You know, if I was going to try to create a ORC-friendly drow analogue, I'd probably go back to the original inspirations, and back-engineer from there. It would probably mean getting rid of some major DnDisms, like removing the Elf connection entirely or the association with demon lords, but with a a lot of work it could be done. Just throwing that out there for any third party folks.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of really good examples of creatures that Paizo is making fully there own, people are tossing around the Hyrngar as if they are just simply Duergar with a coat of paint, but the Hyrngar sound absolutely amazing as they are evolving into their final form in Hyrngar and are finally interesting enough to want stories about in my opinion. The move towards pyramid scheme violent capitalist consolidation sounds like a really fun social system to play with as a player and a GM. It is also cool because it feels more rooted in Norse folklore and mythology than old Duergar lore, and will probably be a better "underground people who are not innately evil, but everything about their social structure pretty much is" sounds better than anything I have seen done with Paizo Drow. Everything about the Hyrngar fits so well in Golarion and Golarion lore that getting to start fresh with this fresh idea is awesome. And it probably wouldn't have even been possible if there were iconic Duergar stories that fans have created thousands of hours of art, fiction and additional games around, but "grumpy, greedy dwarves that live underground" is pretty squarely safe from being owned by anyone.
The thing to remember about Tolkien is that he was intentionally working with older myths with the desire to bring them to life. His estate owns specific names that he invented just for his books, but doesn't own any of the names that he was just reinventing the fantasy around. There is a reason why we don't have ring wraiths in any non-Tolkien fantasy RPG, who were turned evil by owning specific rings, but we sure do have wraiths and magical rings because none of that was unique creative expressions to Tolkien, only the story of the rings of power and the consequences of them on the people of middle earth.
So how far would drow have had to go to become orc? A change of name alone would not have been enough. Hopefully everyone sees that. D&D Drow are no longer jet black skinned, so everything the same but name and purple skin is really not enough either. I would not be surprised to see Hasbro go after a number of media companies that are working too close to the "Drow" version of the Dark Elf in their games/fiction, and I would be very careful about using matriarchal innately evil dark skinned elves who worship demons going forward. I doubt that Hasbro is going to go after Games Workshop now, especially because both co-created a lot of their ideas at about the same time, using the same source material for those ideas, but if a company got as close to drow as GW did with their dark elves, I think they would get sued into oblivion. I think that is another key that is being left out. Paizo cannot pretend like they didn't come into existence riding on the coattails of D&D. They need to be particularly careful with the intellectual properties that were clearly dungeon and dragons first, not the IP that co-evolved between the two companies (like sorcerers having bloodlines). Drow were definitely around and making D&D a lot of money before they ever came over to Golarion. If anyone wants to point to Duergar stories that were around before Paizo that were iconic and grabbing the attention of players, I'd be very interested in learning about them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we're returning back to the source and picking a new direction from there, we already have those kinds of analogues in 2E going forwards - cavern elves for one.
But 3pp will be in a much better spot to create something that borrows more heavily from WotC drow. Less to lose and less to protect in case the hammer comes down, and less of their own setting baggage to handle.
The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wotc doesn’t own “person with fiendish blood”.They DO own “evil demon worshipping white haired sensual clothed matriarchal dark elves living underground”.
The two are no way in comparable, I’m not sure how many times this needs to be said or why.
To play devils advocate a bit one of the things ive seen brought up previously in other companys doing this sort of thing is that under the current legal system it's less wherether they own x or not and more can a company survive being taken to court over x
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Wotc owns the IP to the Drow it’s one thing. If it’s just because the look like Wotc Drow then I cannot see it being an issue. Then again I’m not a Lawyer. I could be wrong.
I’m sure other movies can show other characters using energy swords even if Lucas probably owns the rights to Lightsabers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
It's a lose-lose situation.
If they are too close to OGL, they will get sued and lose rights/revenue to future publications of either just Drow, or for any works they produce later.
If they are too far from OGL, it alienates the player base to the point that people will not like them or use them for the same purposes as before, at which point they would have been better off using a completely new idea instead (like the Snekmin; and yes, I purposefully spelled it like that, you can't shake that headcanon from me, because it's such a missed opportunity from Paizo, not unlike Dinosaur Fort).
And to be fair, this also isn't the only thing that is affected by this change (though it is still a big change), so acting like Drow were the only thing that had to stay isn't really making the case for it staying any better, when things like dragon types and spell schools are also being changed for the same reasoning the Drow are being dropped from the canon.
It's also disingenuous to say they made this decision hastily or irrationally when we have JJ saying it was ultimately a regrettable decision, but a decision that legally had to be done. Disagree with it all you want, but I'm more inclined to believe actual legal counsel over randos on the internet who are 99.9% likely not to be a licensed lawyer.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as I mentioned elsewhere I'm honestly suprised they dont seem to need to change Kobolds since unless I am mistaken Kobolds as little lizard creatures were as much Wizards of the coasts as Drow or color coded dragons
The whole use of the OGL for allowing and disallowing stuff seems uneven at best. Why are Kobolds fine and not Drow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as I mentioned elsewhere I'm honestly suprised they dont seem to need to change Kobolds since unless I am mistaken Kobolds as little lizard creatures were as much Wizards of the coasts as Drow or color coded dragons
I suspect the Kobolds being changed may either be likewise done via the change to Dragons (2 birds 1 stone kind of thing), or is something that they are wanting more delicate balance from in regards to changing them.
Worst case scenario, Kobolds go the way of the Drow, or become so far removed from the original canon that it's not going to bother the OGL (but may still bother the players). Only the ORC lawyers (who I believe are also the one[s] that drafted the OGL) are the ones who know the answer to this question for sure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as I mentioned elsewhere I'm honestly suprised they dont seem to need to change Kobolds since unless I am mistaken Kobolds as little lizard creatures were as much Wizards of the coasts as Drow or color coded dragonsThe whole use of the OGL for allowing and disallowing stuff seems uneven at best. Why are Kobolds fine and not Drow.
Drow is a pretty specific name, whereas Kobold is rooted in generic fantasy/mythology. The same argument works for other types of Elves, otherwise Paizo would have to cede the other types of Elves as well.
I don't think that Kobolds are "fine", more that there is more wiggle room for Kobolds than Drow that maybe they can exist in a certain frame of mind that is acceptable for the masses. Until Paizo or ORC lawyers
speak on the matter, it's all speculation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole use of the OGL for allowing and disallowing stuff seems uneven at best. Why are Kobolds fine and not Drow.
At a guess, it's because there's significantly more extant folklore and literary accounts of "kobolds" that are in the public domain which you could use as a basis for some kind of fantasy creature than there is for "Drow" which was almost entirely a creation of RPG companies.
So the word "Kobold" is older than capitalism, so obviously the word is fine. The folklore talks about them as mischevious, but industrious household or mine spirits so that's obviously something you can use. It's possible we might need to pull a TNG Klingon thing with them and make them not Draconic anymore, but there's enough there to "have a kobold in your game."
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as I mentioned elsewhere I'm honestly suprised they dont seem to need to change Kobolds since unless I am mistaken Kobolds as little lizard creatures were as much Wizards of the coasts as Drow or color coded dragonsThe whole use of the OGL for allowing and disallowing stuff seems uneven at best. Why are Kobolds fine and not Drow.
The rework of Kobolds is, I think, being held off until the player's core 2, and we will see how much changes. The name is safe because it is a term used for centuries in Europe to talk about small, underground evil to mischievous beings that can take many different physical forms, including those of different animals. How closely Kobolds get tied to dragons in the remastery is yet unknown, and with how differently Dragons are going to be portrayed in the core, it might not be a problem for there to be small dragon folk who can be tied to any one of the 4 magic traditions.
You can keep cycling through every single creature in the game to try to make your point that you wish that Drow didn't have to go, but I promise you that the folks at Paizo have thought about all of this a lot more than any of us have and did not make their list of creatures that have to go without careful thought.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can keep cycling through every single creature in the game to try to make your point that you wish that Drow didn't have to go, but I promise you that the folks at Paizo have thought about all of this a lot more than any of us have and did not make their list of creatures that have to go without careful thought.
Honestly I couldent care less if they stayed or went. I feel my point is being missed here or I'm not explaining it very well (Honestly probably the latter).
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".
Sure, I'll remind you of this post in five years or so, I hope you'll be around to respond.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a ton of harassing, off topic, or baity posts and their quotes. This is a nuanced discussion, please keep it civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".Sure, I'll remind you of this post in five years or so, I hope you'll be around to respond.
Probably not. This is probably the one decision that could have got me to switch systems. Been beating the drum to get my friends to join me in pf2e, dutifully buying all the hard bound products since the core came out, even if they didn't interest me, because I was "supporting the product" waiting for the day it would be the underdark's time.
If I'm not egging my friend group on to Pf2e we'll probably be back to 5e or maaaybe pf1e.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".Sure, I'll remind you of this post in five years or so, I hope you'll be around to respond.Probably not. This is probably the one decision that could have got me to switch systems. Been beating the drum to get my friends to join me in pf2e, dutifully buying all the hard bound products since the core came out, even if they didn't interest me, because I was "supporting the product" waiting for the day it would be the underdark's time.
If I'm not egging my friend group on to Pf2e we'll probably be back to 5e or maaaybe pf1e.
We will have a clear idea in November and some previews before then. Remember, you can have anything at your own table.
I imagine that once the remaster comes out, someone will work up a version of drow for people to use at home. They should be fine so long as they don't make a penny off of it.
|
|
Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
Paizo's cavern elves seem able to fit that bill. And now they will finally receive specific lore in the setting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if we're returning back to the source and picking a new direction from there, we already have those kinds of analogues in 2E going forwards - cavern elves for one.
But 3pp will be in a much better spot to create something that borrows more heavily from WotC drow. Less to lose and less to protect in case the hammer comes down, and less of their own setting baggage to handle.
An aside, re: settings: IMO, the end goal of most 3pp's should be to institute their own settings. Tying one's IP to someone else's IP will inevitably result in a 3pp entity facing the same situation Paizo's in now. The ORC isn't going to be a bullet-proof, totally future-proof solution. And honestly, this is healthy growth for the hobby as 3pp's will themselves gather communities who come to PF2.r for that 3pp's setting.
And I think for Paizo, expansion from one setting to multiple settings will ultimately further grow PF2.r as a game. We like to give all the credit for D&D5's success to its lighter weight, more accessible system and it's broad brand recognition. But the sheer quantity of settings available to D&D5 players and GMs alike positions the D&D family of IPs into a place where they can appeal to more diverse groups to begin with. I might also point out, increasing diversification among available settings actually saved (A)D&D1 from oblivion (and TSR from bankruptcy) when the original Dragonlance was published.
Add to this that D&D's ruleset was always more of a tool box that individual DMs could leverage to make their own settings and you have the makings for a ttrpg that affords a very diverse group of people the ability to partake in it and has ultimately led to a robust community that even WotC's recent faux pas cannot prevent from eventually rebounding. (Which is why I often caution intertwining basic game mechanics too deeply with setting specific lore.)
Paizo's original top management (and owners) identified early on that supporting concurrent settings that were cannibalizing each other was one of the pitfalls they had to absolutely avoid.
I do not think they will change this stance.
Paizo's cavern elves seem able to fit that bill. And now they will finally receive specific lore in the setting.Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
What feats do cavern elves have access to that will recreate a pf1e drow noble character? Isn't it just dark vision.
|
|
Paizo's cavern elves seem able to fit that bill. And now they will finally receive specific lore in the setting.Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
I am sure that they will have good lore. Perhaps reports of drow might be based on cavern elf folktales and humor. (Parody might be safe but that could even provoke Hasbro. It might be walking on the edge to have a pizza making dark-skinned elf who defeated a foe by dual wielding pepperoni sticks instead of knives. Perhaps he even made something good on a cracker and was called Da'Ritz. ;) )
As Starfinder has more time to adjust to the ORC license and their drow are somewhat more different than Pathfinder, I imagine that the developers are talking to the lawyers on what might work. Perhaps some of the existing law was just spin from the corporations of Apostae and we have something like a world of Nephilim descended elves, with them perhaps being an offshoot from Castrovel or even another world. (As far as we know, elves may not be native to Castrovel itself. Perhaaps they migrated elsewhere.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also as I mentioned elsewhere I'm honestly suprised they dont seem to need to change Kobolds since unless I am mistaken Kobolds as little lizard creatures were as much Wizards of the coasts as Drow or color coded dragonsI suspect the Kobolds being changed may either be likewise done via the change to Dragons (2 birds 1 stone kind of thing), or is something that they are wanting more delicate balance from in regards to changing them.
Worst case scenario, Kobolds go the way of the Drow, or become so far removed from the original canon that it's not going to bother the OGL (but may still bother the players). Only the ORC lawyers (who I believe are also the one[s] that drafted the OGL) are the ones who know the answer to this question for sure.
The Kobold situation also confuses me, but one obvious difference is that PF 2E sunk a lot of effort into reinventing them, in the same manner they did with Goblins. Versus Drow, which didn't get much focus. So Paizo might be more invested in re-jiggering them. At least they are not Kobold Press, which obviously has even more invested into the little guys.
Have you seen what's happened with all the latest DND setting releases? Do you really want Paizo to release their own 5e Spelljammer? Or Strikshaven? Or literally any of their other setting books?
Weird. It's not a bug in D&D and they don't cannibalize each other a bit (and never did)...Paizo's original top management (and owners) identified early on that supporting concurrent settings that were cannibalizing each other was one of the pitfalls they had to absolutely avoid.
I do not think they will change this stance.
I've been hoping for a pf2e spelljammer equivalent so much. That would be awesome and a lot better of a product I'm sure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been hoping for a pf2e spelljammer equivalent so much. That would be awesome and a lot better of a product I'm sure.Have you seen what's happened with all the latest DND setting releases? Do you really want Paizo to release their own 5e Spelljammer? Or Strikshaven? Or literally any of their other setting books?
Weird. It's not a bug in D&D and they don't cannibalize each other a bit (and never did)...Paizo's original top management (and owners) identified early on that supporting concurrent settings that were cannibalizing each other was one of the pitfalls they had to absolutely avoid.
I do not think they will change this stance.
I would recommend Starfinder. It already fits the Pathfinder in space feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".
I'd be more concerned about the remaster existing at all. I have already heard complaints from folks angry they bought a bunch of books that they feel will be rendered useless in less than a year. I think scrapping DnD iconography won't really be noticed much at all, other than some folks really obsessed with certain options like Drow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would recommend Starfinder. It already fits the Pathfinder in space feel.I've been hoping for a pf2e spelljammer equivalent so much. That would be awesome and a lot better of a product I'm sure.Have you seen what's happened with all the latest DND setting releases? Do you really want Paizo to release their own 5e Spelljammer? Or Strikshaven? Or literally any of their other setting books?
Weird. It's not a bug in D&D and they don't cannibalize each other a bit (and never did)...Paizo's original top management (and owners) identified early on that supporting concurrent settings that were cannibalizing each other was one of the pitfalls they had to absolutely avoid.
I do not think they will change this stance.
Not the same itch. I want over the top magical spaceships in my fantasy, not magic in my sci-fi.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now they will finally receive specific lore in the setting.What feats do cavern elves have access to that will recreate a pf1e drow noble character? Isn't it just dark vision.
Unwavering Mien, Otherworldly Magic, and Elven Weapon Familiarity are feats that would be useful and any other pf1 feature could be made into a feat as a pf1 races feature were turned into feats so it not a hard to do or just outright covert the Drow into its own ancestry.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What feats do cavern elves have access to that will recreate a pf1e drow noble character? Isn't it just dark vision.Paizo's cavern elves seem able to fit that bill. And now they will finally receive specific lore in the setting.Except it would. If there was rules supporting it people can make their own lore or use someone elses. As it is now we are left mechanicless.The Norse own the copyright to "dark skinned elves that live underground", not wotc.And these are not drows, nor recognizable as such by those who love the TTRPGs drows (ie DnD's drows and their variants).
So, it would never be enough to satisfy those who berate Paizo for not keeping the drows.
Thanks for clarifying what you actually look for (and that Paizo definitely cannot provide within the ORC).
But that is not what you mentioned in the post I quoted. And I am pretty sure the Norse never owned the copyright to PF1 drow nobles.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weird. It's not a bug in D&D and they don't cannibalize each other a bit (and never did)Remember that the founders/owners/original staff of Paizo were managers at WotC.
Their business decision was based on actual experience managing multiple DnD settings.
Frankly, I trust their data and years of working on the DnD brand around this issue. When they said that supporting multiple settings would be unprofitable fpr Paizo, I believe them.
You haven't presented any evidence or actual sales data that refutes their claim.
IIRC one of the expertises of the founding Paizonians was in Marketing. So, yes I too implicitly trust their Marketing data and analyses.
Wotc doesn't own noble dark elves anymore than they own noble elves. Or Blizzard nightborne might be in trouble next.
I see the confusion though and yes, I agree cavern elves would cover the core idea of elves that live underground.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wotc doesn't own noble dark elves anymore than they own noble elves. Or Blizzard nightborne might be in trouble next.
I see the confusion though and yes, I agree cavern elves would cover the core idea of elves that live underground.
WotC owns the particular expression of dark elves as evil underground spider-adjacent matriarchal society torture-happy ever-scheming things called drow in the context of fantasy role playing games and the closer you get to that, the bigger your legal risks.
The motherless are my favorite in Owlcat's games, but the old tieflings were even weirder. You rolled d100 on three different tables to find your abilities.You ever seen a Motherless? They get pretty weird in Pathfinder.Which actually is closer to the original tieflings from planescape. Tieflings was a term for any offspring of mortal and planar beings. I miss those old Tieflngs, they were so much weirder.I thought drow actually still existed in Pathfinder, they just aren't doing new stories about them? How do we know this won't happen to other races though, like say Tieflings?That's literally what all these conversations going on are about.
Also Tiefling are "going away", the name is gone and they're rolled into Nephilim with the other Planar Scions.
The random table from PF1 were great, so sad they got rid of that.
Also very few use the motherless or any of the more alien/ugly tieflings. Everybody just uses the same old "humanoid with horns" typically with red skin.
No worries, it's still here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
WotC owns the particular expression of dark elves as evil underground spider-adjacent matriarchal society torture-happy ever-scheming things called drow in the context of fantasy role playing games and the closer you get to that, the bigger your legal risks.Wotc doesn't own noble dark elves anymore than they own noble elves. Or Blizzard nightborne might be in trouble next.
I see the confusion though and yes, I agree cavern elves would cover the core idea of elves that live underground.
Didn't Paizo drop the spider thing a long while back?
There seems to be some confusion. I always knew Paizo would rework Drow further in their pf2e release. Probably most Drow fans understood that. Constantly saying "well Wotc owns spider matriarch drows" isn't addressing what anyone is saying here. It's kinda feeling like a straw man as I don't think anyone here has asked for a 1 for 1 wotc Drow/new non copyrighted dark elf.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weird. It's not a bug in D&D and they don't cannibalize each other a bit (and never did)Remember that the founders/owners/original staff of Paizo were managers at WotC.
Their business decision was based on actual experience managing multiple DnD settings.
In fact, Lisa Stevens specifically studied TSR's boom of settings and determined that was a major part of the company's downfall.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will be interesting long term how devesting DnD analogies will impact the recent converts from wotc latest "screwups". A big selling point was "it's DnD but better rules and company".I'd be more concerned about the remaster existing at all. I have already heard complaints from folks angry they bought a bunch of books that they feel will be rendered useless in less than a year. I think scrapping DnD iconography won't really be noticed much at all, other than some folks really obsessed with certain options like Drow.
All existing books are usable and will be so. If you want the remaster material, there will be a FREE download updating the changes.
It isn't like Paizo, Kobold Press, and other companies really wanted to upend their product schedules by having to make major changes to avoid potential legal action.
As for some of the lore, well I gave up beholders and illithid when I went to Pathfinder First Edition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What feats do cavern elves have access to that will recreate a pf1e drow noble character? Isn't it just dark vision.
What is not available in the current set of "elf feats" (of which there are like 40) that you would need?
No heritage is going to carry significantly more benefits than another heritage, for obvious balance reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What feats do cavern elves have access to that will recreate a pf1e drow noble character? Isn't it just dark vision.What is not available in the current set of "elf feats" (of which there are like 40) that you would need?
No heritage is going to carry significantly more benefits than another heritage, for obvious balance reasons.
I haven't played pf1e since pf2e came out so my recollection of the archtype isn't the sharpest, but being able to hover straight up made for a fun cat burglar rogue, and the extra magic was nice.
Also just had a thought, if wotc doesn't sue Dota for the Drow Rogue character would that be abandoning their copyright?