Vote Up A Campaign Setting 2 (Now in Open Discussion)

[Morph Bark]

Proteans sound like they could be the human option here (ish, since humans are included, but Proteans having SHAPESHIFTINGWOO makes them automatically better), and I'd love to see a Protean king who ends up having lots of "Half-" children that make up like a sixth of a small, but important city.

Eldren fit the flavour here perfectly and I'm interested in the weirdness they might offer. Halflings and Orcs fit very well, too, and could offer a chance of having their alignments be reversed from the usual (which means Halflings are still centered around TN, but have a CE god, whilst the Orcs have an honour-based society ruled by shamans).

I could see the Paraíso have some subraces/racial feats that offer great variety in their looks and minor supernatural abilities.

Lastly it's a toss-up between Vari and Sahuagin for me. I'd like some sea-dwelling race that is unlike the rest, and reptilians would fit perfectly. Since Vari are consistent of several races though, plus original races, I'm going with them so that I can see what they hold. Plus, I figure they'd be only vaguely humanoid, so that they are different more from the other races and such the water-based variety (varieties?) might be reptilian.

[InaVegt]

I would like to request a clarification before placing my votes, are Vari going to be distinct from Genasi (or Sabi as they became known in Hourglass of Zihaja)?

They are, as far as I understand it, going to be different.

[Bibliomancer]

I'd be interested to see what Afrokuma has to say about elves and dwarves, and animi, arboreals, paraiso, and eldren all sound interesting.

[Mercenary Pen]

Arthron, Eldren, Vari, Niebla, Paraíso, Sahuagin for me, seems like they would make quite an interesting world.

[Qaera]

Animus
Arboreal
Niebla
Paraíso
Protean
Vari

[Alchemistmerlin]

Dwarf, Paraiso, Protean, Arboreal, Animus, and Arthrons

Humans are by default included, and this is not negotiable

I understand it is non-negotiable, but I'd love to hear the design team's reasoning behind this. It seems like a very odd rule.

[Elfstone]

I think my choices will be

Animus
Dwarf
Eldren
Paraíso
Grimlock
Vari

[Morph Bark]

By the way, if Centaurs are included, would they be turned into an LA+0 race?

[Drakefall]

Lack of goblin love gives me a sad.

My poor, little, green friends! Why do they hate you so!

[/melodrama]

[akma]

Firstly, there are the two trivial choices for me - Arboral and Animus, since I already made a race for each one that I like (but instead of Animus I called them Neverborn).
Arboral race(s) would realy fit a garden world.
The Protean and Paraiso sounds like they have potential.
The Arthrones I picked just becuse I had to pick 6.

I chose the Vari, even that I think I`m likely to regret that. I don`t want a redo of the 4 classical elements, and I have a suggestion: NO SET NUMBER OF ELEMENTS. So there could be dozens of subtypes of Vari*, representing elements like fire, acid, movement, emotion, growth, etc. There could also be arguments about which elements the world is realy composed of.

*Some groupings could be generalized. For exemple, energy based Varis.

[Timeless Error]

By the way, if Centaurs are included, would they be turned into an LA+0 race?

I was wondering the same thing. Will races that currently have racial hit dice and/or level adjustment be brought down to LA +0?

Assuming they will be, my votes are:

Animus
Aboreal
Centaur
Eldren
Lizardfolk
Paraiso
Vari

Grr...I have 7! Curses.

All right, I'll drop the Paraiso, because they have enough votes from other people already.

So, my final vote:

Animus
Aboreal
Centaur
Eldren
Lizardfolk
Vari

[Zeta Kai]

Animus sounds like a fascinating racial concept.
Arboreal would have to have an interesting culture.
Eldren is a natural fit for a young world of wild magic.
Elves are, unfortunately, very appropriate, as well.
Protean is a shoe-in, too.
Vari seems fitting, & I'd be curious to see how they would differ from both Genasi & Sabi. Elemental races FTW!

[RationalGoblin]

Aboreal is only logical for a Garden World.
Goblins, though not an original race, sound like they could be promising.
Centaurs might be fun elf stand-ins.
Eldren are a logical choice as a fey race.
Animus sound interesting.
Sahuagin haven't gotten many votes yet, and I like them, so there we go.

[Thinker]

By the way, if Centaurs are included, would they be turned into an LA+0 race?

Yes. Internal discussions are ongoing about how best to implement this, but all selected races will be available beginning at level 1.

I understand it is non-negotiable, but I'd love to hear the design team's reasoning behind this. It seems like a very odd rule.

My views do not necessarily reflect those of the rest of the build team, but by my own reasoning, there are a few reasons to keep humans in the setting. First, as humans ourselves who likely have never and will never meet non-humans, it is easiest to relate to human points of view and to build the setting around that point of view. Secondly, all mechanics assume a human baseline; elves are not +2 dexterity compared to other elves and it would be a pain to give everything else -2 dexterity. Third, every story about the creation of the real world includes humans in some way. Finally, humans are a very popular player race, likely for many of the reasons already listed.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Tough choices, tough choices. I've settled on ...

Animus
Centaur
Goblins
Grimlocks
Lizardfolk
Protean

[Thesbian]

Animus
Arboreal
Arthrons
Lizardfolk
Niebla
Sahuagin

[Drogorn]

Lizardfolk
Protean
Eldren
Mygalos
Grimlocks
Paraíso

[Alchemistmerlin]

My views do not necessarily reflect those of the rest of the build team, but by my own reasoning, there are a few reasons to keep humans in the setting.

Understandable.

First, as humans ourselves who likely have never and will never meet non-humans, it is easiest to relate to human points of view and to build the setting around that point of view.

Right, but regardless of what we do the setting will be written from a "real world human point of view" anyway. We will also never be part of a medieval or, in this case, primordial world which we can see being crafted by the gods before our very eyes, but that's no reason not to do the setting.

Secondly, all mechanics assume a human baseline; elves are not +2 dexterity compared to other elves and it would be a pain to give everything else -2 dexterity.

This seems like a fluff/crunch problem. Elves have a +2 Dexterity as compared to some vague baseline. The baseline is +0 to Dexterity. Dwarves, therefore, have Baseline dexterity and Elves are "2 better". In fact, due to being able to put that +2 wherever they want, Humans mess up the whole "baseline + racial bonus" system since their whole race lacks a real standard to be compared to a base. That does not make them the base, that makes them an outlier. oops

Third, every story about the creation of the real world includes humans in some way.

Because...humans are the only sentient species. This seems like an A=A concept. If the world were populated by sentient Ringworm then all the creation stories would involve sentient ringworm. What you're crafting is not the real world and isn't even remotely simulationist, so basing it off any real world standard seems silly.

Finally, humans are a very popular player race, likely for many of the reasons already listed.

As are Elves, and the democratic process inherent in this experiment would reflect that, I should think. There is no doubt in my mind that, were it put to a vote, humans would not only be in the setting but also be the predominant species, which is sort of why the choice to not include them in the vote confuses me.


Hmm...this is getting into crafting methodology and ideology that might fit better in a different thread. I don't mean to derail I swear.

[InaVegt]

In fact, due to being able to put that +2 wherever they want, Humans mess up the whole "baseline + racial bonus" system since their whole race lacks a real standard to be compared to a base. That does not make them the base, that makes them an outlier.

We're making this setting for 3.5e D&D, where Humans do not have any +2 or -2

[Alchemistmerlin]

We're making this setting for 3.5e D&D, where Humans do not have any +2 or -2

Wh...Oh hey look at that(Just checked the SRD). Where did I get the idea that humans could put a +2 bonus to a chosen stat? Clearly it has been a very long time since I thought playing a human in a fantasy game was a good idea. Sorry about the misunderstanding.


None-the-less. There is no difference between "Humans have no bonus, therefore elves are 2 better in dexterity" and "Dwarves have no bonus to dexterity, therefore elves are 2 better in dexterity". It feels like you're trying to take an abstract concept and make it less so, but it doesn't change really.


I'm gonna edit my previous post and take out that mistake, thank you for the correction.

[InaVegt]

Where did I get the idea that humans could put a +2 bonus to a chosen stat?

Probably Pathfinder or 4e.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

This is going to be fun...

• Arboreal. Because plant people are cool.
• Dwarf. A staple.
• Elf. A staple.
• Halfling. A staple.
• Lizardfolk. I just think that would be fun.
• Orc. None of those low-calorie half-orcs in this setting.

[Seerow]

Aw damn, I apparently missed the magic level vote entirely. Not that my one vote against it would have swayed the vote, so oh well. I'm not surprised that so many people jumped on the very high magic, it's just not something that interests me. High magic in the setting is fine, but I liked the description someone else made saying magic is highly prevalent in the world, but since it's genesis the Gods are still in almost complete control of it, and haven't yet reached the point where it is being given out as freely to mortals, and arcane magic is as of yet in its infancy. Oh well.

Anyway, races: Aboreal, Centaur, Grimlock, Paraiso, Protean, Mygalos

[Thinker]

Right, but regardless of what we do the setting will be written from a "real world human point of view" anyway. We will also never be part of a medieval or, in this case, primordial world which we can see being crafted by the gods before our very eyes, but that's no reason not to do the setting.

Yes, it will be written from our human perspective. It is easiest to interpret by readers if they can relate to something in the setting. Since settings aren't like novels with stories being moved along by protagonists or antagonists, we have to settle for something else. In this case, we can settle for an easily-related race.

This seems like a fluff/crunch problem. Elves have a +2 Dexterity as compared to some vague baseline. The baseline is +0 to Dexterity. Dwarves, therefore, have Baseline dexterity and Elves are "2 better". In fact, due to being able to put that +2 wherever they want, Humans mess up the whole "baseline + racial bonus" system since their whole race lacks a real standard to be compared to a base. That does not make them the base, that makes them an outlier. oops

The baseline really isn't that vague. Abilities start at 0. If we were going to introduce a race that did this already as a baseline, we would likely make it fairly generic, flexible, and easy to relate to. At that point, why not just call it human?

Because...humans are the only sentient species. This seems like an A=A concept. If the world were populated by sentient Ringworm then all the creation stories would involve sentient ringworm. What you're crafting is not the real world and isn't even remotely simulationist, so basing it off any real world standard seems silly.

Humans are the only sentient species, but many cultures had nearly-human creatures in the form of spirits, fey, demons, and so on. Certainly, they were most often supporting characters to the stories about humans, but it is rare to find a creation story that featured only humans. I wasn't trying to suggest that this would be a real world creation story, but there is a lot of source material to draw on there. It would be silly to ignore it and to not let it shape our ideas.

As are Elves, and the democratic process inherent in this experiment would reflect that, I should think. There is no doubt in my mind that, were it put to a vote, humans would not only be in the setting but also be the predominant species, which is sort of why the choice to not include them in the vote confuses me.

There are also a lot of people who actively dislike elves; I would expect that they will handily lose the vote in favor of the new races. If you think that they would overwhelmingly win anyway, why bother having a vote? That would seem to restrict other interesting options from being introduced since so many people would essentially waste one of their six votes on humans. That was the point I was trying to get at in my brief reply without explicitly saying it.

I am also not interested in derailing the thread and so this is the last I will say of it in here. If you would like to continue the discussion, please feel free to start another thread or to PM me.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Just with my own (probably wrong due to distraction at work) math, this is shaping up to be a very heated and interesting race.

I dare say it is popcorn worthy.

[The Witch-King]

Eldren -- Hey, I love fey!
Elves -- I love elves too!
Goblins -- Goblins never get enough love.
Lizardfolk -- Neither do lizardfolk.
Sahuagin -- I long for a campaign where I can fight Sahuagin space pirates!!
Troglodytes -- A fascinating PC option I never thought about before. They could easily replace dwarves as a PC race, although I hope if they're used in this setting, the stench trait will be removed. It would be difficult to be a troglodyte paladin in a party when all your teammates were retching every day. Let alone what would happen every time you went into town...

[Zeta Kai]

Troglodytes -- A fascinating PC option I never thought about before. They could easily replace dwarves as a PC race, although I hope if they're used in this setting, the stench trait will be removed. It would be difficult to be a troglodyte paladin in a party when all your teammates were retching every day. Let alone what would happen every time you went into town...

But that could be a very interesting roleplaying trait.

[afroakuma]

There is no doubt in my mind that, were it put to a vote, humans would not only be in the setting but also be the predominant species, which is sort of why the choice to not include them in the vote confuses me.

"If they were in the vote they would win" as a rationale to argue against "they already won?"

I understand it is non-negotiable, but I'd love to hear the design team's reasoning behind this. It seems like a very odd rule.

Well, here's my own rationale, which I gave to the team. Note that there was a lot of debate on this within the team; it wasn't just cut-and-dried:

Spoiler

Show

From a mechanical perspective, humans have something very attractive to offer to players that in many cases is fundamental to being able to use a special or unusual build. That asset is considered quite powerful. If humans were excised from the setting, by design or by vote, players would still clamor to have them back, or a viable substitute.

Now here's the rub: yes, we can create a substitute race that has the same major asset that humans do, a bonus feat at 1st level. However, can we viably make them just as good as humans without being better (as human is already considered a strong choice) or worse in a way that impedes general utility (which would cause people to just clamor to use humans again)? If the answer to that is "make them as bland as humans," then sure, I can give you the "snamuh." But then your votes are for nothing, since you knocked out humans only to see them sneak right back in with a funny mustache.

So here's the thing: from a fluff perspective I don't give two bits about the fleshy pink-to-brown bald monkeyfolk. I don't worry about the need to write "from a human perspective" and we in fact have a lot of extremely nonhuman races on offer. We're retaining them for practical reasons, as well as the admittedly useful role they play as a bar for what "neutrality" is in racial mechanics terms. I said nothing, however, about humans being the dominant race in the setting. That's still up to the build team to decide. Humans might be 60% of the population, or 6%.

[Flickerdart]

For reference re: Niebla, a cloud forest isn't a forest in the clouds, it's this:

[Veyr]

I liked this photo better (warning: huge):

Spoiler

Show