|
So I've been expressing my annoyance about this in multiple threads, but I figured out that I should make own thread for this instead of just commenting about this every time I post in goblin thread.
Thing about 1e I've never actually liked is the "Oh, you can't play as drow, elves would murder you! Oh you can't play as duergar, they are almost all evil slavers! Oh you can't play a kobold/goblin, you would be attacked on sight by guards in settlement! Also, if you want to play good aligned character of those races, you'd be such a unique snowflake that you wouldn't fit any campaign published by Paizo!"
Like, as much as you can say its matter of GM and Players, thing is that as written version of Campaign Setting pretty much says you shouldn't play certain races outside of home campaigns built around them :P Kobolds of Golarion player's companion gives advice on playing good aligned kobold that pretty much says "You would be pariah everywhere, but hey PCs are exceptional snowflakes anyway", even adventures that feature kobolds you can deal with peacefully usually still have NPCs written to be baffled if you do such thing. Like in one case they don't pay you for "dealing with kobolds" unless you succeed diplomacy check with them.
I think hobgoblins and Ironfang Invasion is actually another good example: None of core races have "Ah, enemies in this campaign are dwarves, so if you play as dwarf nobody will trust you!" sort of thing, Ironfang Invasion points out that you'd be making your life hard if you play as hobgoblin even if you have nothing to do with ironfang legion since nobody would trust you in fear of you being spy or something. So NPCs don't see beyond your ancestry, they distrust you based on "hobgoblins are mostly evil pillaging looting slavers!"
So I guess my question is, can we please get rid of the whole "Hey, if you want to play non evil version of this know that you are unique snowflake and you will most likely never find NPC who you can feel kinship with" thing 1e books keep saying in 2e? :P Like I've said, I'd consider it unfair if goblins are only race who get the "recently people have come to think 'maybe they aren't all that bad'" treatment.
I feel the same way about Ogres, like people are ready with pitch forks if they just want to work with children at an orphanage.
|
|
The way I see it, if they aren't ever meant to be used by players, they shouldn't have player race stats, that just makes players feel sad when GM has to inform them "Ah, that doesn't fit the official campaign setting we are playing in".
(that said, I'm sad lizarfolk and gnolls never got racial traits(race builder doesn't count!)/archetypes/race traits)
Thing is that I like consistency the most, if there are going to be "okay there are evil or monster campaign options, you shouldn't use them in normal campaigns" then there shouldn't be "Oh, one of these CE monsters is alright for normal campaign, those others are still not okay."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Uh...with the exception of Drow and Ogres, I'm not sure this was a thing in PF1. Not outside people's headcanon, anyway.
It was a thing in specific places with specific races (like, being any kind of goblin in Isger will probably always be an issue, or an Orc in Lastwall), but as a blanket thing? No evidence for it whatsoever. Katapesh takes in everyone, for example, and orcs are pretty accepted in the Mwangi Expanse. And so on and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I absolutely would like to see the goblin treatment extended to races like orcs, hobgoblins, kobolds, drow (they’re already going that way according to more recent content), and duergar.
Unseating all this terrible baggage and making these ancestries more playable and reasonable to play as in more campaigns is a great first step and a good one at that. I look forward to the day that I can tell my GM I’m playing an orc wizard and not be looked at with bafflement.
Uh...with the exception of Drow and Ogres, I'm not sure this was a thing in PF1. Not outside people's headcanon, anyway.
I personally have pretty deep problems with Ogres, but Drow and any of the presumptions about them (like how elves would turn into drow and stuff) was recently amended, both slightly retconned though mostly just reaffirming that the vast majority of presumptions about them was racist propaganda from....what are they called, Lamplighters? Anyway, they’re working to fix that now. Drow are more accepted in their ranks, in fact.
Drow society is pretty awful. Drow themselves are not innately evil. There are plenty of drow NPCs who aren’t CE and aren’t even evil.
See this thread makes me think why shouldn't Ogres be core race too? They're Golarion Famous.
I mean the basic difference I see is large number of HD, but that is technical detail, not narrative justification.
Core Ogres built as 1HD Core PC race. OK, let's explain these are nice, cooperative Ogres even if they keep some crazy habits.
How's that?
|
|
Uh...with the exception of Drow and Ogres, I'm not sure this was a thing in PF1. Not outside people's headcanon, anyway.
It was a thing in specific places with specific races (like, being any kind of goblin in Isger will probably always be an issue, or an Orc in Lastwall), but as a blanket thing? No evidence for it whatsoever. Katapesh takes in everyone, for example, and orcs are pretty accepted in the Mwangi Expanse. And so on and so forth.
Goblins of Golarion says this about Goblin Paladins:
"The idea of a goblin paladin seems a total contradiction, and no tales have been heard of any existing. Perhaps, somewhere, an outcast goblin has been taken in by goodly priests, absolved of his sins by prayer, and introduced to a holy and honorable path. Such a tale seems unlikely, however-"
Sooo yeah, basically, Goblin paladins in 1e apparently didn't exist(or were so rare you'd have bigger chance at winning lottery). Even Kobolds of Golarion acknowledged that Kobold paladins have potential to exist because of kobolds' dragon worship <_<(even though other sources claim kobolds think less of metallic dragons and wouldn't worship them or Apsu)
Thats not even getting into how for years Lantern bearers were LG organization dedicated to Drow genocide, until Adventurer's Guide that is.
PFS scenarios I've played in also give the impression that goblin/kobold lives are worth as much as pests, perhaps it is due to GMs I've had, but my impression is that PFS writers have Venture-Captains at least treat evil races as "Ah kill them on sight they are monsters"
And yeah, in general, every mention of evil races' culture is "Good aligned members are already probably dead since they didn't survive their childhood without turning to evil, so yeah you'd be unique snowflake if you play as good aligned one", descriptions of goblin child raising is pretty good example of that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See this thread makes me think why shouldn't Ogres be core race too? They're Golarion Famous.
I mean the basic difference I see is large number of HD, but that is technical detail, not narrative justification.
Core Ogres built as 1HD Core PC race. OK, let's explain these are nice, cooperative Ogres even if they keep some crazy habits.
How's that?
Ogres don't really have any non-Evil habits. Goblins do. Goblins are also portrayed as quite a bit less appallingly Evil than Ogres...pretty much always. So it'd require a much more extreme explanation to make non-Evil Ogres common enough for them to be a core race.
Which means I doubt they'll wind up anything resembling a core race. Now, PC rules so an individual Ogre can not be a horrible monster? Sure, I'm on board with those.
|
|
Goblins of Golarion says this about Goblin Paladins:
"The idea of a goblin paladin seems a total contradiction, and no tales have been heard of any existing. Perhaps, somewhere, an outcast goblin has been taken in by goodly priests, absolved of his sins by prayer, and introduced to a holy and honorable path. Such a tale seems unlikely, however-"
Sooo yeah, basically, Goblin paladins in 1e apparently didn't exist(or were so rare you'd have bigger chance at winning lottery). Even Kobolds of Golarion acknowledged that Kobold paladins have potential to exist because of kobolds' dragon worship <_<(even though other sources claim kobolds think less of metallic dragons and wouldn't worship them or Apsu)
Goblins tend toward Evil and Chaos. Them not having any known Paladins is hardly unexpected, and a far cry from 'kill them on sight'.
Thats not even getting into how for years Lantern bearers were LG organization dedicated to Drow genocide, until Adventurer's Guide that is.
Ah, I missed that they changed that officially.
Good.
PFS scenarios I've played in also give the impression that goblin/kobold lives are worth as much as pests, perhaps it is due to GMs I've had, but my impression is that PFS writers have Venture-Captains at least treat evil races as "Ah kill them on sight they are monsters"
Um...PFS is canon for PFS, but only for PFS. It is not and never has been canonical for Golarion or Pathfinder as a whole. Ever.
And nothing I can find that's actually canonical talks about killing goblins (or most other 'monsters') on sight in anything resembling a general way. It's all location specific.
And yeah, in general, every mention of evil races' culture is "Good aligned members are already probably dead since they didn't survive their childhood without turning to evil, so yeah you'd be unique snowflake if you play as good aligned one", descriptions of goblin child raising is pretty good example of that.
Sure, to some degree, though I'll note that many mention some surviving as exiles. But all this means is that there needs to be an explanation for the rise in non-Evil Goblins, not that it couldn't happen.
|
|
See this thread makes me think why shouldn't Ogres be core race too? They're Golarion Famous.
I mean the basic difference I see is large number of HD, but that is technical detail, not narrative justification.
Core Ogres built as 1HD Core PC race. OK, let's explain these are nice, cooperative Ogres even if they keep some crazy habits.
How's that?Ogres don't really have any non-Evil habits. Goblins do. Goblins are also portrayed as quite a bit less appallingly Evil than Ogres...pretty much always. So it'd require a much more extreme explanation to make non-Evil Ogres common enough for them to be a core race.
Which means I doubt they'll wind up anything resembling a core race. Now, PC rules so an individual Ogre can not be a horrible monster? Sure, I'm on board with those.
I'd be really annoyed if Goblins new "They are okay funny bunch" treatment comes just from them being a core race and not general change in policy to treating evil races' as monsters <_< I mean as I said in one of other threads, kobolds in comparison make much more sense:
There are no adventures were you can diplomatically deal with goblins, those do exist for kobolds. Goblin player companion pretty much says that goblin paladins don't exist, kobold player companion says paladins redeemed to Apsu's faith exists.
If in 2e adventures Goblins are now okay to visit towns while kobolds are shunned and barred entry, its really silly.
Also, PFS IS canon in same manner as all Modules and APs are canon. Thats why Krune is dead by Return of the Runelords and why Harbingers of Fate splintered into new groups in Disciples' Doctrine.
Where's the retcon? I'm interested.
And, for the record, I'm pretty sure it's clear that neither Drow, nor even Ogres are 'always Evil'...I was referring specifically to the 'not allowed in civilized places' thing.
Adventurer’s Guide. Talks a lot about what happened after Second Darkness as I understand and where the organisations currently are lorewise. Wouldn’t surprise me if this was particularly important for things going into P2e actually.
|
|
I'd be really annoyed if Goblins new "They are okay funny bunch" treatment comes just from them being a core race and not general change in policy to treating evil races' as monsters <_< I mean as I said in one of other threads, kobolds in comparison make much more sense:
There are no adventures were you can diplomatically deal with goblins, those do exist for kobolds. Goblin player companion pretty much says that goblin paladins don't exist, kobold player companion says paladins redeemed to Apsu's faith exists.
Uh...I can immediately think of an adventure where you deal diplomatically with a goblin. I admit I can't think of any canonical Goblin Paladins, though.
If in 2e adventures Goblins are now okay to visit towns while kobolds are shunned and barred entry, its really silly.
My whole point is that I'm not sure either were ever canonically barred from towns. Likely to suffer prejudice? Sure. Killed on sight or anything like that? No.
Also, PFS IS canon in same manner as all Modules and APs are canon. Thats why Krune is dead by Return of the Runelords and why Harbingers of Fate splintered into new groups in Disciples' Doctrine.
No, it isn't. Some parts of it have made it into canon, but that's the exception, not the rule.
EDIT: And link to proof of this assertion. Now, for PF2, they've specifically said they're making the APs canonical...but have said no such thing about PFS stuff (though it'll obviously remain canon for PFS).
|
|
If in 2e adventures Goblins are now okay to visit towns while kobolds are shunned and barred entry, its really silly.My whole point is that I'm not sure either were ever canonically barred from towns. Likely to suffer prejudice? Sure. Killed on sight or anything like that? No.
Also, PFS IS canon in same manner as all Modules and APs are canon. Thats why Krune is dead by Return of the Runelords and why Harbingers of Fate splintered into new groups in Disciples' Doctrine.No, it isn't. Some parts of it have made it into canon, but that's the exception, not the rule.
Hmm, I can't say honestly whether I'm confusing writer/author/developer opinions and setting materials together. I've just remember reading somewhere that states that kobolds and goblins and other evil races aren't suitable for most campaigns or even Hell's Vengeance since they are monster races.
And on second point, hmm, I'm pretty sure on that point so do you have counter point on that? For record, my understanding is "PFS is in same way 'broad strokes' canon as Modules and APs are, 1e books never assumes they happened outside of PFS itself or the APs which refer directly to other APs"
(which I would assume means that since 2e assumes all APs and Modules happened, so did all PFS scenarios. Though to be honest, it wouldn't matter much in grand scheme, lot of campaign setting and player companion books have referred to PFS scenarios or events that took place in those)
Edit: Hmm, I think you misunderstood what I meant because that link agrees with my understanding of PFS' canonical-ness.
|
|
And you ninja'd my editing there :'D
Anyway, yeah, like I said, that link agrees with my understanding of how Pathfinder's canon works: Adventures in 1e were never assumed to have happened, however, none of adventures are "not canon" since that would mean that you can't play all adventures in same setting and have it make sense.
|
|
And you ninja'd my editing there :'D
Anyway, yeah, like I said, that link agrees with my understanding of how Pathfinder's canon works: Adventures in 1e were never assumed to have happened, however, none of adventures are "not canon" since that would mean that you can't play all adventures in same setting and have it make sense.
Yeah, I think we're both clear on 1E canon. I'm just of the opinion that just because they've officially made the APs canon in 2E, it does not follow that PFS is likewise canon. Those are very different things.
|
|
Yeah, I think we're both clear on 1E canon. I'm just of the opinion that just because they've officially made the APs canon in 2E, it does not follow that PFS is likewise canon. Those are very different things.And you ninja'd my editing there :'D
Anyway, yeah, like I said, that link agrees with my understanding of how Pathfinder's canon works: Adventures in 1e were never assumed to have happened, however, none of adventures are "not canon" since that would mean that you can't play all adventures in same setting and have it make sense.
Hmm, yeah, I'm bit skeptical myself about Paizo staff being able to read all PFS scenarios to take in account when writing 2e setting material, I'm assuming 2e PFS will assume 1e PFS is canon while Pathfinder in general will assume PFS in canon in Broad Strokes.(I don't think Paizo has documents on all setting lore from PFS so some of it has to contradict some of info revealed in Campaign Setting books I'd imagine)
Just to note, besides Harbingers of Fate's, well, Fate in PFS being referred in player companion book, Adventurer's guide included the new Masters of Spells in it, so I would assume 2e continues that at least trend of assuming the big events happened.
Anyway, I did read that they plan currently to make Modules(not just APs) canon in 2e too, so I'll be interested to see if any of Module or PFS events will be referred to in future. But I digress, we are getting really off topic here <_<;