Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 834 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Atarlost wrote:

Moving back from the really bad falling and lava mechanics, a lot of the claims that historical limitations aren't actually accurate are based on one assumption: That PCs have the right to be special snowflakes.

They don't. It's commonly accepted to refuse drow PCs because they don't fit in and tend to be attempts to create a primary protagonist rather than an equal member of a group. A dwarf in Japan or a (non-reskinned) samurai in Iceland -- even if you could prove that the viking reached Japan or the Japanese Iceland in the real world -- is as out of place as a chaotic good renegade drow. That's a spotlight hogging backstory.

In Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, how is Azeem (Morgan Freeman's character) more of a spotlight hog then Robin Hood? Somehow Hollywood has found a way to include people of many races and both genders in its movies, because that diversity is worth more than strict historical accuracy. And somehow despite these characters being spotlight hogging, the lead star almost always ends up being white and male.

GMs have a right to set the tone for their games. But one can want to play a character working against his or her evil background without being a spotlight hogger. (What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?) And sometimes people who want to play dwarves and samurai are going along with the group as per setting, but don't really have their heart set on playing there. Instead of accusing them being spotlight hogs, you could let them play their characters, or back off on your strict setting and adopt a setting that will let them play what they feel comfortable playing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

One is an advanced race, one is standard PHB race. That may be all that fuss is about, honestly. Some people use playing Drow as an excuse to gain an advantage under the guise of RP, similar to a person playing a Kender to have an RP reason to be a dick to the other players.

One of my favorite characters is a Drizzt clone (this avatar, as a matter of fact) and even I understand the hesitance or refusal in allowing such.


Kryzbyn wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

One is an advanced race, one is standard PHB race. That may be all that fuss is about, honestly. Some people use playing Drow as an excuse to gain an advantage under the guise of RP, similar to a person playing a Kender to have an RP reason to be a dick to the other players.

One of my favorite characters is a Drizzt clone (this avatar, as a matter of fact) and even I understand the hesitance or refusal in allowing such.

Uh... it's not like Drow are Half-Elves or anything. So... what advantage?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Anzyr wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

One is an advanced race, one is standard PHB race. That may be all that fuss is about, honestly. Some people use playing Drow as an excuse to gain an advantage under the guise of RP, similar to a person playing a Kender to have an RP reason to be a dick to the other players.

One of my favorite characters is a Drizzt clone (this avatar, as a matter of fact) and even I understand the hesitance or refusal in allowing such.

Uh... it's not like Drow are Half-Elves or anything. So... what advantage?

this. what? spending half or all your feats for a ton of spell like abilities?


Bandw2 wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

One is an advanced race, one is standard PHB race. That may be all that fuss is about, honestly. Some people use playing Drow as an excuse to gain an advantage under the guise of RP, similar to a person playing a Kender to have an RP reason to be a dick to the other players.

One of my favorite characters is a Drizzt clone (this avatar, as a matter of fact) and even I understand the hesitance or refusal in allowing such.

Uh... it's not like Drow are Half-Elves or anything. So... what advantage?
this. what? spending half or all your feats for a ton of spell like abilities?

Stay back, that Drow can use Dancing Lights and it doesn't even qualify them for Arcane Strike anymore!


With the SLA shinanigans gone the most optimum races for just about every class are the CRB classes... humans are good at everything and elves are the best casters... oh and half elves are just nasty as well. Hell the only ARG that matches the HE/human/elf may be the aasimar and the deep gnome.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:


Who cares if informal fallacies aren't technically errors in logic? Using them still makes your argument less persuasive. This is a bad thing, especially if you happen to be correct, since a bad argument might put people off.

The reason its important to spot them is because they make bad arguments sound persuasive. Most of them rose to the level of fallacy because they work.


Maybe he's thinking of the stronger 3.5 version of the Drow and/or the Paizo Drow Noble?

Granted, the 3.5 Drow really wasn't worth the +2 Level Adjustment they saddled him with, and any GM can tell the Drow Noble is massively powerful compared to standard PC races.

But the standard Drow? Definitely middle of the road. Yeah, they get a couple shiny racial goodies, but most of them look a lot nicer than they actually are. Like spell resistance that's high enough to mess with friendly spells but too low to actually stand up to enemy designed to attack with magic, or SLAs that are potentially almost useful once a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Maybe he's thinking of the stronger 3.5 version of the Drow and/or the Paizo Drow Noble?

Granted, the 3.5 Drow really wasn't worth the +2 Level Adjustment they saddled him with, and any GM can tell the Drow Noble is massively powerful compared to standard PC races.

But the standard Drow? Definitely middle of the road. Yeah, they get a couple shiny racial goodies, but most of them look a lot nicer than they actually are. Like spell resistance that's high enough to mess with friendly spells but too low to actually stand up to enemy designed to attack with magic, or SLAs that are potentially almost useful once a day.

Almost everyone I know that ever wanted to play a drow PC wanted a noble born one - nobody ever asked to be a standard drow.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Maybe he's thinking of the stronger 3.5 version of the Drow and/or the Paizo Drow Noble?

Granted, the 3.5 Drow really wasn't worth the +2 Level Adjustment they saddled him with, and any GM can tell the Drow Noble is massively powerful compared to standard PC races.

But the standard Drow? Definitely middle of the road. Yeah, they get a couple shiny racial goodies, but most of them look a lot nicer than they actually are. Like spell resistance that's high enough to mess with friendly spells but too low to actually stand up to enemy designed to attack with magic, or SLAs that are potentially almost useful once a day.

Almost everyone I know that ever wanted to play a drow PC wanted a noble born one - nobody ever asked to be a standard drow.

weird because i have, i looked and saw that they're "OP" so i knew a regular drow would be more appropriate and taking feats would be better for fluff.

Liberty's Edge

Arachnofiend wrote:
So do you think what is "historically accurate" in England must be what is historically accurate in Varisia? Because that is the argument the article is calling fallacious.

It's a funky issue. There's not an absolute answer: the catch is that Golarion was designed to be pseudo-medieval, in part because the game was also designed to be pseudo-medieval.

There are some warts/problems, but these exist as much for legacy in the game as much for purposeful historical deviation (see scale mail).

There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history. Some of these result from the game system not being entirely sim and having its fair amount of abstraction (lava, and falling, and falling into lava, some is due to conventions of the genre (inns with individual rooms that double as restaurants), some deviations are logical extensions of spellcasters (plagues being less rampant, no religious schisms or wars as gods are known and talk with mortals), and some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).

Golarion is not an Eberron world where the baseline is not analogous to our world. The baseline of Golarion - the foundation of the world and (most) the societies - are by their very intent meant to invoke elements of the real world. By the world's very design, history is meant to be a tool you can use.
Osirion is meant to be comparable to Egypt (quasi-medieval era and ancient) so historical knowledge can be applied to the nation. So real world resources can be employed for cultural ideas and world details. Section 932 of your local library becomes as much a resource as your gaming shelf.

Thus, unless a detail purposely and explicitly deviates from history, something is called out as not being the same, it's safe to assume it is similar to history.

So, no, I do not think there is a historical fallacy. And, yes, things that are historically accurate in England (or Western Europe) *might* apply to Varisa. If there's a good reason not to, then that's fine. Ignore history all you want. But ignorance and laziness aren't particularly good excuses.

Calling out an anachronism at the game table is not an issue of fallacy, it is an issue of being a dick. If your DM is being historically inaccurate and you point that out in an accusatory manner it's just as problematic as calling out a contradictory bit of world lore ("Actually, if you look at Osirion, Land of Pharaohs you'll see...").

However, defending a plot element as historically accurate is a different issue as its equating fictional narrative with history. But this is not limited to history, as you could make similar claims for stories set in non-Western nations. Just because certain things are endemic to a region does not mean all stories set in that region have to [u]feature[/u] that issue. All stories set in Nero's Rome don't have to deal with the fire, and all stories set in California during 2014 don't have to feature the drought as a plot point.
That said, an extended narrative (or campaign) that *never* addresses or mentions an issue seems odd, drawing attention to the issue through its absence or omission. A story set in Rome or the old South (or Cheliax) that never touches on slavery is odd, almost like it is whitewashing the issue.


Of course they're OP, that's the reason why the players I know wanting to play one in the first place. Although Drizzt lost many of his powers once he stayed on the surface (in the books), but he was born a noble drow. I'm not claiming they're worth the +2 level adjustment, but compared to a standard race, they were still OP.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I made a semi-historic game in old Europe set during Ivar the boneless' invasion of England.

Ethnicity changed to races and humans were just every where. England were elves, France was Dwarves, gnomes for the scottish, halfings for the irish, drow for spain, the scandinvaians were mostly humans and giants.

don't remember much else that I set it up for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).

Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).
Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.

It can be fun, but many people dont want to deal with the same kind of crap they deal with in real life.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).
Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.

It can be fun, but many people dont want to deal with the same kind of crap they deal with in real life.

but they get to punch that crap in the face in this world. :D


kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).
Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.

I'm not necessarily prejudiced, but I can't stand political correctness in the real world, let alone in game.

As I often repeat I'm the creator of the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) and borrow many historical and cultural aspects of feudal Japan, which definitely includes racism, gender exclusion, social caste exclusion, religious persecution - feudal Japan was a very prejudiced police state, and Kaidan is worse than feudal Japan. The horror aspects of the setting has largely to do with how the afterlife works and plenty of undead around, but socially Kaidan is even more of a horrible place. I don't really want to play in a game where the darker things in life are sugar coated. Roleplaying works much better with social conflict than without it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).
Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.

It can be fun, but many people dont want to deal with the same kind of crap they deal with in real life.

but they get to punch that crap in the face in this world. :D

Maybe. Or maybe they find out that punching pervasive prejudice doesn't work any better than it does in the real world.

If it's just identifiable bad guys who are prejudiced, that's one thing.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Drizz't was a drow noble. We're talking about Drizz't clones.
I apologize for the apparent giant leap of logic it must've taken to reach the conclusion that I was also talking about drow nobles.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Drizz't was a drow noble. We're talking about Drizz't clones.

I apologize for the apparent giant leap of logic it must've taken to reach the conclusion that I was also talking about drow nobles.

Lucky for me then, the only Drizzt clones I ever seen attempted were roughly around when the Crystal Shard was published and the year following. Which got reinvigorated with the release of the Menzobarrenzan boxed edition. After that, it simmered down. I've never seen a Drizzt wannabe in PF, thankfully.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Jester David wrote:
There are lots of reasons for a potential deviation from history... some of these are to avoid issues people don't want to address in a hobby game played for fun (no human racism, gender equality and acceptance of sexual preference).
Surely I can't be the only one here who enjoys games with factions who are highly bigoted against this group or that one? IMO it adds color to a world far less than perfect.
It can be fun, but many people dont want to deal with the same kind of crap they deal with in real life.

^This.

So many people have to deal with it in the real world, that they don't want to do it during their hobby. It's great as an option, but it's better if it's something you can opt into.

As a baseline, Golarion doesn't seem to have a lot of intra-species racism (humans hating on humans, elves hating on elves), but it *could* exist if it's a theme you want your campaign to touch on.
Or you can go the Star Trek route and touch on it through elves being biased against humans who are prejudice against halflings.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
gamer-printer wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

Drizz't was a drow noble. We're talking about Drizz't clones.

I apologize for the apparent giant leap of logic it must've taken to reach the conclusion that I was also talking about drow nobles.
Lucky for me then, the only Drizzt clones I ever seen attempted were roughly around when the Crystal Shard was published and the year following. Which got reinvigorated with the release of the Menzobarrenzan boxed edition. After that, it simmered down. I've never seen a Drizzt wannabe in PF, thankfully.

Not for lack of trying on my part ;)

But, in my case it'd just be a conversion of an existing character from 2nd ED into PF.


David Neilson wrote:

Well 'survive' is a bit of a stretch. Thats more possibly not die instantly, its not like she was going to make an escape artist check and start pummelling her attackers.

In both cases, they survived the first hit. Possibly could have been Ok with medical attention.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

You know, you make a decent argument, but not when you drag in the old "logical fallacy" fallacy. See, most "logical fallacies' are not. They are not fallacies in logic at all. They are informal fallacies. Mostly, using a informal fallacy is perfectly OK outside your high school debating team.

Who cares if informal fallacies aren't technically errors in logic? Using them still makes your argument less persuasive. This is a bad thing, especially if you happen to be correct, since a bad argument might put people off.

Sure, sometimes. But saying someones rather good and persuasive argument is invalid simply because you claims it's a "fallacy" is also incorrect. And being a bit of a jerk.

Bad arguments are still bad, "fallacy" or no. Good arguments are still good "fallacy" or no. Unless you're in a High School debating class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

I suspect it's as much of a special snowflake thing as a power thing. Drizz't clones are all "I'm a special Drow, against my whole race, outcast on the surface with my angst."

Gimli clones are like any other dwarf. And really, Gimli clones? Is that even a thing? Were people really imitating Gimli from the books when they made dwarves with axes for decades before the movies came out? Is every elf with a bow a Legolas clone?

The Drizz't clones tend to copy the specific background and much of the persona, sometimes along with the abilities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Is every elf with a bow a Legolas clone?

To be fair, not all guys can be that pretty.


thejeff wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

I suspect it's as much of a special snowflake thing as a power thing. Drizz't clones are all "I'm a special Drow, against my whole race, outcast on the surface with my angst."

Gimli clones are like any other dwarf. And really, Gimli clones? Is that even a thing? Were people really imitating Gimli from the books when they made dwarves with axes for decades before the movies came out? Is every elf with a bow a Legolas clone?

The Drizz't clones tend to copy the specific background and much of the persona, sometimes along with the abilities.

Well i also feel like its because its not "Tolkein". Who is to say a gnome or dwarf is more common and accepted than an aasimar or drow? Unless your playing Golarian your fantasy can be anything. Its just that most people seem to default to "standard LotR troupes"


A Drow obsessed with his own manpain is a lot less fun to play with than Gimli.


thejeff wrote:
prosfilaes wrote:
(What is it about Drizz't that makes for such vicious attacks on people who want to play clones of him, unlike people who play Gimli clones?)

I suspect it's as much of a special snowflake thing as a power thing. Drizz't clones are all "I'm a special Drow, against my whole race, outcast on the surface with my angst."

Gimli clones are like any other dwarf. And really, Gimli clones? Is that even a thing? Were people really imitating Gimli from the books when they made dwarves with axes for decades before the movies came out? Is every elf with a bow a Legolas clone?

The Drizz't clones tend to copy the specific background and much of the persona, sometimes along with the abilities.

Yeah, the usual bar for a Drizzt clone is "My Totally Original Character Drow is a chaotic good ranger who dual-wields scimitars and came to the surface to make a new life for himself because he was disgusted by the evil ways of his people." Not just a character being a Drow.

To toss out an example, when I made a drow character back in 3.5 she was a Lawful Evil Warlock who'd mostly come to the surface because Drow society was full of self-destructive backstabbing idiots, so the surface had better prospects.


It really gets ugly when they even call their pcs Drizzt.
Happened once in a larp (live action roleplaying). That pc had a short life. Another player asked him about his past, his name, his god, his family and after everything was a 100% copy of drizzt he drew his two daggers and killed 'Drizzt'. When the other player asked why he did that his answer was: If you really were Drizzt, I'd be dead now, not you.

Can't really blame him.
I like to play original characters and I'm always slightly irritated by players who lack the creativity to do so.

edit: wouldnt be different if someone played an old bearded wizard named Gandalf, wearing a blue hat and a grey or white robe.


PIXIE DUST wrote:
Well i also feel like its because its not "Tolkein". Who is to say a gnome or dwarf is more common and accepted than an aasimar or drow? Unless your playing Golarian your fantasy can be anything. Its just that most people seem to default to "standard LotR troupes"

I avoid settings similar to Middle Earth at all costs. I avoid games that include elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes as the standard races. I generally homebrew everything, preferring theme games like Ancient Greece, feudal Japan, Paleolithic, etc. I don't mind more races than human, but I don't want to play in a Tolkien-esqsue setting. I loved Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean I want to play there. If a given game is not "Tolkien" - I think that's a good thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Well i also feel like its because its not "Tolkein". Who is to say a gnome or dwarf is more common and accepted than an aasimar or drow? Unless your playing Golarian your fantasy can be anything. Its just that most people seem to default to "standard LotR troupes"
I avoid settings similar to Middle Earth at all costs. I avoid games that include elves, dwarves, halflings and gnomes as the standard races. I generally homebrew everything, preferring theme games like Ancient Greece, feudal Japan, Paleolithic, etc. I don't mind more races than human, but I don't want to play in a Tolkien-esqsue setting. I loved Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't mean I want to play there. If a given game is not "Tolkien" - I think that's a good thing.

Your standards for is Tolkien seem pretty low. And that's ignoring the complete lack of gnomes in Tolkien.

Theme games can be great, but not all core races games are anything like Tolkien. Given PF mechanics, you'd have to go to serious effort.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

Drizz't was a drow noble. We're talking about Drizz't clones.

I apologize for the apparent giant leap of logic it must've taken to reach the conclusion that I was also talking about drow nobles.

IT IS doable with feats.


thejeff wrote:

Theme games can be great, but not all core races games are anything like Tolkien. Given PF mechanics, you'd have to go to serious effort.

My point is really the setting, not what characters can or cannot do. Elves and dwarves feel too Tolkien to me, even though PF elves and dwarves are nothing really like Legolas and Gimli. Probably a better definition is not European influenced, nor traditional fantasy. There's always the orc-like "gnomes" of the Shanara books which are nothing like gnomes anywhere else.

If I really wanted to play Tolkien, I'd play The One Ring, but as stated I don't.


Orc-Like? How the heck do you get orc-like out of Shanara gnomes?

Goblin mayyyybe but that's stretching it a bit.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

Orc-Like? How the heck do you get orc-like out of Shanara gnomes?

Goblin mayyyybe but that's stretching it a bit.

Its been a long time since I read the Shanara books, something like 7th grade (and I'm 52 now). Weren't gnomes the army of the evil lord in the Shanara books, and if you go by the Hildebrandt brothers illustrations, gnomes were bigger than humans, and quite evil. Since the Sword of Shanara was practically a rewrite of the Lord of the Rings, the gnomes were Shanara's replacement for orcs - at least as memory serves.


It's true Gnomes are generally the race that gets recruited by the forces of evil, but they definitely NOT larger than humans.

They're described as about the height of a Dwarf without the bulk.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's true Gnomes are generally the race that gets recruited by the forces of evil, but they definitely NOT larger than humans.

They're described as about the height of a Dwarf without the bulk.

As stated, I hadn't read those books for at least 39 years, and since I read LotR after those, I realised that the Sword of Shanara was practically a stealing of Tolkien IP with some refluff - I despised Shanara afterward and never looked at it again. I don't remember their gnomes as being that small, again the cover illustration suggest otherwise.


Shanarra's actually one of my favorite fantasy series. It's likely Brooks was largely inspired by Tolkien, but he took that inspiration and did some crazy awesome s@@@ with it.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a subtle yet important distinction between historical accuracy and thematic consistency.

George RR Martin uses "history is brutal" to shut down criticism of the violence in his books (including gendered violence) but I don't think he includes that violence in an attempt to be historically accurate. Rather, the series is largely about all the terrible things that people will do to get or keep power.

If I were to create a Japan-inspired setting and I decided that I liked the implications of limited access to high-quality metals, I would be entirely justified in telling a player he couldn't have adamantine full plate because thematically I want to make a big deal out of an adamantine wakizashi. Conversely if I wanted to take inspiration from certain anime I could have high-level characters running around in magical mecha suits.

Either way, the decision is ultimately made according to my tastes, not Japanese history or fiction. I, as the setting creator, have the power.

However with that power I feel I have a responsibility to my players to try and compromise if something is important to them. For example, I might not want kitsune in a wild west game, but reskinning them as a "coyote" race is perfectly appropriate as it fits the setting, the mechanics, and the trickster identity of the kitsune. A wakizashi could be an "elven long knife." If a player is interested in cultural details like bushido they could be given to whatever exotic races do exist in the setting, such that instead of a samurai you have a proud dwarven warrior. It's just an issue of figuring out what's important to the player and how to best fit that into the setting.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I suspect it's as much of a special snowflake thing as a power thing. Drizz't clones are all "I'm a special Drow, against my whole race, outcast on the surface with my angst."

Yes. It's called a backstory, and many players have one. You don't get this response against people who want to play dispossessed nobility or almost any other unique background.

Just the phrasing is problematic: "special snowflake" is a way of being insulting instead of being descriptive. They want their character to be special? Who doesn't?

Quote:
Gimli clones are like any other dwarf.

You say that like it's a good thing, like having every dwarf be a Gimli copy makes it better.

Quote:
Were people really imitating Gimli from the books when they made dwarves with axes for decades before the movies came out?

If that and the gruff attitude and the thing with elves is your character, then yes. I think it's worse if it's so stereotypical nobody thinks about the origins. Why is it worse to want to play a certain cool character, instead of just doing something generic?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gimli is the source material for the vats, not a clone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Weirdo wrote:
George RR Martin uses "history is brutal" to shut down criticism of the violence in his books (including gendered violence) but I don't think he includes that violence in an attempt to be historically accurate. Rather, the series is largely about all the terrible things that people will do to get or keep power..

There's dragons, so its not supposed to be historically accurate. What its supposed to be is realistic. Our best reference for what people are like is, surprisingly, what people are like. And the truth is that when you take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.

Many fantasy series have fantasy elements, so all of a sudden half the cast is acting like Jean luc piccard emobodying the highest ideals of humanity and society goes along with them... that doesn't necessarily make any sense. We can take a pretty good guess what people would be like in a medivilish setting because we know what people were (are?) like when they're living in a world of danger and hardship: pretty freaking brutal and always looking out for number 1 at he cost of anything else.

Why shouldn't the nastier parts of human nature be included in a fantasy series?


gamer-printer wrote:
Chengar Qordath wrote:

Maybe he's thinking of the stronger 3.5 version of the Drow and/or the Paizo Drow Noble?

Granted, the 3.5 Drow really wasn't worth the +2 Level Adjustment they saddled him with, and any GM can tell the Drow Noble is massively powerful compared to standard PC races.

But the standard Drow? Definitely middle of the road. Yeah, they get a couple shiny racial goodies, but most of them look a lot nicer than they actually are. Like spell resistance that's high enough to mess with friendly spells but too low to actually stand up to enemy designed to attack with magic, or SLAs that are potentially almost useful once a day.

Almost everyone I know that ever wanted to play a drow PC wanted a noble born one - nobody ever asked to be a standard drow.

I second that. One level for all that cool stuff? Yes please.

I would play a noble in a heartbeat. I would let the GM pick my class AFTER I decided on stats.

They roxor my soxors... I dunno, need coffee...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
George RR Martin uses "history is brutal" to shut down criticism of the violence in his books (including gendered violence) but I don't think he includes that violence in an attempt to be historically accurate. Rather, the series is largely about all the terrible things that people will do to get or keep power..

There's dragons, so its not supposed to be historically accurate. What its supposed to be is realistic. Our best reference for what people are like is, surprisingly, what people are like. And the truth is that when you take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people... will become as nasty and as violent as the most bloodthirsty Klingon.

Many fantasy series have fantasy elements, so all of a sudden half the cast is acting like Jean luc piccard emobodying the highest ideals of humanity and society goes along with them... that doesn't necessarily make any sense. We can take a pretty good guess what people would be like in a medivilish setting because we know what people were (are?) like when they're living in a world of danger and hardship: pretty freaking brutal and always looking out for number 1 at he cost of anything else.

Why shouldn't the nastier parts of human nature be included in a fantasy series?

No reason they shouldn't be. No reason the better parts shouldn't be either.

Martin's grimdark world is the flip side of noblebright fantasy, but it's not any more realistic - it's just exaggerated in the other direction.


thejeff wrote:

No reason they shouldn't be. No reason the better parts shouldn't be either.

Martin's grimdark world is the flip side of noblebright fantasy, but it's not any more realistic - it's just exaggerated in the other direction.

Not buying this. History was brutal and (except for the fantasy/magic stuff) there is little in the books that was not like it is shown at some time in history.


Neither extreme of the sliding scale of idealism and cynicism are correct.
History was full of cousin fornicating and pretty ugly schemes, but Martin also exaggerates for extra effect.

And we allow him that, after all. Excess misery makes great drama. Being correct is irrelevant to being entertaining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

No reason they shouldn't be. No reason the better parts shouldn't be either.

Martin's grimdark world is the flip side of noblebright fantasy, but it's not any more realistic - it's just exaggerated in the other direction.

I don't think he's exaggerated it at all. Most of the things in his books happened (happen?) with a fair bit of frequency. He also DOES have the better side of human nature come through (Mostly with the Starks). Its pretty well balanced on its own without appealing to the golden mean.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
thejeff wrote:

No reason they shouldn't be. No reason the better parts shouldn't be either.

Martin's grimdark world is the flip side of noblebright fantasy, but it's not any more realistic - it's just exaggerated in the other direction.

Not buying this. History was brutal and (except for the fantasy/magic stuff) there is little in the books that was not like it is shown at some time in history.

Sure, everything in there has been seen, but it's more concentrated and exaggerated, with little not brutal to counter it.

Real life had plenty of nastiness, but not the same level of "No good deed unpunished."


thejeff wrote:


Real life had plenty of nastiness, but not the same level of "No good deed unpunished."

Optimist

301 to 350 of 834 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Has Anyone Else Had To Deal With The "Historical Accuracy" Fallacy? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.