| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out that tieflings and aasimars can have things like crab hands or boneless arms :p
That expanded list is pretty messed up if you look at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of my campaigns (Hell's Rebels no less) the PCs are often exposed inequality, prejudice, and straight up evil. In fact, the PCs are fighting against a misogynistic sociopath and his following of fascist cronies who represent a totalitarian regime that supports slavery and a number of forms of discrimination. And an enemy who uses intimidation, propaganda, violence, and torture to try to beat the populace into submission.
All canon, mind you.
This is done with both the enthusiastic consent and constant feedback of my table. It can be cathartic to fight fantasy versions of real world evils when you feel powerless in the real world.
I would never throw this on an unsuspecting player, nor do anything without their expressed consent and full engagement. These are serious topics, and I don't explore them lightly. And I'd agree this kind of play is not for every table and every group. Just being "dark" and "edgy" for its own sake is pretty shallow.
So yeah, don't assume you know my life, my table, my players. You don't know what you've been through, and we don't need to earn anyone's permission to play Pathfinder. To say otherwise it's just gatekeeping with more steps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But to answer the OP, my parties are never anything less than bizarre, regardless of race/ancestry composition.
Current strangest character is a oread shifter who takes the form of a weird stony polar bear hybrid.
And I thought I had weird PCs before I started playing Starfinder...
Hydrokinetic cuddlefish mechanic who rides in a bowl of water mounted on his stealth drone buddy.
Witchwyrd mystic who has social skills that would put a bard to shame... also a pathological liar.
Charismatic undead punk solarion who fights with a shield made from a black hole and a blade made of his own bone... while wearing the corpse of a Formian as armor...
Insane blind ysoki witchwarper who is bizarrely the party's voice of reason. May have accidentally seen Cthulu.
Incompetent and overly literal sentient robot gunslinger who flirts with particularly impressive weapons.
Personally, I've enjoyed playing 3 halflings in a trenchcoat in 5e.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirtyish years ago I ran into a girl at school who explained that she'd tried D&D and didn't like it because her character kept getting raped. The DM thought that was realistic, she thought it was realistic, for reasons which should be mind-bogglingly obvious it made for a worse game.
Realism in misogyny and racism is something to be avoided in game IMO. If you want to encourage people to not have a part in creating a party zoo do that directly, don't use in game racism etc. to discourage it. And I do think racism and misogyny are equivalent here.
IMHO, the problem lies in the fact that the mechanical benefits of being an uncommon race are offset by role playing consequences that many here seem willing to overlook. Being a hobgoblin to gain the mechanical benefits of the race but expecting to be treated in society the same as a human is like a human expecting to have the darkvision a hobgoblin enjoys at the price of being recognized as non-human without the associated cost. If a player wants to have the physical characteristics, skill bonus, racial trait, weapon proficiency or whatever the uncommon race offers that makes them mechanically more attractive than a common human then they should expect to pay the price of being regarded as something other than a common human.
IMHO, the problem lies in the fact that the mechanical benefits of being an uncommon race are offset by role playing consequences that many here seem willing to overlook. Being a hobgoblin to gain the mechanical benefits of the race but expecting to be treated in society the same as a human is like a human expecting to have the darkvision a hobgoblin enjoys at the price of being recognized as non-human without the associated cost. If a player wants to have the physical characteristics, skill bonus, racial trait, weapon proficiency or whatever the uncommon race offers that makes them mechanically more attractive than a common human then they should expect to pay the price of being regarded as something other than a common human.That should be part of the rules, then. At least, it should be explicit in the text that such roleplaying penalties are part of the balance.
And does that still apply to races that are weaker than humans, such as goblins, kobolds, and orcs?
It is part of the rules. Explicitly so. The races are different. Both mechanics and fluff. As with all fluff, ignore as you see fit but don’t equate Taldan characters regarding halflings as slaves with real life racism. It’s literally in the rules books that halflings were enslaved by Taldans at some point and may, depending on the particular game, still be kept as slaves. Andoran’s biggest beef with Taldor is its practice of slavery, is it not? Playing a Taldan that endorses slavery doesn’t make anyone a slaver or racist IRL. Along the same lines, anyone playing a halfling in Taldor can expect at least a portion of the population to regard them as a slave, an escaped slave or something remarkable, perhaps even unique, and be entirely in accordance with officially published Paizo material.
There are a variety of common thinly veiled prejudices baked into the rules just like it’s not too difficult to make clumsy analogs to real life countries out of most Golarion nations.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thirtyish years ago I ran into a girl at school who explained that she'd tried D&D and didn't like it because her character kept getting raped. The DM thought that was realistic, she thought it was realistic, for reasons which should be mind-bogglingly obvious it made for a worse game.
Realism in misogyny and racism is something to be avoided in game IMO. If you want to encourage people to not have a part in creating a party zoo do that directly, don't use in game racism etc. to discourage it. And I do think racism and misogyny are equivalent here.
So, I don't think this is a valid argument because we are conflating multiple issues here. The GM in this scenario is a bastard. There are so many different RPing norms being violated here I don't know where to begin. So leaving that aside, lets get to point two.
You can show misogyny and racism within a game, assuming all parties are consenting and willing to have these elements within a story, without dialing the crimes against sentient races meter up to 11. There is nothing wrong with providing an empowering moment for a PC where they get to beat the hell out of a local misogynist/racist brute, or the fallout from that affair. Maybe they get kicked out of the village as a result, but the village comes under attack. Do they bother to save those people after being treated poorly by the inhabitants? Do they prove themselves the better people, or do they decide to let the town get what it deserves.
These make for interesting stories, and give people an outlet to attack the societal ills they might not have in real life. That should be the aim whenever you see injustice created within a story, to give your players the chance to do something.
Taking away their agency by subjecting them to undue harm is not realism, its sadism.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I played for a long time with an older friend who was a war vet. There was a session I was running a game, and it's D&D3, where we casually murder hordes of monsters all the time, but it's all just silly fun and games right? One kid at the table made some off color joke about killing people, and my friend stops the game. He calmly tells the kid that is not appropriate, you don't know what other people have been through, what they've had to do, you don't say stuff like that. It was a rather sobering and eye opening experience for me as a teenager.
The issue is that this is real people' experience with the real world. Some people have had terrible things happen to them in their lives. We get together and play games to relax and have fun. Most players don't want their real life woes following them here.
In the end though, it's no different than the standard GM advice: know your players and tailor the experience to be fun for them. Rules should be ignored if they make the game worse (esp if the make things uncomfortable) for your group, that is just another part of tailoring the experience.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I ran into a girl at school who explained that she'd tried D&D and didn't like it because her character kept getting raped. The DM thought that was realistic, she thought it was realistic, for reasons which should be mind-bogglingly obvious it made for a worse game.
I've heard stories like this before, and it just kind of leaves me scratching my head. Why is this the sort of game anyone would want to play? Why is it a story that, apparently, needs to be told over and over?
But then we get into some truly muddy waters. Prejudice, racism, assault and manipulation are all unfortunately common traumas that people in our society go through. So, catharsis aside, I can see how many would just prefer to avoid having painful, real-life memories dredged up while they're engaged in their hobby.
But then...I also know people who have experienced much less typical trauma, such as graphic violence, combat and injury/loss of loved ones by fire. So...do we also remove all instances of violence, warfare and fireballs from ttprg's?
Of course not. But when I've got such a player at my table? Yes, absolutely. If I've invited someone to play at my table I will do what I can to make them comfortable.
Realism in misogyny and racism is something to be avoided in game IMO. If you want to encourage people to not have a part in creating a party zoo do that directly, don't use in game racism etc. to discourage it. And I do think racism and misogyny are equivalent here.
While prejudice in game is a complex issue, I think this method of avoiding the "party zoo" as you so aptly described it is the best. Session 0 proves itself to be vital once again. If you do or don't want to tell a certain kind of story, lay that out at the beginning.
|
If you push for something bad like that to be included you are advocating for it.If you don't want to be called out for advocating for the inclusion of bigotry don't say stuff like "I've always understood that whatever world I'm playing in is not perfect and not the 21st century, so it will have its own issues and its own inequities".
You're playing in a fantasy setting, it doesn't have to include anything of the sort.
Indeed not. You don't have to include any sort of unpleasantness or evil, like genocide or destruction of the world or evil overlords trying to take over the world. Everything can be sunshine and rainbows and the totally-not-races (because race is racist) live in peace and harmony.
Sometimes people can enjoy s%&#ty stuff in fiction without supporting it IRL in any way.
*blink*
On the off chance you actually believe this and aren't just trolling...This is no different than saying that any GM that puts kingdoms and nobility in their game must therefor believe in the class system and the divine right to rule. Or that the existence of slavery in a game means the GM thinks turning real life people into property is O.K.. Or that the existence of gods in a game means the GM is a theist. Or that nny legal code for any nation they put in a game is something they ascribe to IRL.
Are you about to accuse anyone who plays an evil character of being evil?
The writers and fans of WH40K for wanting a s+*$hole future like that?
Or writers and readers of murder mysteries of wanting to kill people?
Actually read what I said.
Playing in a setting that has elements of those things is different from intentionally adding them yourself for whatever b&+@##$% reason like "realism"... in a fantasy setting, or for pushing to have those included when they weren't there. Which is literally what advocating is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you push for something bad like that to be included you are advocating for it.If you don't want to be called out for advocating for the inclusion of bigotry don't say stuff like "I've always understood that whatever world I'm playing in is not perfect and not the 21st century, so it will have its own issues and its own inequities".
You're playing in a fantasy setting, it doesn't have to include anything of the sort.
Indeed not. You don't have to include any sort of unpleasantness or evil, like genocide or destruction of the world or evil overlords trying to take over the world. Everything can be sunshine and rainbows and the totally-not-races (because race is racist) live in peace and harmony.
Sometimes people can enjoy s%&#ty stuff in fiction without supporting it IRL in any way.
*blink*
On the off chance you actually believe this and aren't just trolling...This is no different than saying that any GM that puts kingdoms and nobility in their game must therefor believe in the class system and the divine right to rule. Or that the existence of slavery in a game means the GM thinks turning real life people into property is O.K.. Or that the existence of gods in a game means the GM is a theist. Or that nny legal code for any nation they put in a game is something they ascribe to IRL.
Are you about to accuse anyone who plays an evil character of being evil?
The writers and fans of WH40K for wanting a s+*$hole future like that?
Or writers and readers of murder mysteries of wanting to kill people?
Actually read what I said.
Playing in a setting that has elements of those things is different from intentionally adding them yourself for whatever b~*!~&~* reason like "realism"... in a fantasy setting, or for pushing to have those included when they weren't there. Which is literally what advocating is.
Isn't managing these elements your purview as a GM?
It's also your purview to tailor these elements to the interests and comfort level of your players.
Some players like playing consequence free, fantasy wish fulfillment simulators. Others like grimdark, mature themes and horror. Most land in between. Telling someone that their playstyle is "never okay" because you don't like it is pretty presumptuous.
That said, equating "dark" with "realistic" is misleading, and really anyone demanding "realism" in a high fantasy game is going to be disappointed.
A better rubric is whether you have the consent and buy in from your players. Determine what they're comfortable with, and always get their feedback. There's plenty of tools that have been created to handle this.
As a real life example of how I've misstepped in this, I had a player need to drop out of a online session for a few minutes because of a plot point that most wouldn't consider "off the table". They had experiences with toxic relationships, and my relatively tame portrayal of this (involving NPCs only) really got to them. In hindsight, I should have cut the plot point entirely. Instead, I resolved it with a hand waive (while they were gone) and did a full check in with the player. And I admitted I messed up and apologized. I got their consent to move forward.
This is a player who is completely unfazed by extremely dark or adult elements.
Know your players. Communicate. Admit where you're wrong.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"A better rubric is whether you have the consent and buy in from your players."
Yep.
Things like this require universal buy in from everyone at the table, not just because the GM wants it, or a single player.
That said, as for "never okay" if we have a GM and group pop up that add racism to their game because they want it in there then I'm definitely giving them a side-eye barring further evidence ("I made the bade guy racist so it's more cathartic to beat them" is a world's difference than "I made the townsfolk racist to make the player's uncomfortable, but in both instances you're still adding racism to the game).
|
Most Half Orcs are in fact a result of violent sexual assault.I've given a lot of thought to this. It seems profoundly effed that the a player character race would be, according to the core rule books, a physical manifestation of the theft of female agency. It's insane. And it's been such a common trope for SO LONG.
In the Scarred Lands setting, there was an entire nation of (mostly) half orcs, and it was settled by former soldiers of a military campaign that recruited heavily from those with orcish blood, because they made 'better soldiers.' They settled down with each other, bred true over several centuries, and there's an entire nation that's got a huge half-orc population, whose parents were both half-orcs, as well.
That was kind of neat, how White Wolf, of all people, made a fantasy setting with 200% more blood and shadow and necromancy than the average fantasy setting (so priketh them nature in hir courages), and yet had the funky idea of nuking the 'half orcs are products of rape' concept in the bud.
(Of course they then turned it all around and made half-elves problematic instead, but, whatever.)
Going back to the original question, how many GMs restrict the available races in their homebrew campaigns?
This is something we’ve always done - e.g. I’m currently 0laying a campaign where the options are human, elemental-touched and ‘races descended from witches’ familiars’ - tengu, ratfolk, catfolk and grippli. No one has ever complained about having a list like this.
...how many GMs restrict the available races in their homebrew campaigns?
Always and forever. I don't know how anyone could create a coherent world/story otherwise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That said, as for "never okay" if we have a GM and group pop up that add racism to their game because they want it in there then I'm definitely giving them a side-eye barring further evidence ("I made the bade guy racist so it's more cathartic to beat them" is a world's difference than "I made the townsfolk racist to make the player's uncomfortable, but in both instances you're still adding racism to the game).
I see nothing wrong with fighting real world evils if that's what the entire table is excited about (GM included). Obviously, this must be done with caution - and with people you know well.
The second scenario is a violation of the principle of consent in gaming, as previously mentioned. Nobody should feel uncomfortable at the table.
The only exception I see is one where the entire table are awful people who either idolize real world evils or treat them with inappropriate levity. Which I have witnessed, and I can't give much more advice than to stay away.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...how many GMs restrict the available races in their homebrew campaigns?Always and forever. I don't know how anyone could create a coherent world/story otherwise.
Assuming coherence is your goal, certainly.
I've had quite a bit of fun in incoherence too. Starfinder has so many weird alien races...
I very thought of telling the players at my table that they CAN'T be the race they want to be in a fantasy game makes me puke a little bit in my mouth.
I have let people make their own races on several occasions.
The notion that a member of society is going to have some special hatred for a different race is foolish when there are dragons, demons, liches, random wandering undead... bigger fish to fry, buddy, you want the axe or the sword? All your'all's money is the same once it's in my wallet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A common thing to hate in my games is bandits... just random bands of humanoids, or more accurately, bands of random humanoids. Don't hate the players, hate the game.
The townsfolk don't discriminate between human bandits and half-whatever bandits... bandits are bandits, and bandits are bad. Regardless of their race or species.
Those who fight the bandits are good... also regardless of their race or species.
The great thing about this game is that there is always the greater evil for the masses to join together and fight against. There is always the chance of world ending doom, some maniacal terror that threatens the very fabric of existence. The daily struggles of race and bigotry are irrelevant in juxtapose... and can therefore be completely left behind and forgotten.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undead are particularly 'good' to use as a 'greater evil' sort of thing to rationalize why the residents of a certain area are totally chill with orcs, gnolls, kobolds, etc. running around town, as they might perceive anyone with a pulse as 'on the right side' and 'all in this together' against the zombie apocalypse.
(Of course that's just kicking the can further down the road, and making it a less friendly setting for undead PC classes like the 3.5 Necropolitan, but that might be fine, for a large percentage of gamers, who didn't want to play undead PCs or have 'Casper the Friendly Ghost' NPCs or Obi-Wan-like benign dead mentors showing up to provide advice or aid in their setting anyway.)
There's always more road, in a fantasy universe. Spelljammer opened up all sorts of 'monster' types as potential allies or PCs, and yet beholders and illithids remained in the bad guy space (aided by the ridiculous hoops you'd have to jump through to make a playable beholder anyway...).
IIRC, Qadira also had the primary distinction being enlightened followers of the local pantheon, and 'everybody else,' and while they weren't PCs, there was mention snuck into the text of ogres, hobgoblins, etc. in the main cities of the setting, working and living among the humans, elves, etc. without much fanfare (or any mention of racial prejudice). And it was hardly represented as 'cantina.' (Nor was 'cantina' a bad word. Why just eat bread and water, when there's a whole buffet of options? Live a little! You're a human the rest of the life, it's come-as-you-aren't-night!)
|
|
I did. That's why I took issue with it.]Actually read what I said.
You really didn’t.
That's not what you said.
Playing in a setting that has elements of those things is different from intentionally adding them yourself for whatever b$%!&&## reason like "realism"... in a fantasy setting, or for pushing to have those included when they weren't there. Which is literally what advocating is.
If you push for something bad like that to be included you are advocating for it.
You a) made no distinction between what was already in a setting and what was added later, and b) have failed to make any good argument for why including bad stuff in a game means someone is advocating it.
Regarding point A, please tell me how the difference is meaningful. It's OK if there are roving rape gangs like FATAL has if it's in the setting before you start play, but not if the GM adds it afterwards?
Regarding B: Are you actually accusing anyone who creates a setting with evil in it or plays an evil character of advocating such behavior IRL? Because that is precisely what you have said. I can only hope that's not what you mean.As for 'realism', that's eomething you have brought up, no one else.
You’re honestly not arguing about it in good faith at this point, I have made multiple posts in this thread going over it.
And for “realism” I brought that up because it’s a commonly used justification (and was indeed used on a different board here very recently)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I very thought of telling the players at my table that they CAN'T be the race they want to be in a fantasy game makes me puke a little bit in my mouth.
You must have a very free-form setting then, yeah?
Which is cool--a friend and I are tinkering with a setting inspired by Pendleton Ward, and virtually any character concept will fly there--but I usually have more structure in my stories from the start. If we're going to play an Arthurian fantasy, or a Grimm-style campaign, or something inspired by Tolkien or Gaiman, then anything at odds with those sub-genres or the tone of the game overall will be denied.Not that I've ever had much in the way of a struggle with players in that regard. 99 out of 100 times, we decide upon the nature of the game together or I announce what kind of a story I feel like telling, and everyone comes up with an idea that fits within that frame.
The number of times I had a player tell me they want to play a blood elf cowboy in my tribal animism game are extremely rare, and even then, I just told them "no", and they shrugged and moved on to another idea that actually fit within the world.
|
|
I have a homebrew setting that I've been running games in for 25+ years. I've used multiple different rules sets to play games in that setting. I always restrict various options because I have an established world with different things in it than paizo's world, or wotc's, or whoever's rules I'm using.
If I'm running a game set in Golarion on the other hand, I would say anything paizo published stuff goes, because it exists in that setting, but I wouldn't let someone play something from Greyhawk that doesn't exist here.
The very fact that you are using a set of rules means that you are telling your players that they can't do certain things.
Pathfinder, DnD in general, is a concept... a starting point... not a set of rules. The entirety of PF1 is literally "Once upon a time...", not rules. Barely guidelines. More an open-ended preface just to get you started. I cannot wrap my head around the idea of looking at a fantasy game as a set of rules. That's got to be one of the most rigid, uncreative, stifling approaches possible to a game based entirety on your imagination.
When it comes to fantasy, I don't see a particular species or race being anymore disruptive than anything else... what, a Mind Flayer doesn't fit into your Tolkien inspired fantasy world? Why not? Any of the wraiths or nas-gul or orcs or walking tree people could just as easily have tentacles on their faces. A Kasatha in your Arthurian court? Sure. He is probably just as confused as you are on how he got there. Aliens can pop up anywhere and make just as much sense as anything else in a fantasy world.
Or maybe not. Maybe some people's imagination can only support a very limited amount of diversity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...a Mind Flayer doesn't fit into your Tolkien inspired fantasy world? Why not? Any of the wraiths or nas-gul or orcs or walking tree people could just as easily have tentacles on their faces. A Kasatha in your Arthurian court? Sure. He is probably just as confused as you are on how he got there. Aliens can pop up anywhere and make just as much sense as anything else in a fantasy world.
Or maybe not. Maybe some people's imagination can only support a very limited amount of diversity.
That seems rather offensive.
Free form world-building is cool and has it's benefits. Baked-in structure has it's own. Specifically, a genre and tone that are easily accessible and consistent.Miltonian demons saddled up next to Lovecraftian old ones could be an interesting, layered comparison of different horrors and evils...or it could be a big, confusing mess where half the elements clash the other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cannot wrap my head around the idea of looking at a fantasy game as a set of rules. That's got to be one of the most rigid, uncreative, stifling approaches possible to a game based entirety on your imagination. (...)
Or maybe not. Maybe some people's imagination can only support a very limited amount of diversity.
Are you trying to be as condescending as possible?
If you can't imagine that people might want limitations and pre-determiend options, and that they're playing Pathfinder and not something more freeform for that exact reason, I'd say it's your imagination that's lacking.
Also, "a game based entirety on your imagination" is objectively bull s~$$ - a single dice roll in a game makes that sentence false, because at that point, part of the game is based on chance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't intend for that to come off nearly as offensive as it did. I apologize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people like very defined, thematically consistent settings. Others like a wild and crazy free-for-all. Most are somewhere in the middle.
Sometimes constraints can breed creativity (I've found that choice paralysis can really be an obstacle for me). Other times arbitrary limits can choke the same creativity. One isn't better than the other.
*le shrug*
Going back to the original question, how many GMs restrict the available races in their homebrew campaigns?
This is something we’ve always done - e.g. I’m currently 0laying a campaign where the options are human, elemental-touched and ‘races descended from witches’ familiars’ - tengu, ratfolk, catfolk and grippli. No one has ever complained about having a list like this.
Interesting question in my case. The OP came from a "Core Only" Rise of the Runelords game. It was core only because our GM was new, and she was interested in reducing the game's complexity while she learned the system. With only the core races to choose from, I wanted to dive into the themes that seem to be baked into half-orcs in Golarion.
I'm a Glass Cannon Podcast fan, and the half-orc prejudice was very much on my mind given the themes of Battle of Bloodmarch Hill in that pod.
I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign. In the same way tournaments in that game only allow specific sets, thus creating different strategies and new metas, it could be an interesting challenge to do "Core + 1 other book" for the table. That way you can really focus on horror or intrigue or psionics in your campaign.
|
|
I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign.
[tangent] I'm still flummoxed that there isn't a game setting for D&D using the Magic the Gathering world and magic system. A blue mage whose magic is all about counterspells, like the old blue 'denial decks' you used to see? Just fun. And the world itself seems pretty richly detailed, so much of the creative heavy lifting is already done. And, hey, topic, depending on what 'color' you play, 'monsters' ranging from goblins to merpeople to plant-folk to undead to centaurs could be playable options for the non-mages in the party! [/tangent]
I've always thought it could be interesting to do something like Magic: the Gathering for a campaign. In the same way tournaments in that game only allow specific sets, thus creating different strategies and new metas, it could be an interesting challenge to do "Core + 1 other book" for the table. That way you can really focus on horror or intrigue or psionics in your campaign.
This should be the norm; the GM tells everyone what kind of a game they're running: what system, what materials will be allowed, the nature of the campaign, the length of it, houserules, etc.
3rd and Pathfinder were financially very successful products made by large companies. In order to keep getting money out of it, they needed to keep creating content for it. That's why there are so many Monster Manuals and Bestiaries and races and classes and feats and spells and magic items. Because more books equals more profit.
When I got into 3rd, I bought every book they came out with. Until, eventually, I realized...most of them were useless.
What this hobby needs is source material to help GM's actually run games, build worlds and construct plot lines. Not what basically amounts to a huge grab-bag of ideas.
I recently tried out Unknown Armies, and the GM deliberately gave us zero information to go on during character creation.
What resulted was a jumbled mess, the worst of which was a character who's skill set would be (and the GM knew this ahead of time) almost completely worthless in the game we were going to play.
Session 0. Can't stress how important it is. To prevent players from rolling up subtle diplomats in a Monster Hunter-esque survival game or fiendish half-dragonfly were-muskrats in a low-fantasy fairytale story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
3rd and Pathfinder were financially very successful products made by large companies...
If you don't mind me being overly and unnecessarily pedantic for a moment, Paizo is by no means a large company.
Which actually means they have to produce comparatively more content just to stay afloat financially.
Most Half Orcs are in fact a result of violent sexual assault. Think about that for a moment. Half Orcs are by and large the result of Male Orcs raping human women.Got receipts for that?
Literally almost every part of their entry in the Core Rulebook.
As seen by civilized races, half-orcs are monstrosities, the result of perversion and violence—whether or not this is actually true. Half-orcs are , and as such are usually forced to grow up hard and fast, constantly fighting for protection or to make names for themselves. Half-orcs as a whole resent this treatment, and rather than play the part of the victim, they tend to lash out, unknowingly confirming the biases of those around them. A few feared, distrusted, and spat-upon half-orcs manage to surprise their detractors with great deeds and unexpected wisdom—though sometimes it’s easier just to crack a few skulls. Some half-orcs spend their entire lives proving to full-blooded orcs that they are just as fierce. Others opt for trying to blend into human society, constantly demonstrating that they aren’t monsters. Their need to always prove themselves worthy encourages half-orcs to strive for power and greatness within the society around them.
Forced to live either among brutish orcs or as lonely outcasts in civilized lands, most half-orcs are bitter, violent, and reclusive. but they are not evil by nature—rather, most half-orcs are chaotic neutral, having been taught by long experience that there's no point doing anything but that which directly benefits themselves.
Staunchly independent, many half-orcs take to lives of adventure out of necessity, seeking to escape their painful pasts or improve their lot through force of arms. Others, more optimistic or desperate for acceptance, take up the mantle of crusaders in order to prove their worth to the world.
...Paizo is by no means a large company.
Which actually means they have to produce comparatively more content just to stay afloat financially.
Sure, that's fair. So they did the same thing WotC did for different reasons, or however you want to phrase it.
The fact remains that, by the end of each edition, they were practically imploding under the weight of all of the supplemental material.I've heard more than one person say they couldn't get into/keep up with Pathfinder because of all the additional and alternate rules and options they'd have to become familiar with. Which I don't think is true at all; I know next to nothing about Pathfinder's setting or most of it's books, but I use the system for my d20 fantasy games.
As for the half-orcs, yeah. It's...just not cool. If you want to feature elements like that in your game, fine. But to include it as canon in the core rules, among what is usually the first thing new players look at? No. No way.
Tolkien handled it pretty well. A couple vague references and then moving on to more important things. There was someone who understood the horrors of war and could impress them upon you without dwelling on them for shock value (looking at you, George R.R. Martin).
Undead are particularly 'good' to use as a 'greater evil' sort of thing to rationalize why the residents of a certain area are totally chill with orcs, gnolls, kobolds, etc. running around town, as they might perceive anyone with a pulse as 'on the right side' and 'all in this together' against the zombie apocalypse.
This right here is one of the main ideas behind Shadowsfall.
Kobolds are a weaker race than the Core races, mechanically speaking. PCs can be of this race however. Why would the entire society at large consider this PC a monster though? Kobolds taken in the fluff of PF and from the one published setting, Golarion, are bandits; they raid and plunder larger societies for resources they lack, in the name of their draconic overlords or out of revenge.
However mechanically they're a race that, with a different outlook or culture could be extremely skilled miners, craft with average ability, and be highly adept ambush predators in wilderness settings. If kobolds chose to find other ways, besides oppressing others, to meet the requirements of God, Gold and Glory they wouldn't be called bandits, they'd be called neighbors.
This is why I always like kobolds over goblins. Goblins are Glory seekers, they have a heritage pride that precludes growth. They hate reading and anyone that does. They attack for food sure, but more for fun. For showmanship. For the experience
Kobolds on the other hand are the have nots and fight to have. However, direct their efforts towards productivity and provide them some of the rewards of their work and they are more honorable than humans. Uplift everyone and that is one less problem in society.
But that is just my take on them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most Half Orcs are in fact a result of violent sexual assault. Think about that for a moment. Half Orcs are by and large the result of Male Orcs raping human women.Got receipts for that?Literally almost every part of their entry in the Core Rulebook.
As seen by civilized races, half-orcs are monstrosities, the result of perversion and violence—whether or not this is actually true. Half-orcs are , and as such are usually forced to grow up hard and fast, constantly fighting for protection or to make names for themselves. Half-orcs as a whole resent this treatment, and rather than play the part of the victim, they tend to lash out, unknowingly confirming the biases of those around them. A few feared, distrusted, and spat-upon half-orcs manage to surprise their detractors with great deeds and unexpected wisdom—though sometimes it’s easier just to crack a few skulls. Some half-orcs spend their entire lives proving to full-blooded orcs that they are just as fierce. Others opt for trying to blend into human society, constantly demonstrating that they aren’t monsters. Their need to always prove themselves worthy encourages half-orcs to strive for power and greatness within the society around them.
Forced to live either among brutish orcs or as lonely outcasts in civilized lands, most half-orcs are bitter, violent, and reclusive. but they are not evil by nature—rather, most half-orcs are chaotic neutral, having been taught by long experience that there's no point doing anything but that which directly benefits themselves....
Staunchly independent, many half-orcs take to lives of adventure out of necessity, seeking to escape their painful pasts or improve their lot through force of arms.
A half-orc is the offspring of a human and an orc, or of two half-orcs. Because some intolerant people see orcs as more akin to monsters than people, they sometimes hate and fear half-orcs simply due to their lineage. This commonly pushes half-orcs to the margins of society, where some find work in manual labor or as mercenaries, and others fall into crime or cruelty. Many who can’t stand the indignities heaped on them in human society find a home among their orc kin or trek into the wilderness to live in peace, apart from society’s judgment.
Humans often assume half-orcs are unintelligent or uncivilized, and half-orcs rarely find acceptance among societies with many such folk. To an orc tribe, a half-orc is considered smart enough to make a good war leader but weaker physically than other orcs. Many half-orcs thus end up having low status among orc tribes unless they can prove their strength.
^Description of half-orcs from PF2e. Yes, it's a different game but it's the same setting. It's apparent Paizo regrets including sexual violence in on of their core race's description.
Sure, that's fair. So they did the same thing WotC did for different reasons, or however you want to phrase it.
The fact remains that, by the end of each edition, they were practically imploding under the weight of all of the supplemental material.
I've heard more than one person say they couldn't get into/keep up with Pathfinder because of all the additional and alternate rules and options they'd have to become familiar with. Which I don't think is true at all; I know next to nothing about Pathfinder's setting or most of it's books, but I use the system for my d20 fantasy games...
I did say I was being needlessly pedantic.
But that is the curse of having more content - the more content, the more overwhelming the game can be both to GM and players.
That's why as a GM you have to moderate what content you want in your game in any system with multiple source books.
Exactly. It's kind of mind-blowing to me that there are tables that regularly go "all of it", to the point that it's assumed to be the norm.
Also, I'm glad Paizo changed it up with half-orcs later.