| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, not really.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The current situation with Paizo feels very similar with everything being bulldozed to fit what they want the remaster to be.Not a fan of that particular novels series. The ending especially swore me off almost buying 4E because the major change was done to make FR more in line with 4E. I won’t say more because I dislike how it was handled to this day and because it would require major spoilers.It's about the only positive experience I have had with FR fiction, so we clearly have very different tastes.What was promised and what we received ended up totally being different. The ending especially was an huge bait and switch imo. I could say more I just don’t want to spoil it for other readers.
I understand that 4E changed, altered and removed much of the previous FR lore. What could have been done surgically with a scalpel with precision. Was instead run over with a bulldozer so it conformed to what Wotc wanted the 4E lore to be.
They are not an horrible read by any means though it felt like an also to older FR fans.
The fact that Paizo is saying "this sucks, and we know it's not all good." is a huge difference for me. 4e was presented with condescension. WotC, with both 4e and changing the OGL said "Here's the new thing. You will love the New Thing. The old thing is gone forever. Yes, even in your homebrew."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
A setting-altering apocalypse combined with a hundred year timeskip is not the same as “we can’t tell Drow stories anymore.”
Odin and Zeus wouldn't have Good alignment by Pathfinder standards.Yeah this is the problem. "Mythologically inspired capricious, multifaceted deities" and "objective concepts of good and evil that gods are paragons of" do not co-exist very well.
Which imo is part of why removing alignment is exciting. It makes it a lot easier to do weird or complicated things with deities because you no longer have to make sure they accurately represent an alignment as well.
I would prefer that removing alignment doesn't mean they all suddenly start being "morally grey"I agree, I wouldn't want to see the gods change dramatically. Removing alignment does kind of smooth over existing problems though: "why is there a chaotic good god of traditional values and racism" or "Why is this lawful good god kind of murder-happy" stop being huge issues when you no longer have to assume they're representative of cosmic concepts of good or evil or law or chaos.
That part will be more interesting. No more having to worry about whether a deity fits an alignment. You can make them do what they do because that is what they do. So they can have all types of opposing crazy like the old world mythological pantheons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don’t like all the changes I tend to agree thst there is a difference with how Wotc handled 4E lire vs Paizo handling of the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That part will be more interesting. No more having to worry about whether a deity fits an alignment. You can make them do what they do because that is what they do. So they can have all types of opposing crazy like the old world mythological pantheons.
Alignment is gone, and the Cult of the Dawnflower will rise from the shadows and ashes once again to be a bigger problem then they ever were before. At least in my game that's what will happen, because that is an interesting story to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure this has already been said, but anyway: Why don't Paizo does the same that Games-workshop did with the "dark elves"? I mean, they changed a little the name (from Drow to Druchii), a little the physical characteristics and the lore, and that all! The same happened with the "dark dwarves"...
Related to the post: I'm not going to complicate it too much. I will use the common elves as dark elves, and that's all.
a) To my knowledge, the dark elves were never initially called the drow and first got a codex in 1995 when DnD was still owned by TSR right when their financial problems were starting to skyrocket. Amusingly enough, it appears they were even involved in a legal dispute with RA Salvatore at the time...
Anyhow, Games Workshop might have been dicey ground at the time, but I wouldn't say TSR was as litigeous then as WotC now - and they had bigger fish to fry. By this point, WotC doesn't have a case, the Druchii are their own distinct IP.
b) There was an entire thread of this. James Jacobs posted the reasons several times and the mods have asked us not to rehash it in this one. But the short answer is time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm keeping the Drow in my "homebrew variant" of Golarion. Which isn't any difficulty, seeing as we're still using the PF1 ruleset (with a few 3.5 hold-overs).
It helps that I've invented a different origin/backstory as to why the Drow are the way that they are in both appearance and culture. It involves an entire elven pantheon - one loosely based on the D&D one (running from 1e to 3.5 - anything after 3.5 is ignored) - and the fact that the elves are indeed off-world colonists (but not originally from Castrovel).
It's actually very freeing not to be constrained by the new canon. :)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually not quite sure if I'm going to bother much with drows just because they never have been super relevant in stuff I've run. I'm half considering one day doing homebrew campaign which involves time traveling to distant past and preventing corruption of first drow happening :p
But I do wonder if I ever start writing fanfics or pathfinder infinite novels on whether I should start to parody drow romance stories with serpentfolk now :p