• Keld [he/him, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    All i know about pathfinder is that apparently the first edition had a lot of kink stuff in it, and some very explicit bestiality stuff. I don’t even know if its true, a friend who is into tabletop stuff told me.

    • fox [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      5 days ago

      Early PF was a spinoff of 3.5 and the thing about 3.5 was they were letting fucking anyone write books for it which PF inherited. I don’t know if it’s explicitly any freakier than 3.5 having books on which species could interbreed and what different species breast milk tasted like

      • FlakesBongler [they/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        The worst you can say about early Pathfinder is that they really wanted to stand out from D&D, so everything was just maximalized

        Ogres weren’t just maneaters, they were also incestuous sex predators

        There’s not just one evil nation of slavers, but several and slavery is even in some of the “good” nations

        Goblins weren’t just nasty little level one fodder, they were violent little firestarters

        I don’t know where beastiality comes in, unless they’re just upset that they had catfolk, gnolls, and ratfolk stuff in there