So of all the alien races that made the jump from Pathfinder to Starfinder, shobhad have probably had the most drastic appearance change; in pathfinder they were very human in appearance aside from their four arms, pointed ears, green/blue skin, and being 11ft tall. Males appeared to have some small tusks, but proportionately these were less prominent than the typical half-orc.
Starfinder happens & the Alien Archive has shobhad with misshapen skulls, rounded ears, gaping mouths, and a pair of massive tusks framing a row of very sharp teeth, solid yellow eyes with no visible iris or pupil, and more spread out arms, and duller, grey/charcoal skin.
Which, fine. Makes them more alien, more distinct from orcs & half-orcs. One could even argue the unusual skull shape, while not identical to kasatha or witchwyrds, shows something of a connection. And is a bit more reminiscent of tharks, their inspiration from the John Carter of Mars novels, sans the lack of green skin.
But then, friend of mine shows me a picture of a shobhad female from a Starfinder society module. Can't find that image online but the module was Fugitive on the Red Planet. And this particular shobhad woman closer to the old pathfinder style; human shaped skull, pointed ears, white sclera with prominent blue irises, human shaped mouth with little tusks that would look small on a half-orc - which, actually the PF shobhad female didn't have but that image was less detailed than the others.
Actually thought the image was of a half-orc at first, partly because as a portrait shot it only shows her shoulders so you can't see that she has two pairs of arms. And her skin tone is a kind of a pale purplish grey which doesn't really match with what we've been shown of shobhads so far from either setting.
Anyway, point I'm getting to, is I'm wondering whether or not this was a mistake by the artist who came up with this depiction of a shobhad character based on how they looked in Pathfinder, or is this meant to show that shobhads are sexually dimorphic to the point of males looking like snarly tusk monsters while females look more human?
And I don't want to suggest there's anything wrong with that approach, that is not a hill I intend to die on. I just want some clarity on the subject.
I think you’re assuming too much in terms of consistent art direction and execution. It’s not unheard of for a Bestiary art piece to come in not looking like the intent but too late to fix. So we can’t really say what the “real” look is supposed to be or even if anyone at Paizo has noticed or cared about the discrepancy enough to establish a clear baseline.
I think you explained it yourself : it's to make them more alien-looking.
There are scores of very human-like or outright palette-swapped humans in SF, I expect Paizo is trying to make some more different.
Color aside, this also makes them much more barsoomian-esque, as you said.
As for them being the most "changed" in appearance... Don't hobgoblins have that ?
More seriously, consistency will probably noy be a thing for a while still. It took a bit for PF's core races, and those more are much more classical looking.
A lot has been said about the Ysoki's apperance, for example, and they're core in SF. We're actually getting there I feel, but still.
The more of a race we see, the closer we'll get to their "true" looks : Shobhad aren't big enough to get there that quick.
I think you explained it yourself : it's to make them more alien-looking.
There are scores of very human-like or outright palette-swapped humans in SF, I expect Paizo is trying to make some more different.
Color aside, this also makes them much more barsoomian-esque, as you said.As for them being the most "changed" in appearance... Don't hobgoblins have that ?
More seriously, consistency will probably noy be a thing for a while still. It took a bit for PF's core races, and those more are much more classical looking.
A lot has been said about the Ysoki's apperance, for example, and they're core in SF. We're actually getting there I feel, but still.
The more of a race we see, the closer we'll get to their "true" looks : Shobhad aren't big enough to get there that quick.
Well, again, the question isn't "why was the change made", because I can infer and guess on that.
The question is, in regards to the particular inconsistency between the Starfinder pieces of art specifically, is this just an inconsistency due to a lack of clear vision or communication with the artist, or is it fully intentional to show that shohbad have that amount of variation in them.
As for hobgoblins, those would be the other real drastic appearance change but that's also more of a PF 2e directive that just ended up getting officially implemented in SF first.
And on the subject of 'pallet swap humans', really there aren't that many in Starfinder, not counting the fantasy races that get carried over from PF. If you want to just count "aliens", then it's really just androids, damais, lashunta, and summerborn ryphorians, with brakims, elebrians, and verthani being borderline cases.
I think you’re assuming too much in terms of consistent art direction and execution. It’s not unheard of for a Bestiary art piece to come in not looking like the intent but too late to fix.
Example: Look up the cover art for the 1st Bestiary by Wayne Reynolds and look at the Troll...then look at what that troll looks like in various APs, encounters, and subsequent illustrations. They've tried to fix it later by combining the two designs but the fact is that there are two very different ideas for what Paizo Trolls look like even in their own setting.
Humans are the only ones to have ever been truly "consistent" in how they were portrayed. For some reason.
Go far back enough, look deep enough, and you'll find weirdness in every other race and creature type. I don't see why Shobhad would be the exception.
You might want to exhume the afore-mentioned Ysoki discussions : if the "art inconsistency" thing has been answered for SF already, that's probably where.
Beyond that, this is a much broader question, so maybe more a Paizo General thing.
Or try to slip it in the Q&A bit of a wednesday/friday stream.
Humans are the only ones to have ever been truly "consistent" in how they were portrayed.
Which is kind of interesting, considering there's quite a bit of variance in body types within humans on earth.
Not including the concept of sexual dimorphism, there's a big difference between Yoel Romero, Tom Segura, Yao Ming, and Ghandi.
Also, to chime in on the OP's statement, I think the ghorans look the most different over the course of time between the two games.
Not including the concept of sexual dimorphism, there's a big difference between Yoel Romero, Tom Segura, Yao Ming, and Ghandi.
Each of those people were born in very different places in different time periods with very different forms of medical care with very different diets. Not to get too off topic, there were a variety of explanations for why they look different beyond genetics.
Still, strip all the skin & flesh off their skulls and any layman would recognize the skulls as belonging to the same species & only particularly trained individuals would be able to tell them apart.
Same wouldn't be true for the Alien Archive shobhad vs the one in Fugitive on the Red Planet, given the vastly different jaw structure.