| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I miss slutty Succubus, inbreed Ogers and childrien-eaters Goblins.
All are still around, just not quite so explicit. A lot of the 'toning down' of pathfinder is simply making such things implicit instead of explicit. This also allows for easy customization at your table. Pathfinder Baseline is just that, a baseline. A group that wants content outside of it can easily have it by simply giving more details.
It's a smart move on Paizo's part to have the baseline be something acceptable to the widest audience. The grit is still there under the surface.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
That Kuthite ritual that is so horrible turns the person into a "Joyful Thing", which was only started up fairly late in the life cycle of the game. Strange Aeons was also filled with horrible stuff.
Pathfinder wasn't gritty that gradually became not. It ebbed and flowed as the writers wanted or needed. I don't expect that to change going forward. Hell, Nidal and Zon-Kuthon are still a big part of the setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All are still around, just not quite so explicit. A lot of the 'toning down' of pathfinder is simply making such things implicit instead of explicit. This also allows for easy customization at your table. Pathfinder Baseline is just that, a baseline. A group that wants content outside of it can easily have it by simply giving more details.
It's a smart move on Paizo's part to have the baseline be something acceptable to the widest audience. The grit is still there under the surface.
Additionally Paizo is now more free to push the envelope when they want to since the "baseline" concept implicitly includes a "we will give fair warning if we deviate from the baseline" rather than having to figure out "well, this is really creepy and cool, but can we include it" on a case by case basis.
You can just include it in big red letters where the GM will see it, provide guidelines for giving their group appropriate notice that their expectations should be different without tipping your hand, and how to alter things if you or your group would prefer otherwise. Like instead of that content warning in Hell's Rebels 6 being a one-off thing, we can just make this a standardized process (like movie, tv, video game etc. ratings.)
Of course this means it's more appropriate to do this sort of thing in adventures than bestiaries, but that's fine really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find it to be a highly debatable point that the Hook Mountain Massacre & paizo's depiction of ogres isn't "trying too hard", given that they're slapping the Hills Have Eyes/Texas Chainsaw series imagery onto 800lb giants. It's not exactly dripping with subtly or nuance, that.
Which isn't to say it doesn't have a pulpy, grindhouse appeal I can't appreciate. But it is also morally simplistic. Big stupid brutes are violent & sexually deviant, fight & kill them.
I'm well on record for hating Nocticula being the redemption story - and I'm also on record for my WotR PC specifically killing the hell out of her in the post campaign demon lord hunt scenario, and trying to reconcile that in my home campaign with later lore developments has been a massive headache - but it does seem to me that it's edgier to force PCs into scenarios where they have to compromise their morals to proceed rather than having a clear dividing line between "this person is good, help them, this person is bad, hit them with pointy pieces of metal."
Edginess - real edginess - to me comes from making uncomfortable situations resulting from sympathizing with with people you know you shouldn't, compromising with people you know you shouldn't, working in scenarios where both sides have a point, both sides have done wrong, and two reasonable people can be utterly convinced they know the right answer to a situation & have the exact opposite opinion on what that right answer is, without it being contrived.
Which isn't to say I have a problem with bad guys doing bad things. Just, you need a range & a spectrum of bad guys who do different bad things for different reasons & to different degrees, & for whom there are different ways to deal with.
I do think that a lot of those early "edgy" depictions of bad guys were part of a conscious effort to reject movements at the time where, WoW was reaching new peaks of popularity with traditional "mosnter" races being playable, Eberron was doing a lot of stuff with throwing racial alignments out the window & setting up the Droaam, 4e was establishing Nentir Vale as being less human dominated, & even Forgotten Realms was making some moves towards being more monster race PC friendly(that they never followed up on or did anything of substance with), and Paizo sees all this & goes, no, our orcs a nihilstic barbarian cavemen, our ogres are hillbilly rapists, our trolls are basically wild animals, our drow are demon worshipers so evil that if an elf becomes evil enough they'll actually turn into a drow, our goblins eat people's faces in front of their kids.
And I'd like to think that a few of the decisions made in 2e are more of a kind of them realizing that more interesting stories can be told if, while those options all remain on the table, they aren't the only stories you can tell with those pieces.
Because, for instance, in the Kingmaker game where you can
Having said that, I do think there are some odd growing pains in terms of making the transition to this way of thinking after a solid decade of going hardline in the other direction for a lot of this; with the decision to make goblins a core playable race & how awkward that is being a prime example of that.
I also think that Pathfinder is starting to run into this problem of, is the point of the setting that it exists for Paizo to tell stories, or is that it exists as a sandbox for the players to have adventures in? I think it's solidly gone in the former direction. Hence issues with perceived plot armor of certain NPCs & perceived railroading in certain adventures.
I personally would have preferred it be a sandbox & Paizo just give me the tools with which to tell my stories in it, rather than ride along for theirs. It's one of the reasons I much prefer Starfinder, as it being their secondary product & getting less attention because of that, as well as just the bigger nature of it as a setting, gives me more room to play instead of performing the steps laid out for me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion and the Adventure Paths have always been for Paizo to tell stories in it, it's birth in 3.5 was as the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path (The Chronicles Campaign Setting hardcover didn't even come out for over a year to the day after Burnt Offerings was published).
Golarion isn't a sandbox, it's a kitchen sink that you can tell stories in.
The Sandbox is the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is fair enough.
I'm just saying that while I don't agree with the particular criticism that this post alleges, I do find myself increasingly less interested in the stories that the creative heads in Paizo want to tell than I was years ago. Least the ones in this setting, at any rate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many, many, many essays written on the fact that d20 RPGs being primarily built for combat and murder is not necessarily a good thing, actually.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't gotten too into the 2nd edition stuff, but there seems to be enough of a change that 2nd edition Golarion and beyond is a bit more "all ages" than 1E. That got me thinking about the 3.5 adventures and sourcebooks, which all had this sort of terror and horror and overall "edginess" that wasn't available in 1E. 3.5 felt like a setting where Folca could conceivably exist.
What are some darker aspects you liked about the old-school days?
I personally don't subscribe the notion that just because real life is (or should be) equal and fair my fantasy should be that too.
In fact, I play fantasy to no small extent precisely because it allows us to explore and play in a world full of murder, slavery, inequality, and prejudice. Without having to go into real-world complications associated with a game set in our real-life history.
To me unenlightened prejudice and stereotyping is bad but still not as controversial as actually killing people. This new-fangled notion that murder is entirely uncontroversial, but the slightest hint of prejudice or unfairness is not, baffles the mind.
Two things;
I think there's an important distinction to be made between having a setting that allows for prejudices to exist within it, and a setting that justifies those prejudices & codifies them as fact. I think it's fine to have a world where prejudiced people exist, whether it's racial, religious, or sexual prejudices. I even think it's okay to have those things in a somewhat neutral light of "yeah this is just how it is here." For me, the line comes at constructing a fictional setting where the prejudices are explicitly justified & people are shown to be right to be prejudiced. You can tell a story about why prejudiced people think they're right, but if someone tries to actually frame them as having a point, then - intentionally or not - it becomes a case for justifying prejudices in general.
Secondly, I also personally think that it's a point of strength of a setting that a wide range of stories be possible to tell within that setting. For some, telling the story of a character who's overcome adversity of prejudice is something that they like. For others, telling the story of a character who might face prejudice in the real world but doesn't in this fantasy world is the escapism that draws them to the fantasy world to start with. I think both of these stories should be able to be told in the same setting, with circumstance being what separates the two characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are many, many, many essays written on the fact that d20 RPGs being primarily built for combat and murder is not necessarily a good thing, actually.
I'm not sure "an RPG where the primary conflict resolution is through swords and sorcery" is materially different than "a film where the primary conflict resolution is through kung fu fights." I guess a steady diet of nothing but Shaw Bros. films isn't good for you either, but as a wise muppet once said- "Cookies are a sometimes food."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what I'm saying is that people get riled up when characters get discriminated against.
In a game where bloodbaths get a free pass.
I think you’re missing the point of the objections.
Most people I see don’t object to the existence of discrimination. It’s normalised discrimination - same as “lawful good, sexist gods” or “non evil societies that legalise slavery”.
It’s not the existence of bad things that’s the problem, it’s the correspondence with real world cultures and the implied moral judgements.
There isn’t a real world society where the morality of bloodbaths is controversial, so the situation isn’t analogous.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what I'm saying is that people get riled up when characters get discriminated against.
In a game where bloodbaths get a free pass.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's not a stumper. I game with other people, most of them friends.
Most of them can or have experienced discrimination in their lives.
Most of them have neither murdered anyone, or themselves been murdered.
One of these things might hit close to home and bother them, in an activity meant to be an escape from 'real life' for the purposes of recreational escapism. The other, likely, will not.
And that's the simple explanation. I like my friends. I don't feel the need to bludgeon them with racist or sexist hater crap they have to deal with in the real world, during our few hours a week or month that we can get together and escape to a fantasy world of adventure together.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that's the simple explanation. I like my friends. I don't feel the need to bludgeon them with racist or sexist hater crap they have to deal with in the real world, during our few hours a week or month that we can get together and escape to a fantasy world of adventure together.
I see this same debate in fanfiction circles. Some people turn to fiction to escape from the horror of the real world and some people heal by engaging with that horror in their fiction. Both are valid, but we should try to clearly mark which approach our fiction is taking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want just to point out that, in the setting, the Worldwound was closed and the Apocalypse Dawn prophetized for 5000k years was stopped. Moreover, 3/4 apocalypse level events have been avoided.
Golarion remains a very dangerous place, with complex villains, but the "destroy the world" endings have been - and probably shall be - toned down, or the destruction limited to certain part of the settings.
I see this as a toned down edginess.
Moreover, greater representation leads also to stronger story possibility. The problem is, it crashes pre-constructed ideas
Like, what about a conflict to bonify/repopulate Sarkoris? That would be an interesting adventure, but a conflictual ones. What about only monster race can thrive there until the region has been properly restored?
However, i must admit that certain enemy npcs of the setting are treated with heavy plot armor and - most importantly - without greater involvement with the plot. No one says that Strahd von Zarovich, from Ravenloft, got plot armor because he'll be around, in your players face, and will be not only the prime mover of that adventure, but also forced to both play smart and manipulate the players to achieve his ends.
Without this involvement, the (structural) plot armor that the stories give to certain npcs become unbearable.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's unfair to compare the number of "world ending" plots in 2nd edition, which has been active for a few years only, to 1st edition, which had a decade or so.
AKA: Be patient and you shall be rewarded with adventures in which if the PCs fail, REALLY bad things happen. One will be out in a few months, in fact...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
besides, as i understand it, most of the plots wee more "evil despot conquers the world" rather than 'Ancient god destroys the world"
A campaign where the PCs are up against "evil ancient gods" is generally just one where the PCs' victory can only be partial (e.g. Strange Aeons). If we're up against Azaersi or Barzillai or Elvanna we can at least stop them directly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the World-ending scenarios, I'm glad we don't have that, cause many stories do not need such dangers. To me, they detract from the Pc's drama. Moreover, such events impact on the "modular" reality that are Golarion nations.
I'm also glad that the Worldwound was closed, cause its existence was a bit too much, and i never felt it's true impact on avistan's society and culture. Both Ustalav and the Mammoth lords realm where too little affected by such presence.
Regarding the differences between PF1 and PF2, lets us take Absalom as an example.
In Ruins of Azlant, a bad ending actually sees the island of Korthos totally annihilated. Absalom was not even part of that story, but can easily go BOOM!
In Extinction curse, the worst case scenario is ... a gradual destruction, something that could - imhb - actually be countered with enough effort by Absalom population and magical might. That would be a great scenario, honestly: to see the region weaken and try to fight it. That is the kind of story i want my pcs in, cause all the damage cause by that campaign bad ending, and even the sinking of Korthos, could be stopped by enough human/ effort.
A big boom, instead, is someone pushing a bottom, and brings little story opportunity. Looking at a certain lich lord with a nuke hobby (even in the Siege of Gallowspire scenario). That is a kind of edginess i'm glad we shall not see it more often.
|
|
Err, you are making latter sound not that bad when its less that and more "oh crap. We are going to die and we will see it coming"
As in, its not something you can fight, its very biblical apocalypse targeting the island where best case scenario is evacuating as many people as possible which probably won't happen in time considering pcs are likely dead at that point :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Err, you are making latter sound not that bad when its less that and more "oh crap. We are going to die and we will see it coming"
As in, its not something you can fight, its very biblical apocalypse targeting the island where best case scenario is evacuating as many people as possible which probably won't happen in time considering pcs are likely dead at that point :p
I would be worried, but the point of many AP is to actually fight the apocalypse and win. A society like Absalom can, with a certain degree of difficulty, pull together the resources to either contrast or overcome this curse. Aroden never had the means to truly destroy what he created, and that's because humanity outgrow azlant, in both good and evil.
This is the flaw of the AP as a whole: the idea that the life of hundreds of generations of people living and cultivating the island of Korthos are not what makes the island itself work and live, but are accessories to some batteries stolen to the lizard people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you are right.
Let us return to the main topic. This is a post about Golarion "edginess", and i'm glad that the potential bad ending of this PF2 campaign is not a big explosion, but a complex process that allows people to fight back to a certain degree.
Regarding the curse itself, The book express how this destruction arrives in waves, and it strikes to me as a gradual deterioration (weeks, months i suppose). This is also more realistic, thought to me falls in the same logic fallacy of this whole adventure: that somehow 5 thousand years of people living and building on Korthos did not "enrich" (on both a physical and magical way) the land more that the magical presence of those orbs.
Let us take another "edgy" topic of this AP, the ruin (slow genocide?) that Aroden's actions produced upon the Xulgath. This is treated with the proper respect and consideration to me. That's it way, way different from the approach of the Serpent Skull Ap, were the objective was to stop the resurrection of a evil god that would have united a fractured society into a (certain?) menace for the surface dwellers: in that scenario, there was no chance to "talk to the snakes", i believe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, I don't particularly find End of the World plots to be particularly edgy.
I mean, they can be if you play up the idea of the Godzilla Threshold; i.e., in the face of the literal end of the world, any and all options are on the table. When you raise the moral & ethical questions of what is justified to prevent the apocalypse, that can be edgy.
But more often than not the tend to be more on the lines of saturday morning cartoons. Bad guy wants to blow up the world, good guy stops them is kind of the height of morally simplistic storytelling.
Again, I'm not saying they can't be. But I think someone saying to me that a lack of Apocalyptic threats makes a setting less edgy just inherently, I'd come to the conclusion that you & I have different definitions of what the word "edgy" means. Which is fair. It's a nebulous & subjective term.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the edginess I'm happy to see less of is basically prurient juvenalia not actually dark or grim plot elements.
Like it's enough to persuade the PCs to fight the ogres because "the ogres want to kill and eat you" and not even mention the sexual assault stuff.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edginess honestly just means something is shocking. (I completely agree with not seeing end of the world plotlines itself as edgy)
Ogres eating people can be edgy when you describe in minute detail one of them biting into living farmer and describe in gross amount of detail amount of bone snapping noises :P
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edginess honestly just means something is shocking. (I completely agree with not seeing end of the world plotlines itself as edgy)
Ogres eating people can be edgy when you describe in minute detail one of them biting into living farmer and describe in gross amount of detail amount of bone snapping noises :P
Attempts to be shocking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah getting back to topic, I'm under impression that Agents of Edgewatch apparently also has lot of messed up stuff.
Abomination Vaults definitely has potentially :'D
Yep can confirm that book 1 and 2 has a lot of grim dark stuff just it's more saw or hellraiser and less deliverence.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how explicitly lgbtq+ friendly Paizo and several of its adventures have been and are, I'm not certain I can agree with the premise that sexuality is in any way swept under the rug. Furthermore, I don't especially see the 'maturity' value of putting nudes in the monster manual, though far be it from me to agree with the West's Puritan attitudes toward nudity... Just that I don't feel it has anything to do with either edginess or maturity.
On the same token, other hand, I do not see that creating a welcoming atmosphere for gamers of myriad social backgrounds 'sweeps injustice under the rug'. There remains plenty of injustice to fight in the world, so I can't imagine in what way inequality has been scrubbed off except by allowing players to choose whether or not they want to play a character of their choosing and also experience discrimination toward that character. If being free to play what character you want without being punished for it by the world reacting with 1950's social and moral standards isn't mature or edgy enough, I have no nostalgia for either of those traits, real or imagined, on Golarion
No.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note though that Sarenrae and Erastil things seems to be things that didn't exist when JJ created them, but when other writers added stuff to them :p So them getting rid of Cult of Dawnflower and questionable "LG stay in the kitchen" thing is more of making them in line with what they were originally supposed to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note though that Sarenrae and Erastil things seems to be things that didn't exist when JJ created them, but when other writers added stuff to them :p So them getting rid of Cult of Dawnflower and questionable "LG stay in the kitchen" thing is more of making them in line with what they were originally supposed to be.
Eh? While Erastil's misogyny is a good thing, having a more militant branch of Sarenrae sounded pretty interesting.
"Redemption? I'm sorry Mr.Sex slave trafficker, you mistook me for my brethren in the eastern branch of the faith. I mean don't get me wrong, if one of them was here to speak on your behalf I would give them the benefit of the doubt and give that chance."
"But they aren't here, just me."
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to note though that Sarenrae and Erastil things seems to be things that didn't exist when JJ created them, but when other writers added stuff to them :p So them getting rid of Cult of Dawnflower and questionable "LG stay in the kitchen" thing is more of making them in line with what they were originally supposed to be.Eh? While Erastil's misogyny is a good thing, having a more militant branch of Sarenrae sounded pretty interesting.
"Redemption? I'm sorry Mr.Sex slave trafficker, you mistook me for my brethren in the eastern branch of the faith. I mean don't get me wrong, if one of them was here to speak on your behalf I would give them the benefit of the doubt and give that chance."
"But they aren't here, just me."
The problem with militant Sarenrites is that you have followers of the goddess of redemption not believing in redepmtion. It'd be lack having a bunch of Pharasmins animating the dead, or Gorumites being pacifists. If you want Good but unforgiving holy warriors then it makes more sense for them to follow a different deity altogether, which is why the setting has hundreds of them.
And I'm assuming you meant that Erastil's misogyny was a bad thing?
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh? While Erastil's misogyny is a good thing, having a more militant branch of Sarenrae sounded pretty interesting.
Hoping you meant “isn’t” there.
Also everyone’s avoiding the elephant in the room with writers seeing middle eastern themed religious folk and deciding to go “Ah so they’re jihadists. Got it.”
When that obviously was not supposed to be something even remotely associated with them and one of if not the biggest Big Good of the setting.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh? While Erastil's misogyny is a good thing, having a more militant branch of Sarenrae sounded pretty interesting.Hoping you meant “isn’t” there.
Also everyone’s avoiding the elephant in the room with writers seeing middle eastern themed religious folk and deciding to go “Ah so they’re jihadists. Got it.”
When that obviously was not supposed to be something even remotely associated with them and one of if not the biggest Big Good of the setting.
Yeaaaah I was saving that for next time someone tries to defend Cult of Dawnflower as good thing for both good aligned deity :p
(nobody has in long time used the "but I don't want politics in my games!" argument here so I haven't needed to make the "aren't you glad they removed Cult of Dawnflower then?" joke :P)