and white game, play yours black and and white. I understand that it is a game and you have to have your villains, but to limit all these monstrous humanoid races to being evil seems a bit weak. Its not like being evil is a great survival plan, especially when every armed adventurer has free license to attack without provocation. Orcs and goblins must breed like rabbits with the amount of rangers out there chosing them as favoured enemies.