Yes but if the worlds were connected together in the past through magical gates, they were in effect "One World" if you then destroy or remove those gates later, it may look like parallel evolution if you examine the fossil evidence.
Portals have existed before, and we've not been given any evidence that portals have range limits. So it's not implausible that humans (or a common primate ancestor) originated on a very old planet somewhere, perhaps billions of years older than either Earth or Golarion.
Portals have existed before, and we've not been given any evidence that portals have range limits. So it's not implausible that humans (or a common primate ancestor) originated on a very old planet somewhere, perhaps billions of years older than either Earth or Golarion.
And again...Word of God has already laid it down for us. Humans came into being separately on every world they're found in.
Which god? Some gods are not above deception. Can you site any examples of humans evolving on a planet other than Earth? If its a parallel universe or a separate reality, then its easier to suspend disbelief and consider the world humans evolved on to be a parallel Earth, but not in a setting where Earth already exists! If humans appear to have evolved in two places, then in one of those places it wasn't evolution, but intelligent design or copy catting!
Which god? Some gods are not above deception. Can you site any examples of humans evolving on a planet other than Earth? If its a parallel universe or a separate reality, then its easier to suspend disbelief and consider the world humans evolved on to be a parallel Earth, but not in a setting where Earth already exists! If humans appear to have evolved in two places, then in one of those places it wasn't evolution, but intelligent design or copy catting!
"Word of God" as in "the developers have stated", not as in "literal in-setting deities have said".
I get that this bothers you and I get that people's suspension of disbelief breaks in different places, but this really is how Paizo's setting works. Multiple human races and parallel evolution is an old trope. It's not good science, but it's far from uncommon. Pathfinder, where most of these ideas originated is fantasy. It doesn't even pretend to be bound by scientific laws, even in the absence of formal magic. (Square-Cube law, anyone?)
Starfinder has more technological elements in it, but it's still science fantasy, not hard science fiction. You're trying to judge it by the wrong standards.
That said, if you're running a home game? Those are all setting elements, completely up to you to change. Some of your ideas sound like they'd be cool backdrops for campaigns. Run with them if they work for you, but don't expect Paizo to conform.
Then why did you start this thread in the first place? If the Designers are just going to do what they are going to do, no matter what is discussed here, then what is the point of this thread? Science Fantasy still has cause and effect. If one god created all the humans across the entire universe, then that is intelligent design, that also means all the humans are related to one another even if they were created on separate planets. Most creation myths are of one god creating all the humans, that is intelligent design, if there is no intelligence involved, and all the humans just evolved on separate planets by accident, that is without precedent even in the realms of fantasy. Magic in a role playing game has rules, it needs to in order to be a game. If there are inconsistencies they become a big problem.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The "point" of this thread is to have fun discussing possibilities in a future product. It is purely speculative.
In an infinite Material Plane, it is not that crazy to imagine humans evolving independently on three different worlds. Bipedal form is pretty handy, and there are only so many colors for our skin.
Then why did you start this thread in the first place? If the Designers are just going to do what they are going to do, no matter what is discussed here, then what is the point of this thread? Science Fantasy still has cause and effect. If one god created all the humans across the entire universe, then that is intelligent design, that also means all the humans are related to one another even if they were created on separate planets. Most creation myths are of one god creating all the humans, that is intelligent design, if there is no intelligence involved, and all the humans just evolved on separate planets by accident, that is without precedent even in the realms of fantasy. Magic in a role playing game has rules, it needs to in order to be a game. If there are inconsistencies they become a big problem.
1) I didn't create the thread. Someone asked a question. It's been answered.
Earth and Golarion were linked in the pure fantasy Pathfinder days. The Paizo developers chose a single infinite material plane for their cosmology, rather than multiple parallel ones. That wouldn't have been my choice, but it's what they chose. They made the link explicit because they thought it would be cool for the adventures they used it in.
In all honesty, multiple planes of existence doesn't really make parallel evolution any more likely, unless they're splitting off from each other fairly late in evolutionary history - which Golarion not physically resembling Earth in the shape of continents nor having the same solar system layout, they obviously didn't.
The problem you have with Starfinder exists with Pathfinder as well. It's always existed. Maybe it's just more obvious here than it was then.
Maybe it was intelligent design? Maybe various gods copied each other's creations? Maybe they did move some around back in the distant past? Or maybe they did evolve in parallel. It's not like Golarion's ecology looks like it paid much attention to normal evolutionary pressures (or more basic things like the Square Cube law for giants or aerodynamics for birds that prey on elephants.) Dozens or hundreds of sentient species. Most of them competing for the same niches. Some far too long lived to make any sense. Some capable of interbreeding despite very different physiologies. Most of this not relying on any kind of explicit magic. And yet somehow it all ends up in societies very similar to historical earthly ones.
Plenty of inconsistencies if you look at it through a scientific (or even laws of magic) rules based viewpoint. That's because Golarion (like previous D&D worlds) doesn't run on such things. It runs on myth and legend and on fantasy and old pulp fiction tropes. It runs on the Rule of Cool. It's not even "A Wizard did it", that's just the way the world is.
If a lack of scientific consistency (except when explicitly modified by magic) breaks the setting for you, then I'm sorry, but the setting is horribly broken. The Starfinder setting will be. Pathfinder's Golarion is. Every published D&D setting I'm aware of is - some in different ways than others. The same with most other fantasy (and even non-fantasy) RPGs I know. And these aren't mistakes or screw-ups, this is by design. This is the intent.
Mind you, as I said before, all of this is setting detail. Much of it is fixable in a home game, though you'd have to take a pretty heavy hand in cutting stuff out of the bestiaries and race books.
</end rant>
Then why did you start this thread in the first place? If the Designers are just going to do what they are going to do, no matter what is discussed here, then what is the point of this thread?
It certainly isn't to design the game. I'm not sure why fan speculation in the spirit of fun is confusing, but it isn't to contribute to the setting.
Quote:
Science Fantasy still has cause and effect. If one god created all the humans across the entire universe, then that is intelligent design, that also means all the humans are related to one another even if they were created on separate planets.
Nothing in 'Earth is loosely connected to pathfinder era Golarion' even touches on humanity or whether humanity was made by gods.
Quote:
Most creation myths are of one god creating all the humans,
This is flatly not true. Most creation myths involve a god or multiple gods creating a specific group of people. Not 'all humans,' most early peoples simply didn't have that as a concept. They were favored by their gods, all the other tribes and groups were somebody else's problem. Or fault.
Quote:
that is intelligent design, if there is no intelligence involved, and all the humans just evolved on separate planets by accident, that is without precedent even in the realms of fantasy.
Not at all. Much of the space fantasy of the 80s happily accepts that people from different worlds exist and simply doesn't care how they got there. Might and Magic, Wizardry, lots of D&D inspired settings (Snarfquest comes to mind). Humans get everywhere, sort of like melted cheese.
From a practical standpoint, humans are in every setting as a way of connecting to the audience. They aren't likely to go away simply because you find the setting logic inconsistent with a question the setting doesn't pose.
Quote:
Magic in a role playing game has rules, it needs to in order to be a game. If there are inconsistencies they become a big problem.
It does have rules. Humans on Golarion and Androffa and a random pseudo connected planet in another galaxy doesn't indicate a lack of rules of magic, or inconsistencies. Magic isn't even _related_ to the question of 'Why humans?' The existence of humans does not even have to be explained.
We certainly have found one on actual Earth, why should a game be any different?
Frankly a lack of ridiculous ur-deities (or deity, thanks forgotten realms!) that are super-secretly in charge of everything is a benefit.
I like things to make sense, even magical sense, it makes it more interesting, as an example why did the gods create humans? The answer that came to mind is that the gods are an endangered species, there are only about a dozen of more major deities, they were less powerful and more numerous in the past, as the gods have grown in power their numbers have diminished, the gods face an existential crises and need to create progeny, so they create humans, elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes, the more evil ones create orcs, hobgoblins, dragons, giants etc with the understanding that in the fullness of time, some of these creatures will replace them as gods and the cycle begins all over again. Each god creates his own races and they compete against other races created by other gods. Everything in my fantasy world has a reason for existing, nothing just happens or is. That is just me perhaps, I tend to think logically and apply cause and effect to things that others don't even think about. I think it makes for a good setting.
But they canonically did NOT create humans. The question you're asking supposes an answer to completely different question is yes, when the real answer is no.
That each god creates their own races is also not applicable. Even if they did create races, the Golarion gods clearly didn't each make their own. Humanity worships dozens, and other races alternately have none or handful.
Quote:
Everything in my fantasy world has a reason for existing, nothing just happens or is.
Hmm. So, why horses or poplars or maples?
Quote:
That is just me perhaps, I tend to think logically and apply cause and effect to things that others don't even think about.
I think you're assuming too much.
One, that there isn't an answer in the 99.9% of the setting we haven't seen.
Two, that you have the right question, that gods or magic are even involved in what you're asking.
That may be true, but it's not evident from your postings on this particular thread. Your postings are rife with logical fallacies and question-begging assumptions, and when we point them out, you get annoyed.
Specifically, you explicitly expect explanations to be provided where there is no reason to expect them. We can argue, for example, about where Earth is located relative to Golarion, whether it's on a different plane, whether it's on the same plane but a different galaxy, or whether it's in the same galaxy -- but the simple truth of the matter is that there is no "logical" process that will produce an answer, because any of the three possibilities are possible within the realm of fiction. The answer to the question therefore lies not in logic, but in text exegesis.
You have argued that Earth must be in a Dead Magic zone because Earth in the real world has no obvious signs of magic. This is, of course, a classic false dilemma fallacy. There are lots of possibilities, starting from the simple observation that we're analyzing a work of fiction. Earth might simply be a place where use of magic died out (which I believe is the official Paizo explanation), it might be in a Dead Magic zone, or there might be lots and lots of inobvious magic because the elves are smart enough to keep to themselves (as in World of Darkness).
You're explicitly assuming that magical creatures are subject to the laws of physics, something that we know from exegesis to be a false assumption. You mentioned the length of time it would take a planet to cool down, for example -- but even something as simple as the Square-Cube Law just sits in a corner and cries into its beer when a Colossal centipede walks -- slithers -- by.
I could give numerous other examples, but this post is already too long. What you don't seem to understand is that your knowledge of the real world, scanty as it is (e.g., "evolution" doesn't mean what you think it does) is actually of negative value to you in understanding Golarion (and by extension, Starfinder). Empty your cup.
By the way, Tom, I never formally did this, as I either didn't see you, or didn't realize you were that new, so here is as good a place as any (if a month late):
Welcome to the forums!
Sorry that we may seem cantankerous or argumentative; it's because we are all passionate nerds, here, and anything that we argue about isn't meant personally - like the anglerfish, it's how we do.
If you're unaware of that video series, it's a funny one; occasional hard language, but well made.
Anyway, we are glad you're here - don't let our grumpy or stodgy ways distract you from that! Welcome!
In any event, Tom, it seems a lot of what you're running into is a wall of expectations versus historical setting elements that already exist.
The game Pathfinder has been running for about eight or nine years, now.
In that time, there is a looooooooot of lore and in-canon aspects that have built up.
What most people refer to, when they are rebutting your ideas, is this lore, myself included.
I am in no way trying to suggest that your ideas are bad and should feel bad; quite the opposite! But rather, when talking about the published setting, which is explicitly tied to the history of Golarion (even if separated by a few thousand years), there are a lot of solid spent a that have been built up and can be expected to continue.
Many of those elements have been confirmed in various developer interviews or things that they've said or released. Others have been only implied.
With that in mind, most such speculation threads (like this) are expected to be speculation threads that do their thing within the confines of what is already an established part of canon - either Pathfinder's or Starfinder's (via release notes and interviews and such).
I think that's where the unexpected resistance you may be experiencing is coming from - you've simply not been around long enough to know what many around here do by sheer saturation, and that's not a bad thing, but only something that can be rectified with time (or, I suppose, intense study, but that's much harder).
That said, you've some interesting ideas; that's one of the reasons I've been encouraging you toward looking into publishing. Though you may be some ways off from ever doing so (I don't know your situation in life), starting now and writing everything down, and picking through your ideas to establish a coherent Starfinder: Earth setting (or whatever you call it - I'm not a legal expert but waive any claim to such name, if anyone here wants it; you'd have to ask Paizo if it's kosher, though, and I don't work for them) that is compatible with the Starfinder RPG.
That way you literally get to influence the development of the game through an avenue other than the one that many of us are expecting, and provide the kinds of things you're wanting to see in the game.
If a lack of scientific consistency (except when explicitly modified by magic) breaks the setting for you, then I'm sorry, but the setting is horribly broken. The Starfinder setting will be. Pathfinder's Golarion is. Every published D&D setting I'm aware of is - some in different ways than others. The same with most other fantasy (and even non-fantasy) RPGs I know. And these aren't mistakes or screw-ups, this is by design. This is the intent.
For that matter Star Trek is just as broken when it comes to consistency in the way it drapes science and it's tech. The transporter is an infamous example of this. The way warp drive is applied is almost as bad.
If a lack of scientific consistency (except when explicitly modified by magic) breaks the setting for you, then I'm sorry, but the setting is horribly broken. The Starfinder setting will be. Pathfinder's Golarion is. Every published D&D setting I'm aware of is - some in different ways than others. The same with most other fantasy (and even non-fantasy) RPGs I know. And these aren't mistakes or screw-ups, this is by design. This is the intent.
For that matter Star Trek is just as broken when it comes to consistency in the way it drapes science and it's tech. The transporter is an infamous example of this. The way warp drive is applied is almost as bad.
And Trek doesn't even have the excuse of being actual fantasy.
Basically, any non-near future hard SF setting is playing fast and loose with science. Anything with FTL, certainly. Some handle it more consistently (being a self-contained work by a single author helps enormously here) and some have better handwavy technobabble than others, but they all essentially rely on "We're declaring these to be the tech premises of the setting. Don't question them."
If a lack of scientific consistency (except when explicitly modified by magic) breaks the setting for you, then I'm sorry, but the setting is horribly broken. The Starfinder setting will be. Pathfinder's Golarion is. Every published D&D setting I'm aware of is - some in different ways than others. The same with most other fantasy (and even non-fantasy) RPGs I know. And these aren't mistakes or screw-ups, this is by design. This is the intent.
For that matter Star Trek is just as broken when it comes to consistency in the way it drapes science and it's tech. The transporter is an infamous example of this. The way warp drive is applied is almost as bad.
And Trek doesn't even have the excuse of being actual fantasy.
Basically, any non-near future hard SF setting is playing fast and loose with science. Anything with FTL, certainly. Some handle it more consistently (being a self-contained work by a single author helps enormously here) and some have better handwavy technobabble than others, but they all essentially rely on "We're declaring these to be the tech premises of the setting. Don't question them."
When we find out that DNA was a method of carrying a holographic message from the ancient Progenitors, I stopped referring to Star Trek as science fiction in any degree. My reaction to the episode mirrored that of most of the characters involved in it.
oh yeah, Star Trek is science fiction the same way that an Aircraft Carrier is a space ship. Its just... not. It superficially maybe sort of looks like it is but its really, really not.
"And i said, bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish, That's the way we do things here, make s**t up as we wish, the Klingons and the Romulons pose no threat to us cause if we find we're in a bind, totally screwed up but never mind, we just pull something out of our behinds, we just make some s**t up!"
It, like so many other things, certainly isn't hard science fiction. It's still science fiction though. Part of the problem is that it varies a lot from series to series and even between episodes in the same series. Deep Space 9 isn't really the same subgenre as the original series.
Not being hard SF doesn't make it bad, it just makes it a different subgenre.
Mine would be fiction based on extrapolation of known properties of the real world.
Star Trek might as well be using magic fueled spell completion devices for a lot of what they do.
EDIT: Not that i dont enjoy Star Trek or that one of us has a "more correct" definition though.
Taken strictly, that definition rules many subgenres of science fiction out of science fiction.
Trek's technobabble problem really is more bad writing than anything. Handwaving some random, not previously established, fix to your episode's problem with a bit of technobabble is just lazy writing, not a genre issue. It would be just as bad if it was a pure magic fantasy show and they just fixed everything with the wave of a wand at the end of the episode. Not because it was magic, but it's cheating the audience.
That may be true, but it's not evident from your postings on this particular thread. Your postings are rife with logical fallacies and question-begging assumptions, and when we point them out, you get annoyed.
Specifically, you explicitly expect explanations to be provided where there is no reason to expect them. We can argue, for example, about where Earth is located relative to Golarion, whether it's on a different plane, whether it's on the same plane but a different galaxy, or whether it's in the same galaxy -- but the simple truth of the matter is that there is no "logical" process that will produce an answer, because any of the three possibilities are possible within the realm of fiction. The answer to the question therefore lies not in logic, but in text exegesis.
You have argued that Earth must be in a Dead Magic zone because Earth in the real world has no obvious signs of magic. This is, of course, a classic false dilemma fallacy. There are lots of possibilities, starting from the simple observation that we're analyzing a work of fiction. Earth might simply be a place where use of magic died out (which I believe is the official Paizo explanation), it might be in a Dead Magic zone, or there might be lots and lots of inobvious magic because the elves are smart enough to keep to themselves (as in World of Darkness).
You're explicitly assuming that magical creatures are subject to the laws of physics, something that we know from exegesis to be a false assumption. You mentioned the length of time it would take a planet to cool down, for example -- but even something as simple as the Square-Cube Law just sits in a corner and cries into its beer when a Colossal centipede walks -- slithers -- by.
I could give numerous other examples, but this post is already too long. What you don't seem to understand is that your knowledge of the real world, scanty as it is (e.g., "evolution" doesn't mean what you think it does)...
Either it was intelligent design or chance, there is no other choice, so your saying it wasn't intelligent design, then what was it? if it was chance, you should spend some time rolling dice, see how many times it would take rolling 9 ten-sided dice in order to get your social security number, the chances are literally one in a billion! Collosal centipedes don't have to be made of the same stuff ordinary centipedes are made out of. Carbon is one of the strongest materials around.
Mine would be fiction based on extrapolation of known properties of the real world.
Well, one of the known properties of the real world is that we don't know everything, and that there are discoveries yet to be made that will seem magical to us. So from that, I extrapolate that one of those discoveries is FTL travel.
I would actually have a very hard time identifying well-known SF literature that fits a definition as strict as you posit. Larry Niven's Known Space series posits both FTL and psionics. Herbert's Dune likewise. Heinlein's Future History adds human-level AI to the list, as does Asimov's Robots. Anything at all that involves intelligent non-humans. Since I don't want this to turn into a 200-level literature course, I'll stop the reading list there, but my point should be clear.
That may be true, but it's not evident from your postings on this particular thread. Your postings are rife with logical fallacies and question-begging assumptions, and when we point them out, you get annoyed.
And your a perfect person with computer for a brain, I suppose! Logic is just a branch of mathematics. I notice you prefer to put me on the spot rather than talk about the subject at hand, you like to point out that I am not a computer and sometimes make mathematical errors, well so do you. People aren't computers!
Quote:
Specifically, you explicitly expect explanations to be provided where there is no reason to expect them.
No, I never said that. I like to make educated guesses.
Quote:
We can argue, for example, about where Earth is located relative to Golarion, whether it's on a different plane, whether it's on the same plane but a different galaxy, or whether it's in the same galaxy -- but the simple truth of the matter is that there is no "logical" process that will produce an answer, because any of the three possibilities are possible within the realm of fiction. The answer to the question therefore lies not in logic, but in text exegesis.
You have argued that Earth must be in a Dead Magic zone because Earth in the real world has no obvious signs of magic.
That is the simplest explanation if you accept the premise that the Earth exists in the same universe as Golarion, if you don't accept that premise, you can assume the two are in different universes, as magic apparently does not work on Earth. A more complicated explanation is a "shadow conspiracy" all the magical creatures on Earth are in hiding, and that most ordinary people on Earth don't see them for what they are, this is the basis for most modern fantasy such as Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Buffy the Vampire slayer, and others.
Quote:
This is, of course, a classic false dilemma fallacy. There are lots of possibilities, starting from the simple observation that we're analyzing a work of fiction. Earth might simply be a place where use of magic died out (which I believe is the official Paizo explanation), it might be in a Dead Magic zone, or there might be lots and lots of inobvious magic because the elves are smart enough to keep to themselves (as in World of Darkness).
You're explicitly assuming that magical creatures are subject to the laws of physics, something that we know from exegesis to be a false assumption. You mentioned the length of time it would take a planet to cool down, for example -- but even something as simple as the Square-Cube Law just sits in a corner and cries into its beer when a Colossal centipede walks -- slithers -- by.
I could give numerous other examples, but this post is already too long. What you don't seem to understand is that your knowledge of the real world, scanty as it is (e.g., "evolution" doesn't mean what you think it does)...
How do you know what I think it does? I never gave an explanation of what evolution is. I do know it is not directed by an intelligence, a god would count as an intelligence. Do you think there are humans elsewhere in this galaxy? Are there humans in the Andromeda Galaxy? If native humans are discovered on an alien planet, what would be the first explanation that would be thought of? The standard science fiction explanation is that the Earth was visited in the past by aliens and humans were abducted and transported to the world in question, that is the most probably explanation, although there are others.
Mine would be fiction based on extrapolation of known properties of the real world.
Star Trek might as well be using magic fueled spell completion devices for a lot of what they do.
EDIT: Not that i dont enjoy Star Trek or that one of us has a "more correct" definition though.
Taken strictly, that definition rules many subgenres of science fiction out of science fiction.
Trek's technobabble problem really is more bad writing than anything. Handwaving some random, not previously established, fix to your episode's problem with a bit of technobabble is just lazy writing, not a genre issue. It would be just as bad if it was a pure magic fantasy show and they just fixed everything with the wave of a wand at the end of the episode. Not because it was magic, but it's cheating the audience.
A fantasy version would be the "Abracadabra" spell. The Abracadabra spell is at whatever level is convenient, and has whatever effect the GM desires to get the players out of the fix they are in. What happens is the Wizard in the party waves his hands or a magic wand and says, "abracadabra" and something happens.
Because it's fantasy. It's not hard science fiction. Humans and orcs can interbreed without any special magic to help. Giants with a human build can stand up, even though they're made out of apparently normal flesh. Rocs can fly and carry off elephants. Giant bugs can breath. People can get skilled and tough enough to not be autokilled by a 80' long dragon's bite or smashed by a titan's club.
All without any magic.
Parallel evolution is a weird hill to die on, if you can accept the rest of the setting.
If humans were discovered on an alien planet, there would be a lot of questions and rethinking of our scientific theories. Especially if they came complete with all the modern earthly animals. Plus some enclaves of dinosaurs from random eras. Living together. Because dinosaurs are cool.
And dozens of other intelligent species, some of them interbreeding, but others completely alien - aboleths?
First of all, I want to be clear: this isn't an attack on you, or your character.
Instead, I'm trying to facilitate communication.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
I tend to think logically
Orfamay Quest wrote:
That may be true, but it's not evident from your postings on this particular thread. Your postings are rife with logical fallacies and question-begging assumptions, and when we point them out, you get annoyed.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
And your a perfect person with computer for a brain, I suppose! Logic is just a branch of mathematics. I notice you prefer to put me on the spot rather than talk about the subject at hand, you like to point out that I am not a computer and sometimes make mathematical errors, well so do you. People aren't computers!
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're missing his point.
He wasn't trying to say that you should be perfect, nor berating you for failing to be, but rather that your actions, as displayed so far, aren't in keeping with the apparent-boast you made in your post he quoted: i.e., he's concerned with the manner you present yourself and your arguments and the way you frame yourself and such, rather than being broadly upset or bothered by the fact that you've made mistakes.
In other words, it's not, "How dare you make mistakes?!" and is more, "You have made a claim - because you are not living up to that, it puts the rest of what you say into question."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Specifically, you explicitly expect explanations to be provided where there is no reason to expect them.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
No, I never said that. I like to make educated guesses.
That's fair, and makes sense. It does come off as a bit more demanding, though, so it might be better, for communication purposes, to restructure the method you approach things.
Though, I suppose, that's true of all of us at times, myself certainly included.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
We can argue, for example, about where Earth is located relative to Golarion, whether it's on a different plane, whether it's on the same plane but a different galaxy, or whether it's in the same galaxy -- but the simple truth of the matter is that there is no "logical" process that will produce an answer, because any of the three possibilities are possible within the realm of fiction. The answer to the question therefore lies not in logic, but in text exegesis.
You have argued that Earth must be in a Dead Magic zone because Earth in the real world has no obvious signs of magic.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
That is the simplest explanation if you accept the premise that the Earth exists in the same universe as Golarion, if you don't accept that premise, you can assume the two are in different universes, as magic apparently does not work on Earth. A more complicated explanation is a "shadow conspiracy" all the magical creatures on Earth are in hiding, and that most ordinary people on Earth don't see them for what they are, this is the basis for most modern fantasy such as Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, Buffy the Vampire slayer, and others.
From this post here, Adam Daigle (a Developer, hence employee at Paizo; you can tell because it says so next to his name in a special font), noted:
Adam Daigle wrote:
This totally isn't important for this discussion, but I feel the need to clarify that Earth is not in a "dead magic zone." (At least in Pathfinder.)
So that's what we know for sure.
(For the record, prior to Adam weighing in, I'd been wrong, too.)
In any event, Orfamay is pretty cool, but he can come off as pretty salty, too, even when he's not trying to be, so... just letting you know. :)
Because it's fantasy. It's not hard science fiction. Humans and orcs can interbreed without any special magic to help. Giants with a human build can stand up, even though they're made out of apparently normal flesh. Rocs can fly and carry off elephants. Giant bugs can breath. People can get skilled and tough enough to not be autokilled by a 80' long dragon's bite or smashed by a titan's club.
All without any magic.
Parallel evolution is a weird hill to die on, if you can accept the rest of the setting.
If humans were discovered on an alien planet, there would be a lot of questions and rethinking of our scientific theories. Especially if they came complete with all the modern earthly animals. Plus some enclaves of dinosaurs from random eras. Living together. Because dinosaurs are cool.
And dozens of other intelligent species, some of them interbreeding, but others completely alien - aboleths?
Maybe orcs are a subrace of human. There is evidence that modern homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals.
Height: 59.84 inch (152 cm) – 61.42 inch (156 cm) (Female) · 64.57 inch (164 cm) – 66.14 inch (168 cm) (
Scientific name: Homo neanderthalensis
Weight: 145.51 pound (66 kg) on average (Female) · 171.96 pound (78 kg) on average (Male)
Biological classification: Species
Belongs to: Homo
Fossil specimens: Neanderthal 1 · La Ferrassie 1 · La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1
The fantasy race that Neanderthals most resemble are dwarves.
This totally isn't important for this discussion, but I feel the need to clarify that Earth is not in a "dead magic zone." (At least in Pathfinder.)
Okay then it s "shadow conspiracy" as in D20 Modern.
I do think it complicates matters a bit if Earth is included in the setting. Earth would be a very different place if it has spellcasters as in the standard Pathfinder setting. So we need to square this circle. If Earth is indeed in this setting, we need to explain the apparent lack of spell casters and magical beings in order for this place to at least look like the place we live on. I think overall the era that most resembles the standard fantasy setting of Pathfinder was during the height of the Roman Empire, before it converted to Christianity. There you have a pagan religion with a bunch of deities that are very much like the fantasy gods in the Pathfinder setting, here we have a common currency and a common language. Not so much magic though, Romans were too darn literal-minded, they wrote too much down, and thus did not leave much to the oral tradition and fantasy. If we go to an earlier era, the Mycenaean period of Greece then we have the Illiad and the Odyssey, we have gods and adventurers doing stuff in legends, we also have monsters and spell casters at least in the legends that are told about it. The technology of Pathfinder is closest to Renaissance Europe, the main thing about Europe at that time is that its dominated by Christianity, most standard fantasy settings aren't monotheistic. Christianity discouraged spellcasting, in fact the burned so-called witches for practicing magic. Could the Inquisition be responsible for the lack of magic on Earth?
Because it's fantasy. It's not hard science fiction. Humans and orcs can interbreed without any special magic to help. Giants with a human build can stand up, even though they're made out of apparently normal flesh. Rocs can fly and carry off elephants. Giant bugs can breath. People can get skilled and tough enough to not be autokilled by a 80' long dragon's bite or smashed by a titan's club.
All without any magic.
Parallel evolution is a weird hill to die on, if you can accept the rest of the setting.
If humans were discovered on an alien planet, there would be a lot of questions and rethinking of our scientific theories. Especially if they came complete with all the modern earthly animals. Plus some enclaves of dinosaurs from random eras. Living together. Because dinosaurs are cool.
And dozens of other intelligent species, some of them interbreeding, but others completely alien - aboleths?
Maybe orcs are a subrace of human. There is evidence that modern homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals.
Height: 59.84 inch (152 cm) – 61.42 inch (156 cm) (Female) · 64.57 inch (164 cm) – 66.14 inch (168 cm) (
Scientific name: Homo neanderthalensis
Weight: 145.51 pound (66 kg) on average (Female) · 171.96 pound (78 kg) on average (Male)
Biological classification: Species
Belongs to: Homo
Fossil specimens: Neanderthal 1 · La Ferrassie 1 · La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1
The fantasy race that Neanderthals most resemble are dwarves.
My theory has been that because of
spoiler:
the "Sleepers Below" within Apostae
the majority of planets, at least within the golarion system, were seeded by other extraterrestrial life. My theory is it would likely be one of the great beyond's more ancient species, such as the aboleth or the vault builders. This would explain the existence of advanced extraterrestrial technologies connected to more primitive species, while also explaining why golarion based species like humans can be found on so many other planets. It may also imply that humanity, elves, eoxians, dwarves, orc and many other two limbed humanoid species may all share a common ancestor, with later species such as gensai and tieflings appearing later from outside influences on their normal evolutionary paths. It would also explain the existence of other species that have similar appearances, yet exist on different worlds without requiring one to believe that evolution simply always takes the same path. It implies that species were catalyzed by a few common non divine creator races, and were moved to their current locations, but can also evolve by both natural and supernatural means.
What I've never really decided upon for my own head cannon on the creation of the worlds, is where the original forms of life came from (Vault Builders, Aboleths, etc.).
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you're missing his point.
He wasn't trying to say that you should be perfect, nor berating you for failing to be, but rather that your actions, as displayed so far, aren't in keeping with the apparent-boast you made in your post he quoted: i.e., he's concerned with the manner you present yourself and your arguments and the way you frame yourself and such, rather than being broadly upset or bothered by the fact that you've made mistakes.
In other words, it's not, "How dare you make mistakes?!" and is more, "You have made a claim - because you are not living up to that, it puts the rest of what you say into question."
I'm not exactly a wordsmith. I never claimed to be a paragon of logic, but I do try to think logically and use reason, if he finds some flaws in my logic, that does not change the fact that I do try to think logically. I never after all claimed to be "Mr. Spock!"
When we find out that DNA was a method of carrying a holographic message from the ancient Progenitors, I stopped referring to Star Trek as science fiction in any degree. My reaction to the episode mirrored that of most of the characters involved in it.
Sometimes I have to dismiss such episodes as evidence that what we see in the canon movies and TV series are a mix of non-fictional and fictional accounts of what happened hundreds of years ago from the audience's perspective. This is how 20th and 21st century events sometimes get things wrong, and how some episodes are just too weird to believe, because they are like *Star Wars Legends* but for Star Trek, made-up stories that got mixed in with what really happened.
Here's my fan theory: What we see on Star Trek was produced by Voth archaeologists from the distant future who made it back to the Alpha Quadrant to find the mythical planet Earth where the Voyager of legend came from.
These Voth archaeologists had to dig up and make sense of all these archaeological records of captain's logs and whatnot. They decided to include everything recovered without attempting to discriminate between fact and fiction. That's why some of the Treknobabble sounds like so much nonsense--that's because it is. What was really said makes no sense or got scrambled in translation, so some semi-plausible stuff got made up and inserted into the script as filler dialogue to make the scene make sense to their fellow Voth watchers.
I think the best explanation to why humans exist on so many planets is that reality repeats itself in patterns.
We see this not only in the way Golarion's solar system mirrors our own (The number and position of celestial bodies, the fact that Golarion and Akiton's appearance and gravity match those of Earth and Mars respectively, etc) but also in how Golarion's cultures and ecosystem echo that of Earth.
They have grass, and sheep, and plated knights riding horses, they have sakura trees and samurai in o-yoroi wearing kabuto, etc.
Doesn't have to have been the work of the gods, or some sort of inter-galactic copycatting. It's just how it is. The revolver exists on Golarion completely independently of Samuel Colt inventing it on Earth. And it wasn't because of some god deciding to spread knowledge of it beyond Earth, it was just invented (at least)twice because that's simply how the material plane works. It repeats, with variations, obviously, but it still repeats.
Even Androffa we know is J.J.'s original homebrew world, and even it no doubt has grass, and sheep, and knights riding horses, despite all the differences between it and Golarion, or Earth.
That's fine so long as the setting doesn't include Earth, we can suspend our belief enough to suppose that mankind originated on Gorlarion for this setting, but if we include Earth, then we are forced to address the question of why it is here, and then explain the coincidence, it is much simpler if Earth is not part of the setting, because then we don't have to address it. Improbability is improbability. Scientists within the setting would wonder why Earth exists as well, and they won't give up trying to answer that question until the find an answer, but if there is no Earth staring them in the face, they will simply try to answer what happened to Gorlarion, as they'll assume that is the origin of mankind.
if we include Earth, then we are forced to address the question of why it is here
We are not.
We could come up with an explanation ("A god created earth" or "humans evolved naturally on earth and the gods copied them for Golarion") or we could ignore the question, or we could leave it as an intriguing mystery that may or may not be answered at some point in the future. I'm easy with any of those options.
That's fine so long as the setting doesn't include Earth, we can suspend our belief enough to suppose that mankind originated on Gorlarion for this setting, but if we include Earth, then we are forced to address the question of why it is here, and then explain the coincidence.
Who is forcing us? When she shows up around here, I will simply call the cops.
That's fine so long as the setting doesn't include Earth, we can suspend our belief enough to suppose that mankind originated on Golarion for this setting, but if we include Earth, then we are forced to address the question of why it is here, and then explain the coincidence, it is much simpler if Earth is not part of the setting, because then we don't have to address it. Improbability is improbability. Scientists within the setting would wonder why Earth exists as well, and they won't give up trying to answer that question until the find an answer, but if there is no Earth staring them in the face, they will simply try to answer what happened to Golarion, as they'll assume that is the origin of mankind.
The official setting answer is that with an infinite Prime Material plane, such things repeat by pure chance. There are an infinite number of nigh exact copies of Earth and an even larger infinity of different worlds with similar species. Improbability is not impossibility and with infinity to work with the vastly improbable because certain. (This approach doesn't really satisfy me, but I can live with it.)
As for in-setting scientists, I'll point out again there's no reason they need to know of Earth. It's a single planet, most likely in a distant galaxy. Little reason to think any official exploration has gone that far - from either direction. It's appeared in setting because the developers thought it would be cool use Baba Yaga and Rasputin. There's no reason to think it'll be more important to the Starfinder setting than to Pathfinder.
Frankly, I wouldn't really expect scientists on Golarion to even come up with evolution. Intentional Design makes far more sense when you have actual gods messing around. Not to mention, crazy wizards crossbreeding things, alien races, ancient civilizations doing genetic experimentation, demons and angels interbreeding with mortals, etc. The tree of life on Golarion is complicated. The idea wouldn't even make sense, unless some god explained evolution and told you basically how it worked. Even then it would be hard to filter out all the noise in the data.
If nobody knows about it, then it is not there, and there is no reason to have this thread. Earth can exist in a parallel plane without magic or otherwise, and people can travel to this plane through a gate such as the Well of Many Worlds. I've been saying this all along. I take this thread as a "What if". I don't know if the "What if" is true, but if it were, then I would argue from there. It is easier to have Earth in another Universe and then ask what happens when people cross from that Universe to here, that way the presence of Earth in the setting doesn't mess with what the developers intended for this setting. If they put it in this setting and say no one knows about it, then for all practical purposes it is not in this setting, it seems pointless to do otherwise!
if we include Earth, then we are forced to address the question of why it is here
We are not.
We could come up with an explanation ("A god created earth" or "humans evolved naturally on earth and the gods copied them for Golarion") or we could ignore the question, or we could leave it as an intriguing mystery that may or may not be answered at some point in the future. I'm easy with any of those options.
What if the PCs discover a derelict spaceship floating in space? What if one of the PCs urges the crew exploring the ship to exercise caution because whatever killed the crew of that spaceship might still be there? and what if the captain of the starship asks why? What if he says, "How do we know there ever was a crew on this starship? How do we know the crew was killed? Maybe a god created that starship just like that." A PC points out there is a hole in the hull of the starship. The Captain just shrugs and suggests that maybe the starship was built that way. The Captain then orders his starship to dock with the derelict starship, and one of the PCs panics and says, "We can't do that!, that ship has no life support and no atmosphere!" The Captain says, "How do we know that?, there might be a force field holding the atmosphere in. I mean honestly, you worry too much!"
I believe what Tom is saying is that once you accept "a god did it, and gods can do anything they want, because they're gods," then you have no formal need for any other explanations.
* I don't have any electricity in my house? It has nothing to do with my not paying the bill; God did it!
* The house is full of flies? It has nothing to do with my not taking out the garbage; God did it!
* I lost my job? It has nothing to do with my coming in drunk and spray-painting obscenities all over the boss' door; God did it!
He's right, as long as you keep the word "formal" in there, and recognize what it really means; it simply means there's no way to absolutely exclude, beyond possibility of error, exclude that from happening. It doesn't mean that it's likely, or plausible, or even a good idea to consider.
In the specific example he mentioned, where you find a derelict and possibly dangerous space ship,... yes, it's possibly dangerous. And possibly not dangerous. The precautionary principle, as well as a sensible risk analysis, looks at both of those cases and reasons that since there's a good chance that it's dangerous, it makes sense to take precautions; if you take precautions when there's no danger, that's much better that not taking precautions when there is danger.
Or, as the Muslims have held for centuries, "trust in Allah, but tie up your camel."
Except, of course, the pathfinder/starfinder default that people keep pointing out to him is that the gods _didn't_ do it. Pretty much universally, whatever 'it' is. (Except maybe the Gap, but the defining feature of the setting is no one is going to answer -that- question)
Even the example makes no sense. There is a definitive answer, and the party can check for atmosphere, life support and force fields. There isn't any need for assumptions or bizarre fatalism.
GeraintElberion wrote:
I'm going to throw out an assumption/expectation here.
The PF/SF developers will succumb to the urge to include Earth in the game.
Eh. I doubt it. Predicting future Earth is a can of worms and headaches that they don't need to burden themselves with. Especially not at the fledgling stage of the setting. Establishing the Pact Worlds, the important places in the Near and interesting potential places in the Far is a huge undertaking.
It's also a matter of crossing levels: There's the stuff we the players accept as given for narrative purposes - the setting runs on Rule of Cool and dramatic necessity. We don't expect the rules to actually simulate a real ecology or the bestiaries & race books to reflect evolutionary processes. Things are put into the setting based on adventuring possibilities, not scientific analysis.
That's the level Matthew was talking on when he said "We could come up with an explanation ("A god created earth" or "humans evolved naturally on earth and the gods copied them for Golarion") or we could ignore the question, or we could leave it as an intriguing mystery that may or may not be answered at some point in the future. I'm easy with any of those options. "
The other level is what the characters themselves think. That's where the derelict ship fits and why it doesn't make sense as an analogy. On the meta level the ship is there as an encounter and a mystery - it's meant to be explored and solved. The characters meet it and don't know the reasons, so make try to figure it out and do so without undue risk.
In the ordinary course of adventure, the origins of Earthly life and why it's common throughout the universe isn't the focus. It's just a piece of background - and I emphasize again, unknown to nearly everyone in the setting. I'm not even sure it would seem strange to Golarion scientists, because it's hard for me to imagine how science works in that setting. How does science work when "a god did it" or "a wizard did it" is a reasonable answer to any strange data. In fact, sometimes it's actually true. Unless you track down the god or wizard in question, it's hard to tell the truth.
Mind you, you certainly could run an interesting game around first contact between an expansionist Terran group and SF explorers and actually have the mystery of apparently duplicate (partial) ecosystems be a central focus of the campaign. Some of Tom's suggestions actually could be fun campaigns. Or you could run a SF game in and around the Golarion system and never have contact with Earth, so the question would never come up. I expect that's the intent and the way most games and probably all the official material will go.
Also, just for reference, since Earth as a magicless zone has come up multiple times here, this is the official word from the foreword to Rasputin Must Die.
Quote:
I considered advocating for a magic-dead Earth, but ultimately we all recognized we couldn’t strip away the PCs’ power for an entire adventure.
First, I theorized that the magic our myths and legends speak of was once real in our world, but has since faded.
The myths and stories upon which our game is based have their roots in our collective human culture, from the heroes of Greek myth to the prophets of Testaments Old and New. If one assumes, as I did for this adventure (and as many faithful do), that some of those tales are true, and that the prophets of old really did turn rods to serpents and summon plagues of frogs and locusts -- or that modern TV ghost hunters actually have a chance of finding anything, or that saints' relics can heal the sick -- then the burden of acceptance of the adventure’s events would be much lighter at the gaming table. The second half of this assumption, which has become a trope of fantasy, was that magic has faded from our world since an earlier age of miracles. That is, with the rise of industry and the substitution of science for superstition, only the occasional great supposed seers whose names alone conjure thoughts of mysticism and power -- Edgar Cayce, Aleister Crowley, Blavatsky, and Rasputin, among others -- have been born capable of tapping into that magical force. And in this case, I reasoned, Rasputin was able to bring back even more of that lost magic with the Earth-bound imprisonment of his mother, her presence and his influence calling back creatures long since fled from Earth (or slumbering in dark corners) and wielding phenomenal power not seen since the days of the Old Testament. With his defeat, I reasoned, all would again be right with the world.
oh yeah, Star Trek is science fiction the same way that an Aircraft Carrier is a space ship. Its just... not. It superficially maybe sort of looks like it is but its really, really not.
"And i said, bounce a graviton particle beam off the main deflector dish, That's the way we do things here, make s**t up as we wish, the Klingons and the Romulons pose no threat to us cause if we find we're in a bind, totally screwed up but never mind, we just pull something out of our behinds, we just make some s**t up!"
The Vandermeres used an interesting defintion of science fiction for the anthology 'The Big Book of Science Fiction' (great anthology BTW): science fiction is fiction about the future. By that definition, star trek is science fiction.
I used to have my own definition of science fiction: Its fantasy fiction where the imagined world is presented to the reader through a scientific paradigm (as opposed to a magical one). By that definition, star trek is also science fiction.
If you were to allow only known, or even just believable science in your science fiction, then great science fiction classics like Dune, More Than Human, or A Fire Upon The Deep would not be SF. Nor would the *awesome* novel Nine Fox Gambit (a Nebula nominee this year).
I actually love science fiction that is more realistic and based in actual science. I love space opera with STL relativistic drives, for example, and for that reason think 'A Deepness in the Sky' is better than 'A Fire Upon the Deep'. But realistic (i.e. 'hard') SF doesn't define the genre, its just an approach to it.
The Pathfinder universe could be a hologram, and the humans of Golarion could be copies of a holographic mankind from Earth, which are themselves copies of things found in the real world, outside the simulation.
