Ah, fair enough, Enig, and thanks for demonstrating it all out, and explaining =) I was mostly talking out of my ass, and playing a bit of devil's advocate. Your post is well written, though.
2 simple facts remain, though, unfortunately.
1) Staff based their decision on wanting there to be an incentive to -not- be an aasimar. IE, being a ranger. (from what I gather)
B) Final judgement has been offered, so this thread is really moot.
Again, I say unfortunately. Frankly, I'm not any happier than anyone else with this. I think if you're going to throw SRD around, you need to be in for a penny and in for a pound.
Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Pen and paper D&D has a very different feel from a MUD. Things won't always be the same here. Also almost every DM has their own 'House Rules'. We've migrated from 2nd edition to 3rd edition to 3.5 over time. But the ideas of some people are essentially that if something can be justified then it should be acceptable. No one is unable to apply for an aasimar ranger just like no one is unable to apply for a dwarf paladin or a goblin cleric of sune, this is merely the groups of races who are able to become rangers without a question of their race. When people complain that something is a limit on the roleplay allowed, they're essentially saying they'd like to be able to do whatever they like. Forgotten Realms is a setting. It has a history. It has expectations of behavior from the people inhabiting the world. To complain about an Aasimar ranger is similar to complaining that you SHOULD be able to play a good Drow. Of course in all the Drow communities there are some good drow, but the problem comes when everyone wants to play the exception to the rule, no one plays the rule. Aasimar's favored class is Paladin, hence they can become paladins. It's a normal decision for them (as rare as they are, whatever one can say for 'normal').
Perhaps you should see this not as a limit on Aasimar but rather than something special about Humans and other races who CAN become Rangers. Especially since we hold far more to the 2nd edition idea of rangers as purely woodland-based with a strict code of behavior and races who can choose to become rangers than the 3rd edition idea of a ranger as merely someone who likes fighting outdoors and is chaotic. No one claims that because Aasimar can get the flight feat that all other races should be allowed to take the flight feats simply because through some justifiable circumstance (magical experimentation, aarakocra heritage, had sex with a bird, whatever) that they would for some reason have grown wings. "But if my dwarf takes the flight feats then he would expend the same two feat points and hence wouldn't be unbalanced!" No one is taking that or any of a thousand other things you can't create as a limit on their RP.
RP is interesting BECAUSE of the limits. BECAUSE of the history. BECAUSE of the expectations. I am someone who is not personally for planetouched races simply because to me, they lack that RP flair of a Drow, a Sun Elf, a Dwarf. They have no unique culture, no unique history. They're basically just an example of the 'person with something special about them they discover later in their adventures' which is such an RP/Fantasy trope that I'm sure everyone here is immediately familiar with it. That's why most planetouched are unaware of their ancestry unless it's really obvious, which it usually isn't, it says that right in the books. Yet open up a game to too many and planetouched can rapidly become the new normal because everyone wants to be that 'special' person without thinking that relying on the race to make you special is usually just RP laziness and that when everyone's special, no one is special. We need the normal to make the fantastic fantastic. We need the humans to make planetouched and halfelves special, because when it comes down to it, many people will see the benefits of these races and choose them based in part on that.
This is just my personal opinion and not as a staff member mind you, but I felt like it was important to say. Everyone thinks their character makes perfect sense to them, but if you allow everything to everyone because they themselves can justify it, then you might as well just say sure goblins can be lawful good paladins as easily as humans, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's somewhat arbitrary, but even when the line is drawn, the applications system makes it so that if you REALLY have an AMAZING idea for a character it can still happen regardless of the lines.
Perhaps you should see this not as a limit on Aasimar but rather than something special about Humans and other races who CAN become Rangers. Especially since we hold far more to the 2nd edition idea of rangers as purely woodland-based with a strict code of behavior and races who can choose to become rangers than the 3rd edition idea of a ranger as merely someone who likes fighting outdoors and is chaotic. No one claims that because Aasimar can get the flight feat that all other races should be allowed to take the flight feats simply because through some justifiable circumstance (magical experimentation, aarakocra heritage, had sex with a bird, whatever) that they would for some reason have grown wings. "But if my dwarf takes the flight feats then he would expend the same two feat points and hence wouldn't be unbalanced!" No one is taking that or any of a thousand other things you can't create as a limit on their RP.
RP is interesting BECAUSE of the limits. BECAUSE of the history. BECAUSE of the expectations. I am someone who is not personally for planetouched races simply because to me, they lack that RP flair of a Drow, a Sun Elf, a Dwarf. They have no unique culture, no unique history. They're basically just an example of the 'person with something special about them they discover later in their adventures' which is such an RP/Fantasy trope that I'm sure everyone here is immediately familiar with it. That's why most planetouched are unaware of their ancestry unless it's really obvious, which it usually isn't, it says that right in the books. Yet open up a game to too many and planetouched can rapidly become the new normal because everyone wants to be that 'special' person without thinking that relying on the race to make you special is usually just RP laziness and that when everyone's special, no one is special. We need the normal to make the fantastic fantastic. We need the humans to make planetouched and halfelves special, because when it comes down to it, many people will see the benefits of these races and choose them based in part on that.
This is just my personal opinion and not as a staff member mind you, but I felt like it was important to say. Everyone thinks their character makes perfect sense to them, but if you allow everything to everyone because they themselves can justify it, then you might as well just say sure goblins can be lawful good paladins as easily as humans, there has to be a line drawn somewhere, even if it's somewhat arbitrary, but even when the line is drawn, the applications system makes it so that if you REALLY have an AMAZING idea for a character it can still happen regardless of the lines.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Solaghar's personal opinion, eloquently explained, is very near to my own personal opinion, but -speaking as a staff member- I need to address this comment.
We do need to do a better job of advertising that we may diverge from the canon rule set with house rules. You may have noticed that the builder notes on the website are being updated slowly; the next phase is the rest of the website receiving the same treatment, and a clear caveat about our policy of sometimes adopting house rules that diverge from what is possible in the game system elsewhere.
I emphatically disagree. Yes, we are based in 3.5E/d20/Pathfinder rules, but only based, not slavishly devoted to them. (There is a good saying in my profession about being "doctrinally sound, but not doctrinally bound". In other words, starting with doctrine or canon and diverging as necessary.)Tarven wrote:I think if you're going to throw SRD around, you need to be in for a penny and in for a pound.
We do need to do a better job of advertising that we may diverge from the canon rule set with house rules. You may have noticed that the builder notes on the website are being updated slowly; the next phase is the rest of the website receiving the same treatment, and a clear caveat about our policy of sometimes adopting house rules that diverge from what is possible in the game system elsewhere.
"A man may die yet still endure if his work enters the greater work, for time is carried upon a current of forgotten deeds, and events of great moment are but the culmination of a single carefully placed thought." - Chime of Eons
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Well, that's fair, Harry. As is Sel's mention of House Rules. That might be the best way to put it. In addition, perhaps the creation of a 'help house rules' file, that sits down with a new player (or old one) and states some of the house rules, and perhaps reasoning behind them. It would also help eliminate some redundant threads, possibly, to show, "Look, this has been discussed, and it's not going to happen". A lot of the House Rules -are- completely justified. But, too many House Rules start to throw off a certain amount of inherent game balance.Harroghty wrote:I emphatically disagree. Yes, we are based in 3.5E/d20/Pathfinder rules, but only based, not slavishly devoted to them. (There is a good saying in my profession about being "doctrinally sound, but not doctrinally bound". In other words, starting with doctrine or canon and diverging as necessary.)
We do need to do a better job of advertising that we may diverge from the canon rule set with house rules. You may have noticed that the builder notes on the website are being updated slowly; the next phase is the rest of the website receiving the same treatment, and a clear caveat about our policy of sometimes adopting house rules that diverge from what is possible in the game system elsewhere.
Notice, I'm not necessarily saying that's the case with limiting races to classes.. that is, really, a justifiable 'setting' House Rules. Thus, it's called 'Forgotten Kingdoms' and not 'Forgotten Realms'. Tell people to think of it as a variant dimension of FR, where certain aspects have been taken from various editions of Forgotten Realms.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Unfortunately, Tarven, I have to say, you rather derailed this post, and as we are looking for information pertaining to the subject at hand, not overall policies, I would ask politely that you would take it back to the topic at hand, and any relevance that you might add to it, for a possible explanation. Everyone is trying to understand why a decision was made, in this case, why are aasimars excluded as I don't believe it has been very clarified. I do thank Sol, and Harry for posting in here, and explaining the rule prospective, but if the books are going to be included in such, as well as what they are drawn from, why not include all the books? Or better yet, if aasimar are going to be allowed in game, why not include their general play book(I.E. Planar Handbook) as they aren't even mentioned in the handbook(3.5ED and before)?
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
I am not sure what you are asking specifically about rule books, Naida. I will say that books such as The Planar Handbook or its predecessor, Warriors of Heaven, are generic to Dungeons and Dragons; they are not specific to the Forgotten Realms campaign setting and, as such, may not always directly apply.
"A man may die yet still endure if his work enters the greater work, for time is carried upon a current of forgotten deeds, and events of great moment are but the culmination of a single carefully placed thought." - Chime of Eons
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Derailed the post? How did I derail the post, first off? Second, who are you to say such a thing? Are you staff? If so, please use a staff account when trying to chastise others. If not, then please let staff make a judgement like that.
As far as 'why have Aasimars been excluded' most of my posts have been about that very thing, as I understood it from the staff statement. Namely, there's too many of them, as it is, with no reason to play the 'common races'. So, this is, more or less, restricting rangers to the 'common races'. And, to be honest, I can agree with that ruling.
I see quite a few humans, which is as it should be. A few elves, here and there. Not many, in the circles I run, but maybe more than aasimar. But, I see more aasimar than gnomes, more gnomes than dwarves, and halflings? I've been here around 7 weeks, and haven't seen a single one. Halflings are supposed to be reasonably prolific, and far more common than aasimar.
If you'd -read- what people are saying, you'd have gotten that, instead of trying to suggest I 'derailed' a conversation. The last part of the conversation (which, by and by, is moot anyway) was merely to suggest that staff have help files to explain WHY house rules exist. WHICH IS EXACTLY what you say here: " in this case, why are aasimars excluded "
Get over yourself, please.
As far as 'why have Aasimars been excluded' most of my posts have been about that very thing, as I understood it from the staff statement. Namely, there's too many of them, as it is, with no reason to play the 'common races'. So, this is, more or less, restricting rangers to the 'common races'. And, to be honest, I can agree with that ruling.
I see quite a few humans, which is as it should be. A few elves, here and there. Not many, in the circles I run, but maybe more than aasimar. But, I see more aasimar than gnomes, more gnomes than dwarves, and halflings? I've been here around 7 weeks, and haven't seen a single one. Halflings are supposed to be reasonably prolific, and far more common than aasimar.
If you'd -read- what people are saying, you'd have gotten that, instead of trying to suggest I 'derailed' a conversation. The last part of the conversation (which, by and by, is moot anyway) was merely to suggest that staff have help files to explain WHY house rules exist. WHICH IS EXACTLY what you say here: " in this case, why are aasimars excluded "
Get over yourself, please.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Eloquence in forum posts is rarely my strong point, but I really don't understand this decision and feel that my input deserves to be heard. So far, from what I'm reading, the breakdown is as simple as this:
Pros for Aasimar Rangers:
Diversity of ranger paths,
diversity of aasimar paths.
Due to their primary ancestry, they're likely mostly qualified anyway.
Cons for Aasimar Rangers:
3 stat points that are not breaking balance.
Cliches of aasimar in general.
Conclusions:
If the math has been done to prove the stat points aren't breaking balance, this decision has been made entirely on cliches of aasimar, while a massive elephant-in-the-corner cliche has already been imposed on rangers for years (yeah, turns out all rangers are already the same dudes because the wilds don't have "laws" to distinguish their good alignments and your ears can only be so many shapes). If anything, adding more possible cliches to the mix is a good thing and promotes actual roleplay--which is not pretending to be a mold cut out by standards pre-set for you. If anything, this MUD should be encouraging people to SURPASS standards, not just meet them.
As for pigeon-holing people into races, I think that practice is unhealthy and unfair anywhere. Sure, limits should be considered, but people want to be pretty; this is displayed most heavily in games like WoW, where the "pretty" races are the most popular--the two elven types and humans making up 46% of a population with 12 choices. While this is an aesthetic decision in a non-RP game, what precisely is roleplay aside from writing a character based on the tastes and expression of the writer?
Pros for Aasimar Rangers:
Diversity of ranger paths,
diversity of aasimar paths.
Due to their primary ancestry, they're likely mostly qualified anyway.
Cons for Aasimar Rangers:
3 stat points that are not breaking balance.
Cliches of aasimar in general.
Conclusions:
If the math has been done to prove the stat points aren't breaking balance, this decision has been made entirely on cliches of aasimar, while a massive elephant-in-the-corner cliche has already been imposed on rangers for years (yeah, turns out all rangers are already the same dudes because the wilds don't have "laws" to distinguish their good alignments and your ears can only be so many shapes). If anything, adding more possible cliches to the mix is a good thing and promotes actual roleplay--which is not pretending to be a mold cut out by standards pre-set for you. If anything, this MUD should be encouraging people to SURPASS standards, not just meet them.
As for pigeon-holing people into races, I think that practice is unhealthy and unfair anywhere. Sure, limits should be considered, but people want to be pretty; this is displayed most heavily in games like WoW, where the "pretty" races are the most popular--the two elven types and humans making up 46% of a population with 12 choices. While this is an aesthetic decision in a non-RP game, what precisely is roleplay aside from writing a character based on the tastes and expression of the writer?
Jamais arriere.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Uh, do you really think this is proper to be posting in such a place? I honestly do not appreciate it, and if you can't be nice, or constructive, please refrain from commenting.. It's simple, as everyones mother has always told them, if you can say something nice, please don't say anything at all. Thank you for being rude to me in a thread that I have taken interest in.Tarven wrote:Get over yourself, please.
I believe this has all just gotten out of hand, and as it is, the answer lies where it does. Thank you to everyone who has offered assistance in finding information about pros and cons of Aasimar, and where they should belong, and don't in this game. I understand FK is it's own entity, drawing ideas, and information based off of FR, and D&D. It's nice to have a say, and give our own opinions. Thank you again.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Well said. We are, for the most part, all adults here and can have a civil conversation. No reason for anyone to take things personally and fire off things at other people.Naida wrote: Uh, do you really think this is proper to be posting in such a place? I honestly do not appreciate it, and if you can't be nice, or constructive, please refrain from commenting.. It's simple, as everyones mother has always told them, if you can say something nice, please don't say anything at all. Thank you for being rude to me in a thread that I have taken interest in.
I believe this has all just gotten out of hand, and as it is, the answer lies where it does. Thank you to everyone who has offered assistance in finding information about pros and cons of Aasimar, and where they should belong, and don't in this game. I understand FK is it's own entity, drawing ideas, and information based off of FR, and D&D. It's nice to have a say, and give our own opinions. Thank you again.
I am in agreement with most of the people who have posted here, I am not fully understanding the reasoning behind this decision, but I also understand this is ultimately up to the staff and will of course abide by their decisions.
Counting bodies like sheep...to the rhythm of the war drums. ~~~ Maynard
-
Enig
- Sword Grand Master
- Posts: 787
- Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:28 pm
- Location: The Frozen North (Canada!)
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Right, what Algon said - let's maintain a minimum level of politeness, please.
Regarding the discussion at hand I get the feeling that a succinct accounting of the current situation may be helpful, specifically:
* Presently there is coded support for human, elven, half-elven, halfling, and gnome rangers.
* Races which do not have coded support can be apped for via the usual application process, ie. aasimar rangers (which are mentioned in 'Races of Faerun', albeit as a rarity)
As for the rationale, I feel this decision was prompted by a desire to avoid people picking aasimar or planetouched on a whim. The option remains open but requires an extra step to be taken.
Regarding the discussion at hand I get the feeling that a succinct accounting of the current situation may be helpful, specifically:
* Presently there is coded support for human, elven, half-elven, halfling, and gnome rangers.
* Races which do not have coded support can be apped for via the usual application process, ie. aasimar rangers (which are mentioned in 'Races of Faerun', albeit as a rarity)
As for the rationale, I feel this decision was prompted by a desire to avoid people picking aasimar or planetouched on a whim. The option remains open but requires an extra step to be taken.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
You, as well as everyone else that keep arguing against staff's decision, seem to be continually missing the -key- point.Hrosskell wrote: Cons for Aasimar Rangers:
3 stat points that are not breaking balance.
Cliches of aasimar in general.
There are too many Aasimar.
If the population here was 48% humans and elves, with a decent distribution of gnomes, dwarves and halflings, this might not be such an issue. As it stands, however, there are simply too many Aasimar as it is.
If you want your character to be pretty, make them an elf. There are even wide selections within the allowable races. You make it sound like it's extremely limited, but it simply isn't. It's really only 2 classes of race selections that are disallowed. Orcs and Planetouched, right?
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
Okay, and backing up a second, to Naida's comment.
Why am I being chastised, and not her? I did nothing to derail the conversation, and even if I had, it was not her place to say so. If she's peeved off, because she doesn't like a staff decision, that's on her. But to take it out on me, because I'm agreeing with the staff's decision isn't right either. I'm not going to sit here and be abused, or accused of things by a player throwing a temper tantrum.
If you don't want people to be rude to you, Naida, then don't be rude to them.
Why am I being chastised, and not her? I did nothing to derail the conversation, and even if I had, it was not her place to say so. If she's peeved off, because she doesn't like a staff decision, that's on her. But to take it out on me, because I'm agreeing with the staff's decision isn't right either. I'm not going to sit here and be abused, or accused of things by a player throwing a temper tantrum.
If you don't want people to be rude to you, Naida, then don't be rude to them.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
I honestly think that you can't handle not being in control of a situation, and you have come to my thread, and started slandering me. Please, I was nice, and used my words politely, and you took it really bad. Please stop now.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
I think this has gone enough on both sides.
We do not lock threads, so I will merely ask nothing but on-topic posts are made from this point on.
Thank you.
We do not lock threads, so I will merely ask nothing but on-topic posts are made from this point on.
Thank you.
Beshaba potatoes.
Re: Allowance of aasimars as rangers?
I am locking this thread. The discussion is appreciated, and we considered it when we made our decision, but the decision is now made.
Further, it seems that the issue is too contentious for people to discuss it politely.
Further, it seems that the issue is too contentious for people to discuss it politely.
"A man may die yet still endure if his work enters the greater work, for time is carried upon a current of forgotten deeds, and events of great moment are but the culmination of a single carefully placed thought." - Chime of Eons