| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It came up in another thread, and I figured it deserves its own topic: I'm disappointed that 2e enshrined a lot of traditional racism espoused by the dwarves, and has presented it pretty uncritically. The core rulebook presents an Ancestry Feat called "Vengeful Hatred" that gives you a blanket damage bonus to one of four peoples - stereotypically evil ones, sure, but with the push to present them with nuance, presenting being mechanically empowered by your racial hatred as something heroes not only can do, but should have as a core option? It feels really gross.
Add to this that the Lawful Good patron god of dwarves as a people, Torag, has a blanket anathema ban on "showing mercy to the enemies of your people." What's Good about that, exactly? Pathfinder 2e has done a really good job of steering away from these pitfalls, and yet has enshrined the idea of the Lawful Good racial zealot as a central tenet of one of the primary player ancestries.
I know the setting team has done some work on this - the Mwangi dwarves and Mwangi orcs have no stated antipathy, and we've heard in passing that the dwarves and orcs of Arcadia are on good terms - but Avistan is the core of the setting for a lot of people. Setting in stone for another decade-long edition that virtuous characters devoted to a core deity not only shouldn't, but /must/ be merciless to entire peoples, and see mechanical benefit for it? I hate it.
Figured this conversation was worth putting forward. Please, everyone, try and behave - the moderators have been busy enough lately.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing about Dwarves that their people are generally quite wise, so they're going to interpret things like "don't show mercy to the enemies of your people" in ways that are less evil/antisocial/etc. that other people might take the same instructions. As a people the Dwarves should be the ones who make the best choices given a difficult set of priors.
Like "show no mercy to the enemies of your people" would probably be pointed to as a instructions to not be merciless to your personal enemies, since they are not the enemies of your people and there's a distinction to be made here.
The other thing about Dwarven culture is that these are people who generally do not let the zealots be in charge, the people actually making decisions in Dwarven societies tend to be more pragmatic operators who will pay lipservice to the Gods when it needs to be done, but will normally just do the thing that needs to be done regardless of what holy books say.
But "Vengeful Hatred" is probably just a bad name for the feat, since it should be "your people have been fighting against these people for centuries, and have picked up some things, which they taught you" more than "you are motivated specifically to hate them which makes you good at fighting."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think torags anthema could be worded better, and even at it's best interpretation has it's issues. I read it not as whole group is an enemy of your people and you should be merciless towards lets say all orcs but rather an enemy army is attacking your city you can not be merciless in that nature. I think its kind of messed up still but it doesn't have the same implications.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been interested in playing a dwarf, so I never noticed Vengeful Hatred.
If I recall, the orcs were driven from their ancestral homelands by the dwarves during the Quest for Sky. It seems to me that the orcs, not the dwarves, are the wronged party.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the things people often forget is that this kind of racial interaction is kinda just what happens in (typically) low mobility places. "All orcs" for example is really only the orcs on the other side of the mountain, because that's the end of the world for these dwarves and all the orcs they've ever met. Orcs and Dwarves, Hatfields and McCoys, same thing different place.
It doesn't need to be "presented critically" if we assume some basic levels of education and genre savvy. As it's already been established, such interactions are different in different parts of the setting.
And again, elemental Good doesn't necessarily map to morality. Down that path leads locked threads and angry forumites.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it’s fine. Dwarves vs Orcs is old, traditional, and unsurprising. The backstory of these imaginary tribes / species is based in long-running animosity, wars and massacres on both sides, etc. Both tribes, but dwarves especially, are figured as hidebound, long-memoried, and prone to nursing real and imagined grievances for centuries.
So, yes, dwarves having feats focused on defeating ancestral enemies feels very on point for this fantasy setting.
The natures of such races is often forgotten. They are Humanoid, they aren't Human. There will be differences in mentality and perception that seem small to us but are big to a dwarf.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never been interested in playing a dwarf, so I never noticed Vengeful Hatred.
If I recall, the orcs were driven from their ancestral homelands by the dwarves during the Quest for Sky. It seems to me that the orcs, not the dwarves, are the wronged party.
There's a bit of lore in Legends that says exactly this, and that the leader of Dongun Hold wants to issue a formal apology to the orcs of Belkzen. It also says that dwarven traditionalists would be furious about this.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a bit of lore in Legends that says exactly this, and that the leader of Dongun Hold wants to issue a formal apology to the orcs of Belkzen. It also says that dwarven traditionalists would be furious about this.I've never been interested in playing a dwarf, so I never noticed Vengeful Hatred.
If I recall, the orcs were driven from their ancestral homelands by the dwarves during the Quest for Sky. It seems to me that the orcs, not the dwarves, are the wronged party.
Dwarven society having a major wing that just wants to sabotage everything good they have going on in the name of "tradition" is quintessentially Dwarvish.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I repost from the other thread mentioned by the OP :
Vengeful hatred :
Yes. The feat's first part should have gone the way of the Ranger's Favored Enemy feature, backward-compatibility be damned.
Doubly so as the second part is the one most often used and it is not aimed at any specific ancestry. Which is why it is useful BTW.
Torag :
I mean, Torag's good aligned clergy would probably indicate that "the enemies of ones people" are individuals who made a choice, not like "people who became your enemies when they were born."
Plus since his portfolio is "defensive war" it's more a "if someone tries to lay siege to your home, mess them up" kind of thing. Angradd is the one who should probably not be Good.
Not only Torag's good aligned clergy. Otherwise Torag himself could not be LG.
I find it sad so many people try to depict Torag as the LG deity of genocide. Often to play a genocidal murderer with the LG tag affixed so they could use the powerful mechanics of the Paladin (especially in PF1) while satisfying their own bloodlust.
To be clear, I absolutely do not include Keftiu nor PossibleCabbage in those.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Otherwise Torag himself could not be LG."
You're saying the quiet part out loud there.
Same as Erastil and misogyny actually.
A deity cannot be Good and endorse, or even long tolerate, constant Evil actions from their worshippers.
IIRC Sarenrae and the Dawnflower cult was the same kind of situation too, but I might be mistaken.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Commiting genocide or generally being a racist would be anathema to the tenants of good I would say. You could probably still play a good prejudiced character as long as you don't act on your prejudice though.
Not sure such a character could last long without having to choose between being prejudiced and being Good though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like gorum should allow for all chaotic alignments. Anyone can put up a good fight after all.
I feel the same, but it is what it is. And it makes sense with their clarified take on Gorum, which is war and conflict / violence for its own sake, rather than the deity of those willing to fight for their cause, whatever it is.
|
|
Dwarven society having a major wing that just wants to sabotage everything good they have going on in the name of "tradition" is quintessentially Dwarvish.There's a bit of lore in Legends that says exactly this, and that the leader of Dongun Hold wants to issue a formal apology to the orcs of Belkzen. It also says that dwarven traditionalists would be furious about this.I've never been interested in playing a dwarf, so I never noticed Vengeful Hatred.
If I recall, the orcs were driven from their ancestral homelands by the dwarves during the Quest for Sky. It seems to me that the orcs, not the dwarves, are the wronged party.
True but not Lawful Good.
|
|
The natures of such races is often forgotten. They are Humanoid, they aren't Human. There will be differences in mentality and perception that seem small to us but are big to a dwarf.I think it’s fine. Dwarves vs Orcs is old, traditional, and unsurprising. The backstory of these imaginary tribes / species is based in long-running animosity, wars and massacres on both sides, etc. Both tribes, but dwarves especially, are figured as hidebound, long-memoried, and prone to nursing real and imagined grievances for centuries.
So, yes, dwarves having feats focused on defeating ancestral enemies feels very on point for this fantasy setting.
Even then, in the setting, Good is Good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Otherwise Torag himself could not be LG."
You're saying the quiet part out loud there.
It feels like there's two ways to tackle this; either commit to a LG Torag with a disavowal of older hateful ways (which would be a fun development to see in-setting!), or commit to a LN Torag who has problematic traditional elements just like wider (Avistani) dwarven society.
|
|
For a champion it would be tough with how strict the class is with it's anathemas, but typically, alignment won't change from small actions, unless it's persistent or the action is especially bad/good. Good characters can have flaws and evil characters can have "flaws" or silver linings with a little good in them.Commiting genocide or generally being a racist would be anathema to the tenants of good I would say. You could probably still play a good prejudiced character as long as you don't act on your prejudice though.Not sure such a character could last long without having to choose between being prejudiced and being Good though.
True, but Good characters (including Torag) cannot be okay with oppressing innocent people. And I do not see a way how prejudice is not being used to oppress innocent people.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH I think most societies are Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. And you can definitely have Neutral, or even Evil, people who say they worship a Good deity, or Good ideals, while not actually following the edicts and anathemas.
Religion being used to justify political stances is nothing new.
Note also that Torag is widely worshipped, and not only by Dwarves. You can totally have an Orc Paladin of Torag. And they will protect their people
Creative Director
|
| 29 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here’s an (admittedly older!) dev post explicitly saying Torag’s enemies are goblins and orcs: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q4o5?Paladin-of-Torag-LG-limits#22
That post is YEARS (very nearly a DECADE) out of date, by someone who (as much as I admire him personally for other reasons) no longer works at Paizo and hasn't worked on the 2nd edition of the game, and played fast and loose with introducing alignment-inappropriate content (Paladins of Asmodeus and the problematic elements about Erastil's view of a woman's role in a family). Hardly an appropriate citation for today, in other words, so it's unfair and kind of inappropriate to imply that's still accurate today, many years and many products later.
Torag's anathema in question is "Show mercy to the enemies of your people." That does not say "Show mercy to orcs." It's deliberately worded so that the situation facing the cleric allows for the enemy to be something that changes with time and location. The time when all dwarves see all orcs as enemies of their people is in the past.
Yes, Torag's anathema is pretty extreme if you look at it with extreme eyes, but it's also worded specifically in a way that does not use the word genocide, for example.
EDIT: None of that is meant to sidestep the idea that there might be racist tropes baked into the classic dwarven elements, of course (although to me, the element in traditional dwarven lore that bothers me the most is how baked in the elements of toxic masculinity are, which is why I adored what Dragon Age did with dwarves so much, and why dwarves have long been my least favorite of the core ancestries), but just because something got said years ago online doesn't mean that it's forever true and a viable citation in perpetuity.
EDIT #2: And since I don't think it was obvious—I very much appreciate your posts here, Keftiu, and I have largely been (quietly and personally) thanking and applauding your bravery in these threads the past several months when it has been kind of better for me to largely remain silent. But when you cite something like this, it feels like you're not playing fair and losing sight of all the hard work that I feel like I and the other developers and editors and designers at Paizo have been working so hard to promote and build into the setting. So, sorry if I came off in this post as overly defensive or antagonistic, but... a lot of what Sean added to the game is at the heart of my own frustrations with how alignment has been portrayed among religious elements in Golarion, and I've been trying to course correct several of those errors for as long as they've been in print. That Paizo has no real viable way of communicating lore errata other than messageboard posts continues to be a problem that I don't see a solution for other than this though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A thing about Torag's supposed role in Dwarven Racism is that absolutely nothing prevents you playing a Goblin as a Champion of Torag or an Orc as a Cleric of Torag. If Torag himself had a problem with this, then these combinations would be impossible. But they are not (even if they're kind of weird), so Torag's goals are not "wipe out those people with the weird ears and the wrong skin color."
|
|
True. It depends on how much the society is involved with religion. Asmodeus seems pretty apparent in Cheliax and the society reflects that. I'm not sure how involved dwarves are with Torag.TBH I think most societies are Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. And you can definitely have Neutral, or even Evil, people who say they worship a Good deity, or Good ideals, while not actually following the edicts and anathemas.
Religion being used to justify political stances is nothing new.
Note also that Torag is widely worshipped, and not only by Dwarves. You can totally have an Orc Paladin of Torag. And they will protect their people
I would say pragmatically, especially for the forge worship. And with extremists who want to push their mistaken ideology on the whole of society "for everyone's own good". Like everywhere else, pretty much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT #2: And since I don't think it was obvious—I very much appreciate your posts here, Keftiu, and I have largely been (quietly and personally) thanking and applauding your bravery in these threads the past several months when it has been kind of better for me to largely remain silent. But when you cite something like this, it feels like you're not playing fair and losing sight of all the hard work that I feel like I and the other developers and editors and designers at Paizo have been working so hard to promote and build into the setting. So, sorry if I came off in this post as overly defensive or antagonistic, but... a lot of what Sean added to the game is at the heart of my own frustrations with how alignment has been portrayed among religious elements in Golarion, and I've been trying to course correct several of those errors for as long as they've been in print. That Paizo has no real viable way of communicating lore errata other than messageboard posts continues to be a problem that I don't see a solution for other than this though.Here’s an (admittedly older!) dev post explicitly saying Torag’s enemies are goblins and orcs: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q4o5?Paladin-of-Torag-LG-limits#22
My desire is not to play unfair - I did a search for "Pathfinder Torag orc" to see if anything had been said on the matter, and that post was the top result. I admitted where I shared it that it was old, to give it proper context. Your frustrations are fair! But when the 2e material I'm speaking about for this thread presents the concern I'm voicing here (that dwarven racial enmity and violence has been presented positively in multiple places in 2e sources) and old material seems to support this... it felt relevant. These issues did not spring into being with 2e; this discussion is about how they've persisted.
I know now to disregard SKR's voice on any canon topics. I didn't before this moment.
I contribute to these discussions because I care deeply about this setting, and really enjoy all my time with it. Please don't assume I have malign intentions - I don't.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here’s an (admittedly older!) dev post explicitly saying Torag’s enemies are goblins and orcs: https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q4o5?Paladin-of-Torag-LG-limits#22
That post is YEARS (very nearly a DECADE) out of date, by someone who (as much as I admire him personally for other reasons) no longer works at Paizo and hasn't worked on the 2nd edition of the game, and played fast and loose with introducing alignment-inappropriate content (Paladins of Asmodeus and the problematic elements about Erastil's view of a woman's role in a family). Hardly an appropriate citation for today, in other words, so it's unfair and kind of inappropriate to imply that's still accurate today, many years and many products later.
Torag's anathema in question is "Show mercy to the enemies of your people." That does not say "Show mercy to orcs." It's deliberately worded so that the situation facing the cleric allows for the enemy to be something that changes with time and location. The time when all dwarves see all orcs as enemies of their people is in the past.
Yes, Torag's anathema is pretty extreme if you look at it with extreme eyes, but it's also worded specifically in a way that does not use the word genocide, for example.
EDIT: None of that is meant to sidestep the idea that there might be racist tropes baked into the classic dwarven elements, of course (although to me, the element in traditional dwarven lore that bothers me the most is how baked in the elements of toxic masculinity are, which is why I adored what Dragon Age did with dwarves so much, and why dwarves have long been my least favorite of the core ancestries), but just because something got said years ago online doesn't mean that it's forever true and a viable citation in perpetuity.
EDIT #2: And since I don't think it was obvious—I very much appreciate your posts here, Keftiu, and I have largely been (quietly and personally) thanking and applauding your bravery in these threads the past several months when it has been kind...
Hi, James, thanks for your hard work, kind words, and respect for everyone. You're truly a great person, and both we and Paizo are lucky to have you here.
For the last part, I think there should be a subforum, likely in the Lost Omens setting part of the boards, which would be the identified place for cannon clarifications. Where only you and the other Paizo people involved could post on the topics you feel need it.
So that people with questions can be directed there. And so that you do not have to type the same info so many times.
Thanks again for what you all give us here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconding that I would welcome some vehicle for lore errata.
|
Creative Director
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a subforum would just shift the location of the errata. My preferred solution would be to track errata on the product pages to correct the really problematic things, but that's not how we do things. Currently, errata is only a rules thing and that only gets put in when we reprint, two things that don't really happen for non-rulebooks (since we don't often reprint lore books).
In the lack of this, it really turns into something I really really really appreciate the help of all of you, to be honest. When I or another dev or whoever indicates that there's an error in the lore, please respect that correction. I'm not really asking folks to search the forums and post those corrections whenever you see them pop up, but mostly just respectfully and ardently asking that, once you know we've decided lore is an error, to accept that and not constantly bring it up.
The way we DO correct these things is, in new versions of similar books, to just never mention the error and present that new section adjusted. Hence, when we reprinted the deity information in "Inner Sea Gods" back in 2nd edition as the definitive source in a hardcover, we deliberately cut and changed references in the reprinted articles that spoke of Asmodean paladins or Erastil being non-family centered in how he treats women, hoping that folks would, over time, come to see those entries as canon.
That's hard to do when people keep dragging out the older, out of date lore and waving it around.
|
Creative Director
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this said... it's more interesting when things are not all one-note and rosy and always safe. The way dwarven racial enmity and violence has been presented as something that dwarves see as a value is part of that. It's VERY tricky for us to write about things that we as content creators might not see as values but which those we write about do, and even trickier in the start of an edition cycle where we have limited wordcounts. As we continue to explore more on the topic, we'll have more chances to get more details in, but no ancestry is "always good" just as no ancestry is "always evil."
There will always be elements in the game that are complex, because the game is to a certain extent simulating a complex thing—society.
And since it's complex, I (and I hope all who work on fiction, be it RPGs or novels or whatever) should constantly work to listen to feedback, to learn and grow, and to do better. I hope that when and as we do, we'll continue to keep your interests and trust, but the longer it seems like folks are clinging to the mistakes (and it's VERY easy in this era of "if you wrote it on the internet it remains forever true to weaponize against you in ways you might not anticipate" to think this way), it increasingly makes the safest solution for content creators to just hang up their hats and do something else with their lives.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's hard to do when people keep dragging out the older, out of date lore and waving it around.
Certainly, but I began this thread with two different 2e sources. It feels like a lot of attention is being called to a singular reply, but the CRB and Gods & Magic are what had me raising this issue in the first place.
I hope that when and as we do, we'll continue to keep your interests and trust, but the longer it seems like folks are clinging to the mistakes (and it's VERY easy in this era of "if you wrote it on the internet it remains forever true to weaponize against you in ways you might not anticipate" to think this way), it increasingly makes the safest solution for content creators to just hang up their hats and do something else with their lives.
It's frustrating to have a thread about good faith critique be met with "it might just be safer for writers to quit trying." I respect you and your work (and broader Paizo!) an awful lot! My intention is not to drive anyway off, and I'm sorry if that's how it is coming across - but I think this topic has merit.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's frustrating to have a thread about good faith critique be met with "it might just be safer for writers to quit trying." I respect you and your work (and broader Paizo!) an awful lot! My intention is not to drive anyway off, and I'm sorry if that's how it is coming across - but I think this topic has merit.
The topic absolutely has merit. Editing this down to keep it at that, and I'll move along. Sorry for the derail!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a subforum would just shift the location of the errata. My preferred solution would be to track errata on the product pages to correct the really problematic things, but that's not how we do things. Currently, errata is only a rules thing and that only gets put in when we reprint, two things that don't really happen for non-rulebooks (since we don't often reprint lore books).
In the lack of this, it really turns into something I really really really appreciate the help of all of you, to be honest. When I or another dev or whoever indicates that there's an error in the lore, please respect that correction. I'm not really asking folks to search the forums and post those corrections whenever you see them pop up, but mostly just respectfully and ardently asking that, once you know we've decided lore is an error, to accept that and not constantly bring it up.
The way we DO correct these things is, in new versions of similar books, to just never mention the error and present that new section adjusted. Hence, when we reprinted the deity information in "Inner Sea Gods" back in 2nd edition as the definitive source in a hardcover, we deliberately cut and changed references in the reprinted articles that spoke of Asmodean paladins or Erastil being non-family centered in how he treats women, hoping that folks would, over time, come to see those entries as canon.
That's hard to do when people keep dragging out the older, out of date lore and waving it around.
If I may intervene, I don't think lore can be handled with an errata like mechanical elements.
I've read a few of your posts about lore, and I don't think your explanations could fit into an errata. Lore issues are rarely ones that can be solved by changing a word or two.Also, as pointed above, noone would ever bring PF1 mechanical elements into PF2, but everyone considers PF1 lore elements to still be somewhat valid in PF2. And you can't easily errata PF1 content.
So, even if it's to no avail, I'll also second The Raven Black. Even if it's not a forum on these boards, it would be great to have a proper place to centralize all lore discussions. And by all lore discussions, I don't just mean lore corrections. You have posted lore content in APs forums, explaining small details here and there, sometimes speaking about your inspirations, that are gold to any GM who wants to give the proper ambiance to his game.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, why can't we have problematic things in games? Dwarves can be mostly good, if stoic, folk who have deeply flawed values when it comes to ancient foes. Given their long lives and rigid society it would also make sense for these views to change very slowly. A lot of Dwarves will have, to use modern parlance, a boomer mindset the sort of afable but racist grandparent that makes you cringe but has a generally decent sense of right and wrong.
At least that's how I use them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question is, why can't we have problematic things in games? Dwarves can be mostly good, if stoic, folk who have deeply flawed values when it comes to ancient foes. Given their long lives and rigid society it would also make sense for these views to change very slowly. A lot of Dwarves will have, to use modern parlance, a boomer mindset the sort of afable but racist grandparent that makes you cringe but has a generally decent sense of right and wrong.
At least that's how I use them.
The problem is when those problematic things - in this case, merciless violence against entire peoples - can be presented as Good-aligned. At present, a Dwarf Paladin of Torag could make the case that they’re entitled and obligated to slay every orc they see - and while I think anyone with sense would tell them no, the text itself arguably encourages this interpretation.
Violent hatred of orcs and drow isn’t presented as a traditionalist, regressive flaw in dwarven culture - it’s presented as a cool perk, central enough to the fantasy of being a dwarf to make it into the core rulebook and arguably sanctioned by a core Lawful Good deity.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't we have Good racists?
Why can't we have Good homophobes?
Why can't we have Good slavers?
Why can't we have Good torturers?
Why can't we have Good rapists?
Because when you have the big G on someone who partakes in any of those horrible things in a game where objective morality is a thing you're saying they're good, they're okay, or they're so minimally bad they're okay.
Bigotry isn't good and there should be no desire to portray it as such. "Oh it's a game" is a deflection that's attempting to shut down a conversation, you're absolutely failing in trying to defend the issue when that is brought up. It doesn't make the bigotry go away, or okay.
"Oh it's okay cause they're fictional humanoids that aren't humans"
"Oh it's okay cause their skin color is different"
"Oh it's okay cause this one group of them is bad so they're all bad."
"Oh it's okay cause this other author said they were bad."
The above are all attempts used in the real world, have been used, to justify bigotry.
Drow, Goblins, and Orcs aren't unthinking monsters in P2 so trying to use any of the above to justify in-game bigotry at them is you falling in to espousing bigotry, a rather glaring dog whistle, pushing for "safe" and "accepted" bigotry.