Niche Request: Gnoll Ancestry


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:

I'd say that probably only free willing creatures that are almost always evil are probably aboleths/allgothuls.

Why? Because they all have genetic memory from time they were primordial ooze, so while individual aboleths have differences in personality from growing apart for super long time, they are all likely to share personality traits of supreme arrogance and being control freaks who think all other beings exists to be their slaves <_<

There could exist good aboleths yeah, but I think that would be more likely if some of them got amnesia or something to wipe out their genetic memory.

A good aboleth would be an extreme abnormality, but it might happen. I'm just of a never say never mind. Like a lich had to do unspeakable thing to become a lich, but in the next thousand years of it's life, who's to say it didn't find religion and have a change of heart. Makes for a more interesting world I think.

Dark Archive

Donovan Du Bois wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:

I'd say that probably only free willing creatures that are almost always evil are probably aboleths/allgothuls.

Why? Because they all have genetic memory from time they were primordial ooze, so while individual aboleths have differences in personality from growing apart for super long time, they are all likely to share personality traits of supreme arrogance and being control freaks who think all other beings exists to be their slaves <_<

There could exist good aboleths yeah, but I think that would be more likely if some of them got amnesia or something to wipe out their genetic memory.

A good aboleth would be an extreme abnormality, but it might happen. I'm just of a never say never mind. Like a lich had to do unspeakable thing to become a lich, but in the next thousand years of it's life, who's to say it didn't find religion and have a change of heart. Makes for a more interesting world I think.

Yeah, but aboleths are only creature I can think of where it is probability is nigh impossible without extraordinary situation happening. Having good drow or hobgoblin isn't THAT rare even if their societies are good at wiping them out.

Like, aboleth means in their language owner, master or god. Allgothul means "one who are all". Their arrogance is really seeped into their culture and genetic memory means each of them have incredibly long time worth of bias into their beliefs. The new generations of aboleths are basically clones of their parents with all their memory,(their arrogance just have them always consider themselves as the primary one), so they don't have that effect where younger generation grows from their parents mistakes.

I really think most likely explanation for good allgothul would be amnesia since practically infinite amount of years worth of cultural bias would be incredibly hard to over turn.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm down with PC gnolls. An even more nicher-er request while we're at it, but I'd like to see some player options for space baddies, like grays and reptoids.

CorvusMask wrote:
And yeah, I agree that its for better that PCs wonder about what to do rather than assuming its okay to attack everyone on sight :p Like constructs and fiends are probably most safest to attack on sight(and obvious slavers), but attacking random group of kobolds that are eating turnings seems drastic

... My numerous sapient clockwork and robot characters would disagree with this assessment. :P

Dark Archive

Hey, you can usually tell difference between intelligent constructs and non intelligent ones :P One of them isn't fine with standing thousand years in room guarding it. (and robots are rarely actually sapient in PF1e. Like they are all pretty much acting according to programming without really having complex enough programming to pass Turner Test. Androids aren't robots)

Silver Crusade

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

The problem is that Nocticula's conversion wasn't good story. It's also not showing her gain free will. She became redeemed because of a time traveling follower who said she was redeemed. Predestination, she didn't get a choice.

All in all, I just prefer a heroic fantasy game. Yes, I understand that some members of the races will have different alignments. I don't agree, personally, with the way they're changing the fluff for some of the races. I would have much preferred kobolds as a new core race, because Pathfinder Society had a few adventures where kobolds had actually been making friendly advances to the core races. By contrast, from day 1, Pathfinder defined goblins as dangerous, insane, stupid little psychos, until all of a sudden they aren't.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
The problem is that Nocticula's conversion wasn't good story. It's also not showing her gain free will. She became redeemed because of a time traveling follower who said she was redeemed. Predestination, she didn't get a choice.
It's not a case of the follower telling her, it's her current divine self and her future divine self being the same being momentarily due to how deities and time travel works (the follower in question was getting divine empowerment from Nocticula, not Redeemer Queen Nocticula, not Succcubus Nocticula, Nocticula). So yes there's some predetermination there, but it still set her on the path that would lead to her ascension (killing other demon lords, helping heroes, etc).
Quote:
By contrast, from day 1, Pathfinder defined goblins as dangerous, insane, stupid little psychos, until all of a sudden they aren't.

No, we had examples that met that. We also had examples that didn't.

Silver Crusade

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

Lamashtu killed demon lords, doesn't make her good.

The write-up in Rise of the Runelords discussed the goblins as that. The Goblins comic shows them as that, where are the examples of them not being chaotic evil little maniacs? I mean come on, they're supposed to be alchemists now, which requires keeping a formula book, when part of the original Pathfinder specific fluff for goblins is that they believe writing steals the words from your head. That's not given as a specific group of goblins believing that, it's a race-wide superstition. They are described in Pathfinder books as being thought of as "nothing more than murderous pests by most". And what, exactly, happened between the publishing of Rise of the Runelords and now to represent a shift in how goblins are viewed? Goblins or gnolls, either one.

Now, if they made the first adventure path where gnolls/goblins actually play a part as allies, I could understand it, but not when they're basically saying "don't bother learning the lore of the setting, we change it on a whim".

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Lamashtu killed demon lords, doesn't make her good.
She has?
Quote:

The write-up in Rise of the Runelords discussed the goblins as that. The Goblins comic shows them as that, where are the examples of them not being chaotic evil little maniacs?

They have been shown in many places and have been pointed out in other recent threads on the subject, we have Snapjack in Pezzack and the the tribe of ice goblins that help the Pathfinder Society, among others.
Quote:
I mean come on, they're supposed to be alchemists now, which requires keeping a formula book, when part of the original Pathfinder specific fluff for goblins is that they believe writing steals the words from your head. That's not given as a specific group of goblins believing that, it's a race-wide superstition.
They didn't separate culture and genetics for the longest time, the fear of words is a cultural stigma, not a genetic one.
Quote:
They are described in Pathfinder books as being thought of as "nothing more than murderous pests by most". And what, exactly, happened between the publishing of Rise of the Runelords and now to represent a shift in how goblins are viewed? Goblins or gnolls, either one.

the We Be Heroes moduel has a big one for Goblins, helping Lastwall Refugees escape undead hordes.

And Gnolls are citizens of Katapesh, they've never been treated as pest or KoS And you meet Golls you can ally with in Legacy of Fire.

Quote:
Now, if they made the first adventure path where gnolls/goblins actually play a part as allies, I could understand it, but not when they're basically saying "don't bother learning the lore of the setting, we change it on a whim".

Nothing's changed, goblins and gnolls are not genetically evil, the main emphasis has been on evil cultures, but there's been non-evil ones.

Silver Crusade

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

I was mistaken about Lamashtu, I misremembered about Cerunnos. Doesn't change the point that demon lords war amongst themselves all the time, just because they end up killing the person they've been trying to kill doesn't make them good. Tar-baphon wouldn't undergo an alignment shift for killing either Razmir or Abrogail of Thrune.

I count three exceptions to the goblin rule. And apparently your GM was running the ice tribe of goblins a lot more friendly and helpful than mine did. And that still means you have three exceptions to the rule proving that goblins can indeed be helpful, except they are very localized aid, whereas goblins also played a major part of the Ironfang Invasion adventure path, showing them as violent, bloodthirsty monsters.

Regarding the cultural stigma, isn't it interesting that said stigma still holds true for goblins on the literal other side of the planet?

I believe you said it to me regarding 2nd Darkness, I return the sentiment: Legacy of Fire was 3.5, not Pathfinder. Still, you're right about them being citizens of Katapesh, so I withdraw some of my arguments against including them as a viable race.

You haven't really shown them to have the not-evil members, all that's been pointed out is that some are willing to ally in the face of a bigger threat.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Treating all members of a race as evil as a preemptive measure to gain initiative in a fight may be a good shortcut for your character, but will also result in you committing murderous acts.

Not all Gnolls, Drow, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc are evil.

If you want to play murder-hobo and attack them on sight regardless of circumstance then it's not that far from rounding up their women and children and executing them.

You're describing an evil aligned character and if that's what you want to play then you're free to do it. Killing monstrous races on sight is within character for an evil aligned character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, let's maybe not delve into "this thread gets locked" territory with some of this discourse.

Either way, it seems somewhat evident that Paizo is well on their way towards having non-evil gnolls (as per LOWG), very possibly setting up the groundwork for a playable ancestry, and it'd be hardly the first instance of that in 2nd edition (or Pathfinder in general).

After all, we have goblins in the Core Rulebook now.
We also have lizardfolk and hobgoblins coming soon (two ancestries with at least some history of being portrayed as kinda nasty), plus orcs and kobolds after that.
And it's probably fair to say they will be portrayed in a way where there's at least some places around Golarion where they aren't kill-on-sight material (Lake Ocota orcs in the Mwangi Expanse, peaceful gnolls in Nantambu - hell, even the CRB mentions Belkzen orcs having to try "other means of securing their lands" , and kobolds being "industrious and fecund").

And yes, it ultimately results in a more nuanced and cooler setting if you have several different cultures with different values and traits for the various ancestries than a blanket "oh they're all [insert alignment]". And it feels that Paizo seems to recognize that, so I think we're safe.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Gloom wrote:

Treating all members of a race as evil as a preemptive measure to gain initiative in a fight may be a good shortcut for your character, but will also result in you committing murderous acts.

Not all Gnolls, Drow, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc are evil.

If you want to play murder-hobo and attack them on sight regardless of circumstance then it's not that far from rounding up their women and children and executing them.

You're describing an evil aligned character and if that's what you want to play then you're free to do it. Killing monstrous races on sight is within character for an evil aligned character.

Armageddon Echo, pg 58. There are no good drow.

Edit:checking your post, I was a little hard line on it. Can we all agree that Good drow and gnolls would be exceptionally, EXCEPTIONALLY rare?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Gloom wrote:

Treating all members of a race as evil as a preemptive measure to gain initiative in a fight may be a good shortcut for your character, but will also result in you committing murderous acts.

Not all Gnolls, Drow, Goblins, Hobgoblins, etc are evil.

If you want to play murder-hobo and attack them on sight regardless of circumstance then it's not that far from rounding up their women and children and executing them.

You're describing an evil aligned character and if that's what you want to play then you're free to do it. Killing monstrous races on sight is within character for an evil aligned character.

Armageddon Echo, pg 58. There are no good drow.

Edit:checking your post, I was a little hard line on it. Can we all agree that Good drow and gnolls would be exceptionally, EXCEPTIONALLY rare?

I've already pointed out the flaws in believing that obvious propaganda piece, and quoted the actual sidebar that basically does say Good Drow exist.

Edit: Rare and nonexistent are two different things. You move them away from certain Cultures, it's more likely to encounter those who do not ascribe to that culture.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Doesn't change the point that demon lords war amongst themselves all the time, just because they end up killing the person they've been trying to kill doesn't make them good.
Intent matters.
Quote:
I count three exceptions to the goblin rule.
There's plenty more, I just honestly don't feel like searching and diving for them all when it's been brought up across threads I admit.
Quote:
whereas goblins also played a major part of the Ironfang Invasion adventure path, showing them as violent, bloodthirsty monsters.
Most antagonistic groups in APs are. Which has the run the gamut on races. Note we're also getting Hobgoblin as a plyable Ancestry too.
Quote:
Regarding the cultural stigma, isn't it interesting that said stigma still holds true for goblins on the literal other side of the planet?
We have specific writeups for Goblins in Tian Xia and Casmaron? Most of what we've been shown is the Inner Sea. The Kijimuna for example are normally listed as CN.
Quote:
You haven't really shown them to have the not-evil members, all that's been pointed out is that some are willing to ally in the face of a bigger threat.

I haven't seen specific individual non-Evil Gnolls I'll admit, they're always presented as a tribe with no alignment listed for the most part.

Silver Crusade

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

Kijimuna is goblinoid, not a goblin. We're talking specific race, unless you want to start making claims that a red dragon isn't evil because a silver isn't.

And do we have a refutation of the write-ups for the goblin, saying that these other goblins don't react that way? We have canon information saying this is how goblins act. It's not how Inner Sea goblins, or Tian goblins, or goblins on Castrovel act, it's how goblins period act.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
And do we have a refutation of the write-ups for the goblin, saying that these other goblins don't react that way? We have canon information saying this is how goblins act. It's not how Inner Sea goblins, or Tian goblins, or goblins on Castrovel act, it's how goblins period act.

From where?

Silver Crusade

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

And you miss my point regarding Ironfang Invasion. You're saying goblins have become accepted based on the accomplishment of one tiny tribe, an individual, and a party of four, while I countered that their good deeds will go practically unnoticed in the way of an invasion displacing a lot of people. Similar to how, in Forgotten Realms, people are still wary about accepting orcs, after Obould invaded and set up a kingdom, but a few orcs have been friendly so you're being horrible for holding thousands of years against them.

Having them available as ancestries isn't, on further reflection, saying that they will be accepted everywhere and by everyone, so I think I'm more okay with it now. It's just blindly accepting them after, as I said, millenia of them being little psychopaths that irks me, because I like setting continuity.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
And do we have a refutation of the write-ups for the goblin, saying that these other goblins don't react that way? We have canon information saying this is how goblins act. It's not how Inner Sea goblins, or Tian goblins, or goblins on Castrovel act, it's how goblins period act.
From where?

As you've been told, Rise of the Runelords and Inner Sea World Guide, the latter in regards to being described as insane destructive parasites, singularly eager in the pursuit of sadism and cruelty.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
It's just blindly accepting them after, as I said, millenia of them being little psychopaths that irks me, because I like setting continuity.

No one is doing that.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Val'bryn2 wrote:
And do we have a refutation of the write-ups for the goblin, saying that these other goblins don't react that way? We have canon information saying this is how goblins act. It's not how Inner Sea goblins, or Tian goblins, or goblins on Castrovel act, it's how goblins period act.
From where?
As you've been told, Rise of the Runelords and Inner Sea World Guide, the latter in regards to being described as insane destructive parasites, singularly eager in the pursuit of sadism and cruelty.

Rise of the Runelords was 3.5, and the Inner Sea World Guide is just that, the World Guide, for the Inner Sea.

Here's their writeup for 2e Bestiary:

Goblin wrote:
These small humanoids have green or gray skin and large heads with wide ears. While some goblins are civilized and have worked hard to be considered upstanding members of humanoid communities, most are impetuous and vicious creatures who delight in wreaking havoc. These goblins think nothing of slaughtering livestock, stealing infants, or burning down a building purely for momentary delight. They revel in playing malicious tricks on taller humanoids, whom they call “longshanks.” Goblins are superstitious, with an intense awe of magic and a fascination with fire; goblins who master magic or fire earn great respect from their kin. Most other humanoids find it difficult to understand goblins’ outlook: they hate canines but eagerly share their lairs with so-called “goblin dogs,” they fearlessly attack larger creatures but are terrified of horses, and they despise vegetables yet consider pickles a delicacy. To a goblin, of course, these are all perfectly sensible life choices.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Rise was both 3.5 and Pathfinder. Any information I used from it comes from the Anniversary Edition, which was fully Pathfinder.

And okay, from some of what I had been hearing about the goblins made it seem that, as a race, they were little more than ugly halflings now. Glad the new changes aren't as wide spread as I thought.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Also... some of us are interested in playing evil characters. I’ve had plenty of those that didn’t get killed on sight. I can play a gnoll who’s an awful person and still commits fewer crimes than plenty of neutral or good PCs. I’ve got neutral gnoll character ideas in mind too, but it’s not like evil gnolls can’t get along just fine in society.

Silver Crusade

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

That's why I withdrew my initial disagreement on them having ancestries, I had been operating on the mistake that they were rewriting the fluff, misunderstanding some players as to the new fluff on the goblins. Oh, one piece of fluff that should change, make them matriarchal, since hyenas are.

As I said, I prefer heroic fantasy, where there aren't as many "gotcha" moments regarding the alignment of the enemy. I've also been on these forums, both here and on the WotC forums for 19 years now, and I've read about a lot of GMs who would happily pull those with even greater regularity if such a shift in lore happened. I just recently realized that the destruction method of all artifacts, not just major ones, had shifted to where they all have individual methods, I would hate having to tell a new player that yes, his paladin fell for attacking a cannibalistic slaver because it's not actually evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

after reading a bunch of the information across ancestries and races and the like, it seems more like they're writing from the point of view of people that players would actually be able to play as. there still might swaths of evil gnolls and goblins, but they're not the people a player would likely come from. etc.

they're still there, the descriptions of barbaracy, they're just more GM facing.

that's been my impression over the few weeks looking into things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
I mean come on, they're supposed to be alchemists now

Goblins had a racial alchemist archetype and unique FCB all the way back in the ARG.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For someone concerned about the lore of things you do seem insistent on referring to it as "fluff".

Val'bryn2 wrote:
make them matriarchal, since hyenas are.
Pretty sure they are.
Quote:
I would hate having to tell a new player that yes, his paladin fell for attacking a cannibalistic slaver because it's not actually evil.

You don't have to worry about that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, anyone arguing about gnolls always being Evil is fighting a moot point; the 2e Bestiary calls out non-evil ones explicitly.

Sovereign Court

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
As I said, I prefer heroic fantasy, where there aren't as many "gotcha" moments regarding the alignment of the enemy.

"Not every single one of these is evil and just presumed to be murderable on sight, maybe look for a little context before butchering them on sight" =/= "gotcha". Also, I'm intrigued by these heroes who are defined as heroes exclusively because they murder things that look different from themselves.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
I've also been on these forums, both here and on the WotC forums for 19 years now, and I've read about a lot of GMs who would happily pull those with even greater regularity if such a shift in lore happened.

Let me assure you, from experience: bad GMs will be bad GMs no matter what system exists around them. If they're dedicated to the idea, they'll find a way with the resources at hand. No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and tacitly support genocide in the process.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
I just recently realized that the destruction method of all artifacts, not just major ones, had shifted to where they all have individual methods,

???

It's been like that since at least my AD&D books... I mean this with no condescension, dismissal, or offense, but did you come to Pathfinder second edition directly from D&D 1e? Because that would explain the culture shock.

Val'bryn2 wrote:
I would hate having to tell a new player that yes, his paladin fell for attacking a cannibalistic slaver because it's not actually evil.

So would I. But the paladin who murders a member of a species because many - but not all - members of that species practice cannibalism or slavery does not deserve to be a paladin. Wait a moment. Look around. Look for any sort of shred of proof before seeing a gnoll and instantly launching a murderous assault.

"If you wouldn't kill a human for it, don't kill a gnoll for it" should be a fairly easy rule to live by here. Human doing a slavery? Sure, knives out. Gnoll doing a slavery? Sure, knives out. Simple.

Sovereign Court

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

...also, I just realized that this whole argument is about the very most literal definition of racial profiling. Just something to keep in mind when arguing for "murder the gnoll on sight" policy.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
"If you wouldn't kill a human for it, don't kill a gnoll for it"

THIS

The entire point, distilled into quintessential succinctness.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
...also, I just realized that this whole argument is about the very most literal definition of racial profiling. Just something to keep in mind when arguing for "murder the gnoll on sight" policy.

“There are certain people it is always okay to kill” is the crux of the argument here, which is... not ideal!

Silver Crusade

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

As to the artifacts, no, came in from 3.5, it's just that I would have sworn, and have, that in earlier editions Major artifacts had exactly one method of destruction. Minor artifacts were no more durable than a standard magic item. Lost all my 3.5 and earlier books in a flood a couple years back, so haven't gotten to check.

And let's step back from calling it racial profiling. Don't want to get the thread locked. But would you then say that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are all evil, for not sitting down to talk to the orcs? Sam, for killing his way through a tower solely because they took Frodo after he was poisoned by Shelob?

Based on how things are sounding, a lot of people think a paladin should fall for winning initiative. After all, he was unprovoked.

Keftiu, based on your statement, would it be wrong to kill a ghoul? It's a person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I haven't seen specific individual non-Evil Gnolls I'll admit, they're always presented as a tribe with no alignment listed for the most part.

I think you can find some examples of non-evil gnolls in Strange Aeons. I want to say either The Whisper Out of Time or perhaps What Grows Within. They weren't good by any stretch, but I do think they weren't evil.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
And let's step back from calling it racial profiling.
No, since that’s what it is.
Quote:
But would you then say that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are all evil, for not sitting down to talk to the orcs? Sam, for killing his way through a tower solely because they took Frodo after he was poisoned by Shelob?

At no point do they kill orcs just because they’re orcs.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Perpdepog wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I haven't seen specific individual non-Evil Gnolls I'll admit, they're always presented as a tribe with no alignment listed for the most part.
I think you can find some examples of non-evil gnolls in Strange Aeons. I want to say either The Whisper Out of Time or perhaps What Grows Within. They weren't good by any stretch, but I do think they weren't evil.

Oh neat, will have to check that out.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Val'bryn2 wrote:
But would you then say that Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas are all evil, for not sitting down to talk to the orcs?

I think there are two very different hypothetical situations here. I think people tend to assume one over the other when discussing the various 'typically evil' races.

A) You run into a gnoll on the road. They're wielding a blood stained club, and have what appear to be human bones woven into their hair. They see you, smile, and raise their club threateningly.

B) You enter a cave, a gnoll, seeming to be surprised to see you, gets up warily from where they were sitting. They ask why you've broken into their home.

In option A), the LotR option, it would be perfectly normal for adventurers to go in swords swinging.

In option B), where evil creatures are people too, if the paladin started swinging with no other provocation or information about the gnoll, such an act would be an evil act.

Let me just go ahead and rephrase it according to a previous poster.

A) You run into a human on the road. They're wielding a blood stained club, and have what appear to be human bones woven into their hair. They see you, smile, and raise their club threateningly.

B) You enter a cave, a human, seeming to be surprised to see you, gets up warily from where they were sitting. They ask why you've broken into their home.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Having actually known many people that support genocide, including a few among those that were murderers... I find the blase defense of committing genocide against ancestries considered "evil" by certain other groups troubling.

Besides... I love muh gnolls.


Val'bryn2,

I suggest evil fey for the creatures in your campaigns.

Mitflits, especially, seem to have replaced Kobolds as the weak and wicked target of choice (meaning disposable enemies).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:

For someone concerned about the lore of things you do seem insistent on referring to it as "fluff".

Val'bryn2 wrote:
make them matriarchal, since hyenas are.
Pretty sure they are.
Quote:
I would hate having to tell a new player that yes, his paladin fell for attacking a cannibalistic slaver because it's not actually evil.
You don't have to worry about that.

Pathfinder gnolls have been called out as fiercely misogynistic in the writeups, stating they see females in one of three categories: priestess of Lamashtu, mother, or sacrifice to Lamashtu.

I stand corrected, they have changed that in the new edition.

Sovereign Court

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
And let's step back from calling it racial profiling. Don't want to get the thread locked.

I refuse wholeheartedly. If people argue for it, I will call it what it is. If moderation finds that problematic, I'm certain they know where to find me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

While completely off the topic of Knolls and how cute they are, can we apply this to mindful undead while we are at it.

Can we just step back a say "Some creatures are culturally predisposed to certain alignments due to their upbringing, but this is not an inherit part of their existence."

The Gnolls attacking your caravan are evil. The Shades haunting your manor are evil. The kobolds stalking in the shadowy corners of the city are evil. That does not mean that Gnolls, Shades, and kobolds are all evil.

I'm willing to say that most are, I'm willing to say that it would be unusual for them not to be, but I think it makes for better story telling and character creation if we allow for the possibility.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I haven't seen specific individual non-Evil Gnolls I'll admit, they're always presented as a tribe with no alignment listed for the most part.
I think you can find some examples of non-evil gnolls in Strange Aeons. I want to say either The Whisper Out of Time or perhaps What Grows Within. They weren't good by any stretch, but I do think they weren't evil.
Oh neat, will have to check that out.

Sadly not true. There are non-chaotic gnolls that you can negotiate peacefully with, but all are still evil.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Donovan Du Bois wrote:

While completely off the topic of Knolls and how cute they are, can we apply this to mindful undead while we are at it.

Can we just step back a say "Some creatures are culturally predisposed to certain alignments due to their upbringing, but this is not an inherit part of their existence."

The Gnolls attacking your caravan are evil. The Shades haunting your manor are evil. The kobolds stalking in the shadowy corners of the city are evil. That does not mean that Gnolls, Shades, and kobolds are all evil.

I'm willing to say that most are, I'm willing to say that it would be unusual for them not to be, but I think it makes for better story telling and character creation if we allow for the possibility.

The difference between undead and living creatures is that Undead don’t have a culture, they have an innate mindset when they're created, most often one that is Evil (Ghosts being the most well known exception).

Which is not to say they can’t be non-evil, but just like aligned Immortals/Outsiders they don’t have 100% free will but an innate mindset that overrides what they used to be when alive so it’s very difficult.

But the above conversation still stands. Ghoul eating a corpse and then readies to attack you? Smite. Ghoul just sitting in a coffee shop minding it’s own business drinking coffee? No smite.

I’d say it’s easier to be a non-evil Undead than a Fiend though, and Paizo’s has published NPCs in Adventures that back this up.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Val'bryn2 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

For someone concerned about the lore of things you do seem insistent on referring to it as "fluff".

Val'bryn2 wrote:
make them matriarchal, since hyenas are.
Pretty sure they are.
Quote:
I would hate having to tell a new player that yes, his paladin fell for attacking a cannibalistic slaver because it's not actually evil.
You don't have to worry about that.

Pathfinder gnolls have been called out as fiercely misogynistic in the writeups, stating they see females in one of three categories: priestess of Lamashtu, mother, or sacrifice to Lamashtu.

I stand corrected, they have changed that in the new edition.

Pretty sure that was just the Rovagug worshipping Gnolls in Legacy of Fire, since Monster Codex contradicts that claim.


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

I prefer mortal races as being able to be of any alignment, although certainly cultures and religions can push general groups toward evil.

Abberations I think are okay as an exception, because then you start dealing with lovecraftian entities which simply have minds so alien that their behaviors and intellects are simply not compatible with our concepts of good and evil.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:

I prefer mortal races as being able to be of any alignment, although certainly cultures and religions can push general groups toward evil.

Abberations I think are okay as an exception, because then you start dealing with lovecraftian entities which simply have minds so alien that their behaviors and intellects are simply not compatible with our concepts of good and evil.

right so they gain blue-orange morality not that they're necessarily destructive.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why oh why is it that every time people say "I think I'd like to have a nuanced look at the lore", some chucklenut comes in with "But /I/ want to have races that are specifically child murdering slave owning sex deviants!" This is like the 4th time this kind of thing has happened on my times in the forums... nuance is good, it's messed up to have "ENTIRE RACE SHARES X IDEOLOGY" enforced, grow up


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Derry L. Zimeye wrote:
Why oh why is it that every time people say "I think I'd like to have a nuanced look at the lore", some chucklenut comes in with "But /I/ want to have races that are specifically child murdering slave owning sex deviants!" This is like the 4th time this kind of thing has happened on my times in the forums... nuance is good, it's messed up to have "ENTIRE RACE SHARES X IDEOLOGY" enforced, grow up

nuance doesn't necessarily make a better story, and pnp games are all about telling a story. some people just prefer conflicts between black and white, they don't necessarily want to have to deal with grey enemies.

and yes, you can still have objectively evil villains regardless of race, but because of how easily conflated they can become people defend black and white stories when they're actually just defending the 'symptoms' of black and white stories.

I more or less just think they likely don't realize they can still have objectively evil villains with little thought about who they're fighting, and not have that tied to race. give them a uniform, let them detect as evil, etc.

more or less people are defending fighting the evil lord stories because they've conflated those types of stories with stories where all of X race serve the evil lord.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

This is true, admittedly my own interest in this comes from Lord of the Rings. No one has had issues with the orcs from there being uniformly evil, and that story became one of the grandfathers of Pathfinder.

51 to 100 of 285 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Niche Request: Gnoll Ancestry All Messageboards