Ogre-kin are Now Core!


Prerelease Discussion


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I am overjoyed to hear that ogre-kin are now a core race. I know they've gotten a bad rap in past Paizo products for being incestuous deformed backwood serial killers prone to having "skin-shucking" rooms and the like, but that doesn't have to be disruptive to an adventuring party because you don't have to have them in your group if you don't want them, people who play them immaturely can be told to stop, and a gradual shift in canon to make them more acceptable is forthcoming. I for one can't wait to get my new PC (one of Mammy Graul's boys) into organized play!

#fakenews


Jhaeman wrote:
I know they've gotten a bad rap in past Paizo products for being incestuous

Please do not hold this against ogrekin PCs. The sins of the parent should not be visited upon the child. If the game can tolerate half-orcs then ogrekin should be acceptable.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

claps

Liberty's Edge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

I know this is a joke, but honestly...ogrekin are to ogres as half orcs are to orcs. I would have no objection to their inclusion.

Ogres would be another matter...but ogrekin, while deformed, are hardly inherently evil, and have a built in possibility for being raised by someone non-Evil (ie: being raised by their non-ogre parent).

I don't see any real need for their inclusion (they're super niche), but I doubt they'd be any more inherently disruptive to play than Half Orcs if you gave 'em a good write up.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes finally! I know people are afraid of that Oger-Kin who would like to assault the others players and eat them, but to be honest, that player would be also annoying with a Paladin. It is not the ancestry, it is the player.

I have by the way a very good idea for an incestuous Ogre-Kin who killed his daughther-wife and regretted it, so he became a Paladin of Sarenrae. I had a blast so far with my group. Our Abolteh Psychic helps me with the PTSD from my childhood, our Goblin Bard is lightning the mood with songs about dead horses, and I can always count on the advices of my good friend Drow Figther Drazzit Do’Goodie.

Together we saved Sandpoint and are proud members of the Pathfinder Society!


5 people marked this as a favorite.
SteelGuts wrote:
I know people are afraid of that Oger-Kin who would like to assault the others players and eat them

I can 100% confirm that no players have ever tried to have an Ogrekin PC do this at my table. Paizo should not be policing what's in the core rules based on bad players.

Plus humans can do all the things that Ogrekin do. So that should remove all basis for common people to prejudge someone based on whether or not they're an Ogrekin regardless of what flavour Paizo has used in the past.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

...You're trying to be sarcastic, but I disagree with virtually nothing that's been said in this thread...


20 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Do we really need threads like this? I don't think this is either funny or in any way productive, and it wasn't even posted on April 1.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh but we do. because a race that has been playable and is one of the games mascots being moved into the core rulebook without the approval of a very vocal minority is literally the worst thing that has happened to tabletop RPGs, so now we need ten threads a day of people trying to say the same thing in varying levels of articulation.


Halflings and Gnomes will remain in Core! They are totes not inestimably boring, outdated (along with elves and dwarves) and no longer prone to munchkining like every other race (I'm going Mounted Cavalier on my civilised broo-spawn giant incessant weasel effteedub!!!) what's more, Golarion's lore will be shifted sidereally to make them more than small-humans and with incredibly thought-provoking backstories dripping with verisimilitudinal...dripping just like humans!!! A small change to lore might herrify and be torribly inetebribly uncopeable-with but with the new ancesteric feet for hob..halflings and hair-be-dragons for "no"mes all will be well.

At least in the playtest.

#fakernews


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Hahaha indeed, soon enough it will be bad to judge the red dragon based on color. What a horrid thing to do. Now we need to check each individual dragon, to make sure the silver one isnt eating kids in the next village and the red one isnt saving everyone from terrible peril because he has such kind heart.

Actually i heard liches and vampires are now almost all paladins. You know, saving everyone and stuff.

Cuttlefist wrote:
Oh but we do. because a race that has been playable and is one of the games mascots being moved into the core rulebook without the approval of a very vocal minority is literally the worst thing that has happened to tabletop RPGs, so now we need ten threads a day of people trying to say the same thing in varying levels of articulation.

Yes ofc mate, where do you get those numbers again?

Oh i can do that too. A VERY VOCAL MINORITY seems to support paizo choice and a large majority is now trying to change their minds.

I sure dont have any proof, but im willing to bet you dont either, so we end up about the same.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuttlefist wrote:
Oh but we do. because a race that has been playable and is one of the games mascots being moved into the core rulebook without the approval of a very vocal minority is literally the worst thing that has happened to tabletop RPGs, so now we need ten threads a day of people trying to say the same thing in varying levels of articulation.

Gah I'm not even full against or with the idea(usually I'm arguing with the reasons people give as to Why) but even I agree we shouldn't just keep making threads about it.

Now Resonace on the other hand rabble rabble rabble...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Yes ofc mate, where do you get those numbers again?

I know it’s not exactly scientific, but here is a poll with a small turnout shared on Reddit:

https://www.strawpoll.me/15427626/r

And here is the thread from here showing a majority of respondents were not bothered by people playing goblins:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2v1ap?For-those-that-have-played-games-with-gob lin

Numbers.

Quote:

Oh i can do that too. A VERY VOCAL MINORITY seems to support paizo choice and a large majority is now trying to change their minds.

I sure dont have any proof, but im willing to bet you dont either, so we end up about the same.

Well it’s much easier to argue that you are wrong than me. The people who comment on these forums are already a minority of Pathfinder players, and the people who are up in arms about a new race being added definitely don’t seem to be made up of a large group. Unscientific polls aside, the vast majority of players will not care either way, the people posting the loudest are the ones that feel the strongest and are a minority of players in their opposition or support. This just is not anywhere near as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be.


SteelGuts wrote:
I have by the way a very good idea for an incestuous Ogre-Kin who killed his daughther-wife and regretted it, so he became a Paladin of Sarenrae. I had a blast so far with my group. Our Abolteh Psychic helps me with the PTSD from my childhood, our Goblin Bard is lightning the mood with songs about dead horses, and I can always count on the advices of my good friend Drow Figther Drazzit Do’Goodie.

You clearly don't play Crusader Kings II if you think that's being edgy.

Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hahaha indeed, soon enough it will be bad to judge the red dragon based on color. What a horrid thing to do. Now we need to check each individual dragon, to make sure the silver one isnt eating kids in the next village and the red one isnt saving everyone from terrible peril because he has such kind heart.

I believe that that is indeed the default in Eberron, which came out some 14 years or so ago, so I think you're a little bit late to that particular party.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Well clearly if the FIFTEEN (I counted!) already existing threads about goblins didn't convince people, I am sure this thread will!


Arakhor wrote:


I believe that that is indeed the default in Eberron, which came out some 14 years or so ago, so I think you're a little bit late to that particular party.

And even the good ones could get you into trouble.

One of the things I loved about Eberron. Alignment was a lot more loose. If D&D brought back Eberron, that would be great.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hahaha indeed, soon enough it will be bad to judge the red dragon based on color. What a horrid thing to do. Now we need to check each individual dragon, to make sure the silver one isnt eating kids in the next village and the red one isnt saving everyone from terrible peril because he has such kind heart.

I don't know about you, but my players have never tried to kill a red dragon *because* of the color of its skin.

They've tried to kill red dragons because the dragon was slaughtering innocent people and terrorizing a town. But if a red dragon isn't going about terrorizing and killing people, then there's really no need to kill it.

Hell, they've even parlayed with a red dragon before, and didn't try to slaughter it when it was working in a city performing the duties of keeping the forge fires lit (it was an underground city of dwarves, and they had raised the red dragon from the egg). Would you automatically try to kill a red dragon in such a position? Just because the color of its skin?

"But it's evil!"
"How do you know?"
"Because of the color of its skin!"
"Has it ever done a thing that's evil?"
"Well, no. But it has evil thoughts! I'm preventing something bad from happening!"
"So you're the thought police, now? We kill things for evil thoughts? You had that evil thought just the other week. Should we kill you?"
"That's different! I don't act on my evil thoughts! And the day I do, that's when you can stop me! Now let's go kill that thing before it acts on its evil thoughts and does something bad!"

Yeah, I don't really see the "soon enough" part of your comment. I've been playing d&d for 28 years now, and that's *always* been the case for the group's I play in.

A red dragon is evil because it does evil things, because it commits atrocities and slaughters innocent people for pleasure and gold. It's not evil because it's red.


lowfyr01 wrote:
Arakhor wrote:


I believe that that is indeed the default in Eberron, which came out some 14 years or so ago, so I think you're a little bit late to that particular party.

And even the good ones could get you into trouble.

One of the things I loved about Eberron. Alignment was a lot more loose. If D&D brought back Eberron, that would be great.

Yep, all the PF2 previews are restoking my love of Eberron. :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.

But, but, but, they CAN'T! Everyone knows all CORE races must be sweet and fluffy and reach viable population levels! What about the LORE?! Paizo has ONLY been making gray-area half-ogres for a decade now! That's not nearly long enough! We can't have core half-ogres until at least edition 12, otherwise the lore will completely shatter! Where will all the evil half-ogres go? There can't be any of them anymore, not if there is a single half-ogre adventurer!

And not to mention, people will... be able to make Drizzt characters!!! Oh the horror, people making a character I don't like! Oh no, I will not stand for this! People are simply not allowed to have fun in a way I disapprove of!

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:
Hahaha indeed, soon enough it will be bad to judge the red dragon based on color. What a horrid thing to do. Now we need to check each individual dragon, to make sure the silver one isnt eating kids in the next village and the red one isnt saving everyone from terrible peril because he has such kind heart.

To crosspost something I wrote in another thread about Orcs, that applies equally to dragons:

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Megistone wrote:

I want a game where I can treat an orc encampment in a different way than I treat a civilized town. A game where my good character can raid that place and slaughter all the orcs without having to worry about the sins that any of them may or may not have committed, because they are evil baby-eating brutes that threaten innocents. They are monsters!

The good thing is that I can still play (and I did) a character who believes in redemption and second chances for (almost) everyone. In the right campaign, of course.

Let me have my 'easy' game as the default, and leave morality issues for when I feel like playing that way.

I much prefer a game where it doesn't matter what the beings in an encampment look like whether I can go in and kill them, it matters what kind of encampment it is (ie: village or war camp or bandit lair) and what the folks there have been doing recently (ie: attacking a group that hasn't done anything is wrong, attacking murderous raiders is fine).

ie: I'm fine with a Paladin going into an orc encampment full of orc warriors and killing everyone...but only under the same circumstances they'd go into, say, a bandit encampment full of human bandits and kill everyone. Which are not hard circumstances for the GM to arrange.

Treating orcs identically to how you treat a group of humans who behave the same does not introduce moral ambiguity or keep you from killing them unless the GM makes it, it just necessitates a brief description of the bodies of their victims or the like.

Good Aligned PCs killing humans (or other PC race characters) happens a lot in Pathfinder, and is not hard to justify, requiring that the killing of non-humans operate on the same standards is not that big a deal and does not result in angsting over every death and making the game overly complicated. And it both increases verisimilitude and removes some very ugly implications.

In short, I too have never had a PC group kill a dragon because it was a particular color. Unlike bookrat, I don't think any Good parties I've run for ever parlayed with a Chromatic Dragon...those have all been, y'know, Evil and done Evil things which the PCs killed them for.

But none were killed for being a specific color. All were killed in self-defense or in response to specific crimes.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Its going to be a fun 17 months...


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Haha, thanks. You gave me a good laugh.
Seriously people, get over it. Theres bigger issues with pf2 than ONE race. Like resonance. Or if Crossbows are gonna suck again. Or if casters are gonna be broken again.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:


I don't know about you, but my players have never tried to kill a red dragon *because* of the color of its skin.

They've tried to kill red dragons because the dragon was slaughtering innocent people and terrorizing a town. But if a red dragon isn't going about terrorizing and killing people, then there's really no need to kill it.

That always felt strange for me: Someone plays a good character and slaughters someone because of what he or she is and not because they did terrible things. Never looked very good to me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

Hell, they've even parlayed with a red dragon before, and didn't try to slaughter it when it was working in a city performing the duties of keeping the forge fires lit (it was an underground city of dwarves, and they had raised the red dragon from the egg). Would you automatically try to kill a red dragon in such a position? Just because the color of its skin?

"But it's evil!"
"How do you know?"
"Because of the color of its skin!"
"Has it ever done a thing that's evil?"
"Well, no. But it has evil thoughts! I'm preventing something bad from happening!"

In the standard lore, the red dragon probably would have done evil things, because the natural traits of red dragons are avarice and cruelty, and if you could cure that with kindness and discipline there'd be good red dragons all over the place.

It really comes down to whether you like the whole 'racial alignment' thing or not. Would you rather have a game where everything is complicated and difficult ("Hang on, we know the last seventeen vampires in this castle tried to murder us, but we don't know for sure that this one is evil. We'd better wake him up and ask him if he's be willing to co-operate with us, rather than just staking him in his sleep."), or a game where being a hero is mostly clear and simple ("Hurray! This knight has slain a dragon! This proves he is good and true and should marry the princess!")?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Downie wrote:
In the standard lore, the red dragon probably would have done evil things, because the natural traits of red dragons are avarice and cruelty, and if you could cure that with kindness and discipline there'd be good red dragons all over the place.

Not if Red Dragons are culturally Evil. I mean, how many people kill Red Dragons and then even try to raise their young?

Matthew Downie wrote:
It really comes down to whether you like the whole 'racial alignment' thing or not. Would you rather have a game where everything is complicated and difficult ("Hang on, we know the last seventeen vampires in this castle tried to murder us, but we don't know for sure that this one is evil. We'd better wake him up and ask him if he's be willing to co-operate with us, rather than just staking him in his sleep."), or a game where being a hero is mostly clear and simple ("Hurray! This knight has slain a dragon! This proves he is good and true and should marry the princess!")?

This is a false dichotomy. I run a game where nothing is inherently Evil due to its race (well, okay, Evil Outsiders almost universally are). I have also very rarely done anything resembling the 'complicated and difficult' moral questions you suggest are inherent in a lack of racial alignment.

Y'know how? It's easy. You just have anything that's Evil behave in an Evil fashion, and the PCs then react to that.

Killing Vampire #18 is only a moral issue if you broke into a castle full of vampires for no reason (or you have evidence that the master vampire is mind-controlling their minions to Evil, I guess, but that's something the GM can insert, not something they must). If you broke in because they'e been eating villagers, well, that's another matter. Exactly the same as if you're clearing out a camp of human bandits who have been murdering travelers. Killing the dragon remains simple, as long as that dragon has been out ravaging the countryside.

This is not that complicated. Pathfinder already involves fighting and killing humans on a regular basis, and it's pretty easy to not make that a moral quandary. Why would it be any different with dragons or vampires, even if not all of them are Evil? I mean, not all humans are Evil and you still kill them...


Matthew Downie wrote:
bookrat wrote:

Hell, they've even parlayed with a red dragon before, and didn't try to slaughter it when it was working in a city performing the duties of keeping the forge fires lit (it was an underground city of dwarves, and they had raised the red dragon from the egg). Would you automatically try to kill a red dragon in such a position? Just because the color of its skin?

"But it's evil!"
"How do you know?"
"Because of the color of its skin!"
"Has it ever done a thing that's evil?"
"Well, no. But it has evil thoughts! I'm preventing something bad from happening!"

In the standard lore, the red dragon probably would have done evil things, because the natural traits of red dragons are avarice and cruelty, and if you could cure that with kindness and discipline there'd be good red dragons all over the place.

Sure, and in the case of the dragon in my game, it sure wanted to do evil things, it just wasn't able to; the dwarves were able to control it fairly well. It actually came down to a bad moral quandary - the dragon was essentially a slave and wanted to escape. Do the PCs help it? But at the same time they feared that if they let it escape and go unfettered, it may do harm to others (which they had suspected after talking to it).

It was something my players struggled with, right up until they were in a position where they could no longer make the choice go do anything (the people who were hunting them found them, and they were forced to flee the city).

This brings up a classic moral question: If a man lives his whole life with evil and deprave thoughts, but never actually acts upon those thoughts, is he still evil? Is it the thoughts and desires to do cruel things that makes someone evil, or is it the actual actions and attempts that makes them bad?

The dragon wanted to harm his captors. He wanted to rule the city for himself. He wanted to hoard all the city's treasures. He dreamed of it. But he never actually acted upon it, out of fear of what would happen if he failed. Much like a human with horiffic thoughts may never actually act upon them because of fear of going to prison or fear of God and going to Hell. And I know quit a few people who say the only thing that stops them from doing bad things is the fear of God.

(The part of your post I cut out, I agree with. It all depends on the style of game you want to play. I was just arguing against the idea that it's laughable to want moral grey areas in a game).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

Haha, thanks. You gave me a good laugh.

Seriously people, get over it. Theres bigger issues with pf2 than ONE race. Like resonance. Or if Crossbows are gonna suck again. Or if casters are gonna be broken again.

Everyone knows the answers to those options.

Resonance will always be a bipolar option, assuming it even makes it to Core as-is, meaning any answer on this has no middle ground. (Not unlike our Goblin problem here.)

Crossbows aren't going to be any more viable than longbows, so the odds of them being chosen any more than they are now is slim, and even if they are "viable," the fact of the matter is that Legolas >>> Any Crossbow user, fictional or real.

Casters is too soon to tell, but if Paizo removes several of the problem child spells and balances other spells with the 4 levels of success system, the answer is "Very rarely."

I'm disappointed that Paladins/Alignment wasn't a part of your list, that's worse than any of your options to date, which I'm certain will be about as bad, or worse, as the Goblin debacle.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'm disappointed that Paladins/Alignment wasn't a part of your list, that's worse than any of your options to date, which I'm certain will be about as bad, or worse, as the Goblin debacle.

I'm guessing it didn't make the list because if Paizo does nothing, and alignments and Paladins remain in the CRB essentially unchanged (which I think is the most likely option - at least in terms of the Paladin's code and the description of alignment) then the argument isn't a new new one.

It'll still come up, of course. But it'll be the same fight we've had all the way through PF 1e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This might seem weird, but I would like a brute race (high strength, low intellect). I could care less about goblins one way or another (I'm honestly completely ambivalent), but I would love a race of brutes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zaister wrote:
Do we really need threads like this? I don't think this is either funny or in any way productive, and it wasn't even posted on April 1.

Absolutely.

Caricatures drawn by this form of mockery are effective forms of criticism. It's productive at making the intended point with a note of humor alongside. Why shouldn't we want/need them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Phantasmist wrote:
This might seem weird, but I would like a brute race (high strength, low intellect). I could care less about goblins one way or another (I'm honestly completely ambivalent), but I would love a race of brutes.

Paizo seems to be very hesitant to brand a whole race as dumb. The entire Advanced Race Guide of PF1 has no race with an Intelligence penalty (and none with a Wisdom penalty, either). A few options exist (tiefling with demon heritage etc.), but they are rare and scattered over the books. It could be about political correctness, gameplay reasons or something else. If they stick with their reasons, a real brute race for PF2 is unlikely.

That said, the closest Core thing is half-orc. Who knows, this ancestry stuff might allow you to add more Strength (or some Constitution) than in PF1.


I know this is satire, but I actually wouldn't mind stats for ogrekin PCs.

I've actually had a character/NPC concept for a while of an ogrekin who was taken in by a warpriest at a really young age (think Quasimodo and Frollo and you've got the right idea for what their relationship is like) and the Warpriest trained him to don specially crafted full plate, use a small cannon that he wields like a Gatling gun, and defend the large town against ogre raids.

Exploring the borders and possibilities of non-hostile monstrous races and how they interact with other societies and cultures, be it how they treat the society or how the society treats them, can really add a lot of depth and complexity into a game or world setting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Paizo seems to be very hesitant to brand a whole race as dumb. The entire Advanced Race Guide of PF1 has no race with an Intelligence penalty (and none with a Wisdom penalty, either).

Catfolk, Fetchlings, Ifrits, Orcs, Gillmen, Vishkanya, and Wayangs are ARG races with a Wis penalty. Orcs, Nagaji, and Suli are int-penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Joke aside Oger-Kin could be a nice ancestry if they ever do a Exotic Ancestries book or something like that. With mutations tables and random bonuses/penalties.

Shadow Lodge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

4 people marked this as a favorite.
lowfyr01 wrote:
bookrat wrote:


I don't know about you, but my players have never tried to kill a red dragon *because* of the color of its skin.

They've tried to kill red dragons because the dragon was slaughtering innocent people and terrorizing a town. But if a red dragon isn't going about terrorizing and killing people, then there's really no need to kill it.

That always felt strange for me: Someone plays a good character and slaughters someone because of what he or she is and not because they did terrible things. Never looked very good to me.

Literally the first game of D&D I ever played, the very first thing I encountered was some kobolds on a road looting a ruined caravan. I asked the DM what kobolds were, made my Knowledge check, and found out that kobolds were typically evil monsters.

So we ambushed them. I snuck up on them through the grass along the side of the road, and shot one with my crossbow. My first sneak attack!

...Turns out, my DM was running Richard Pett's The Devil Box from Dungeon #109. These kobolds weren't the ones that destroyed the caravan, and were actually here to stop a greater evil. By judging them based on their race, I almost ended up killing our adventure hook.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm aware the original post is sarcasm, but on the other hand I'd have to say the only (and I do mean ONLY) problem that'd exist for half-ogres as a core race that isn't in place for half-orcs is that the half-ogre template from PF1 would be too powerful to get for free. Everything else (assumed to be a rape-baby, assumed to be the child of an evil rapey father and a very unfortunate mother, assumed to be predisposed to violence and cruelty by merit of having a monster father) is baggage the Half-Orc has dealt with and tried to move away from.

I don't see "some goblins are good and some goblins are bad, much like humans, halflings, gnomes, elves, dwarves, dhampir, tieflings, aasimar, etc.," is asking players to wrap their head around too much. The Saxons thought of the Danes as godless demon-men because of their Viking raids, but there were a number of times and places where the two were able to live in peace and even trade with each other. So it really doesn't seem too out there to me that when you're dealing with an entire species "the Red Teeth clan are a bunch of bloodthirsty lunatics that would kill you as soon as look at you, but the Float-Stone clan by the river are all right" is more likely than "all of them, everywhere, are evil. Best to just kill 'em all if you see 'em."

Devils and Demons can be inherently evil, but Gobs and Orcs and that sort have free will. Always Chaotic Evil's a bit of an old hat except for the physical manifestations of chaos and evil. As some others have said, establishing when you're dealing with bad guys is incredibly easy, you just have them do bad things that the PCs have to put a stop to. The parties I've GM'd for have spilled plenty of human blood without any great moral quandaries because the humans they've killed have been invading armies or attacking bandits or evil cults tormenting puppies for entertainment or slavers. We've killed a number of chromatic dragons and not any metallic ones, but that's because the bronze dragons we've met have been friendly and the green dragons picked a fight.

I don't really think there should be a race where it's considered good to go kill them when they're minding their own business, mostly because the inherently evil creatures are never minding their own business; devils and demons are always finding ways to torment mortals while they're on the plane and the undead ceaselessly look for living things to kill. A bunch of orcs hanging out on the mountaintops nearby not bothering anyone haven't done anything to earn the party's emnity, but if you need them to fight, it's pretty easy to just have the lore say that these particular orcs ARE bothering people. Trust your players to recognize the bad guys from the good because the bad guys are doing bad stuff, rather than relying on "green people can't be trusted."


But if ogrekin are core, who will fill the "can massacre these guys without guilt" role?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

But if ogrekin are core, who will fill the "can massacre these guys without guilt" role?

Ogres, Orcs, Kobolds, Gnolls, Drow, Zombies, Skeletons, Skele-zombies, Juju-zombies, GNOMES.

Take yer pick, plenty for e'ryone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sigh... another thread about "inherently evil race" and "evil in the genes"... preposterous.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Mass Kneebreaker wrote:

Haha, thanks. You gave me a good laugh.

Seriously people, get over it. Theres bigger issues with pf2 than ONE race. Like resonance. Or if Crossbows are gonna suck again. Or if casters are gonna be broken again.

Everyone knows the answers to those options.

Resonance will always be a bipolar option, assuming it even makes it to Core as-is, meaning any answer on this has no middle ground. (Not unlike our Goblin problem here.)

Crossbows aren't going to be any more viable than longbows, so the odds of them being chosen any more than they are now is slim, and even if they are "viable," the fact of the matter is that Legolas >>> Any Crossbow user, fictional or real.

Casters is too soon to tell, but if Paizo removes several of the problem child spells and balances other spells with the 4 levels of success system, the answer is "Very rarely."

I'm disappointed that Paladins/Alignment wasn't a part of your list, that's worse than any of your options to date, which I'm certain will be about as bad, or worse, as the Goblin debacle.

I agree! rabble, rabble, rabble, rabble!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
Sigh... another thread about "inherently evil race" and "evil in the genes"... preposterous.

It's common knowledge they are, so its part of the background and history of the setting:

"Most other races view them as virulent parasites that have proved impossible to exterminate.": Hugs?

"a race of childlike creatures with a destructive and voracious nature that makes them almost universally despised.": Lets be friends?

"consider the flesh of humans and gnomes a rare and difficult-to-obtain delicacy.": People are sure blowing things out of proportion! Lets have lunch... :P

If you aren't killing them on sight, you're most likely driving them away. Now I assume we'll see something trying to justify a turn in attitudes in 10 years but I'm quite sceptical.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
Sigh... another thread about "inherently evil race" and "evil in the genes"... preposterous.

What is so preposterous about a character using a greater wish to make a group evil? Evil in this case meaning characters who have enough literal evil energy to ping on a detection spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wild Spirit wrote:
Sigh... another thread about "inherently evil race" and "evil in the genes"... preposterous.

It would be preposterous if it were about genetics. Races created directly by Evil deities, as goblins are, seem to me a different case.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Ogre-kin are Now Core! All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion