|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Zimmerwald treats Golarion as Earth with some slight fantasy elements sprinkled on the top. Except on Golarion, there's a real chance of a global communist revolution toppling capitalism and bringing eternal happiness for everybody. Strangely, Paizo doesn't get the memo.Well, Breachhill isn't exactly anything like the rest of Isger, and have you considered it's possible these people talked to each other like, well, people and saw that they were perfectly fine?
Not everything has to map out to some random aspect of real-world history. Sometimes it's okay when fictional characters aren't racist.
Funny how "these specific people on whom we center our story (and are of a type around which we keep centering our stories while claiming they're the exception) managing to maintain a non-racism (not an anti-racism) in a racist society" is an acceptable fantasy, while a workers' revolution in a setting that contains at least one example of such, numerous democratic revolutions, multiple slave uprisings, and a wave of abolitionism comparable to that of the early-to-mid 19th century's, is not. Goes to show a lot.
Also interesting that I am castigated for referring to real history (naturally a setting which deliberately draws analogies as obvious as Galt to revolutionary France knows nothing of history and is purely a product of creativity) when the example I actually gave was to in-setting history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always felt like fantasy worlds where there are hundreds of different kinds of sapient species should be less racist than the real world, because it does not take much to notice like that while elves are weird bug eyed aliens they are also more or less like reasonable people. This is going to take time, and there was a time when it was not true, but this was in the past.
Over time, having encountered cat people, and rat people, and fish people, and lizard people and concluded "them's folks too" you're going to get a lot less xenophobia based on racial/special lines and more on "those people from that neighboring country" as the people who are othered.
|
|
Perhaps it shows that they're trying to have a world that matches a lot of fantasy genre fiction (of different flavors in different places so they can tell different stories), rather than making some ideological point? Glossing over a lot of the horrors of real world history, while keeping some in place to play with.
Not that they think capitalist monarchies are the ideal form of society, but that monarchical trappings are a mainstay of fantasy stories.
. . . They literally restored a Romanov. You can't get much more on-the-nose about your ideological orientation.
Put another way, "why not both?"
Also, admitting that you're whitewashing for the sake of some other goal doesn't make the whitewashing something else.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No s!&~.
If someone is spouting hateful nonsense like that their credibility is already in the gutter, whatever other points and their attempt at validity are swept away.
Agreed. I'm not going to waste my time listening to someone who is full-on bigotry. Even if some of their points are valid, I tune them out entirely.
And therefore what: Paizo developers are monarchists? They believe in the divine right of kings? Why does this say anything about "ideological orientation"? One can enjoy fantasy stories in medieval kingdoms and still not want to live in a real one.Perhaps it shows that they're trying to have a world that matches a lot of fantasy genre fiction (of different flavors in different places so they can tell different stories), rather than making some ideological point? Glossing over a lot of the horrors of real world history, while keeping some in place to play with.
Not that they think capitalist monarchies are the ideal form of society, but that monarchical trappings are a mainstay of fantasy stories.
. . . They literally restored a Romanov. You can't get much more on-the-nose about your ideological orientation.
Put another way, "why not both?"
Also, admitting that you're whitewashing for the sake of some other goal doesn't make the whitewashing something else.
There’s also the commercial reality. They need to produce what they think they can sell as well as what they’re interested in.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s also the commercial reality. They need to produce what they think they can sell as well as what they’re interested in.And therefore what: Paizo developers are monarchists? They believe in the divine right of kings? Why does this say anything about "ideological orientation"? One can enjoy fantasy stories in medieval kingdoms and still not want to live in a real one.Perhaps it shows that they're trying to have a world that matches a lot of fantasy genre fiction (of different flavors in different places so they can tell different stories), rather than making some ideological point? Glossing over a lot of the horrors of real world history, while keeping some in place to play with.
Not that they think capitalist monarchies are the ideal form of society, but that monarchical trappings are a mainstay of fantasy stories.
. . . They literally restored a Romanov. You can't get much more on-the-nose about your ideological orientation.
Put another way, "why not both?"
Also, admitting that you're whitewashing for the sake of some other goal doesn't make the whitewashing something else.
And part of appealing to a wider audience is offering that wider audience more representation within the story. As a Gen X, Cis-Het White Dude, I don't know what it feels like to never read a book, comic book, see a movie, or TV show without seeing someone that looks or feels like me. But I do know that I've heard many folks who are either POC or don't identify the same as me gender or sexuality-wise saying that they had a hard time getting into sci-fi/fantasy or comic books because they didn't see someone that represented them (side note: Its why spiderman became so ubiquitous and popular amongst the nerd culture.)
So I have no issue with Paizo choosing to show a wider representation within their published works so as to include more people who are different than me in their fandom and this hobby. One way to get sales is to also find a wider market for those sales.
What really chaps me, is the comment using "representation" as a pejorative and using "verisimilitude" as a way to justify this view. What I garner from that, is the reviewer wants to only adventure in a world that represents them. They can't conceive of a fictional world that doesn't look like the history of the real world or don't find it enjoyable to play in that fictional world. They like the idea of being misogynistic, racist, and/or homophobic, even if on a subtle, inferred, or undercurrent level, within their game. Because somehow, without the Patriarchy of heterosexuals, the world doesn't seem realistic to them.
My take, is that Paizo is trying to have a world where anyone, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, sexuality, gender identity, or anything else, can be a leader of people. And that's awesome!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always felt like fantasy worlds where there are hundreds of different kinds of sapient species should be less racist than the real world, because it does not take much to notice like that while elves are weird bug eyed aliens they are also more or less like reasonable people. This is going to take time, and there was a time when it was not true, but this was in the past.
Over time, having encountered cat people, and rat people, and fish people, and lizard people and concluded "them's folks too" you're going to get a lot less xenophobia based on racial/special lines and more on "those people from that neighboring country" as the people who are othered.
Ergh, I have to disagree here. In PF/D&D-World there are actual beings who are Always Evil (except one or two exceptions in hundreds of millions of them) and a lot of races who are not Always Evil but extremely likely to be so. It would seem much more realistic if there were widespread resentment against goblins overall everywhere, because they have, for the longest of time, been a member of the "will almost certainly try to enslave you, kill you or eat you... if you're lucky, in that order" club of races. It's kinda difficult to come back from that and it would take a long time to change that image in the general populace. Which makes the jump from PF1E goblins to PF2E goblins so hard to swallow for some, including me.
The only beings that are always evil (or always good etc.) are outsiders, alien beings like aboleths, or magically created things like "non-intelligent undead."
Goblins, Orcs, etc. have never been "always evil" just the typical member of that species probably was based on the society they lived in. An individual goblin being good aligned was never any weirder or less common than an individual elf being lawfully inclined.
Sure, but you can always use humans as monsters. Bandits who will try to kill you and take yourself are never in short supply. If you want those bandits can be elves, or dwarves, or gnomes, or halflings too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always found Isabeela Locke from Skulls and Shackles to be perhaps the most horrific thing in an adventure path.
trigger warnings
** spoiler omitted **The cherry on the cake is the beefcake artwork used for her - after her bio reads like that.
Why do I find this worse that 'hook mountain massacre'? (Mind - that book had my players squirm in several spots).
Because there is almost no place where the players are going to learn all this about her - she doesn't reveal her past - she's almost pure 'evil pirate captain to show up and scare the players'. I totally get horror when it's meant to paint a backdrop to the players - and be a motivator. I mean - you feel like you need to STOP THE OGRES when one is using a knight as a paintbrush. This didn't add anything to the story and just kind of was there only for the GM.
/shrug
Hells Rebels endbook is the hands down best 'adventure in hell' I've ever read - I hope to run it for a group one day - if not and my players *ever* go to hell it will be my inspiration.
As to the new AP's for PF2? I firmly held out until I read the first volume - but they are Paizo - and awesome. My two cents.
This is a reason why I find the backstories of many characters to be just fluff. For example, the end bosses of the Skull&Shackles AP #6 are there to stab and be stabbed. Especially the fanatic bodyguard who just runs in swinging. I really didn't care to read what a nasty piece of work she is and all the stuff that happened when she was a kid. Same with her boss since she just taunts the PCs one time and only shows for the end fight.
|
Ergh, I have to disagree here. In PF/D&D-World there are actual beings who are Always Evil (except one or two exceptions in hundreds of millions of them) and a lot of races who are not Always Evil but extremely likely to be so. It would seem much more realistic if there were widespread resentment against goblins overall everywhere, because they have, for the longest of time, been a member of the "will almost certainly try to enslave you, kill you or eat you... if you're lucky, in that order" club of races. It's kinda difficult to come back from that and it would take a long time to change that image in the general populace. Which makes the jump from PF1E goblins to PF2E goblins so hard to swallow for some, including me.I always felt like fantasy worlds where there are hundreds of different kinds of sapient species should be less racist than the real world, because it does not take much to notice like that while elves are weird bug eyed aliens they are also more or less like reasonable people. This is going to take time, and there was a time when it was not true, but this was in the past.
Over time, having encountered cat people, and rat people, and fish people, and lizard people and concluded "them's folks too" you're going to get a lot less xenophobia based on racial/special lines and more on "those people from that neighboring country" as the people who are othered.
I mean Council of Thieves did have Hellknights give fullplate to LN wannabe hellknight goblin.
Just saying, if Hellknights can avoid killing a goblin in cheliax, Isger's goblin attitude being more of grumpy old men being still mad at them isn't too weird in comparison :p
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only beings that are always evil (or always good etc.) are outsiders, alien beings like aboleths, or magically created things like "non-intelligent undead."
Goblins, Orcs, etc. have never been "always evil" just the typical member of that species probably was based on the society they lived in. An individual goblin being good aligned was never any weirder or less common than an individual elf being lawfully inclined.
I never claimed that Goblins fall in the "always evil" category, but they definitely used to fall in the "almost certainly evil" category. Just 12 years ago and, honestly, mostly in-between as well. That makes the sudden jump to "totally accepted members of society" so unrealistic. Just compare to real-life minority groups like the Sinti and Roma, who racists have historically associated with criminal behaviour and who still face widespread racial discrimination worldwide.
Then make the mental leap to an actual race which, aside from having a reputation for thievery, also has an actually justified reputation for indiscriminate murder, cannibalism, arson and slavery. And you want to tell me that people would immediately change their opinion on a dime and just accept them? I would say that breaks my suspension of disbelief way more than a Fireball spell. There would (and should be) a bigger struggle for Goblins to find acceptance in civilized society than what we are seeing so far.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I regard PF1 golarion -> PF2 Golarion as similar to PF1 -> SF shift. They’re similar, but I don’t consider the worlds to be identical. Easy enough because we treat each AP as standalone, so the place names are the same but the world is different in APs going forward. I don’t think goblins have changed from one game to the other - rather we’ve stopped telling stories in a world where they were vicious brutes and started telling stories in a world where they’re more varied and nuanced - same as anyone. Works better in my head, that way.
For what it’s worth, it’s a change they’ve been walking back since shortly after Pathfinder’s release, in my view. The idea of “evil races” is something best left to outsiders anyway, imo (same as “usually evil races”).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As always, when discussing why entire races have a tendency towards evil behaviour in PF/D&D fantasy, I come back to there being actual gods with actual powers with an actual afterlife where you go when you behave a certain way. And that people can go to their local cleric/shaman/oracle and get actual, hands-on proof that those things exist.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but the races are still supposed to have free will though :p
So do crooked wall street bankers. The point is, there is a much higher incentive to actually behave in an evil way if there is an actual deity giving you the thumbs-up and offering tangible rewards in actual life and the afterlife as well.
Anyway, that's off-topic to the conversation at hand. Sorry.
Societies can have tendencies for alignments, since everyone is in part a product of their surroundings. But individuals can have any alignment at all.
Goblins short generation length means that social change for them can happen locally very quickly, and even people who are deeply skeptical of goblins based on past experiences would generally not want to resort to violence as a first resort (since any time combat happens, you might be the one who gets hurt real bad.)
The aside about gods is kind of irrelevant since there are lots of gods, and though many goblins might not know this yet- Sarenrae offers them a better deal than any of the Goblin Hero Gods. The thing about "clerics offer you proof that the gods are real" ignores the fact that major religions canonically mislead their followers (e.g. about what happens to atheists) and that non-religious people (divine sorcerers, oracles) have access to pretty much the same powers.
Off topic (from the current conversation, so meaning on the OP's topic) but from what I've read the most recent AP's are pretty great. I've intentionally not been reading them so that by miracle I get to play in one, I won't have spoiled it like I've done for the majority of the PF1e AP's. But the concepts behind the most recent SF and PF2e AP's look like a lot of fun.
Any thoughts?
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don't find the goblin change that implausible when you remember the time scale, and the fact that goblins are, in fact, still treated really badly most places.
The goblins themselves have, as mentioned, short generations, and it's thus been three generations since the Goblinblood Wars, and two since the events of RotRL. That's plenty of time for a society to shift. That's the equivalent of the time difference between World War 2, the Vietnam War, and the year 2000. Sure, people coming of age in the year 2000 knew about those two wars, but few had grudges against Germans or the Vietnamese any more.
Now, for humans, it's definitely a shorter period of time, culturally speaking, but there's also the intervening variables of the rise of the Whispering Tyrant (an event during which the remnants of Lastwall were saved by a group of Goblins...a fairly significant development), and the rise of Oprak as a nation (which might incline people to not try and be too mean to goblins just to avoid the wrath of a powerful new nation).
But actually, per the LOWG, Isger is really the only place (other than Oprak and Absalom, and Absalom has its own reasons) that's really treating the Goblins much differently, and they actually have a paragraph talking about why, which summarizes that it's basically driven by a need for mutual defense against the undead, which are a rising scourge in rural Isger. Mutual enemies can do a lot to make people who are otherwise unfriendly work together, and per the description most humans still see them as allies of convenience, with Breechhill being unusually nice in treating them any better than that.
|
|
On side note on the "offensive" topic, I was watching one video on urban fantasy that sidetracked to cultural appellation, politeness and offensiveness so that reminded me of this topic somewhat for some reason xP
But yeah I agree with that video, no matter what is written, its impossible to not offend someone in the world no matter how unlikely you think it is, but you can do your best to minimize the hurt(and in general just being polite and doing your research and such helps). If your intention is to make shocking statement, then offending someone is basically your goal.
I kinda see Paizo's current MO as kinda that, they started out as making things dark and edgy because they thought it was cool and over the years realized they were offending people so they cut back on that. At least I feel like nowadays Paizo does more research and uses dark stuff more effectively rather than just for shock value. Though I do think they could still research things more when using mythological and folklore :p At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On side note on the "offensive" topic, I was watching one video on urban fantasy that sidetracked to cultural
appellation[apropriation], politeness and offensiveness so that reminded me of this topic somewhat for some reason xPBut yeah I agree with that video, no matter what is written, its impossible to not offend someone in the world no matter how unlikely you think it is, but you can do your best to minimize the hurt(and in general just being polite and doing your research and such helps). If your intention is to make shocking statement, then offending someone is basically your goal.
If so, then:
(^_')=b
If not, then:
(^_')=b
...
Carry on,
--C.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On side note on the "offensive" topic, I was watching one video on urban fantasy that sidetracked to cultural
appellation[apropriation], politeness and offensiveness so that reminded me of this topic somewhat for some reason xPBut yeah I agree with that video, no matter what is written, its impossible to not offend someone in the world no matter how unlikely you think it is, but you can do your best to minimize the hurt(and in general just being polite and doing your research and such helps). If your intention is to make shocking statement, then offending someone is basically your goal.
** spoiler omitted **
If so, then:
(^_')=b
If not, then:
(^_')=b
...
Carry on,
--C.
Ye watched the same video I see :D
|
|
Ye watched the same video I see :DOn side note on the "offensive" topic, I was watching one video on urban fantasy that sidetracked to cultural
appellation[apropriation], politeness and offensiveness so that reminded me of this topic somewhat for some reason xPBut yeah I agree with that video, no matter what is written, its impossible to not offend someone in the world no matter how unlikely you think it is, but you can do your best to minimize the hurt(and in general just being polite and doing your research and such helps). If your intention is to make shocking statement, then offending someone is basically your goal.
** spoiler omitted **
If so, then:
(^_')=b
If not, then:
(^_')=b
...
Carry on,
--C.
It is her most recent Trope Talk, kindof hard to miss.
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)
One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
Awesome.
Hopefully they’ll keep the partial shifting and not be full on normal or were mode with no inbetween. They were some of my favourites to play in P1 ^w^
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
Ah well just one more reason for me not to play 2nd edition. Since from the sound of things there going to be fundimentaly diffrent from what they are now. (Or if I wanted to play a full werecreature I would just play a full werecreature.) Also anyone else see the irony of dropping a name to avoid cultural offence then at the same time whitewashing a race out of existence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah well just one more reason for me not to play 2nd edition. Since from the sound of things there going to be fundimentaly diffrent from what they are now. (Or if I wanted to play a full werecreature I would just play a full werecreature.) Also anyone else see the irony of dropping a name to avoid cultural offence then at the same time whitewashing a race out of existence.At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
Paizo's publications don't describe real people. The only people harmed by retconning an ancestry out of existence are fans who project onto them, and good riddance.
|
|
Ah well just one more reason for me not to play 2nd edition. Since from the sound of things there going to be fundimentaly diffrent from what they are now. (Or if I wanted to play a full werecreature I would just play a full werecreature.) Also anyone else see the irony of dropping a name to avoid cultural offence then at the same time whitewashing a race out of existence.At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
The aforementioned Golarion Skinwalker was an entirely fictional race made up for P1, so no.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At least I hope skinwalker name for "skinwalker" race isn't coming back in 2e since is example of things that pop culture gets wrong about navajo beliefs consistently.(plus its one of those things they consider personal and don't want to talk with outsiders)One reason we created the skinwalker was that we wanted to generate a balanced werecreature option for players to play. The name we chose was not a good choice, and it's something we've thankfully abandoned in 2nd edition entirely for obvious reasons about it being offensive to use them that way.
At this point, with the way the game has changed in how monsters and PC ancestries work, we don't have to "fake" an option for a PC were-creature. We can simply make a werecreature ancestry, so you'd be able to play a werewolf or wererat or whatever that's balanced for the game and doesn't have to perfectly match the monster version.
Long story short—characters who were skinwalkers in previous editions are now simply werecreatures. We'll get around, some day, to presenting ancestries for werecreatures. We won't be bringing back skinwalkers. At least, that's my preference as the creative director, so I'll need to make extra sure that's known across our designers and developers!
To further follow up on my first response, I’d say a lot of people didn’t play Skinwalkers in P1 to “fake” playing a werecreature, but played them precisely because of what they were, humans with animal attributes such as furry ears and tails. Either coming from playing Shifters in Eberron or a host of other media and stories (this isn’t exactly a niche or rare aesthetic).
It’s what I played them for. Witchwolves were my favourite, floofy tails :3 So hopefully that remains an option in P2, playing an Ancestry with Heritage options for animalistic additions (like the awesome Wilding feat chain in P1) that may or may not be caused by having a Wereparent and not just be shown the door with “oh quit faking and just play a werewolf”, because that’s not what a lot of people wanted.
We also had and hopefully get back Kitsune and Rougarou as well and that scratches the playing the full on anthro itch as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd think most people don't even know skinwalkers exist to care about them being supplanted by regular werecreatures :p
I mean regardless of what you thought of them, they were basically diet werecreatures to tiefling'ss/aasimar's diet half fiend/celestial and dhamphir's diet vampire.