Talk me down: Exotic Race Antipathy


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

601 to 650 of 1,827 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>

Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?

... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...


Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Even then -what- exactly? I apologize, I'm a Society player. There are a lot of adventures where if you can't act on a surprise round, your character can easily be one-shotted. D.E.D.

Doesn't matter what race, what buffs, what feats... D.E.D.

That said, home campaigns are another beastie all together.


I wonder how many players will want to play exotic races in my upcoming near-future science fiction that's about humanity's first colony on an uninhabited extrasolar planet and the resulting conflict over resource rights between Earth and the colony.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies


Umbral Reaver wrote:
I wonder how many players will want to play exotic races in my upcoming near-future science fiction that's about humanity's first colony on an uninhabited extrasolar planet and the resulting conflict over resource rights between Earth and the colony.

Depends on if they're there for the plot or to blow stuff up in all their xeno glory ~


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

-FAVES MOONIE-


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

Indeed. In any APPROPRIATE fantasy setting. And in my case, its not an appropriate fantasy setting for (many of) those races. Just because they published it does not mean everyone should feel obligated to use all of it everywhere.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

Indeed. In any APPROPRIATE fantasy setting. And in my case, its not an appropriate fantasy setting for (many of) those races. Just because they published it does not mean everyone should feel obligated to use all of it everywhere.

but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?


Deviant Diva wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I wonder how many players will want to play exotic races in my upcoming near-future science fiction that's about humanity's first colony on an uninhabited extrasolar planet and the resulting conflict over resource rights between Earth and the colony.
Depends on if they're there for the plot or to blow stuff up in all their xeno glory ~

And I'm not counting cyborgs as an exotic race. They're just people with technology in their bodies. Androids are fine, too. They're even arguably human (given that I like the idea of reconstructing artificial neural patterns using scans from precise disassembly of a brain). The whole no aliens thing is a point of the setting.

If someone says, 'It's implausible that there are no aliens at all!', I simply say, 'Sure, but there aren't any here.'.


Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

Indeed. In any APPROPRIATE fantasy setting. And in my case, its not an appropriate fantasy setting for (many of) those races. Just because they published it does not mean everyone should feel obligated to use all of it everywhere.

Lol I don't feel obligated. But nor do I feel obligated to play a race because it's the status quo in general. Truth be told, it's rare for me not to play a human. Why? Because I adore the psychological aspect of it from a quote I'm gonna paraphrase, 'cuz I first read it when I was 6.

"No matter how dark, twisted, and evil one believes the Devil to be, a human has already thought of such wickedness and made it reality. The same may be said of Angels with good and forgiveness."

So yeah, I figure rpg wise, some races just show their souls on their skin more than humans. But I've always been attracted to mystery so tend to go human.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
I wonder how many players will want to play exotic races in my upcoming near-future science fiction that's about humanity's first colony on an uninhabited extrasolar planet and the resulting conflict over resource rights between Earth and the colony.
Depends on if they're there for the plot or to blow stuff up in all their xeno glory ~

And I'm not counting cyborgs as an exotic race. They're just people with technology in their bodies. Androids are fine, too. They're even arguably human (given that I like the idea of reconstructing artificial neural patterns using scans from precise disassembly of a brain). The whole no aliens thing is a point of the setting.

If someone says, 'It's implausible that there are no aliens at all!', I simply say, 'Sure, but there aren't any here.'.

lol, Your world, your rules. BUT, I might suggest offering the idea to like minded individuals for maximum enjoyment <33


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

Indeed. In any APPROPRIATE fantasy setting. And in my case, its not an appropriate fantasy setting for (many of) those races. Just because they published it does not mean everyone should feel obligated to use all of it everywhere.

but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not too distant from the old 'if aliens then Jesus'.

The argument basically goes like this:

If one implausible thing is true, then all implausible things are true.

Not exactly logical.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

using fluff or roleplay restrictions to balance the mechanics of an oddball race is a poor idea. many races are inferior to humans.

That's not what I said. I was saying that in my experience, the player wanting to choose the rare/monstrous race was doing so primarily for an in-game mechanical benefit or to intentionally be an oddball. In every case, when the character was treated as the rarity/outsider that it was per the setting canon, they balked at not being treated like any human in the setting. I.e., they weren't treated as a commonly encountered race.

In other words, don't pick the rarity/freak/monster/outcast unless you're willing to have NPCs treat the character as such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Oookay... This got hotter than I'd expected. I hadn't really planned on doing this, but as I've been following the thread I felt it important to try to develop some understanding of the theory being debated here. I don't want to talk in terms of "DM-vs-Players" or fall back to "Find Another Game," I don't think those are productive solutions. I don't intend for my critique to cover all cases, and I don't intend to change anyone's mind to my preferences. But, I will be seeking to refute several specific arguments.

One reason I've waited to post is that I had a game this Monday past, and I wanted to give the theory so far discussed some practical application time. I said yes to everything. This being the logical conclusion of the argument that the player has the right to design their character as they see fit. Predictably, the party is total clown shoes. The party is: A Human Cleric/Fighter, A Halfling Oracle, a Human Inquisitor, a Half-Dragon Vanara Monk, a Catfolk Monk, a Half-Dragon Minotaur Barbarian (taking custom meta-breath weapon rage powers), and a Half-Drow (custom race) Magus Bloodmage (custom spell casting system) with Half-Catfolkm (custom race) Qinggong Monk companion. I asked some of the players how they wanted to incorporate their character into the game, given that no one was "typical" in this cast. While this is anecdotal, the players playing core races described to me how they might be a fit for the cast; the players with gonzo characters were less concerned, they "just wanted to play X." One "typical" player actually objected on the grounds that, with no guidelines at all, there was little reason motivation to be attached.

Now, I want to stress that this case is an anecdote. It's not representative of Pathfinder players in part or in whole, and certainly not of anyone's particular table. But, it is illustrative of why I prefer what could be called the "exclusionary" approach, or alternatively, the "player's burden of cohesion." I'll answer three questions: When is "inclusion" preferable? What is an exclusive burden of cohesion? And, who has the burden of cohesion, and when?

First, the discussion the importance of player race, and to a lesser extent, class. The point has been raised that, there is no narrative distinction between player's selection of race and class. However, I think that, as evident by the spirit of this debate, there is some manner of distinction. Class represents a character's aptitude. Classes are less often the focus of scrutiny because we accept that a character may have the capacity for any aptitude. A character's race, however, represents their innate traits, and their cultural heritage. This combination of aspects means that exotic races represent a bigger change to a setting than atypical classes. If there is gunpowder and one gun, there could be a Gunslinger; but if there are no dragons, then introducing half-dragons means shaking up, at the very least, a character's possible parentage, up to an entire heretofore unconsidered civilization. Ironically, if I was a bigot, I may have an easier time permitting sundry other races, that is, innatenesses, and instead be more concerned by the player that wants to play a particular character's origin subversively, i.e. a race played with a gonzo class.

There are times when it makes sense to permit everything-under-the-sun. Or at least, everything written and documented. While it seems tautological, if the DM permits all resources, then the players should feel free to use all available resources. Understanding this is important for understanding why I prefer exclusionary cohesion. But, if the table sets no standards, then we can agree that there is no obligation to propose a particular character. This is why the proposed "Barsoom" campaign, et. al. are theoretically the same as a "core only" game. If the expected characters are four armed gorillas, then the elf is just as unexpected as vice versa.

Which brings me to the exlcusive burden of cohesion. In brief, this is the idea that "If the DM Doesn't Say Yes; Then No." I suspect that for many tables, this is largely an unremarkable concept, though, the auspice of this thread makes it seem necessary to explore it in detail. Consider the following critiques which have been raised.

1. The players have control only over their character creation.
2. Rejecting some things is not the same as rejecting (almost) everything.
3. The DM has an obligation to accommodate the players.

To the first point, it should be evident to any game that the characters are in control of their actions; and the narrative of the game is driven forward by the action of the characters. To suggest that the DM has greater or less control than players during the game is a topic for another time; but I think few DMs would suggest that players become passive participants once play begins. To the second, without establishing standards, an exclusive burden of cohesion, then allowing the DM to veto characters become arbitrary. In a game with certain guidelines for character generation, the DM establishes that if something falls outside his or her initial judgement, that the DM is then not generally obligated to permit it. Last, as discussed, the DM has no duty to permit everything, once a standard has been established. If the players know they will be joining a game of courtly intrigue in a low-magic setting, then it should be clear than the foaming-at-the-mouth barbarian Half-Dragon Centaur would be as unlikely a character as for James Bond to call upon Captain Picard for help; this violates the establishes rules of the fiction.

I take a broad approach to this. My personal setting has no catfolk, and I would not consider adding them (though I would consider allowing a player to use the mechanics) not because the setting is inviolate or not big enough to handle the addition, as has been suggested, but because it operates on its own internal logic. That the standard is "because this is my setting" is not inherently allied against the players. It provides a baseline for them to work within. Many game books include phrasing similar to "Ask your GM before using these options..." because by understanding what is impossible, the players on either side of the screen are engaged and immersed through understanding of who, what, where, when, why, and how the game happens.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.

Did you just play the Dragon card -AFTER- she listed a plethora of things that have nothing to do with the power level of dragons? o.O -DoNe-


mdt wrote:
Is it a nice thing? No. Is it realistic? Absolutely. If you are playing something hated that much, the GM should warn you up front. And if you are ok with, great, go for it.

You're talking about racism against a race of sentient two-legged cats and other such creatures.

"Realistic" is not a word that should factor into your thoughts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zorajit, would those players who just wanted to play "x" with no commitment be anymore committed to any race, human or otherwise?

I agree that in a world where there is no dragons, a half-dragon cannot exist. So does that make you the bad GM who doesn't accommodate a player who wishes to play something that cannot feasibly exist in a world of your making?

No.

That makes the person a bad Player edit: for thinking you're a bad GM for not allowing them to play it.


Deviant Diva wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.

Did you just play the Dragon card -AFTER- she listed a plethora of things that have nothing to do with the power level of dragons? o.O -DoNe-

You confuse me. What does power level have to do with either half of the argument which was about oddity and fitting in?


Riggler wrote:
Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.

The problem I have constantly ran into with this mindset, Paizo or otherwise, is "good" is a relative term. Hence my mindset of "If I don't like the over-all mindset and chemistry of a group, I leave because I'm the one with the problem, not them~"


Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.

Did you just play the Dragon card -AFTER- she listed a plethora of things that have nothing to do with the power level of dragons? o.O -DoNe-
You confuse me. What does power level have to do with either half of the argument which was about oddity and fitting in?

I apologize. When I see someone use "DRAGONS!" as the begin and end all of their statement, my defense mechanism auto-spouts power level.

Look, at the end of the day, we all game to have fun. Fun is subjective; so game with those who share your view of fun, be it odd or mundane and call it a day.


Ahhhh as I suspected, you can cut the pretention in here with a knife. Long Smug Smuggleforth of Wrongbadfunton would be ever so proud.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Ahhhh as I suspected, you can cut the pretention in here with a knife. Long Smug Smuggleforth of Wrongbadfunton would be ever so proud.

x3 -noms joo's elfy ears- -nomnomnom-


Deviant Diva wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.

Did you just play the Dragon card -AFTER- she listed a plethora of things that have nothing to do with the power level of dragons? o.O -DoNe-
You confuse me. What does power level have to do with either half of the argument which was about oddity and fitting in?

I apologize. When I see someone use "DRAGONS!" as the begin and end all of their statement, my defense mechanism auto-spouts power level.

Look, at the end of the day, we all game to have fun. Fun is subjective; so game with those who share your view of fun, be it odd or mundane and call it a day.

The "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument I usually see is "the are some odd things therefore there must be ALL odd things."


Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
From what I've read from the Inner Sea Guide in Pathfinder... and the huge selection of various companion reference material, exotic races -are- meant to be there... otherwise why publish these books? Mayhap it's the GM's that have to change their point of view on the world?
... If you play in Golarion. And even then ...

Pathfinder, as an RPG, introduced a massive book of PC races, i think they intended for PCs to play characters of those races in any appropriate fantasy setting.

in a world where you have colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, freaking skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves

i doubt it much too freakish to include

a race of shapeshifting fox people

a series of human crossbreeds

a race of cat-people

a race of women descended from fairies

Indeed. In any APPROPRIATE fantasy setting. And in my case, its not an appropriate fantasy setting for (many of) those races. Just because they published it does not mean everyone should feel obligated to use all of it everywhere.

but when your setting has colossal fire breathing reptiles, brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, hentacle monsters, skinwalkers, and subterranian black skinned spider worshipping elves?

will adding a race of shapeshifting fox people, a series of human cross breeds, a race of catpeople or a race of women descended from fairies really break your immersion any further?

Ah. The famous "but ... DRAGONS!!!" Argument.

First, of those things you mentioned, the first is exceedingly rare to legendary, the second is non existent, so is the third, so is the fourth and fifth, and there are no Drow equivalents.

The but ... Dragons! Argument is a rather broken fallacy on its face.

Standard Pathfinder has

Colossal Fire Breathing Reptiles; AKA Dragons

Brain Eating Space Aliens; a variety of Aberrations fit this, especially intellect devourers and the like

Sentient Jello; those things we call Oozes

Skinwalkers; all it takes to be a skinwalker is to be able to take a variety of humanoid and/or animal forms. many fey and outsiders count, as do druids

Black Skinned Spider Worshipping Subterranian Elves; those are called drow

we also have

Anthropomorphized People made of Fire, Water, Air or Earth, AKA Elementals

Hentacle Monsters; plenty of Aberrations have large amounts of tentacles, just imagine what the tentacles do

Many Races of Fish People and Snake People

Many kinds of Giants

Summoners

Gunslingers

Alchemists

Druids

A variety of other Freakish Fey, Outsiders, and Aberrations

and many undead

the Cantina is already here.

don't just bury your head in the sand like an ostritch and refuse that each of Golarion's countries, is roughly equivalent to a star wars planet in the level of difference and the countries tend to mingle, trade, and share with one another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deviant Diva wrote:
Riggler wrote:
Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.
The problem I have constantly ran into with this mindset, Paizo or otherwise, is "good" is a relative term. Hence my mindset of "If I don't like the over-all mindset and chemistry of a group, I leave because I'm the one with the problem, not them~"

As do I.

Understanding that game companies must publish more options for RPGs in order to make money, means that new options are continuously being offered. They know the mindset of their audience to sell the most product to make the most money. They are a business after all. And their goal is to stay in business. TSR did it. Wizards did it. Paizo is/will do it. Put so many options out there that all the GMs throw up their hands and say, "I can't put up with all these options anymore." So then they have a reason to create a NEW edition of the game. Wash/rinse/recycle. The reason Paizo exists is because people LOVED 3.x. But the people running the games yearned for a RESET. Paizo is getting there unless the people running the games grow a backbone and say enough is enough. But that's very hard to do when you are competing for players with the GM down the street will allow anything that's published. Paizo KNOWS this. They will NEVER say it. And they will probably deny it. But their business practices prove otherwise.

And the reason GMs get over all the options is not only that they understand what is going on. Some don't. In a game like RPGs, it is nearly impossible to conceive of all the options that powergamers and system masters put together to break those people at the table's fun.

I have four people at my table. The Role-player expressed concern that he didn't pick the best options because he wanted to play a character and we're all friends so he KNEW two people at the table were taking powerful options. He was concerned that his PC wouldn't be important in combat anymore and I'd have to pull punches to keep his PC alive. Because almost everyone at the table has been a GM, too. They know it's all an illusion. A good GM is an illusionist. A GM can kill a PC at ANY TIME. The trick is to make the players think YOU WANT to kill the PCs, but a GM never actually WANTS to do it. But if I've got a powergamer who picked all the right options and a gamer who KNEW he picked the wrong options as compared to an optomizer, then I DO have a problem. Because it makes the illusion that much harder. Cause math. I think I have the powergamers under control, but I also know that I have to keep a keen eye on them or else they will hurt the other two players' fun.

THAT is why, just because everything that is published is not allowed in my games. The optomizers are going to have fun anyway, because they will approach the limited options as a challenge. As long as I can keep the power levels within the reach of my illusion without the math showing these intelligent players that I'm really performing a magic trick -- all the better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think what we have is a fundamental difference of opinion on how to go about world and campaign building.

Some of us use a scalpel to carefully remove bits and pieces that are disruptive. The default assumption is to allow it, but the willingness to remove it if necessary.

There appear others of us here that instead place items we want carefully with tweezers. The default assumption is to disallow it, but the willingness to consider adding it if desirable enough.


Riggler wrote:
Deviant Diva wrote:
Riggler wrote:
Just because it's been published by Paizo, doesn't mean it's good for the game.
The problem I have constantly ran into with this mindset, Paizo or otherwise, is "good" is a relative term. Hence my mindset of "If I don't like the over-all mindset and chemistry of a group, I leave because I'm the one with the problem, not them~"

As do I.

Understanding that game companies must publish more options for RPGs in order to make money, means that new options are continuously being offered. They know the mindset of their audience to sell the most product to make the most money. They are a business after all. And their goal is to stay in business. TSR did it. Wizards did it. Paizo is/will do it. Put so many options out there that all the GMs throw up their hands and say, "I can't put up with all these options anymore." So then they have a reason to create a NEW edition of the game. Wash/rinse/recycle. The reason Paizo exists is because people LOVED 3.x. But the people running the games yearned for a RESET. Paizo is getting there unless the people running the games grow a backbone and say enough is enough. But that's very hard to do when you are competing for players with the GM down the street will allow anything that's published. Paizo KNOWS this. They will NEVER say it. And they will probably deny it. But their business practices prove otherwise.

And the reason GMs get over all the options is not only that they understand what is going on. Some don't. In a game like RPGs, it is nearly impossible to conceive of all the options that powergamers and system masters put together to break those people at the table's fun.

I have four people at my table. The Role-player expressed concern that he didn't pick the best options because he wanted to play a character and we're all friends so he KNEW two people at the table were taking powerful options. He was concerned that his PC wouldn't be important in combat anymore and I'd have to pull punches to keep...

So... the alternative is for Paizo not to publish options so that players with certain tendencies do not have the option to shatter the illusion GM's spend such an exorbitant amount of time crafting and maintaining?

hmm... What would you suggest as an alternative for a happy middle? -tilts head-


pres man wrote:

I think what we have is a fundamental difference of opinion on how to go about world and campaign building.

Some of us use a scalpel to carefully remove bits and pieces that are disruptive. The default assumption is to allow it, but the willingness to remove it if necessary.

There appear others of us here that instead place items we want carefully with tweezers. The default assumption is to disallow it, but the willingness to consider adding it if desirable enough.

Pretty much spot on. If I'm writing the content, then I'm in the latter group. I understand the appeal of the former, but I am going to produce better content if I have a more restrictive toolkit to build from, by focusing on the palette that I choose to employ.


pres man wrote:

I think what we have is a fundamental difference of opinion on how to go about world and campaign building.

Some of us use a scalpel to carefully remove bits and pieces that are disruptive. The default assumption is to allow it, but the willingness to remove it if necessary.

There appear others of us here that instead place items we want carefully with tweezers. The default assumption is to disallow it, but the willingness to consider adding it if desirable enough.

Glass half full/half empty? -DRINKS IT ALL- OwO


pres man wrote:

I think what we have is a fundamental difference of opinion on how to go about world and campaign building.

Some of us use a scalpel to carefully remove bits and pieces that are disruptive. The default assumption is to allow it, but the willingness to remove it if necessary.

There appear others of us here that instead place items we want carefully with tweezers. The default assumption is to disallow it, but the willingness to consider adding it if desirable enough.

i allow published material as long as the player provides me a physical copy of the material they are using

i also allow custom races within the 5-15 point range if the player can provide me the info on all the mechanical crunch, but i usually reserve this right for unpublished 0HD hybrids that don't have an official race, or conversions of 3.5 races with an ECL adjustment of +2 or lower, as long as it's a no stronger than a weak +2 and happens to be a race, not a template.

but i will ask the player what it is they seek from the race in particular.

so i can tweak it to their needs.

as long as it doesn't too closely resemble a stronger version of an existing race

for example, i wouldn't allow certain munchkin bait races like the whisper gnome or water orc, but if a player wanted say, a Dragonborn, a Half-Nymph of human descent, a Dwarf/Orc Crossbreed, a Lesser Nixie, a toned down down Succubus, or a Crossbreed of Halfling and a Pixie. i would allow those.


I unno.

I know my strengths and weaknesses as a player so it's easy for me to make a character with the concept of strengths and weaknesses.

I like to be entertained so I try to entertain.

I guess... with each group, I just play it by ear and adjust to the GM unless I find myself not having fun, and in turn, being a wet blanket.

I unno, I like options and playing things to the max, not just on paper but bringing a character to life, no matter what the race.

I suppose that those statements have nothing to do with the topic beyond:

When deciding on a race for my character, in the end, it always has to be one that compliments a class I chose with the thought of the betterment of the party first and foremost in my mind. To me, race isn't an issue. It never has been.

I love the mental imagery and psychological twists and turns my fellow players bring to the table too much. I hope this helps me in developing into a decent GM. -shrugs-

Goodnight all. Thanks for the discussion <33

Webstore Gninja Minion

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts—be nice to each other, and remember that not everybody plays the same game the same way.


Liz Courts wrote:
Removed some posts—be nice to each other, and remember that not everybody plays the same game the same way.

GIVE ME COLORS! puwese! I haven't figured out how to apply them yet! This forum makes me think back to gaia when posting and the html colors code don't work T.T


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

Standard Pathfinder has

Colossal Fire Breathing Reptiles; AKA Dragons

Brain Eating Space Aliens; a variety of Aberrations fit this, especially intellect devourers and the like

Sentient Jello; those things we call Oozes

Skinwalkers; all it takes to be a skinwalker is to be able to take a variety of humanoid and/or animal forms. many fey and outsiders count, as do druids

Black Skinned Spider Worshipping Subterranian Elves; those are called drow

we also have

Anthropomorphized People made of Fire, Water, Air or Earth, AKA Elementals

Hentacle Monsters; plenty of Aberrations have large amounts of tentacles, just imagine what the tentacles do

Many Races of Fish People and Snake People

Many kinds of Giants

Summoners

Gunslingers

Alchemists

Druids

A variety of other Freakish Fey, Outsiders, and Aberrations

and many undead

the Cantina is already here.

don't just bury your head in the sand like an ostritch and refuse that each of Golarion's countries, is roughly equivalent to a star wars planet in the level of difference and the countries tend to mingle, trade, and share with one another.
...

It's really more the potential for all of that is there. Even in campaign as published, most of that stuff's rare and not going to be found in any single confined space.

The truth of the matter is not every campaign set in Golarion is going to include everything that Golarion is setup to be able to include. Every campaign is going to be specific to the players and GM involved and they have to be in some general agreement what the parameters are. They have to have a vision of the campaign they can share. And when it comes down to it, when visions are incompatible, the players can't force a GM to run something he doesn't want to run. That game's just going to suck so there's no point in bothering.


I have always advocated an all-goblin campaign.


any Setting that allows elemental, abyssal, infernal, oni, rhakshasa, or celestial bloodline sorcerers can reasonably allow planetouched

the following sorcerer bloodlines open up races as appropriate by proxy:

Fire Elemental Bloodline; Opens Ifrit Half Fire Elemental and Half Eefreeti

Water Elemental Bloodline; Opens Undine; Half Water Elemental and Half Marid

Earth Elemental Bloodline; Opens Oread Half Earth Elemental and Half Shaitani

Air Elemental Bloodline; Opens Sylph, Half Air Elemental and Half-Djinni

all 4 Elemental Bloodlines; Opens Suli

Celestial Bloodline; Opens Aasimaar and Half Celestial

Infernal Bloodline; Opens Tiefling and Half fiend

Abyssal Bloodline; Opens Tiefling and Half Fiend

Rhakshasa Bloodline; Opens Tiefling and Half Fiend

Oni Bloodline; Opens Tiefling and Half Fiend

Shadow Bloodline; Opens Fetchling and Wayang

other races or monsters open up existing races or sorcerer bloodlines by spreading their gene pool:

Hag; Opens Changeling

Elf; Opens Half Elf

Orc; Opens Half Orc and Orc Bloodline

Dragon; Opens Half Dragon, Dragonborn, Kobold, and any approriate Draconic bloodlines

Drow; Opens Half Drow

Nymph; Opens Fey Bloodline, Half-Nymph/Houri/Etc

Any Evil Outsider; Opens Tiefling, Half Fiend, and the appropriate fiendish bloodline

Human; Opens up a mountain of crossbreeds

Any Good Outsider; Opens Aasimaar, Half-Celestial, and the Celestial Bloodline

Giant; Opens Half Giant

Alchemists, Conjurers, Necromancers, and Artificers.:

Classes built around crafting objects, like the artificer can reasonably craft a variety of constructs from all sorts of materials, including otherwise impractical constructs designed to entertain children or whatever such as plushies containing trapped angelic souls derived from slain lesser angels.

classes built around conjuration, such as the conjurer and summoner, can theoretically, enslave a group of completely unrelated outsiders and force them to breed until he sees their gene pool fit to produce his desired creature.

classes built around undeath, such as the necromancer, can literally research and create entirely new species and variants of undead, can find new rituals for cheaper and earlier undeath, and can even potentially revolutionize undeath into something desirable

classes built around science, such as the alchemist, if they get the desired samples, can do stuff similar to cloning and genetic engineering, by mixing and manipulating the cells of genetic contributors to get hybrids with the traits they desire. if they can create abominations in a beaker, it makes logical sense that they can create a new derived hybrid species in a beaker, bring back a once extinct species with a beaker, or create artifical children for mothers who cannot bear their own.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Zorajit Zorajit wrote:
Pretty much spot on. If I'm writing the content, then I'm in the latter group. I understand the appeal of the former, but I am going to produce better content if I have a more restrictive toolkit to build from, by focusing on the palette that I choose to employ.

I'd like to thank you for maintaining a calm and reasonable attitude through the storm of your thread and for your extensive posts. Lots of good reading.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

any Setting that allows elemental, abyssal, infernal, oni, rhakshasa, or celestial bloodline sorcerers can reasonably allow planetouched

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

-Steps in-

In any world where we have giant fire breathing lizards that are "rare to legendary", nothing says we couldn't have a race of shape shifting fox people, a series of human crossbreeds, a race of cat people or a race of women descended from fairies that are "rare to legendary", and it would add quite a large amount of depth to a character's backstory. Perhaps they wish to hide what they are to prevent being hunted. Perhaps they want to be the object of adoration of the common folk. Perhaps they're trying to herald the return of their race.

Not quite on topic, but I literally played in a campaign once where the entire party was dragons. The entire purpose: to hide amongst the humanoids and discern if it was the appropriate time for the return of dragonkind to the main continent, as it had been several hundred years since a massive war was fought and the dragons were driven away.


Deviant Diva wrote:
Liz Courts wrote:
Removed some posts—be nice to each other, and remember that not everybody plays the same game the same way.
GIVE ME COLORS! puwese! I haven't figured out how to apply them yet! This forum makes me think back to gaia when posting and the html colors code don't work T.T

use (ooc) before and(/ooc) after your sentences but replace the () with [].


FlySkyHigh wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

any Setting that allows elemental, abyssal, infernal, oni, rhakshasa, or celestial bloodline sorcerers can reasonably allow planetouched

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

-Steps in-

In any world where we have giant fire breathing lizards that are "rare to legendary", nothing says we couldn't have a race of shape shifting fox people, a series of human crossbreeds, a race of cat people or a race of women descended from fairies that are "rare to legendary", and it would add quite a large amount of depth to a character's backstory. Perhaps they wish to hide what they are to prevent being hunted. Perhaps they want to be the object of adoration of the common folk. Perhaps they're trying to herald the return of their race.

Not quite on topic, but I literally played in a campaign once where the entire party was dragons. The entire purpose: to hide amongst the humanoids and discern if it was the appropriate time for the return of dragonkind to the main continent, as it had been several hundred years since a massive war was fought and the dragons were driven away.

Because the dragons a fit in and the others are not?

Because dragons exist does not mean every single option in the book must also exist.


Deviant Diva...I'm sorry you didn't get the point I was trying to make. GMing is an illusion. It always has been. Those who have been one understand this. I'm lucky enough to have experienced players at my table who do, too. But we don't talk about it. Just like an illusionist never talks about how they do their tricks.

In my game, it's like David Copperfield putting on a show for Houdini and Blackstone and their peers. We know it's magic and we're all willing to come around the table to forget about how the illusion is made to be amazed. And we are willing to understand that there are limitations on our vantage point of the magic. Because it's not about the fact that you can figure out the trick. We all know there's a trick. And we're willing to allow ourselves to be fooled by it.

It's the same thing with watching professional wrestling as performance art, or allowing yourself to not decipher to your friends the special effects of a movie, it's about allowing yourself to realize it's all an illusion. It's the same thing with RPGs. Stop trying to figure out HOW to win the game. And that's what people who play the game are doing when they say, "This option is published, therefore I must be allowed to choose it." They are trying to look at the floating woman from the wrong angle.

That's how I see it.


Arssanguinus wrote:
FlySkyHigh wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

any Setting that allows elemental, abyssal, infernal, oni, rhakshasa, or celestial bloodline sorcerers can reasonably allow planetouched

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

-Steps in-

In any world where we have giant fire breathing lizards that are "rare to legendary", nothing says we couldn't have a race of shape shifting fox people, a series of human crossbreeds, a race of cat people or a race of women descended from fairies that are "rare to legendary", and it would add quite a large amount of depth to a character's backstory. Perhaps they wish to hide what they are to prevent being hunted. Perhaps they want to be the object of adoration of the common folk. Perhaps they're trying to herald the return of their race.

Not quite on topic, but I literally played in a campaign once where the entire party was dragons. The entire purpose: to hide amongst the humanoids and discern if it was the appropriate time for the return of dragonkind to the main continent, as it had been several hundred years since a massive war was fought and the dragons were driven away.

Because the dragons a fit in and the others are not?

Because dragons exist does not mean every single option in the book must also exist.

I'm not saying EVERY SINGLE OPTION in the book should exist, I'm just saying it's a bit rigid to simply accept as a standing view that Dragons, quite simply put one of the most powerful beings in the world that aren't divine, are perfectly natural if only rare, yet anything other than human/elf/dwarf/etc is absolutely off the table.

I'd recommend that you do what I do, ask for a backstory. If they want to play something really rare, have them right up a backstory to prove why they either exist, or why such a rare race would ever come out of hiding. If it's good enough, let them play it.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit hypocritical to just go "Dragons are Okay, but anything else is just ridiculous."


FlySkyHigh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:
FlySkyHigh wrote:
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:

any Setting that allows elemental, abyssal, infernal, oni, rhakshasa, or celestial bloodline sorcerers can reasonably allow planetouched

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

-Steps in-

In any world where we have giant fire breathing lizards that are "rare to legendary", nothing says we couldn't have a race of shape shifting fox people, a series of human crossbreeds, a race of cat people or a race of women descended from fairies that are "rare to legendary", and it would add quite a large amount of depth to a character's backstory. Perhaps they wish to hide what they are to prevent being hunted. Perhaps they want to be the object of adoration of the common folk. Perhaps they're trying to herald the return of their race.

Not quite on topic, but I literally played in a campaign once where the entire party was dragons. The entire purpose: to hide amongst the humanoids and discern if it was the appropriate time for the return of dragonkind to the main continent, as it had been several hundred years since a massive war was fought and the dragons were driven away.

Because the dragons a fit in and the others are not?

Because dragons exist does not mean every single option in the book must also exist.

I'm not saying EVERY SINGLE OPTION in the book should exist, I'm just saying it's a bit rigid to simply accept as a standing view that Dragons, quite simply put one of the most powerful beings in the world that aren't divine, are perfectly natural if only rare, yet anything other than human/elf/dwarf/etc is absolutely off the table.

I'd recommend that you do what I do, ask for a backstory. If they want to play something really rare, have them right up a backstory to prove why they either exist, or why such a rare race would ever come out of hiding. If it's good enough, let them play it.

All I'm saying is that it's a bit hypocritical to just go "Dragons are...

Two things. I usually excuse specific things or, more rarely, specific categories of things. I don't tend to go "only this". But have a three phase; red light, yellow light, green light.

Red light is "this is excluded from the campaign. It just plain doesn't exist to be played. Tis category is usually small and carefully targeted. The dwarf example. A world with a different planar structure that doesn't include outsiders in the way the book does and thus is not including Asimar or Tieflings. Etcetera.

Yellow light is "I didn't think to include it or I am inclined not to, and i havent made a place for it, but if you can weave me a good yarn and make it sing or fit, you are good to go.

Green light is .... Everything that was specifically included. You pick one of these, you are likely good to go without extra commentary from me. You want an 'easy' character creation process? Stay here. You dip into yellow, there is going to be extra work involved, and red just isn't going to happen.


Arssanguinus wrote:

Two things. I usually excuse specific things or, more rarely, specific categories of things. I don't tend to go "only this". But have a three phase; red light, yellow light, green light.

Red light is "this is excluded from the campaign. It just plain doesn't exist to be played. Tis category is usually small and carefully targeted. The dwarf example. A world with a different planar structure that doesn't include outsiders in the way the book does and thus is not including Asimar or Tieflings. Etcetera.

Yellow light is "I didn't think to include it or I am inclined not to, and i havent made a place for it, but if you can weave me a good yarn and make it sing or fit, you are good to go.

Green light is .... Everything that was specifically included. You pick one of these, you are likely good to go without extra commentary from me. You want an 'easy' character creation process? Stay here. You dip into yellow, there is going to be extra work involved, and red just isn't going to happen.

See, that's what I thought you were arguing against. From the sound of your prior statements it sounded like you were going rather grognardian and simply stating out-right "no" to anything non-core.

Good to be proven wrong.


I can see the argument that allowing dragons doesn't make someone hypocritical for not allowing other things. Sure if dragons are 1 of say 20 non-mundane creatures (including humanoids), then not allowing anymore is perfectly reasonable. But if dragons are 1 of say 400 non-mundane creatures (including humanoids), it starts to become hypocritical. Not merely because of the dragons but because of all of the other gonzo/wacky/goofy/whatever creatures in addition to the dragons.

Sure if you want to play a Barsoom adventure, you aren't going to allow wacky races (other then the canon ones), but you are also not going to allow any wacky creatures as well just because you saw them in the latest bestiary.

Sadly, too often I've seen GMs that are perfectly fine tossing the simulationism that they were so strongly devoted to out the window when they see that cool creature in the bestiary. When that happens is when the hypocrisy label really sticks.


FlySkyHigh wrote:
Arssanguinus wrote:

Two things. I usually excuse specific things or, more rarely, specific categories of things. I don't tend to go "only this". But have a three phase; red light, yellow light, green light.

Red light is "this is excluded from the campaign. It just plain doesn't exist to be played. Tis category is usually small and carefully targeted. The dwarf example. A world with a different planar structure that doesn't include outsiders in the way the book does and thus is not including Asimar or Tieflings. Etcetera.

Yellow light is "I didn't think to include it or I am inclined not to, and i havent made a place for it, but if you can weave me a good yarn and make it sing or fit, you are good to go.

Green light is .... Everything that was specifically included. You pick one of these, you are likely good to go without extra commentary from me. You want an 'easy' character creation process? Stay here. You dip into yellow, there is going to be extra work involved, and red just isn't going to happen.

See, that's what I thought you were arguing against. From the sound of your prior statements it sounded like you were going rather grognardian and simply stating out-right "no" to anything non-core.

Good to be proven wrong.

Nope. Just arguing AGAINST "anything must always go, always. I reserve the right to have some absolute exclusions in my settings. On the other hand, as I said some pages back, I inserted an entire city state to create an order of paladins when I hadn't been planning to include any in world at all. Because one player made an argument for them and where they might fit that was good - actually good enough that I shifted the focus of the campaign and we ended up with an entire party with three of them, one cleric, and a sorcerer. Because they worked with me and provided me with hooks and ladders that made their concept FIT into the world, started weaving it in.

(Yes, I realize paladins are core. Just saying, example of the way a yellow light was put into the game that worked really well. But similar things have happened elsewhere).

Part of my gming style is that I am heavily involved character creation. It takes a bit, but I usually sit down with the person and talk about what they are wanting and go back and forth with them on how to weave that character into the setting. I'm asking them questions, and making suggestions 'that idea is really cool, I think I could do neat things with that, and it would probably fit really well here. But have you thought about ..."

Yes, the decisions on the character are theirs, but at the end of the process we have something both of us like and that makes running a game on it much, much smoother. After that part is done, THEN they sit down and stat it up.


pres man wrote:

I can see the argument that allowing dragons doesn't make someone hypocritical for not allowing other things. Sure if dragons are 1 of say 20 non-mundane creatures (including humanoids), then not allowing anymore is perfectly reasonable. But if dragons are 1 of say 400 non-mundane creatures (including humanoids), it starts to become hypocritical. Not merely because of the dragons but because of all of the other gonzo/wacky/goofy/whatever creatures in addition to the dragons.

Sure if you want to play a Barsoom adventure, you aren't going to allow wacky races (other then the canon ones), but you are also not going to allow any wacky creatures as well just because you saw them in the latest bestiary.

Sadly, too often I've seen GMs that are perfectly fine tossing the simulationism that they were so strongly devoted to out the window when they see that cool creature in the bestiary.

That's essentially what I was going for. And an issue I've had in several games in the past, quite a few of which I quit because it was irritating. I personally do not like playing pure humans in about 95% of scenarios. SImply because with so many other options, why should I constantly play the same thing. I've actually played in games with GMs who limited the races to Humans only, telling us before the game began that non-humans were rare, and then we fought nothing but the most wild monsters he could pull out of the beastiaries.

At one point I essentially let my character die, with the intent of re-rolling into a more interesting race/class combo, and got told I had to roll up a new human. Even though not two sessions past we had encountered no less than 3 groups of different uncommon races that are already statted up for regular PC consumption. When I inquired why, I was never given a reason, so I quit. In this case, it seemed to me like the gm wanted to be the "frozen tiny supercooled cloud droplet" in and of that the PC's were not supposed to be in any way special. Every fight was by the skin of our teeth because he was constantly throwing us against monsters that probably should've been out of our league, but the occasional lucky crit from our hard-hitting fighter kept pulling us out of the muck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:


but Orcs and Drow, both show up in the Advanced Race Guide, which is a big compendium of Player races for the Pathfinder RPG.

And that whole section is headed by a 'optional' flag.

ARG wrote:


Featured Races
While the seven core races are the primary focus of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, they're not the only ones suitable to be played as characters. Other, even stranger races help populate the world, and—with the GM's permission—also work well as player character races, creating fun and exciting new roleplaying opportunities.

Also, not every setting has every race. Just like not every setting has every monster, every class, every piece of equipment. If there are no firearms in the setting, there's no guns and no gunslinger. If there's no gods, there are no clerics or inquisitors.

601 to 650 of 1,827 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Talk me down: Exotic Race Antipathy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.