|
That is not the point, Andrew. The point is that the rule is bad. It is bad for a variety of reasons I have laid out. It should be changed.
Is there a better way to express a bad rule?
Is there a form I can fill out to petition it be changed?
Continued arguments about enforcing rules is pointless. The rule is bad, it should be changed(With a battle axe coup de grace).
More importantly, it's a waste of a rule. We don't need rules for the fun of having rules.
People who don't read these forums(most PFS players, I wager) will never even HEAR of this rule, and will be quite happily playing their half-whatever tieflings, just to go to a con and get... you.
|
Comparing this to falsifying chroncicle reports is a mighty big straw man to bring to the debate and an extreme example of false equivalence. We're not talking about cheating.
First of all, know what a straw person fallacy is before you accuse someone of using it. I was not embellishing your point; I was merely illustrating other areas of the game where the honour system is in place.
However, while one may be a lesser form and one a greater form, both of these examples are cheating. If you're willingly not following the rules, you're cheating. Period.
As far as I'm concerned, don't mention your tiefling's ancestry, and everyone will assume you are born from an evil outsider and a human: after all, that's what the rules say.
|
|
Sigh.
Definition of cheating: Act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage, esp. in a game or examination: "she cheats at cards".
This is not cheating.
But it's not an argument about breaking rules either. It's an argument that the rule is bad. Any arguments about how the rule is NOT bad?
|
|
It will take a DNA test (or the magical equal) to know what ancestry goes into a Tiefling... or heck, any PC. I could easily state that my PC is 1/16 Elven, and it has no game impact. and it might even be true.
...
(But mostly I was trying to lighten the mood. and I did say it was a derail...)
Oh, I get it. I thought you were in engaging in some kind of metacommentary on the debate itself and I was baffled as to the relevance. So much so that I deleted the post you just replied to a moment after posting it because I wasn't actually sure I wanted the answer. But this makes a lot more sense.
I mean, y'know, grading on the curve. ;) Thanks for explaining.
|
To make sure the rules, as set forth by the campaign administration, are followed.
No matter how insignificant or "unenforceable" you think they are, they are still rules.
I expect the rules, at my table, (and at game days that I coordinate--to include the 42 table Con of the North I'm coordinating in February) to be followed.
There is no equivocation on this. Either you are following the rules or you are not. If you are not, willfully and consciously, then that's cheating.
Being "a rule" and being "absurd" are not mutually exclusive. There are absurd rules. This is one of them.
Generally speaking, declaring that bending and/or breaking a rule which provides no mechanical change, either benefit or detriment to be "cheating" simply encourages blind faith in a system that is necessarily flawed, in that it was designed by human beings.
Specifically speaking, breaking this rule means nothing and hurts no one and often there's no way to know for sure if someone is breaking it anyway. Insisting that anyone who acknowledges that is a cheater, the same as someone who lies about their dice roles or builds illegal characters (which actions, I'll note, actually have an impact on other people at the table) is a textbook example of false equivalence.
Not all rules are created equal, Andrew, and you can insist that they are for as long as you want, but it won't change the fact that they aren't.
It doesn’t matter if you like the rule or not.
It doesn’t matter if the rule is indeed absurd or not.
Your feelings on the rule or my feelings on the rule are irrelevant.
The rule is what it is. If you don’t follow it, willfully, with full knowledge of what the rule is, then it is cheating. That’s what the definition of cheating is.
Part of my job as a V-O are to help my region make sure that the rules are known and subsequently followed.
If you don’t want to follow the rules (regardless how absurd you think one of them is), don’t play. Its as simple as that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think there are two things to remember about Tieflings/Aasimars of all sizes or heritages.
1) The Cooridnator hath spoken. Human aasimars only. To work otherwise is to break the rules.
2) The rules *can* be changed. I may not be privy to the super-secret chambers of the Venture Officers, but we do know that issues are debated there frequently.
Because of these two facts, the issue is not to break the rules at the table. It's to advocate for the rules change.
Look, I don't know the reasoning behind the decision to open up Tieflings, Aasimar and chicken-people to everyone. I cheered it. I sincerely hope some of the reasoned arguments and discussions given during the time they *weren't* allowed helped influence the decision.
Showing up at the table with a tiefling w/o a boon, and making a fuss about it, wouldn't have helped anyone. Neither will showing up with an elven aasimar.
One final thing;
@Nuku, I think you were being selective.
As a verb, Merriam says the following definition:
intransitive verb
1a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly
By playing an 'illegal' character and pretending it isn't, that is violating the rules dishonestly.
|
|
But it's not an argument about breaking rules either. It's an argument that the rule is bad. Any arguments about how the rule is NOT bad?
No, and you won't get any. Here's how this always goes:
"This rule is dumb because is has no impact on anything."
"BUT IT'S THE RULE!"
"... but it's dumb."
"BUT IT'S THE RULE!"
"Yes! Yes, I know! But it's dumb! I'm not disputing that the rule exists, I'm arguing that it SHOULDN'T exist!"
"<crickets>"
I refer you to a thread of mine some time ago where you will find the exact same sequence of events. You might even recognize some of the names from this conversation!
|
|
It doesn’t matter if you like the rule or not.
It doesn’t matter if the rule is indeed absurd or not.
Your feelings on the rule or my feelings on the rule are irrelevant.
The rule is what it is. If you don’t follow it, willfully, with full knowledge of what the rule is, then it is cheating. That’s what the definition of cheating is.
Part of my job as a V-O are to help my region make sure that the rules are known and subsequently followed.
If you don’t want to follow the rules (regardless how absurd you think one of them is), don’t play. Its as simple as that.
It is actually not as simple as that because this is the place where we discuss things like the rules of organized play. That is the actual function of the forum we are posting in. It is PFS General Discussion.
We are not disputing that it is a rule. We are engaging in discussion about it.
|
|
That is not the point, Andrew. The point is that the rule is bad.
Until, and if, the rule is even changed (which I doubt it will be), my point is very appropriate.
Nowhere in this definition does it specifically say, “to gain an advantage.” More specifically, it simply says, “breaking the rules”. Is, “to gain an advantage” implied? Possibly, but it isn’t listed as part of the definition.
People who don't read these forums(most PFS players, I wager) will never even HEAR of this rule, and will be quite happily playing their half-whatever tieflings, just to go to a con and get... you.
And this is where I come in. Exactly. I nicely say, “you may not be aware, but Tieflings must be of human stock.” There may be questions of why. I can answer those politely but firmly. If the person persists, then I can ask them to leave the table.
I’ve yet to run into this problem.
Its all about how I approach the issue. If it is a person who has repeatedly not followed this rule at my table, despite my telling them many times what the rule is, then I’d ask them to leave. If it is someone I’ve never GM’d for, I’d be polite about it, with the assumption they just didn’t know. I never assume cheating until proven otherwise.
If they decide to get angry at me, leave in a huff, or whatever, that’s on them. I did my best to be nice and polite about it. But I am not out of bounds, nor am I being a jerk, by trying to adhere to the rules I’m bound by my position to make sure are being adhered to.
|
|
@Nuku, I think you were being selective.
As a verb, Merriam says the following definition:
intransitive verb
1a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly
By playing an 'illegal' character and pretending it isn't, that is violating the rules dishonestly.
If you sit down at a table and say 'My dude's half elven', then you have neither comitted fraud, trickery, or dishonesty. You're just breaking the rules.
Breaking the rules is not cheating, unless you actually gain benefit from it. They are seperate things, even if we like to clump them together. A man who shows up for a sporting event in the wrong colored jersey is not CHEATING, he's just breaking the rules, which is still WRONG(Let me repeat, it is wrong, I am not advocating it, it is wrong wrong wrong), but it is not cheating.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Nuku - The rule originated from a discussion of a sidebar in Blood of Fiends which mentioned tieflings of other races. The idea that came up was a halfing (or gnome) tiefling, who would be small.
Because, you know, a Dervish Dancing tiefling magus isn't powerful enough; they need a +1 size bonus to attacks and AC. :/
So because of that, we have a rule.
Next question: why is the rule "all tieflings are human-stock" instead of "all tieflings are medium sized"?
I'm not Mike Brock, but here are some guesses:
• Simple rules are better (in general). If the choice is between "all tieflings are exactly what the legal stats refer to" or "some alternate race-stocks are legal, but others aren't, and whatever you pick has to have no mechanical impact", then the former is far preferable to the latter.
• What exactly is "mechanical impact/advantage"? Seems easy enough to say "doesn't count for feats/traits/spells/etc". But what if you're an elf-stock tiefling and you're talking to some elf NPCs? Would you expect their attitude toward you to be even marginally less racist than if you were a human-stock tiefling? There always seems to be something. After all, people care about their PCs, and aren't always very happy about there being no difference between their carefully-written snowflake and Stock Tiefling Witch #387 two seats to the right.
• Even if the above is sufficiently defined, not everyone uses leeway responsibly. Sure, you or I might make a "different" tiefling and never claim anything that could be considered an altered effect. What about the rest of the millions of PFS players? What about the GMs who have to deal with them? Currently a GM just has to say "Sorry, tieflings only exist as printed; human-stock only." And that conversation will be INCREDIBLY rare. Allow other versions, and there will be players making "different" tieflings and arguing with their GMs about how the NPC should be reacting differently, but no it doesn't count as a mechanical advantage, and since alternate tieflings are legal it obviously can't be the intent that all the NPCs treat me like a human-stock tiefling, so stop trying to squelch my fun! Basically, very similar to what we've got now, but more frequently and with a larger percentage of table variation and GMs getting labeled "the bad guy" because more of it's on their shoulders to adjudicate.
--------------------------
All in all, it's the cleanest and fairest solution. Perfect? No. But I don't see a better one.
|
|
We're acknowledging that you don't like the rule. However, it's there for a reason. Complaining that you don't like it, or saying you're not going to follow it because it's not enforceable, is not really helping things.
This is the forum for discussing things like that. We are in a space devoted to that very purpose. That is the function of the space we are in: Discussion of things we like and do not like. Pointing out bad rules and broken (read: unenforceable) rules is one of the reasons we were given this space.
Thus far only Jiggy has taken a stab at actually defending the rule itself. I haven't had a chance to look at his conclusions; I'll do that in a moment. But we are allowed to discuss the merits of a rule here, in this forum, which exists, at least in part, to allow discussion of the merits of rules.
|
|
An elf tiefling would, if recognized, actually suffer more racist reaction. Humans are the only ones that, somewhat, kinda, tolerates their tieflings. You are actually at a disadvantage as a non human tiefling, fluff wise.
However, if it won't be changed because 'You can select any medium sized race' is too complicated, well, alright. I disagree, but alright. At no point did I say I was going to do otherwise.
|
|
It doesn’t matter if you like the rule or not.
It doesn’t matter if the rule is indeed absurd or not.
Your feelings on the rule or my feelings on the rule are irrelevant.
The rule is what it is. If you don’t follow it, willfully, with full knowledge of what the rule is, then it is cheating. That’s what the definition of cheating is.
Part of my job as a V-O are to help my region make sure that the rules are known and subsequently followed.
If you don’t want to follow the rules (regardless how absurd you think one of them is), don’t play. Its as simple as that.
It is actually not as simple as that because this is the place where we discuss things like the rules of organized play. That is the actual function of the forum we are posting in. It is PFS General Discussion.
We are not disputing that it is a rule. We are engaging in discussion about it.
It was actually going quite a bit beyond just discussion of the rule.
It was talking about doing whatever you wanted because it was unenforceable.
It is fine to discuss changing a rule, or why you think the rule should be changed.
But that’s not the way this discussion has evolved.
|
|
Additionally, might I add, that requesting a rule be changed will get a lot more positive attention if you don’t start off with, “this rule is stupid and completely unenforceable, campaign management is ridiculous for creating this rule.”
If that’s the way you start your argument, campaign management is a lot more likely to just blow it off as the typical petulance of those who feel entitled and just are never happy.
If you start the argument more like, “Hey, this rule doesn’t really protect the campaign against anything mechanical, is there any way we can get it modified? I’d really like to play a Tiefling with an Elven heritage,” Is a lot more likely to receive positive attention.
|
|
We're acknowledging that you don't like the rule. However, it's there for a reason. Complaining that you don't like it, or saying you're not going to follow it because it's not enforceable, is not really helping things.This is the forum for discussing things like that. We are in a space devoted to that very purpose. That is the function of the space we are in: Discussion of things we like and do not like. Pointing out bad rules and broken (read: unenforceable) rules is one of the reasons we were given this space.
Thus far only Jiggy has taken a stab at actually defending the rule itself. I haven't had a chance to look at his conclusions; I'll do that in a moment. But we are allowed to discuss the merits of a rule here, in this forum, which exists, at least in part, to allow discussion of the merits of rules.
Actually, this entire thread did not start off with a discussion on how to change the rule.
It started off with a query if something would be ok.
When told no, the OP appeared to throw a tantrum about it.
That isn’t a productive way to discuss how to change a rule.
|
|
• Simple rules are better (in general). If the choice is between "all tieflings are exactly what the legal stats refer to" or "some alternate race-stocks are legal, but others aren't, and whatever you pick has to have no mechanical impact", then the former is far preferable to the latter.
• What exactly is "mechanical impact/advantage"? Seems easy enough to say "doesn't count for feats/traits/spells/etc". But what if you're an elf-stock tiefling and you're talking to some elf NPCs? Would you expect their attitude toward you to be even marginally less racist than if you were a human-stock tiefling? There always seems to be something. After all, people care about their PCs, and aren't always very happy about there being no difference between their carefully-written snowflake and Stock Tiefling Witch #387 two seats to the right.
• Even if the above is sufficiently defined, not everyone uses leeway responsibly. Sure, you or I might make a "different" tiefling and never claim anything that could be considered an altered effect. What about the rest of the millions of PFS players? What about the GMs who have to deal with them? Currently a GM just has to say "Sorry, tieflings only exist as printed; human-stock only." And that conversation will be INCREDIBLY rare. Allow other versions, and there will be players making "different" tieflings and arguing with their GMs about how the NPC should be reacting differently, but no it doesn't count as a mechanical advantage, and...
First, thank you for proving me wrong. I am pleasantly surprised.
Second, I recognize the validity of these lines of thought, but I don't agree with the conclusions. For point 1, we have a lot of rules, and many of them are complex. Simplicity is not always ideal; in this case the reduction of the rule bans character concepts that don't need to be banned.
For points 2 & 3, I don't feel they need to be banned because the GM can simply respond "Don't care; no advantage." Maybe I'm being overly idealistic in hoping that players will get it together; my experience has shown a very relaxed player base and very few problems, but I have only played in one region and might be spoiled.
Still, my physical description does not impact the way NPCs interact with me beyond the most superficial ways. I can be a butt-ugly elf with a high Charisma or a beautiful dwarf with a low Charisma and the description of beauty is irrelevant. Similarly, the description of details like pointy ears makes no difference to the way a tiefling is perceived (which in my experience, in PFS, doesn't even generally include the "ew a tiefling" racism, not least because our all-tiefling parties wouldn't get anything done otherwise).
I contend that the rule is unnecessarily limiting. There is an common understanding that one bad apple will ruin it for everyone, but we have the power to offer a new paradigm by simply telling people who try to take unfair advantage of stuff like this, "No."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
'All tieflings are medium sized'
Done.
• Can I take race traits of my other race? If yes, can I still take tiefling race traits? Hooray, I can pick from two different race trait lists without having to use Adopted and knock out the social trait category!
• Hey, those NPCs should be reacting better than that because I'm half [whatever].
• Hey, how does he know not to target me with hold person? I look as much like an orc as I do a tiefling!
• Of course I qualify for that feat - my tiefling's half [whatever]!
• Yeah, these alchemical preserves cure fatigue! They only work on halflings, so it's a good thing my tiefling counts as one, or else I wouldn't be able to combine fatigue-curing with a 20STR barbarian!
-------------------
Sorry Nuku, but your suggestion fails the "actually makes things better for the campaign as a whole" test. Further suggestions/revisions are welcomed, though. :)
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the interest of using this forum space for its intended purpose of discussing rules, does anyone have a suggestion for a different rule that would be an improvement for more people than it was a step down?
"Tieflings are no longer a legal race for Pathfinder Society play."
Done.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Nuku, I think you were being selective.
As a verb, Merriam says the following definition:
intransitive verb
1a : to practice fraud or trickery b : to violate rules dishonestly
By playing an 'illegal' character and pretending it isn't, that is violating the rules dishonestly.If you sit down at a table and say 'My dude's half elven', then you have neither comitted fraud, trickery, or dishonesty. You're just breaking the rules.
Breaking the rules is not cheating, unless you actually gain benefit from it. They are seperate things, even if we like to clump them together. A man who shows up for a sporting event in the wrong colored jersey is not CHEATING, he's just breaking the rules, which is still WRONG(Let me repeat, it is wrong, I am not advocating it, it is wrong wrong wrong), but it is not cheating.
Breaking the rules isn't cheating? You're the one who got into a dictionary read off. If you sit down with a half elf tiefling, and choose to omit the 'half elf' part, that's violating the rules (illegal character) and dishonesty (lie of omission).
It seems pretty clear that if you don't think breaking the rules = violating the rules, we're not going to agree.
Jiggy. Something like "tieflings may have any medium sized race listed in allowed resources as their ancestry. This has no mechanical benefit or penalty. Tieflings still follow all rules for the race, regardless of origin." That way someone could even have a Nagria or however you spell it tiefling (if they really wanted to spend the boon) but mechanically it's still 'just a tiefling'.
|
|
'All tieflings are medium sized'
Done.
• Can I take race traits of my other race? If yes, can I still take tiefling race traits? Hooray, I can pick from two different race trait lists without having to use Adopted and knock out the social trait category!
• Hey, those NPCs should be reacting better than that because I'm half [whatever].
• Hey, how does he know not to target me with hold person? I look as much like an orc as I do a tiefling!
• Of course I qualify for that feat - my tiefling's half [whatever]!
• Yeah, these alchemical preserves cure fatigue! They only work on halflings, so it's a good thing my tiefling counts as one, or else I wouldn't be able to combine fatigue-curing with a 20STR barbarian!
-------------------
Sorry Nuku, but your suggestion fails the "actually makes things better for the campaign as a whole" test. Further suggestions/revisions are welcomed, though. :)
Your argument is strange, because all of the things you raise are equally a concern for half humans, which are allowed.
Can a tiefling take human traits? No.
Would they react better because you're half human? No.
Hey, how does he not know to target me with... Oh god, see the knowledge DC and monster recognition thread. I won't get into that here, but it has nothing to do with being a tiefling half-whatever.
Of course I qualify for... It doesn't work for human either, but there you go, some jerk will try to get a human feat.
All of it, all those concerns, are equally as valid for a half human as they are half-ANYTHING. Tiefling do not get the 'counts as a ...' racial trait, full stop.
Limiting it to human does nothing to address this.
|
|
• Can I take race traits of my other race? If yes, can I still take tiefling race traits? Hooray, I can pick from two different race trait lists without having to use Adopted and knock out the social trait category!
• Hey, those NPCs should be reacting better than that because I'm half [whatever].
• Hey, how does he know not to target me with hold person? I look as much like an orc as I do a tiefling!
• Of course I qualify for that feat - my tiefling's half [whatever]!
• Yeah, these alchemical preserves cure fatigue! They only work on halflings, so it's a good thing my tiefling counts as one, or else I wouldn't be able to combine fatigue-curing with a 20STR barbarian!
Obviously the answers would simply be as follows:
1. No.
2. Nope.
3. Nuh-uh.
4. Nyet.
Are we not adults here? Can we genuinely not draw a line between "fluff" and "function"? If someone shows up at your table with a misunderstanding of that, you simply correct them. Like ...
Banning fluff-only alternate-race tieflings because someone will try to get a mechanical benefit from it is like banning the "adopted" trait because people keep misunderstanding the difference between "traits in the racial category" and "alternate racial traits." Why would we want to do that when we can simply tell people, "No, you are mistaken in your interpretation, it does not grant you that benefit."
Edit: Also, I'm on board with Nuku and nosig above--all of these questions would apply to half-human tieflings too, and we just tell people who make that mistake, "No."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I recognize the validity of these lines of thought, but I don't agree with the conclusions. For point 1, we have a lot of rules, and many of them are complex. Simplicity is not always ideal; in this case the reduction of the rule bans character concepts that don't need to be banned.
Doesn't the existence of lots of complicated rules support the idea of keeping as much simplicity as possible? I.e., "let's not make it any worse"?
For points 2 & 3, I don't feel they need to be banned because the GM can simply respond "Don't care; no advantage." Maybe I'm being overly idealistic in hoping that players will get it together; my experience has shown a very relaxed player base and very few problems, but I have only played in one region and might be spoiled.
In my area, I haven't really seen people even try to play "gray" or "disputed" things like this, so I get a pretty chill vibe from the players as well.
But have you seen people try to get something, and actually get told "no" at the table, and everything goes swimmingly? Or have you just seen it not come up in the first place?
Players stay pretty "relaxed" as long as you're not telling them "no". I haven't had to say no very often, but when I (or the GM at the table, if I was a player) have, folks got worked up. Had a visibly agitated player of a bow-wielding ninja exclaiming that any attack within 30ft of the target is eligible for sneak attack, but had to be told that the target has to also be denied his DEX bonus to AC. Come to think of it, I'm not sure he ever came back. Had another guy pretty upset that charging a large creature (10ft reach) involved an AoO, because "the table says charging doesn't provoke". (Fortunately, he calmed down later, got a satisfactory explanation, and still plays.)
Adding a line to Additional Resources stating "you can do X, but not get any benefit for it" is just inviting players to build characters who push the edges of "mechanical advantage", and the GMs will have to deal with that over and over and over again.
Still, my physical description does not impact the way NPCs interact with me beyond the most superficial ways. I can be a butt-ugly elf with a high Charisma or a beautiful dwarf with a low Charisma and the description of beauty is irrelevant.
Sure, for a responsible player like you or me. But PFS is pretty inclusive, and the fact that a GM can shut down the troublemakers doesn't mean the trouble's un-made. Let's not make our GMs deal with any more crap than they have to.
|
|
The line would be 'Tieflings and Aasimar are always medium sized'
That's it. No more or less verbiage is required. Everything else is already laid out in the rules in black and white. There is no 'you can do x but not get benefit for it', such a line is awkward and uncalled for.
The only concern is avoiding small tieflings/aasimars, attack that directly.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm...
How about this for a FAQ entry?
On page XX of Blood of Fiends, it says that some tieflings are born of races other than humans. Can my tiefling be a descendant of another race? What impact does this have on my character? What about aasimar PCs and Blood of Angels?
You may describe your character's parentage any way you like (within reason). However, tieflings and aasimar are their own races; they all function according to the statistics and abilities explicitly granted by legal sources, regardless of backstory. For instance, you can say your father was a gnome, but you're still medium-sized, don't qualify for gnome racial feats or similar mechanics, and NPCs do not react to you any differently than a tiefling with different parentage.
Not that I have the power to enact a FAQ, but as a point of discussion, what do people think of this?
Does anyone have any Golarion-native examples of tieflings of non-human ancestry? I would be interested in seeing if there are any canon examples.
Off the top of my head, only one springs to mind: Letiandeil Dirvond, a tiefling with drow as the mortal portion of her heritage.
I'm almost certain that there are other examples. I'm almost positive that I did one or two somewhere along the line.
A lot of tieflings written up in Golarion canon though don't go out of their way to actually specify what their mortal heritage is.
|
|
Nuku,
A long time ago on these boards there was an argument about reskinning a dog as a pig. I think most people realized that 95% of the time the re-skin made no difference. However, this once it did, therefore they argued over it and as a result, the rules that were undefined up til then were tightened the re-skin rules somewhat, so that a large cat could be a cougar/leopard/cheetah/whatever but not a dire wolf. But the debate was very passionate and very divisive.
And still there is some ambiguity about what is legal and what's not. For example, I floated the idea of a kitsume being culturally a 'coyote' (Arcadian/Native American trickster) or an Osirian jackal faced cleric because one dog face is just like another. Half the people felt like I could do it and half did not, under the cougar/leopard/cheetah/whatever rule.
Point is, human only tieflings stop these arguments. Sure, in most cases it makes no difference but a situation might come where it did. So the human only heads off this type of situation cold. So considering that this ruling stops a huge argument before it starts, that is a good reason right there to make it a rule.
Just get a trait or feat that justifies your definition (don't know what that would be). Say mom was a half elf. But when the dice are rolled and it comes up, don't say 'I don't have no human blood'.
That will satisfy most people.
Take Care,
Kerney
|
|
Does anyone have any Golarion-native examples of tieflings of non-human ancestry? I would be interested in seeing if there are any canon examples.Off the top of my head, only one springs to mind: Letiandeil Dirvond, a tiefling with drow as the mortal portion of her heritage.
I'm almost certain that there are other examples. I'm almost positive that I did one or two somewhere along the line.
A lot of tieflings written up in Golarion canon though don't go out of their way to actually specify what their mortal heritage is.
Radovan doesn't define his mortal parentage very clearly in Prince of Wolves.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hmm...
How about this for a FAQ entry?
Not that I have the power to enact a FAQ, but as a point of discussion, what do people think of this?On page XX of Blood of Fiends, it says that some tieflings are born of races other than humans. Can my tiefling be a descendant of another race? What impact does this have on my character? What about aasimar PCs and Blood of Angels?
You may describe your character's parentage any way you like (within reason). However, tieflings and aasimar are their own races; they all function according to the statistics and abilities explicitly granted by legal sources, regardless of backstory. For instance, you can say your father was a gnome, but you're still medium-sized, don't qualify for gnome racial feats or similar mechanics, and NPCs do not react to you any differently than a tiefling with different parentage.
Nuku? Patrick? Any thoughts on something like this?
That isn’t absurd for me to expect you to outwardly follow the rules. And I refuse to try and read your mind about what you really think about your character’s heritage.You didn't answer my question, you just re-stated your position.
Why does it matter if I verbalize the idea of an elven parent or not? If it doesn't affect the way I play my character, what purpose does outlawing that statement serve?
Actually there are a few scenarios that have NPC's that act differently towards elves and those of partially elven stock. So, in the game, there is a mechanical difference between being tiefling with human stock or elven stock. Sometimes said NPC's will attack the Elves first until they are dead, or leave them alone until last. Gaining that character an unfair advantage or disadvantage. If your pc was killed because you were the only one being targeted by 6 NPC's, then you complained about it saying well my character is a Tiefling, and they can't have elven blood. Let's say you happen to do it to a new GM who is doing his best to follow the rules, but doesn't know about the whole issue we are talking about here. So the GM gets in trouble, yeah feel happy about yourself? You may not do this, but there are jerks out there that will. That is why it is important to follow said rules.
Edited for Brain related problems.
|
Nuku,
Somewhat of a derail, but would you think it's ok for a half-elf to say his elf half is Drow? How about if:
1. looks just like a normal half-elf, but claims he is a half-drow
2. Has dark (drowlike) skin (without tricks like prestidigitation)
3. looks like a normal half elf, but prestidigitates his skin gray
**DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with my following comments**
I ask because it has been established in canon that there are no half-drow in Golarion.
We all play in a campaign with an established world with established ideas. Some people think that for successful roleplay, there need to be some rules as to what is "normal" for the world. Why can't my human have red skin? It's just cosmetic! Some people like the immersion of the fantasy world, and they think things like yellow tengus and red-skinned humans "breaks their game".
Now, you'll probably say that why should what think is correct should prevent you from having fun? Well what you are saying to them prevents them from having fun. So we enter the good ol' cycle of badwrongfun.
I for one like Jiggy's arguments above, and don't mind that tieflings are half human only. Sorry that you din't agree.
|
|
Nuku? Patrick? Any thoughts on something like this?Hmm...
How about this for a FAQ entry?
Not that I have the power to enact a FAQ, but as a point of discussion, what do people think of this?On page XX of Blood of Fiends, it says that some tieflings are born of races other than humans. Can my tiefling be a descendant of another race? What impact does this have on my character? What about aasimar PCs and Blood of Angels?
You may describe your character's parentage any way you like (within reason). However, tieflings and aasimar are their own races; they all function according to the statistics and abilities explicitly granted by legal sources, regardless of backstory. For instance, you can say your father was a gnome, but you're still medium-sized, don't qualify for gnome racial feats or similar mechanics, and NPCs do not react to you any differently than a tiefling with different parentage.
Sorry, went off and handled something in the real world. That phrasing looks perfectly fine.
and don't mind that tieflings are half human only.
Let's not confuse tieflings with half-fiends.
|
|
Nuku,
Somewhat of a derail, but would you think it's ok for a half-elf to say his elf half is Drow? How about if:
1. looks just like a normal half-elf, but claims he is a half-drow
2. Has dark (drowlike) skin (without tricks like prestidigitation)
3. looks like a normal half elf, but prestidigitates his skin gray**DISCLAIMER: I do not necessarily agree with my following comments**
I ask because it has been established in canon that there are no half-drow in Golarion.
Well, half elf skin tone is determined by the human, according to the book. So if there are black skinned humans in Golarion somewhere? You could get the look down at least.
But, 'It is canon that there aren't any' is a far different cry than 'We're trying to avoid small tieflings and aasimars' especially when canon already says there have been non human tieflings.
If there is an actual reason, I'm all ears. That's the only one thrust forward so far.
If player said they had Elven Heritage, and Scenario dictates that elves and those with Elven Heritage were treated differently, then it matters.