What's so edgy about pathfinder? I keep hearing people say that it has lots of edgy stuff, but all I know about it is that it's the system for 3.5 grognards and nothing else.
It's got Social Justice quotas it needs to meet with each adventure, and all in all is actually a worse version of 3.5, but with some shiny abilities given to the PCs to attract more players.
If it weren't for the debacle that was 4e, PF would have died before it was even born.
This is an official illustration of a recurring NPC in most of the pathfinder books
>Is x system edgy?
The problem is with the question what do people mean when they say it's edgy? Do they think the game is inherently edgy no mater how you run it? Is it just the APs?
Basically, they put a trans character or someone who isn't a white guy or a same-sex couple in the adventures and the /pol/ crowd starts thrashing around shitting themselves. The social justice quotas aren't even noticeable if you don't see everything as social marxism.
There are some edgy things though. Ogres are hillbilly rapists. Orcs are regular rapists. Kytons are cenobites from Hellraiser. Everyone is literally fucking everyone else judging by the adventure paths. There's an entire nation ruled by Devils and another ruled by Cenobites from Hellraiser, both of which you can be an edgelord in.
Am I misusing the word grognards here?
People who hate change and new things in RPGs?
So the audience for PF is people who think there's nothing wrong with 3.5, and that if anything 3.5 should be even MORE 3.5y.
That's mildly edgy. Is there anything half as edgy as this?
It's sprinkled here and there
>elves worship slutty goddess of revenge
>muh persecuted minor race
>Rise of the Runelords bad guys
>That's mildly edgy. Is there anything half as edgy as this?
It means "grumblers" so kinda applies to OSR players, 0e players and people who switched to Pathfinder because "4e is lel an MMO lel".
Inarguably they are the worst generation of grognards.
They wouldn't spend money printing the books every few months if they didn't sell them. Fuck even wizards is going that route but on a quarterly basis. Bad campaign adventure paths is now the norm.
That's not edgy. He's clearly reveling in the depth of his evil. He's an antipaladin (or blackguard, I forget which) and he loves it.
If he were edgy then he'd be a brooding mess that grumbled through interactions about >MUH FALL
yup. if that was edgy, then all old fantasy with evil characters would be edgy, mostly all horror movies would be too~
Edgy is just another silly word people like to use on stuff they don't like
>Being evil and loving every minute of it
That not edgy, that's awesome.
Edgy is when you're a good guy, but you act like you hate the fact that you are a good guy.
The most important question is:
Can edgy characters ever work? I think yes, in moderation, having an edgy character in the group can really add to the dynamic.
It's not any more or less "edgy" than other fantasy RPG that has Fantasy violence. Paizo's setting might try(and fail) to be deep and/or dark, but it also has shit like rapist Hillbilly Ogres and succubi made of poop.
>Edgy is just another silly word people like to use on stuff they don't like
The word means nothing at this point.
See this >>44987997 is what I would have said.
The guy is kicking a piggy because he clearly finds it funny. Is it a good idea? Probably not, but if he were Chaotic Neutral instead of Chaotic Evil we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
that's sort of where it started, then it branched out to mean anything with a dark\evil element, most people who whine about edge would also say that running an evil campaign is edgy.
Usually having any non-standard element pertaining character development is enough to be called edgy these days.
The same people also call standard campaigns for cliche, overused, etc.
Of course, what people consider edgy varies from person to person, usually the only constant in the definition is that none really agrees.
It's just a catch-all phrase for stuff you don't like, you'll see the kind of people who use it quite clearly (they'll usually start calling you edgy, edgelord and then throw in a sperglord or That Guy for good measure).
In many ways they're like stereotype of whiny vegans who harass people on the street for eating meat.
What kind of monster kicks such a small and cute piggy
Most people also just mindlessly harp what other people say, and currently its very popular to call stuff edgy.
This tactic is usually used by people who don't like the system for various reasons, so they attack the setting\lore in an attempt to convince people that it is shit, and by proxy; the system.
He's having fun doing whatever the fuck he wants because he's evil and he gets to do what he wants. If he was really edgy, he would be torn apart by the fact that the pig reminds him of living on a farm when he was a child and he HATED that life and he HATES pigs so he kicks it because it brought up his memories when he used to be good.
Worse version of 3.5?
All of the experiences with my group have been that it is a better system, we are very pleased with it...
Can you give a concrete example? I'm not seeing what you've got a strife with so far, I like the new combat system, I like what they have done with the new classes too.
The only thing that was annoying for me is that I'm crafting nerd that want a really defined system for crafting mundane and magical items, and i feel that it is too nebulous for magical items
He's also a character that misdirected a Paladin by painting two signs pointing in opposite directions and hammering them on a tree, while he hid behind the tree and the Paladin cried out in dismay.
The signs were direction arrows, one pointing to "Burning Orphanage" and the other "Antipaladin's Castle."
>In many ways they're like stereotype of whiny vegans who harass people on the street for eating meat.
But seriously, animal consumption in the United States is disproportionate even amongst carnist nations.
The question isn't why the orphanage is burning, but why a sign would be put up stating that.
They don't burn that long.
As much as it clashes with my paladins as holy cops idea, I have a weakness some comically stupid characters on both sides.
This is the image in question.
This is basically the same image of Cobra Commander kicking a dog to show his evilness. Which is silly. This is a silly villain. Bound to silliness, destined for silly adventures. It could work. If done properly.
>it's the system for 3.5 grognards and nothing else.
No no no no no fuck this thinking pathfinder is a step back from 3e in every way except level 20 abilities.
But no its not edgy
Basically they try to push the idea that being a tranny isn't a pathetic mental illness, and that these gross sadsacks make up more than 0.000001% of the population.
Some other SJW shit ("Our paladin is a STRONG BLACK WYMYN") but none as hamfisted and tiresome as the tranny shit.
Its only as edgy as the DM or players make it.
Most of the gay characters I have read about in the adventure paths, the players wouldn't ever know they were gay if the DM had them talk like an actual person as opposed to someone who identifies as being gay or whatever, so its really a question on if your DM is capable of having NPC's talk like actual people over screaming "I am a butt pirate hear me roar!"
What you mean those exact word or the general theme of bad but good capstones
I have taken to mentioning the level 20 abilities being good but I don't think I have talked about 3e vs pathfinder that much recently I guess somebody must have similar views to me
Really, no one in can beat 3.5 treating it's shit in the two fiendish codex as normal game stuff.
The Hell book had a hag inflated into a plain of festering flesh and people living in it, dad and daughter pair that were obviously fucking and the daughter was in control, people getting off and being content with living in filth and a lord of hell frozen in ice for fucking someones wife and having to watch for all eternity as his devil minions and the slighted party fucks all of his harem.
My reading of the setting has it being about slavery at its core.
It's an alright setting iconics aside not as good as greyhawk but better then the forgotten realms but unlike tsr and wotc paizo auctualy knows how to make a good setting book.
The question you seem to be trying to ask is, "Is Golarion edgy?" and my answer would be that I honestly don't know.
It's got your shoehorned American college student philosophy on one hand and horrific rape monsters and magical realm in the other.
To say that it's edgy would imply that there's any sort of coherency as to what the fuck is going on.
Scrap the setting, use the rules, if you really need to.
Not really edgy; I suppose it could be from a certain point of view.
It is often extremely lazily written and/or illustrated, only getting by on sheer density. Anon pointed out a few months ago that, despite a wall of text on their special snowflake handicapped transgender lesbian NPC, the illustrator managed to put their crutch on the wrong side.
Mechanical issues: Adventure Paths that are way too needlessly over-attached to the games mechanics. Instead of addressing the cause of game imbalance, it looks a LOT like they heard vague murmers about "wizards being op and fighters being under powered" and tweeked every thing with a bunch of +1's and -1's. They didn't do anything about save-or-dies except give non-magic-users slightly better saves. They only fixed summons by making summoned monsters slightly weaker (which had nothing to do with why summoning was OP). There are MORE trap-options than before. More feats that are only there as traps for "noobs". Actually, whole classes are trap options (just like in 3.5). The "week fighter" that they were trying to make competitive with magic users got locked into a very specific set of skills/feats even more than in 3.5 d&d. Basically, take all of the bad stuff in 3.5 and imagine it actually being made worse by an attempt to "fix" every thing.
Story Issues: The adventure paths that pathfinder is NAMED FOR are railroading story driven games the likes any jrpg would be proud of. The deities are like extra-fetishized versions of greyhawk/forgotten realms deities. Artwork is exclusively done by Wayne Reynolds (you were asking what's so edgy about PF, and using his artwork is a deliberate move to make the game darker and edgier). The game is more focused on iconic heroes rather than the players hero, making the player's character more of a bystander watching the REAL story from an outside persepctive (player watching their character watching an NPC who actually matters).
I don't know about every one else, but that's MY issue with Pathfinder.
Good, we understand each other. Go back to tumblr and tell the other mayonnaise gendered autists that you made a problematic shitlord check his privilege and everyone on the rape train clapped and let us functional people talk about which chinese cartoon girls we'd like to have sex with.
Every time I hear this word it just makes being one sound that much more amazing.
ITT: a study on the word "edgy" and how it no longer means anything
Normal, non-image board people still think "edgy" means transgressive, something that is a bit over the line or intentionally offensive. For example, Louis CK was once considered an "edgy" comedian because he said nigger on stage and joked about his pre-teen daughter's vagina.
Image board users have pretty disparate views of what "edgy" means, from "tryhard to the point of cringe" like fedoras, to social justice shit apparently as evidenced by this thread. Mysterious vocabulary.
I never cared about Pathfinder and other DnD shit, but once considered using their setting for a campaign.
One of the main things about the setting is the fact that the most powerful human nation is a nation of evil devil worshipers.
So yeah, that sounds pretty edgy.
>Several of the enemy types are female only and have to drag human males back to their dens for mating purposes
>One of these keeps them drugged up so they can't do anything other than copulate
Fucking bee people
Most of that stuff originally popped up in the 3.0 "mature content" Book of Vile Darkness and that was written by one of the freelancers who later formed Paizo.
>Normal, non-image board people still think "edgy" means transgressive, something that is a bit over the line or intentionally offensive. For example, Louis CK was once considered an "edgy" comedian because he said nigger on stage and joked about his pre-teen daughter's vagina.
That is still what "edgy" means: pushing the edge of what is consider socially/morally acceptable. The problem is that the acceptable/not acceptable line fractured during the late 90s/early 00s. That ended up creating a ton of confusion as people are uncertain of where the line is.
Does Paizo's stuff try and push the edge of what is socially acceptable? Yes.
Does it actually push the edge of what is socially acceptable in tabletop gaming culture? Not really.
>Does Paizo's stuff try and push the edge of what is socially acceptable? Yes.
In that case it would meet the second definition, which is "tryhard" like fedoras. This is essentially the default meaning of "edgy" on image boards, which is different from the mainstream non-image board meaning. This thread is an example of how not even that meaning applies anymore.
i do find the fiendish codex 2 could have been a bit more fluff focused like the first one it was still mostly fluff but not quite as much
or was it the other way around i forget.
all i know is that the worst book was the book of exalted deeds which was a shame after the high quality of the book of vile darkness.
Probably the other way round. Fiendish codex 2 had some good crunch (and good fluff/crunch integration, e.g 'if your character rolls this high he knows this too', but the cool part was always the fluff for me, especially the bits of humour spread in it.
I personally think both the good/evil books were pretty bad. Both were kinda questionable in what they called good/evil.
>Does Paizo try to push the edge
I guess, with some of their iconics.
The only people who've really noticed anything there are the people that are trying to though. So, not at all.
Paizo uses Iconics. Which means that they try to use the same characters throughout their books. Each of the classes has 1 Iconic. So, the Paladin is a black woman. Throughout the books you can see her doing various things, especially if they involve a Paladin. You saw a bit of this in 3.0X with Tordek, Krusk, Mialee and Lidda. Especially Lidda.
Somewhere you can find out the backstory behind these iconics, and at least one of them is trans. It's not something you'd ever know about unless you were trying to.
It tends to touch on mature subjects.
Some of them it does well, like Nualia Tobyn in Rise of the Runelords, who is a villain created by the oppressive, borderline abusive expectations others laid on her as a child resulting in her throwing herself into the arms of the first person to treat her normally and kindly.
Or Lamashtu, the Demon Goddess of beasts and pregnancy, the Mother of Monsters who births twisted horrors and is the reason wolves are hostile to mankind, who has a rape basement filled with defeated men including a god damn Angel-Lord.
Other times you get Hillbilly Rape Ogres (Who I'll admit are very fun) and SJW bollocks, honestly I'd say the fact no trans character can be anything less than a morally upstanding paragon is more annoying than anything 'edgy'.
Basically it boils down thus, the villains in pathfinder are evil. Sometimes they're monsters. Other times they're just people with too much power, like the dude in Darkmoon Vale who casually rapes in public and stabs any fucker that says a word about it because he rules the god damn town and no one is going to stand up for anyone else and die for it.
But they are actually evil and do evil things, compare that to D&D 3.5s Erryone is a Warlord or trying to destroy the earth (But in a very general sense rather than actively kicking the teeth out of the oppressed on the street corner) and you can see why people think its Edgy.