Hello everyone.
I'm creating a character for an upcoming Age of Ashes campaign, but I'm a bit confused about its possible ethnicity. I want to make it a native of Breachill, but have just found out that Chelish is no longer a viable option for a human character's ethnicity. What happened to the proud people of Cheliax and its vassal nation, Isger? Have they been wiped out from the face of the world? And if I couldn't chose Chelish as an ethnicity for my Isgeri character, which other ethnicity could work?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chelish people are basically Taldanes with a smattering of Ulfen ancestry. Their culture is not particularly different from Taldane culture either (Cheliax and Taldor have different cultures, but the Taldanes and Chelish of Magnimar cannot readily be distinguished from each other by most people).
In many ways, it would be like listing British and Norwegian as separate ethnicities, which is true by some standards, but a finer distinction than Pathfinder makes with any other ethnicities in the core rulebook (there aren't bunches of different Mwangi ethnicities and all Tiens are listed as one ethnicity as well, to pick a couple of examples).
Which is why they were removed as a separate ethnicity. Someone from Isger is culturally Isgeri, but ethnically Taldane.
There’s a blog post previewing the state of Old Cheliax in the World Guide. It hasn’t gone anywhere.
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
Nobody tell the Chelish government, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
So, my character from Isger should be Taldan if I want to play a typical denizen of that nation, am I right?
Thank you all again for your help, it is much appreciated.
|
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
So, my character from Isger should be Taldan if I want to play a typical denizen of that nation, am I right?
Thank you all again for your help, it is much appreciated.
There's more than Taldans in the region, but Taldan is a fine choice for a local.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
So, my character from Isger should be Taldan if I want to play a typical denizen of that nation, am I right?
Thank you all again for your help, it is much appreciated.
The Isgeri after whom the province was named were a Kellid people IIRC. Taldans in Isger are imperialist land-thieves.
|
Creative Director
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Isgeri after whom the province was named were a Kellid people IIRC. Taldans in Isger are imperialist land-thieves.Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
So, my character from Isger should be Taldan if I want to play a typical denizen of that nation, am I right?
Thank you all again for your help, it is much appreciated.
Which is why I mentioned that Taldan is one choice but not the only choice.
This is all very interesting. Where may I find more informations about Isger and its peoples?
Where may I find more informations about Isger and its peoples?
On the wiki or in the upcoming Lost Omens World Guide.
I don't believe Isger has ever had a standalone book.
Where may I find more informations about Isger and its peoples?On the wiki or in the upcoming Lost Omens World Guide.
I don't believe Isger has ever had a standalone book.
Thank you Joana, I'll take a look at the wiki page.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
See, I find this very confusing. I like the Nidalese bit, but in every book I've read on the setting, the Chelish and the Taldans weren't just culturally different, but physically different too. The taldans I thought were olive skinned with brown hair and almond shaped eyes often of amber colour, while the chelish were pale-skinned with straight-black or red hair and very severe, straight features. Some changes in 2e are understandable, or at the very least fleshing things out, but this just seems like a confusing, unnecessary change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I find this very confusing. I like the Nidalese bit, but in every book I've read on the setting, the Chelish and the Taldans weren't just culturally different, but physically different too. The taldans I thought were olive skinned with brown hair and almond shaped eyes often of amber colour, while the chelish were pale-skinned with straight-black or red hair and very severe, straight features. Some changes in 2e are understandable, or at the very least fleshing things out, but this just seems like a confusing, unnecessary change.Correct.
Chelaxians still exist as a nationality. They are not an ethnicity.
The switch to 2nd edition was a chance for us to not only adjust this, but to also present the Nidalese as an ancestry which should have been the case from the very start.
The ethnicities are extremely broad though. Garundi covers a huge variety of physical features. They share a root in northern Garund and language though. Same with the peoples of the northern area of the Inner Sea. Taldans in Cheliax are as much related to some Ulfens and Kellids from the area pre-Taldor, but culturally were very much Taldan, they speak the language, shared similar religions and histories within a larger region.
Nidalese on the other hand are fundamentally different, to basically everyone.
The change makes sense to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I do not like this change. Apart from the various groups of the Mwangi, or the people of Azlant (don't get me started on the changes to the Azlanti), the Chelish were always my favourite human ethnicity, in part because they were the one that most clearly mirrored my own, real life ethnicity. Just hand-waving away their existence, particularly during a push to better diversify and represent various groups in a more positive light, feels like saying all 'Western European' peoples are a monolith.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. But Cheliax still exists. And is it's own very distinct thing. Like Chelish people are going to identify as Chelish people regardless. Nexian Garundi people don't see themselves as Thuvian. They just have some shared cultural roots and a language.
It doesn't actually change the world or the characters at all.
The problem is possibly that ethnicity isn't really the same thing here as it is in real life, where it's MUCH more granular. But similar to how Hallit is probably a large number of languages with similar roots, but represented as one mega-language, they are representing a large swathe of diverse people in one mega-grouping, usually with a single associated language-group as a language.
Taldan -> Taldane speaking, Garundi -> Osiriani speaking, Keleshite* -> Keleshite speaking, Kellid -> Hallit speaking, etc.
*Keleshite are actually already detailed as several internal ethnicities bound by the shared imperial language, like Althmeri people, etc.
They just decided as game designers not social scientists to call ethnicity a mega-grouping, and nationality a separate thing.
Chelish people are still a clearly defined nationality, so this doesn't change anything for people who know things about the setting already.
What is it, exactly, that you think you lose here?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I do not like this change. Apart from the various groups of the Mwangi, or the people of Azlant (don't get me started on the changes to the Azlanti), the Chelish were always my favourite human ethnicity, in part because they were the one that most clearly mirrored my own, real life ethnicity. Just hand-waving away their existence, particularly during a push to better diversify and represent various groups in a more positive light, feels like saying all 'Western European' peoples are a monolith.
By that logic, Vudrani being an ethnicity is saying that all South Asian peoples are a monolith. And South Asia is much more ethnically diverse than Western Europe. Their existence was not hand waved away, they were just classified in a more broad manner. Taldans from southwestern Avistan did not all suddenly disappear and Chelaxian can still exist as an in universe term.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder whether the references to Chelaxians being mixed with Ulfen ancestry should actually be referring to the previously unreferenced Nidalese? After all, the most obvious way to get the Chelish ideal of dark hair and pale skin is to cross a Taldan with a Nidalese and hope that their children inherit dark hair from the Taldan parent and pale skin from the Nidalese parent.
Speaking of which -- Where do the Nidalese come from, anyway? Their physical description is very close to that of fetchlings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. But Cheliax still exists. And is it's own very distinct thing. Like Chelish people are going to identify as Chelish people regardless. Nexian Garundi people don't see themselves as Thuvian. They just have some shared cultural roots and a language.
It doesn't actually change the world or the characters at all.
The problem is possibly that ethnicity isn't really the same thing here as it is in real life, where it's MUCH more granular. But similar to how Hallit is probably a large number of languages with similar roots, but represented as one mega-language, they are representing a large swathe of diverse people in one mega-grouping, usually with a single associated language-group as a language.
Taldan -> Taldane speaking, Garundi -> Osiriani speaking, Keleshite* -> Keleshite speaking, Kellid -> Hallit speaking, etc.
*Keleshite are actually already detailed as several internal ethnicities bound by the shared imperial language, like Althmeri people, etc.They just decided as game designers not social scientists to call ethnicity a mega-grouping, and nationality a separate thing.
Chelish people are still a clearly defined nationality, so this doesn't change anything for people who know things about the setting already.
What is it, exactly, that you think you lose here?
I get why they're doing it, as well as how and why it's that way. I, personally, just don't like it, and I admit that's mostly on me. I have a tendency to fixate, as I am obsessive compulsive. This kind of change just irks me. Yes, Garundi covers a broad number of categories, as does Keleshite and Mwangi etc, etc. But to me, Taldans and Chelish just don't seem like they fit in the same one. Yes, they share azlanti heritage, and a common imperialist attitude, but beyond that they never seemed similar at all. Certainly not similar enough to essentially be the same thing. It's just another change on a long list of changes that, to me, seem unnecessary. But I am not the designer of the game. Other people have different priorities that are different from mine. To me, it just seems contrary to the stated direction. Yes they're these broad categories, but so much effort in recent years has gone into making distinctions and categories with categories, or showing that the whole grouping is arbitrary to begin with. To have all that, then to invent a new arbitrary category and shoe-horn two completely different things into it? It'd be like presenting British and Italians as two separate things, and then later on retroactively declaring that all British people are actually Italian and always have been.
I'm not demanding they change it to cater specifically to me. That'd be ridiculous. It's just a choice I wouldn't have made, that, along with others, will affect my choices going forward in terms of shopping habits, and most certainly won't change how I present the world at my personal gaming table.
But, to each their own, I guess. It's clearly not an issue for anyone else, and I may not like that, but people are more than allowed to like things I don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I do not like this change. Apart from the various groups of the Mwangi, or the people of Azlant (don't get me started on the changes to the Azlanti), the Chelish were always my favourite human ethnicity, in part because they were the one that most clearly mirrored my own, real life ethnicity. Just hand-waving away their existence, particularly during a push to better diversify and represent various groups in a more positive light, feels like saying all 'Western European' peoples are a monolith.By that logic, Vudrani being an ethnicity is saying that all South Asian peoples are a monolith. And South Asia is much more ethnically diverse than Western Europe. Their existence was not hand waved away, they were just classified in a more broad manner. Taldans from southwestern Avistan did not all suddenly disappear and Chelaxian can still exist as an in universe term.
I guess I just always saw a much more radical difference between Chelish and Taldan than everyone else. Vudrani at least have a similar enough culturally heritage that, to an outsider, would be confusing. But (at least to me) mistaking a Taldan for a Chelaxian would be like mistaking a Norwegian man for Saudi Arabian man.
Yes, they are related in that they descend from intermingling between Azlanti refugees and other races, but I had always thought the similarities ended there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the novels at least Taldans And Chelaxians were always described similar from what I read, the Chelish just favoring having paler skin.
Part of the problem with having multiple authors working on different projects using the same material. They're not always going to agree. I admittedly have not read the Pathfinder Tales novels, though they're on my 'to-read' list. The source books I have read painted a different picture, but I imagine it's pretty subjective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the real world counterparts of where they are located, I would regard mistaking a Chelaxian for a Taldan as similar to mistaking a Spaniard for a Greek -- a very easy thing to do when you don't even have language differences to go by.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They’re white people with similar coloration, a shared heritage, and the same language. What’s the issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They’re white people with similar coloration, a shared heritage, and the same language. What’s the issue?
As I have stated multiple times, what I have read suggests this is categorically false. But that is just my interpretation.
Secondly, scratch out the word 'white' and replace it with any other color and think about that statement again.
My point is, everywhere else the writers have tried to create distinctions between various groups, to better create more representation and diversity. Something which I have no problem with, and actually support. But in this example they're erasing distinctions that were already there and saying they were never there. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised at this reaction of utter surprise and mild condescension from many.
But I'm just one dissenting voice among a chorus of agreement, so I guess I should just keep my feelings and opinions to myself.
I get why they're doing it, as well as how and why it's that way. I, personally, just don't like it, and I admit that's mostly on me. I have a tendency to fixate, as I am obsessive compulsive.
I've been there, and I feel your pain.
Secondly, scratch out the word 'white' and replace it with any other color and think about that statement again.Oh come now, it's not like the Chelish had a culture worth making distinct. The whole place is a pit of reaction and barbarism, and ought to be wiped off the face of the world.
That's quite the exaggeration and not really accurate. However, Chelaxian and Taldane cultures arguably have more in common than Garundi ones do, and that's always been a single ethnicity. So I agree that Taldan is fine.
And as others have pointed out, Pathfinder ethnicities are much broader than the usual real world uses of the term. Or else there would be at least a few thousand of them among humans alone.
|
|
That's quite the exaggeration and not really accurate.
How so? They've had at least two chances now to regenerate from a chauvinist, culture-devouring despotism and rejoin humanity, and have botched it up both times. There's nothing worth hoping for out of these people, and the sooner they make way for something better, the better.
That's quite the exaggeration and not really accurate.How so? They've had at least two chances now to regenerate from a chauvinist, culture-devouring despotism and rejoin humanity, and have botched it up both times. There's nothing worth hoping for out of these people, and the sooner they make way for something better, the better.
I get that this is fiction, but considering their great similarity, superficial or not, to a real-world culture that still exists today, that is such a monstrously racist and prejudiced attitude that it's clear there's no point in even engaging with you further.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, it actually kind of makes sense to me, though there are a few ways to visualize it. I can think of 3.
1. In this case, Pathfinder's "ethnicities" is more a statement of shared cultural origin than the real world's definition. In this case, classifying Chelish as Taldane is the equivalent of saying, for simplicties sake, classifying French as European. If I were making a simplified campaign setting that was...well, Earth, to a group of aliens, I'd introduce French people (or German people, or Greek people, or Spanish people) as "Europeans" (maybe "Western Europeans") and then detail specific cultural differences (and origins of root differences in ethnic group via historical context) in each country's description. Which...the Lost Omens guide does do.
2. It was always a tad strange, to be frank, that the Chelish were considered a separate ethnicity than the Taldane, when none of the other ethnic groups of the world presented in Pathfinder were ever subdivided in a similar fashion. Maybe Ulfen, but even still...
The Garundi have enormous variation across the board. Keleshites are outright stated to be an overarching category based on ignorance that encompasses a ton of different groups. The Tien are a mass of different peoples. And the Mwangi. And the Kellids. Except Varisians and Ulfen, no other ethnicity is so singular, and considering Varisians actually *do* have drastic differences based on where they live (possibly creating unique ethnic groups, like Ustalavic, Varisian, arguably even the Szcarni given that their culture is so unique). Honestly, having all the other ethnicities be so weirdly lumped together...but have the Taldanes have prominent sub-categories listed as full categories always seemed off-putting. Like, the Taldanes are the closest thing to "white" in Pathfinder's lore, and so seeing the different kinds of "white" get their own massive 8-page descriptions and having the other (admittedly, in my own opinion, more interesting and unique) ethnicites forced to share page-space with others (fundamentally different, mind you) based solely on a weird lumping was a bit...strange, to say the least. This felt kind of bringing it more into line with how other ethnicities were categorized, and I'm okay with that. I mean, personally, I'd have preferred the other direction (every sub-ethnicity becoming a full fledged, fully developed primary ethnicity) but I can understand why that wasn't the easier direction to go.
3. Consider this: do Chelish outside of Cheliax act at all differently when they live elsewhere? I bring this up because one way I look at ethnicity is...flexibility. I know this is strange, but stay with me. Taldanes seemed a good primary category to me because if I met a Taldane in Isger and a Taldane in Taldor, they would act completely different, sure, but they'd be very similar in appearance and from an outsider perspective I'd be hard-pressed to tell them apart. But Chelish are always described as acting...well, Chelish, wherever they go. They were a much more rigid group, more bound by national traditions that they insisted on clinging to when traveling abroad. This made them feel like "visitors" when they showed up in say, Vidrian or Varisia. They didn't feel like an overarching group, but literally just the same country-folk but displaced into other places. I know this one's kind of hard to follow, but the way I see it: broad-strokes, primary categories should be *broad*. When you say something is a "dog" it doesn't serve to narrow it's definition. It's meant to be cast as a wide net. To me, having Chelish as a primary category was like making "poodle" and "dog" the same level of specificity. A poodle is clearly a type of dog. We already have the dog word, and if you want to look for types of dogs, you can.
Lastly...err, I'm kind of confused by the statement that "scratch that statement without the word white and it'd be so much worse." I mean...yes, yes it would. So, uh...isn't the fact that Zenj aren't listed as a full category kinda crummy, then? That they're just Mwangi? They clearly aren't. They're definitely not Bonuwat, and they are sure as hell not Bekyar. Like yes, I agree this level of cramming together is not my favorite. Like I said, given my way, each and every minor ethnicity: from Varki to Tien-Min, from Irrisenni to Isgeri, would get their own full category and their own articles written on them. But the thing is, what I think the designers were going for here was to increase their consistency and change the definition of their in-world nomenclature. Now, when they say "ethnicity" they mean "broad-stroke shared grouping of humans." Now everyone is equally diluted. Since 2E is something of a reboot, that makes sense. Simplifying things makes them easier to understand and digest, and now at least that weird thought of "hey, why are Chelish different than Taldane but Osiriani aren't different from Garundi" won't pop up. It's more consistent. Plus, given how low Chelish global influence has fallen, having them diminish in significance from a full ethnicity to a sub-ethnicity is kind of a context clue within the setting that their star is on the decline while the rest of the world rises, so lore-wise it checks out.
So yeah, basically, um, I don't see a problem with it. That's my long and meandering reason why. And uh...on an unrelated note...I want to know more about the Isgeri tribes. Oh, and Thuvians. Oh, and the different Keleshite traditions. Oh, oh, and more about the Zenj please. And...and everybody else too (I want more Varki content, I've always been enamored with them and always wanted to play a Varki-Snowcaster half-elf). For that matter, more details on non-human ethnicities would also be super.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just a reminder:
Paizo forums don't allow discussions of real-world politics. Probably not a good tangent to take.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides...like, harsh, man. I know that House Thrune is pretty evil, and their regime encourages being like them to survive, but I'm pretty sure most Chelish are...just people? People who might even prefer not being ruled over by literal actual devil-summoners? But...they have Hell on their side. And even a full blown rebellion with angelic support failed. Not because the people are a lost cause. Because House Thrune kinda...cheats.