| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like meeting in the middle. A Planetouched subtype on a humanoid chassis. Give them some outsider traits while keeping their dual-heritage. Might be a good place to add immunity to certain spells.A couple of points..
1) Correction: Tieflings came from 2nd ed and were always meant to be a playable character race. And there also they were outsiders.
2) How does the fact that there are outsiders in any way JUSTFIES racism vs them? I am curious here.
3) People can really see or imagine the differences between the offspring of say two mortal races( orcs and humens) and a immortal enities from another plane of existence and a mortal effects on that persons family line...
How about this...think of the OUTSIDER gene being not dominate...but recessive and not just a single gene but a whole different strand. Which is why it can show up generations after the exposure to the OUTSIDER gene.
Personaly if Tieflings and the rest were not outsiders...I would probably be posting a similair thread as the OP but asking in reverse...because quite honestly I don't see how they can NOT be outsiders.
Why reinvent the wheel? There was a Extraplanar subtype back in 3.5. If you want to house rule such make them teifling Humaniod(extraplanar).
Or make it feat Native outsiders can take.
Ok -- apparently my last post was insulting(?), so let me try again:
While I agree there is no ambiguity in the rules, it would be equally unambiguous if Pathfinder defined a sword to be a blunt, club-like instrument. Unambiguous, and yet 100% guaranteed to be totally counter-intuitive.
Likewise, the word "humanoid" has a meaning outside of Pathfinder. By the common definition, tieflings and aasimars are clearly both humanoid. They are not, however, humanoid by the Pathfinder definition. The sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
In other words: If numerous people persistently misunderstand what you're saying, at some point you have to start questioning how you're delivering the messages...
2) How does the fact that there are outsiders in any way JUSTFIES racism vs them? I am curious here.Racism hardly asks for any justification. All it needs is backlash in reaction to perceived differences. Tieflings stand out from the normal population, and unfortunately most of the ways that they do stand out have a bunch of negative baggage attached to them.
I know...I was kinda hoping the OP would answear this.
Personaly does anybody really think commoner Bob, or Expert Jane, or Lord Snobby understand the difference between what a outsider is much less humaniod subtypes? If you change then to say Humanion(extraplanar...it won't be like "Oh that is okay now...the horns, tails, and the abilty to create darkness is fine...but they were OUTSIDERS...well than that is a different story."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
***Whether or not some people feel this situation is very clear, the sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
***
See previous-
Do not abuse the FAQ system.1) Putting "FAQ this" in your message title is not going to get you an answer any faster (just as "Dev response needed" isn't).
2) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" is not a frequently asked question.
3) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" isn't an attempt to clarify a vague area in the rules. The purpose of the FAQ system is to help us identify problems with the rules, not call out long-standing game precedents that you want to change for all campaigns.
|
Ok -- apparently my last post was insulting(?), so let me try again:
While I agree there is no ambiguity in the rules, it would be equally unambiguous if Pathfinder defined a sword to be a blunt, club-like instrument. Unambiguous, and yet totally counter-intuitive.
Likewise, the word "humanoid" has a meaning outside of Pathfinder. By the common definition, tieflings and assimar are clearly both humanoid. They are not, however, humanoid by the Pathfinder definition. Here's the thing: The sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
In other words: If numerous people persistently misunderstand what you're saying, at some point you have to start questioning how you're delivering the messages...
A lot of devils, demons, celestials and archons are also very humanoid in appearance...so should they also be reclassified as humanoid or have a FAQ entry too then?
***Whether or not some people feel this situation is very clear, the sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
***See previous-
Do not abuse the FAQ system.1) Putting "FAQ this" in your message title is not going to get you an answer any faster (just as "Dev response needed" isn't).
2) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" is not a frequently asked question.
3) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" isn't an attempt to clarify a vague area in the rules. The purpose of the FAQ system is to help us identify problems with the rules, not call out long-standing game precedents that you want to change for all campaigns.
I'm glad Sean feels that way, but I'm not trying to change anything. Merely pointing out that in my experience, the current situation sows confusion. Perhaps your experience differs.
In any even, please don't shoot the messenger.
A lot of devils, demons, celestials and archons are also very humanoid in appearance...so should they also be reclassified as humanoid or have a FAQ entry too then?
If they generated the same persistent confusion and discussion? Absolutely. But they don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok -- apparently my last post was insulting(?), so let me try again:
While I agree there is no ambiguity in the rules, it would be equally unambiguous if Pathfinder defined a sword to be a blunt, club-like instrument. Unambiguous, and yet 100% guaranteed to be totally counter-intuitive.
Likewise, the word "humanoid" has a meaning outside of Pathfinder. By the common definition, tieflings and aasimars are clearly both humanoid. They are not, however, humanoid by the Pathfinder definition. The sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
In other words: If numerous people persistently misunderstand what you're saying, at some point you have to start questioning how you're delivering the messages...
Different systems have different definitions of words. I find that I often have to explain what the word "theory" means to nonscientific people, and no, it does not mean "to guess."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok -- apparently my last post was insulting(?), so let me try again:
While I agree there is no ambiguity in the rules, it would be equally unambiguous if Pathfinder defined a sword to be a blunt, club-like instrument. Unambiguous, and yet 100% guaranteed to be totally counter-intuitive.
Likewise, the word "humanoid" has a meaning outside of Pathfinder. By the common definition, tieflings and aasimars are clearly both humanoid. They are not, however, humanoid by the Pathfinder definition. The sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
So what they obviously need to do is ignore what the words mean outside of the game...and just read the rules. If it says it's humanoid in the "Type" area, it's humanoid. If it doesn't, it isn't. It's that simple.
In other words: If numerous people persistently misunderstand what you're saying, at some point you have to start questioning how you're delivering the messages...
Please, pray tell, how can you deliver something more clearly than "This is what it is. Nothing more, nothing less."?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok -- apparently my last post was insulting(?), so let me try again:
While I agree there is no ambiguity in the rules, it would be equally unambiguous if Pathfinder defined a sword to be a blunt, club-like instrument. Unambiguous, and yet 100% guaranteed to be totally counter-intuitive.
Likewise, the word "humanoid" has a meaning outside of Pathfinder. By the common definition, tieflings and aasimars are clearly both humanoid. They are not, however, humanoid by the Pathfinder definition. The sheer number of times I see this misunderstood means it is not intuitive for a great many. Consequently, I believe and FAQ entry would be warranted and useful.
In other words: If numerous people persistently misunderstand what you're saying, at some point you have to start questioning how you're delivering the messages...
I understand what you're trying to say. But if they don't read the rules in the first place, what good will it be for the devs to write a response that people ALSO won't read?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Different systems have different definitions of words. I find that I often have to explain what the word "theory" means to nonscientific people, and no, it does not mean "to guess."
I could have SWORN that is what theory meant...an educated guess is still a guess. More often then not, I run into the opposite issue where scientific people assume a theory is some unassailable fact.
I don't know what to tell you guys. This confusion crops up pretty regularly. It will crop up again. It seems like at least trying to take steps to prevent that is more productive than doing nothing (or worse, mocking the confused).
The FAQ system is to help clarify things that are ambiguous or poorly defined within the rules. Such is not the case here.
I would think that the purpose of the FAQ system would be to display Frequently Asked Questions -- along with their answers -- so as to prevent them from coming up again and again.
Like the aasimar/tiefling humanoid vs. outsider question does.
Then again, it's possible Paizo has redefined FAQ to mean something else... (I kid, I kid).
I could have SWORN that is what theory meant...an educated guess is still a guess. More often then not, I run into the opposite issue where scientific people assume a theory is some unassailable fact.
Different systems have different definitions of words. I find that I often have to explain what the word "theory" means to nonscientific people, and no, it does not mean "to guess."
:)
Thank you for demonstrating the point perfectly. In one usage (common usage), it does mean guessing. In another (scientific circles) it means to explain (not an unassailable fact - which is another thing I often see amateur scientists get wrong).
The point is that words have different definitions depending on the system using it. In common terms, humanoid is anything that vaguely looks like a human. In pathfinder, humanoid has a much more specific definition.
If one is going to ignore pathfinders definition in order to claim that paizo is wrong, well, that's just about as silly as using the common definition of theory to "prove" that a scientific theory is just a guess.
|
|
I don't know what to tell you guys. This confusion crops up pretty regularly. It will crop up again. It seems like at least trying to take steps to prevent that is more productive than doing nothing (or worse, mocking the confused).
The fact remains that the answer is easy to find. In PFS, the players are required to have copies of/access to the books they're using to make their character, right? The DM will likely have the Bestiary, and the DM can very easily show the part about Native Outsiders in the Bestiary that states they are not effected by spells that only effect Humanoids.
If one is going to ignore pathfinders definition in order to claim that paizo is wrong, well, that's just about as silly as using the common definition of theory to "prove" that a scientific theory is just a guess.
...where are you getting the "claim that paizo is wrong" part? I've made no such claim. I'm not even sure what that means in this context. At worse I've accused Paizo of producing counter intuitive material (which I believe they have, as evidenced by the persistence of this issue and others like it -- but that is beside the point).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what to tell you guys. This confusion crops up pretty regularly. It will crop up again. It seems like at least trying to take steps to prevent that is more productive than doing nothing (or worse, mocking the confused).
Taking steps to prevent WHAT? People not reading?
What are they supposed to do, strap big-ass neon signs saying "Read this! The rules are important!" on the front of the books?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, strapping big-ass neon signs to books might increase sales...
Hmmmm...
I for one have never had anyone have a problem with this. It's been this way since 3.X, as illustrated on their SRD and the way planetouched ARE Native Outsiders. Don't see the issue still.
I get people look at them and go, "They're humanoid right?" but the rules for over a decade have been otherwise. You have a problem with it? Houserule away.
Taking steps to prevent WHAT? People not reading?
What are they supposed to do, strap big-ass neon signs saying "Read this! The rules are important!" on the front of the books?
If you actually want an answer, please tone down the sarcasm.
As already pointed out, one thing they could do is to add a FAQ entry. While that should help, I agree that it certainly won't solve the problem. For a start, I think I'd probably make type a more prominent element of the character generation rules. Type has traditionally been something that falls more into the balliwick of the GM. Coupled with the fact that all core races are humanoid, many players have probably never stopped to give type a second thought.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not hyperbole, I sincerely don't see any way to get people who don't read to read things other than beating them over the head with it. If they won't read the rulebook, what makes you think they're gonna read a FAQ entry on a website they probably don't have a membership on because it requires them to read things?
If I'm not mistaken, aasimar and tiefling were both available as player races before the Advanced Race Guide was released.
It's not hyperbole, I sincerely don't see any way to get people who don't read to read things other than beating them over the head with it. If they won't read the rulebook, what makes you think they're gonna read a FAQ entry on a website they probably don't have a membership on because it requires them to read things?
I removed the comment about hyperbole because I thought it was combative, but unless you're literally advocating neon signs on rule books, then yes, it was hyperbole.
But I'm done here. I've been as clear as I know how to be. If some of you prefer to conclude that everyone who experiences confusion over this issue is simply a moron, I certainly can't stop you.
It shouldn't be an FAQ entry, because it's not a Frequently Asked Question, and it already has a very clear answer: They are not humanoid. They are not meant to be humanoid. They are native outsiders. This is not ambiguous. This is not an oversight. They are meant to be outsiders, unaffected by effects that are designed for humanoids, but affected by things that target outsiders. Because that is what they are, in the same way that a drake is a dragon and a golem is a construct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were. They were both in the Bestiary with stats for classed versions of them.
I believe it was donato who brought up the point (100?) posts ago that just because there are stats for 0HD versions of the race doesn't make it an option meant for PCs. And this is true. I'm not sure if it's true for these races as they're fairly tame, but for races like the Strix, this statement is absolutely true.
Not very related to that, it should be noted that Paizo does use a very specific naming scheme for their books. The Ultimate series is meant to be the end-all-be-all for the given topic, while the Advanced series is meant to be ... well...more advanced.
Heh, neon signs on the rulebooks would be pretty funny.
Might ban them from being sold in many places though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, neon signs get really hot. Hot lights + paper = hope your game store has good insurance.
The problem is that many seem to misundersatnd the meaning of the word humanoid in a rules context. For those more versed in the rules, it is clear that it is to be taken as a game term when listed in some kind of stat block. Some do not reallize that this is what is intended. I believe that size indicators have been capitalized for exactly the same reason. A 7-foot barbarian is certainly large, but he is not a Large creature. In the same way, a tiefling is humanoid in the tradtional sense of the word, but he is not a humanoid creature in game terms. I think the "humanoid" confusion could have been mitigated if creature types were also capitalized, but I'm afraid it is by far too late into the life of the game to make a change like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My 2c.
2) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" is not a frequently asked question.I disagree with SKR on this -- at least, if it isn't a frequently asked question, either "Tieflings should be Humanoids" is a frequently made statement or "Why are Tieflings not Humanoid?" is a frequently asked question.
It doesn't make it a _good_ question, but it is frequent.
The FAQs however are supposed about "how does this rule work" and not about "why is the rule like A and not like B". The answer to the former is important because it affects how to play the game. The answer to the latter has no bearing on the game because the rule is A no matter what the answer to the question is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like meeting in the middle. A Planetouched subtype on a humanoid chassis. Give them some outsider traits while keeping their dual-heritage. Might be a good place to add immunity to certain spells.A couple of points..
1) Correction: Tieflings came from 2nd ed and were always meant to be a playable character race. And there also they were outsiders.
2) How does the fact that there are outsiders in any way JUSTFIES racism vs them? I am curious here.
3) People can really see or imagine the differences between the offspring of say two mortal races( orcs and humens) and a immortal enities from another plane of existence and a mortal effects on that persons family line...
How about this...think of the OUTSIDER gene being not dominate...but recessive and not just a single gene but a whole different strand. Which is why it can show up generations after the exposure to the OUTSIDER gene.
Personaly if Tieflings and the rest were not outsiders...I would probably be posting a similair thread as the OP but asking in reverse...because quite honestly I don't see how they can NOT be outsiders.
Why reinvent the wheel? There was a Extraplanar subtype back in 3.5. If you want to house rule such make them teifling Humaniod(extraplanar).
Or make it feat Native outsiders can take.
Because that would be bizarre and stupid? The extra planar subtype is still in Pathfinder. You would solve absolutely nothing on either side of the fence and create new problems. Extraplanar means you are from another plane. It is effectively the opposite of the Native subtype.
Extraplanar Subtype: This subtype is applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have it when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, or the Plane of Shadow.
You would neither solve the quirks with being an outsider (and you really get almost no real benefit for being an outsider because you're immune to as many buffs as you are non-buffs and you gain a plethora of new weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and yet you're not even getting the type goodies like full proficiencies, BAB, saves, and skills since you have no racial HD) and would only ruin what they actually are supposed to be (outsider-touched material-planars).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My 2c.
2) "Should tieflings be humanoid?" is not a frequently asked question.I disagree with SKR on this -- at least, if it isn't a frequently asked question, either "Tieflings should be Humanoids" is a frequently made statement or "Why are Tieflings not Humanoid?" is a frequently asked question.
It doesn't make it a _good_ question, but it is frequent.
- - -
A FAQ response somewhere to
Tieflings, Aasimars, and other plane-touched races do not have the Humanoid type but Outsider; is this, and the correspondingly different spell effects, intentional?
Yes. This is intentional.wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea.
- - -
While it may be a frequently asked question, so is "Why haven't I won the lottery," or "Can I have all the Paizo products sent to me for free?" It is implicit in the idea of a frequently asked question that it should also be a question that is frequently asked based on some ambiguity, not frequently asked because people don't like the obvious black and white answer.
A faq entry verifying that rules are, indeed, intentional? The fact that the rules are printed in the books should be, by extension, proof that they are intentional.
Why reinvent the wheel? There was a Extraplanar subtype back in 3.5. If you want to house rule such make them teifling Humaniod(extraplanar).
There's already an extraplanar subtype and, as in 3.5, it specifically means that the creature is on a plane it is not native to. It doesn't carry any of the connotations that the outsider type carries and makes the race highly susceptible to banishment/dismissal because most casters they encounter on the prime material with enough levels will be able to do it.
EDIT: Aww, that's what I get for not reading the thread to the very end.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh. I'm a little put out that you'd think I wasn't interested in debating this since I clearly think it's important.
Well I am happy that I was wrong, as I think this type of thing worth thinking about also. In all fairness, you can't really blame me. "Can we please stop trying to use genetics, or science in general, to explain how a Planetouched child is born." Sounds a lot like a plead for ignorance so an appeal to mysticism can be made.
Also, descent with modification is irrelevant in this context because the change from generation to generation is purely cosmetic until the birth of the planetouched offspring which is blatantly not gradual. Which is something we can prove because it's defined in the metagame.
The example was given to show real life examples of basic genetics leading to fundamentally different individuals, an idea you seemed to have a problem with. While some biologist will argue whether punctuated equilibrium actually occurs or not, the time frame was irrelevant to my point.
I am not telling you to reduce the level of thought, I am telling you to use MORE! A simplistic punnet square style explanation with relative dominance of one blood factor is a far cry from explaining why an Aasimar is not Human. Thinking about it from a purely genetic standpoint causes all sorts of indirect questions to pop up. None of which are immediately related to your point I suppose.
Then in the interest of thinking more, perhaps raise your peripheral concerns rather than saying scrap the whole endeavor. I would be happy to hear them.
A mule is not fundamentally different to a Horse or a Donkey in the same way that an Outsider (Native) is different to its Humanoid <race> parents. On the one hand you have direct hybridisation between two related species, on the other you have the sudden transformation of the genetic lineage from one race to an entirely distinct one with unique metaphysical properties.
A mule is a separate species from a horse and a donkey. It cannot breed with members of either group. It is fundamentally different in terms of DNA....as well as some other average phenotypical properties that fall outside the normal ranges of both groups combined.
There's no protein structure, no pathway, no interactions that could possibly justify the fusion of a soul and a body. It's absurd!
Why is that so? In reality we have no evidence of such a thing, but in reality I am not convinced of the idea of a soul to begin with. But in Pathfinder, souls are scientifically verifiable. You could run a great number of tests to verify how they behave.
In a land where souls are present and do have some type of link with living creatures, why could protein structures not be responsible for the creation and/or binding of such a thing? If a soul is a sort of software, recording signals from the nervous system and endocrine system to store up memories and behavior patterns to continue running once the hardware is gone, why can't proteins be that hardware that helps to generate the initial program? In this case, the average creature would have their proteins transfer their soul to the "cloud" when they die, but outsider proteins don't have this wireless capability. Natives apparently don't require as much work to pull old files off a crashed system by hand as regular outsiders due to their greater similarities to the systems we are used to working with.
Not to mention that some of the features would be carried by the parents, so to say it was entirely heritable and then mysteriously isn't expressed in either parents or familial line in any record and just shows up in a number that can't be quantified but can easily be explained by a Punnet Square is not something that makes any sense.
This is still no big problem for a number of reasons. The simple one, many of the outsider genes could be recessive. The more realistic one would be there is an epistatic relationship where one gene needs to be activated for others to manifest physical traits. This would be the route that I would go with in this explanation. Using my iP gene from earlier to activate other genes would both solve your "what about the other genes" problem and simultaneous solve my previously unmentioned "phenotypical ratios between Natives and Sorcerers suggest odd genotypical ratios" problem. Additionally, it would play to the cannon in Blood of Demons about the recent influx of Natives. An environmental condition has activated the epistatic gene.
That's not to say you couldn't attribute it to genetics, Faith Hunter's Rogue Mage novel series does a reasonable attempt at it but it doesn't have this 'only when the stars align' do you see a planetouched. It has obvious issues of hybrid sterility, implied genetic relationships between Seraphs and Neo-Mages because of viable offspring (I think that's what they're called IIRC), and logically consistent points. Pathfinder/DnD on the other hand really just uses the "Because ... Dragons!" reasoning for this sort of thing with the way the fluff/crunch is written.
I am not really asking for stars to align, only genetic codes ;) I was doing my best to remove the mysticism and because dragons.
When I first read the OP's concerns about sorcerer bloodlines and outsider bloodlines I thought "He is right, this is kind of b+#++!@+." But I took a second to think about how it might happen, and it alleviated my concerns. Apparently the thought wasn't so helpful to the OP :/
Mind blown! I guess I always just thought humanoid meant bipedal, 2 eyes, a mouth, etc... more of a physical descriptor.
One of my players was surprised when his spells didn't work on a Fey who'd been messing with them (a Quickling) -- but, again, Fey type is not Humanoid type, regardless of shape, and so, Hold Person.... not so much.
@Ashiel: Yeah you are right my bad. I was thinking back to 2nd ed Planescape Planar type. My bad.
I still don't see a need to change it as the problems mostly stem from the Humaniod type and what people think it means. Personaly I think renaming Humaniod would be a better approach. It is just not the plane touch that deals with this...actualy I run into more problems with player trying to tell me Dominate person works on Minotaurs and dryads because they are 'humaniods'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think he realizes that most people know game terms trump real life definitions, and has dropped the crusade. :)
I have a little sympathy for the OP, my pet peeve is the term "pinpoint", which in general usage means " a very small point, like the point of a pin"' but in D&D means " that five foot square over there"' and such definition is not in a glossary or something.
But in the case of humanoid, they have made the in game definition very clear.
I have a little sympathy for the OP, my pet peeve is the term "pinpoint", which in general usage means " a very small point, like the point of a pin"' but in D&D means " that five foot square over there"' and such definition is not in a glossary or something.
If you consider that the scale is an entire world of five foot squares, relative to that one square is a pin point. :P
Most of the uses are the verb "to pinpoint", which in general usage means "to locate precisely" with no specific ties to the size of the thing pinpointed.
Just because I think it's a little long...
Well I am happy that I was wrong, as I think this type of thing worth thinking about also. In all fairness, you can't really blame me. "Can we please stop trying to use genetics, or science in general, to explain how a Planetouched child is born." Sounds a lot like a plead for ignorance so an appeal to mysticism can be made.
I imagine it does when you take it out context. :P
The example was given to show real life examples of basic genetics leading to fundamentally different individuals, an idea you seemed to have a problem with. While some biologist will argue whether punctuated equilibrium actually occurs or not, the time frame was irrelevant to my point.
Yes, and my point was that the real life comparison wasn't relevant. A mule isn't different to its parents in the same way that an Aasimar is. Or, more importantly, it's different in a way that exists outside of the confines of science to explain. (You cannot perform tests to establish how different an Aasimar is to its parents because that exists well outside the game's rules). As to the development of species, I was saying the change from humanoid to outsider was not a transition, not that the time frame was too short. On an unrelated note, the 'can interbreed to form viable offspring' definition of species would mean that dragons were part of every species.
Then in the interest of thinking more, perhaps raise your peripheral concerns rather than saying scrap the whole endeavor. I would be happy to hear them.
They extend from things like: 'you cannot preform scientific testing in a world that only loosely follows well established patterns because the setting mechanics only go so far', 'well defined game patterns contradict well defined real world patterns', 'a lot of it is Because...Dragons!'. It just annoys me when people try to use very simplistic applications of science to try and explain some murky piece of fluff which is supposed to be unpredictable. Well intentioned though they are (I certainly won't fault anyone for wanting a nice complete explanation, but the world doesn't work like that), not only does it go against the spirit of the fluff/intention of the designers, it uses flawed premises to get to a pre-determined end result. Science isn't being used to test and determine the truth, it's being used as a skyhook.
A mule is a separate species from a horse and a donkey. It cannot breed with members of either group. It is fundamentally different in terms of DNA....as well as some other average phenotypical properties that fall outside the normal ranges of both groups combined.
The DNA isn't fundamentally different, it's a direct combination of both parents. Which is my point, they're not comparable. Half-Half vs. Suddenly Soul Is Body. Yes, a mule is fundamentally different to its parents, just not in the same way.
Why is that so? In reality we have no evidence of such a thing, but in reality I am not convinced of the idea of a soul to begin with. But in Pathfinder, souls are scientifically verifiable. You could run a great number of tests to verify how they behave.
We have no evidence of a soul because we can't test for it. Souls aren't scientifically verifiable in Pathfinder either, the ways in which you can prove they exist generally involved well explained mechanics from an OOC perspective but IC it's indeterminate. And since you can't explain how you know souls exist you can't say that you know they exist. Since you can't prove that they exist you can't attribute gene/pathway/network function to them.
In a land where souls are present and do have some type of link with living creatures, why could protein structures not be responsible for the creation and/or binding of such a thing? If a soul is a sort of software, recording signals from the nervous system and endocrine system to store up memories and behavior patterns to continue running once the hardware is gone, why can't proteins be that hardware that helps to generate the initial program? In this case, the average creature would have their proteins transfer their soul to the "cloud" when they die, but outsider proteins don't have this wireless capability. Natives apparently don't require as much work to pull old files off a crashed system by hand as regular outsiders due to their greater similarities to the systems we are used to working with.
A soul is specifically not a physical entity except in the case of Outsiders, so it's counter-intuitive to posit the involvement of a physical aspect of a Humanoid in the direct development of its soul. It's all very well and good to envision a hypothetical which supports your argument, and if it works for you/the OP then go for it, but the more analogy and hand waving you use in order to make it fit the more I feel that the analogy and hand waving is being used to fabricate support for a contrived answer. That's not to say that I couldn't be persuaded, just that theory would have to be well thought out.
This is still no big problem for a number of reasons. The simple one, many of the outsider genes could be recessive. The more realistic one would be there is an epistatic relationship where one gene needs to be activated for others to manifest physical traits. This would be the route that I would go with in this explanation. Using my iP gene from earlier to activate other genes would both solve your "what about the other genes" problem and simultaneous solve my previously unmentioned "phenotypical ratios between Natives and Sorcerers suggest odd genotypical ratios" problem. Additionally, it would play to the cannon in Blood of Demons about the recent influx of Natives. An environmental condition has activated the epistatic gene.
(Non-)specific environmental conditions activating an Aasimar is still a "Because... Dragons!" explanation but it has a lot of potential. To be honest, I like it a lot. Something like a piece of/a portal to/a creature from the relevant plane being nearby causes an Outsider to be born is a much nicer explanation. That explanation is fine by itself, but then to say "and it activates this dormant complex network of genes that were just waiting for the right moment" strains verisimilitude because it's more convoluted "Because... Dragons!" but doesn't increase the amount of understanding you have, it doesn't add anything it just tries to push genetics into it.
As to this genes issue, you can't just say 'it's recessive', that's just a hand wave, it's just as nebulous. You're just altering the allele's level of activity. The gene doesn't gain new functions. Similarly for saying it's a result of complex epistatic, that's just more hand wave but this time it's behind a screen of unknown interactions of undefined genes.
While I don't think the network interactions explanation is as bad as the one recessive allele idea, I question using it because it's not really any more of an explanation than what's there already in pre-established fluff. It doesn't really explain the fusion of a soul/body, unless you accept that a gene/gene's can interact with a non-physical soul, somehow incorporate planar material into that soul, and cause drastically different traits to be expressed. (Which in your previous example you do, and I do not)
The material is metaphysical (literally made of [tag] and matter) so it acts as an intermediate with both your body and your soul, so they can interact. I'm not really sure how to proceed from there but I think it has the potential to be a more complete explanation...
May I just add this, all Paizo has to do is change all spells with the word "humanoid" to either "person", which means any person, or "creature with humanoid type". Now if the spell is clear about its target has to be certain type. Why naming the spell Charm Person when it only works on "humanoid"? People will simply look for the type instead argue about if they are humanoid, because in most case, they are arguing for the purpose of determine rather a spell will work on Tieflings and other outsider or not. So just make it simple that the spell is targeting certain type like the weapon special ability Bane. Seriously, I understand why the designers in Pazio are not good at balancing Pathfinder, because it came from D&D and some of them possibly didn't study about game design as they just took D&D and improve it as well as refine it from experience of D&D. However, the writers and the producer should had checked to make sure the writing is clear. If it target certain type of creature, say it. If it targets person in general, say person, not humanoid.
Why naming the spell Charm Person when it only works on "humanoid"?
'Charm Person' is a handy spell name for new players - who already do have enough on their plate when playing a caster. They have some idea what a person is, and usually they will be right. Yes, they will eventually notice it doesn't work on Planetouched etc., but those are rare.
'Charm Humanoid' would cause misunderstandings among new players, too. Some might assume it's only about humans and some would feel the need to dive right now into all these details what's humanoid and what isn't. They struggle in the same way as advanced players struggle over other things (e.g. Kineticist description or Sacred Geometry feat). And content that is very tough to grasp damages the impression you get from a game.
Probably there would be a better name, but none comes to my mind...
EDIT: And the fact it's restricted to humanoid is due to balance reasons. A tool shouldn't work all the time, and an early tool (like a level 1 spell) should be even more situational.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... Cuz rules terminology.
/
I don't think it was ever brought up in this thread exactly how different Aasimar/etc are from Humans.
Some people think they could easily pass as Human or something. Not true.
They have noticeable animal/metallic/extraplanar crazy s### that make them immediately noticeable as such.
(In contrast to the OP's concept of character who felt they were human, which is fine as personality quirk/insanity, but not by "reasonable person's disinterested assessment" test. Interestingly he seemed to mix PC motivations with his own by 'refusing to play tables that classed his Aasimar PC as outsider i.e. not humanoid)
Paizo has one alt-racial that allows Aasimar to pass as human, but that comes with the caveat of making them count as both outsider and humanoid-human. In contrast, Half-Orcs and Halflings have options that allow them to pass as Humans (children in case of Halflings) without any change of type... I.e. in order for Aasimar to pass as Humans, they must ACTUALLY become more human (and humanoid) than normal Aasimar. That's how far off Aasimar from humanoids (bar the special sub-type).