Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

carn's page

913 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 913 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Generic Villain wrote:

Well, as a historian I'm sure you know that the "Dark Ages" weren't actually all that dark. Proper historian don't even use that term. "Dark Ages" was a term coined by a 14th-century Italian author named Petrarch who really liked the Roman Empire, and thought everything after Rome's fall just sort of sucked. Source.

The so-called Dark Ages of Europe were not nearly as grim and brutal as some people think. Warfare was heavily limited due to the small size of armies necessitated by feudal government, women were treated better than previous times by a wide margin, and Dark Age serfs had shorter workweeks than Americans today. Oh, and life expectancy was about 50 years.

Nice post.

But i think its impossible to cure prejudice toward middle ages. Its always fun to ahve people talking about witch hunts, absolute rulers and horrible torture then say "Yes, the renaissance was realy a horrible age, good its gone."

(I know middle ages also weren't that nice, but in those three categories renaissance has far higher "score".)


Kittyburger wrote:
carn wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.

The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.
And the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger demonstrated that the state has no interest whatsoever in restricting marriage to a single religion's definition of "one man and one woman."

It demonstrated that no convincing evidence for a current interest was presented in the eyes of the judge. Guess what, 4 of 9 supreme court judges had adifferent opinion. That means that an interest can be formulated, but the evidence was too thin.

As i described on page 1 or so, have a hereditary kingdom and suddenly there is a strong interest for the nation whether the king/queen can marry same sex or only opposite. And nobody would argue about whether there is enough interest to justify the king ordering his eldest son to keep his eyes on girls, preferably princesses of neighboring kingdoms.


thejeff wrote:
carn wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.
Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.
Just like miscegenation laws limited everybody's rights in the same way. Everyone could only marry within the same race.

As far as i know, nobody ever claimed that black + white was not a marriage. It was a marriage, just an illegal one. Even if preformed in secret it was punishable.

If two men exchange vows that is not of anybodys and especially the states concern. Instead of what is asked for, is a change of definition. And the reason given is that not changing the definition causes emotional harm.


ShadowcatX wrote:
carn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Does it take guts to have that stance? Sure.
It doesn't take guts to stand for something in the US which is favored by current US president and current supreme court majority.

If it was the U.S. President and the supreme court majority who paid Paizo's bills I'd agree with you.

I suppose you think it does take guts to stand up for a religion where the majority of the people in your country are members of that religion?

Majority is not an issue regarding guts, its what the other side is capable of and willing to do. Which is seriously limited if the supreme court also says the other side is bigot and the one in charge of various agencies is also on your side. And paizos customer base will include fewer conservatives than general population, due to age and education of customers (average education level of paizo customers can be expected to be higher than average, because buying rule books several hundred pages long is correlated with a willingness to read)


Matt Thomason wrote:


- My objection to your views on marriage are primarily because the implementation of those views causes emotional harm to others that have done nothing to deserve that harm.

The state cannot and should not care about emotional harm. It has to respect individual rights and otherwise pursue what is deemed to be of general interest for the nation.


Hitdice wrote:


Well, here in the US there is a (Constitutional) promise of equal protection, which means that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples have the same right to marry.

Rights are not directed at couples but at individual. And one man one woman obviously does limit everybodies right to marry in the same way.

Hitdice wrote:


But really Carn, given your "I don't have a problem with the products, I just don't want to pay for them," statements, it sounds like you're complaining that you didn't educate yourself on Paizo's stance before purchasing a subscription.

Yes, that was an error.


Kittyburger wrote:
carn wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

And we have yet another thread created because someone's concerned about which fictional character is fictionally sleeping with another fictional character.

No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".
Considering that those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are actively spreading lies about the LGBT community and agitating in foreign countries for laws calling for the extermination of queer people, I think "evil" is a pretty fair word to describe it.

So opposing homosexual marriage = mass murderer?


ShadowcatX wrote:

And we have yet another thread created because someone's concerned about which fictional character is fictionally sleeping with another fictional character.

No, its about "If you're against homosexual marriage, you're probably not good aligned and if you actively oppose it you're evil (deity or not)".

ShadowcatX wrote:


Does it take guts to have that stance? Sure.

It doesn't take guts to stand for something in the US which is favored by current US president and current supreme court majority.


Matt Thomason wrote:
carn wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?
Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.

Okay. So...

1) Do you object to what is being said, or just the way it is being said, or both?

2) From what I've read, I have the impression you would describe yourself as "Tolerant of differences in others, but not a proponent of equal rights due to my moral code defining the prerequisites for those rights" Would that be accurate?

1) both

2) There are no prerequisites for rights. Is just that there is no right to marry people of the same sex.


Matt Thomason wrote:


So would you say your objections are based on the product "promoting inclusiveness until such a time as that issue in our society today is successfully dealt with"?

Yes, IF inclusiveness is not only promoted by NPCs being that way, but by promoting the idea that paizos version of what the result in society of inclusiveness should be, is painted as the only moral choice.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Again, any stance they take is "whacking" someone with "a moral club". I don't think you need to use aggressive language to learn whether the product is something you want to support. I dare say many who think it is right to be inclusive feel as strongly about the morality as you do.

Deliberately including something until a certain goal is achieved is whacking with a moral club.

And its not about feeling strongly about it. From my feelings i am rather indifferent, slightly liking gays more over lesbians as they increase my market value. I just feel strongly about the utter arrogance and bluntness of "until..." as that is not what i would like to pay for.


The black raven wrote:
To the OP. I think you can expect inclusion of politics in most all Paizo products in the form of gender equality, race equality and other similar topics.

Examples for similar topics?


TerraNova wrote:


Now, if that passage causes you to drop from the product line, I am sorry for you.

No, its worded with the intent to avoid any political difficulties.

TerraNova wrote:


Simply because you seem to universalize your viewpoint, and reject material that does not reflect it outright. That makes for a nice echo chamber where your views never are challenged and thus cannot evolve past their current state.

You are assuming a lot about me. I do not reject material, that whacks me with a moral club, i enjoy to some extent reading it and taking it apart. Its just i do not like to pay for it, especially when the purpose is something different.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I think the bolded is relevant to your points earlier that there are a large number of people who voted against marriage equality in some jurisdictions in the US. That fact does not imply that it is right to oppose marriage equality. Paizo are no doubt of the view that those people were wrong to do so - even if they were a majority.

More people to insult, means more care before judgement necessary.And i see little care about the possibility of error from those saying "bigot".

Steve Geddes wrote:


Quote:
KSF wrote:
And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.
By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.
For the record, whilst I share the view that a good god wouldnt be against marriage equality, I dont think that people who disagree with me are evil. I just think they're mistaken about what consitutes "good". From what I know of them, I'd suspect Paizo employees to have a similar view, by and large.

Thats something i have no reason to suspect.


Steve Geddes wrote:
carn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?
Yes, that is also one.

Not the CG brothel owner?

Any argument trying to show that operating a brothel is not good, is rather complicated and has many twist where one could go wrong and arrive at the wrong result. So i am doubtful about my conclusion in this regard.

Steve Geddes wrote:


To be clear, I'm not really interested in arguing morality with you - I'm just trying to point out that by your definitions of political statements it is necessarily true that any producer of an RPG (which includes concepts like alignment) will have to make political statements. I think you're noticing some specific ones (like homosexual marriage and abortion being consistent with LG and G alignments respectively) because they bother you, but glossing over others which dont.

Of course, but if they elevate some issues to "until...", this influences the product i am buying, hence, i care what exactly they consider relevant enough to whack me with their moral club.


Steve Geddes wrote:


a NG herbalist who (amongst other things) helps people end pregnancies. By your definitions, those are as much "political messages" as the current issue under discussion, arent they?

Yes, that is also one. Can someone confirm that?

That would make my decision whether to unsubscribe rather simple.


Steve Geddes wrote:
carn wrote:
KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.

Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?
I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.

Would you accept that whatever relevance that statistical fact has also applies to a heterosexual couple, one or both of whome are unable to have kids?

If the difference you point out is an argument against recognising gay marriage, it's also an argument against the marriages of sterile, heterosexual couples.

If sterile couples could be with absolute certainty be reliable identified without any incursion into their privacy, then yes, it would be an argument.

But when two men show up before a marriage official, the official gains the information "they will never have biological kids together" without doing anything.

If a man and a woman show up before a marriage official, the official at most gains very imprecise information about the probability that the two will have biological kids together (derived from their age and outwwrad visible health and maybe indirect information about their intent in regard to having kids). And he could only by forcing them to take tests and inform him about the results gain somewhat more precise information, with only in a very few cases getting 100% that they will never have kids (Infertility test have a failure chance). And he would never know, whether they want to have kids. So he lacks information compared to the two men.

Hence, if one thinks that the first difference is sufficient to justify differing treatment, a difference remains even in light of infertile couples.


Drock11 wrote:

As long as they don't start putting social issues in their material just for the sake of doing it I don't have a problem with it.

Which is mostly the thought behind the second question i wrote in the OP. is more to come?

After this thread i expect no.


Lightminder wrote:
The discomfort over loving consensual commitment rituals scoring higher than a graphic description of killing a sentient being for flattened circles of metal is all based on the value system of the individuals in the game, which makes the water of culture more observable and testable than everyday life.

In Skulls and Shakles there was no claim that raiding a peaceful coastal village and slaughtering the few tactically ill advised level 1 warriors and then collect loot, which might mean starvation for the surviving villagers, is good. Opening issue even metnioned the problem, that the AP is no place for LG or maybe even G chars.

(I would be even sceptical about the AP being suitable for neutral chars.)

Otherwise, in most fantasy games much slaughtering of sentient beings would qualify as self defense, with nearly all the rest being in light of the circumstances as good or evil as killing of a taliban today.


KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
KSF wrote:

Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist.

In that sense, there were two major opposing sides in the American Civil War. And there have been often been two major opposing sides with regards to other civil rights issues. Doesn't mean that the perspective of both sides have equal merit.

Of course. In mid 19th century slavery was a political issue in the US (and also elsewhere) and one of several or maybe the most important or even the only issue (i read varying claims about that) that caused a civil war to erupt. And majority does not equal right.

KSF wrote:


And I'm still not seeing where Paizo is specifically calling you evil.

By saying that a good god cannot be against marriage equality.


KSF wrote:
carn wrote:
Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.

Why does the child necessarily need to be the biological child of both parents? And you realize that kids with gay parents grow up just fine, right?

I just noted a difference. Whether that difference is relevant enough to justify differing legal/custom treatment would be a matter of political debate.


Gnoll Bard wrote:


The truth of the matter is that there's really no fundamental difference between a married homosexual couple and a married heterosexual couple. Both couples live together, love each other, share their lives and their possessions, and may choose to raise children if they so desire.

Probability of a child living with married heterosexual couple to be biological child of the two is (as far as i guess from what little i know about statistics) about 50-90%.

Probability of a child living with a married homosexual couple to be biological child of the two is about 0%.

Thats a difference.


Kevin Mack wrote:


Actualy in the very first sandpoint article in Ap Issue 1 there is a midwife that offers herbal contrseptives

Nice, that they thought about it.


Matt Thomason wrote:


Okay, question time:

1) Did you vote for that party *because* of their anti-LGBT stance? (if so, then yeah, you're not going to find any friends here, Paizo staff included)

2) Assuming it was just one of their many policies, if you simply voted for them because the alternative was a party that had more bad policies, then that's nowhere near the same thing.

Not the way to save me, if the only difference had been marriage, i would have still voted that way. So while the other issues were more important, it doesnt help me being "evil".


Matt Thomason wrote:

Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance).

It is the same, because the pro-natural marriage stance is pro-natural marriage because of certain biological qualities which are guranteed to be absent in L and G marriage. Hence, L and G marriage are treated differently.


LazarX wrote:
DJEternalDarkness wrote:


Um what the heck are you talking about here? People have always had casual sex well before the invention of the pill. There's a reason that the world has midwives who practiced certain herbalism skills.
Not only that, contraceptiive practises aren't a modern invention either.

Reliability and side effects are known words?


KSF wrote:


Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist. Some 50%+ voted 2008 or so in california against gay marriage. Decision in favor of segregation would probably generate below 10% support.

KSF wrote:


carn wrote:
On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil.

Where did they do that?

What's the insulting part again? I'm not seeing one.

Thats at least what me and another user concluded:

Matt Thomason wrote:


carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.


James Jacobs wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

This.

It's not politics.

And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.

Is there any other issue thats not politics and treated similar?


Gorbacz wrote:


OK, so you're basically trying to build a lot of elaborate pseudo-scientific padding around the "get those LGBT out of my existence" argument. Message received, most of us over here can tell apart serious scientific discourse from political splurge.

Apparently you can't, the remaining issue of this thread is from my point of view only, if there are other issues where paizo might take such an "until" approach.

Gorbacz wrote:


But Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet.

I am just interested in what to expect from the product line, cause i pay for it. They can offer what they like. But as i buy with subscription without checking in advance what they offer, i ask about whether i have to expect more of stuff i would not like to pay for.

If your answer would representative of paizo, i guess i would have all answers i need.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:

Carn, how do you feel about Paizo's deliberate inclusion of people of color and women in their products? Do you find it a cause for concern the same way you find the inclusion of LGBT people a cause for concern? Do you find it to be equally and objectionably "political"?

Besides there being no two sides about racism and male chauvinism, its not even impolite for racists and chauvinists, by doing what paizo does in this respect, it does not suggest racist and chauvinist are evil (Reason is that both chauvinists and racists effitively believe in differering "stats"; but "stats" are a matter of world design so a racists/chauvinist just notices that in Golarion there are no stat differences between white/non-white or male/female).

On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil. I do not mind people claiming that i am evil, i mind paying people to do so.

KSF wrote:


Some of Paizo's people are LGBT. They work on the game. They produce the product which you yourself presumably enjoy. Are they not allowed to include themselves in the product they are creating? Are the non-LGBT employees not allowed to create a product that reflects their own experience of the world, an experience which includes LGBT people?

In general i dislike transferring own experience of the real world directly to imaginary worlds with total different laws. It often does not fit.

For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)

KSF wrote:


Last question. Do you feel that LGBT characters should not be included in the game?

I would prefer it in a less insulting way for natural marriage propenents. But probably thats not an option.


Steve Geddes wrote:


If paizo decided to exclude non-heterosexual people any product they wrote would, by virtue of exclusion of such people, be making an equally blatant political point. Just not one you'd notice.

Who say excluding?

Its one thing to have non-heterosexuals in story and another to have "its evil to treat some consenting adult relationsships in any way different from others" as a uncompromising tenet of lawful good.


Steve Geddes wrote:


I have a feeling this issue bothers you, so you notice it. I doubt it's any more obvious than the other political messages they've included (cheliax/slavery/bad vs andoren/freedom/good is a pretty obvious one, for example. No debate about it because who's going to dispute the moral judgement implicit in that?)

Ok, its as obvious, but the difference is, that for the main paizo markets there is no political dissens about slavery. It is not a political issue in paizo markets.

On the other hand for example US supreme court a few months ago decided against a law that received direct majority support from Californians and the court majority effictively said that people who are against gay marriage - meaning a majority of cals and besides vast majorities of the 96 senate and representative members - are bigoted a+#~@**s. So this is a political issue in paizo markets and actually one in which neither side is acting nicely.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'm very sorry that you see this as playing politics. It's just an expression of belief from the people who create this game.

That statement i do not understand.

If paizo were a bunch of catholics and had written in some product that laws punishing homosexual acts exists in LG nations, because homosexual acts are sinful and demons/devils (one of that ilk at least) increase in number due to human sin (*), then you would certainly not say "just an expression of belief" although catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as sinful and so they would just express their belief.

(* Pathfinder demons/devil get new demons/devils from human who sinned a lot, thats already in bestiary. So if this is known in Golarion, good nations would consider laws vs sinful behavior because any sinful behavior would count as assisting evil. Hence, if the actholic belief homosexual activity = sinful would make it into Golarion, anti gay laws would be the logical consequence.)


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:


Umm, I'm in the dark about this. Can someone summarize or point me to the relevant thread(s). What is the stance/issue?

AP 73 Irabeth and Anevia Tirablade married couple with Anevia born as a man and gulping a sex change potion prior marrying Irabeth, with Irabeth being LG Paladin indicating strongly that all marriage is one man and one woman are probably not LG.

AP 74 for good measure a gay couple added.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy90q9/discuss&page=10?Pathfinder-Adventure -Path-73-The-Worldwound-Incursion#tabs

James Jacobs wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:

I would like to see Paizo's internal notes on how LGBTQ+ characters fit into Golarion, sometime and somehow... not that I ever expect to see them published in a formal book anywhere (a girl can dream, though...), but we've seen enticing hints here and there.

I've written up a for-personal-use list of the deities of Golarion I think would be particularly trans friendly and I sometimes wonder how it matches up to Paizo's.

(If Anevia's devotions are any indicator, though, I bet there's a fairly close confluence between my list and Paizo's)

Those notes are basically as follows:

GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least. There's a gay couple in the next adventure, in fact, so the inclusiveness isn't stopping with Anevia and Irabeth in this AP.

Furthermore, I'm gonna keep doing this in our APs until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing to discuss whether any one NPC is a sorcerer or wizard. And at that point I'll keep doing it.

Anyway... keep on topic. And since there are LBGT characters in the adventure, that part of the discussion IS on topic... but keep it civil, please!

That sounds like quite deliberately taking a position and even with a certain goal "until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing".

Therefore the question, whether repeating is likely (which probably is in light of this quote), and whether other stuff is also such that paizo might include it repeatedly until whatever.


Steve Geddes wrote:
What I meant was that defining "political message" as broadly as you do means that any written product is necessarily going to include a political message.

At least if it has as much content as usual fantasy world, yes, it often includes messages. But usually it is not as direct and obvious and intentionally as in this case.


Steve Geddes wrote:

To quote part of the OP:

Quote:
Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message.
You pretty much answer your own question here. By your own argument they pretty much have to make political points, don't they?

Was it bit short, excluding something does not necessarily send a message (depending upon with what pattern it is excluded), but nonetheless messages are formed that way. And the explanation realism has little or nothing to do with what is included and what not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Upps,
"does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"
does even call hereditary monarchy into question.

In hereditary monarchy its very important that either the ruler or at least some relatives have offspring and its crucial whom they have offspring with. A princess having a child with the stable boy is very different from having a child with the prince of the neighbouring kingdom, the latter could upset the entire political structure, as that child might have one day claim to both thrones. Same for the prince of course.

So royal children would be strongly encouraged to supress once in a while their personal desires and for the greater good of the nation have sex with someone politically fitting. Gender change would of course be discouraged, if the neighboring kingdoms dont have a fitting counterpart. And pure L and G would be a no-go (unless one has some complex magic involved). And at least upper classes would take the royal house as orientation.

Or in other words a hereditary kingdom has automatically "anti-LGBT law/customs" built in and any nation "that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good"".

-> No "Good" hereditary kingdoms?


Matt Thomason wrote:


carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

That would many of today nations are lawful evil or neutral, as marriage only for man and woman is already anti-LGBT law (though whetherits enough for evil, is probably a matter of taste). And most gods of this world would also be neutral or evil, especially the monotheistic ones.

Matt Thomason wrote:


The guidelines that many would agree to here is "does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"

That guideline would shake up much of "classical" good and evil in fantasy. For example, most of the time becoming a vampire is done by being bitten by one, which on itself does not cause harm to third persons. So wanting to become a vampire could not be objected by good gods (One would have to settle a deal with the biting vampire about being set free at once in Pathfinder, but that should be possible with some third party keeping the payment till the biter does so). Even the evil alignment part could be dealt with, with some extra cash.

Also, raising dead bodies as zombies and skels does not harm third parties outright. Especially, people could agree in their testament to this use (just like today people can donate their bodies to research) and the family could receive compensation (if it is not anyway done for the family, so grandpa is with them a little longer). Again, no reason for good to object.

Same for becoming a lich, if it doesnt include some sacrifice stuff or so (although if the sacrificed are willing, it would be ok again, as willing be killed does not involve harm to third parties, and if people are anyway done with life, collecting some extra money for relatives from some powerful wizard trying to achieve lichdom, is also ok).


Matt Thomason wrote:


However, I wouldn't want to label an entire country just because of the position certain people within it hold - just the individuals in question.

Its not position of certain people, its the law or absence of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

If a nation has on law that homosexuals are to be executed or has it on law that marriage is only between man and woman, then the state can be labelled according to its stance, just like individual people.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Paizo have made it very clear on a number of occasions that this particular issue is very important to them, and will continue for the forseeable future. Paraphrasing their stance here - they want to ensure their products show that LGBT people exist in Golarion, too, and are generally treated equally to any other member of society. There are good LGBT people, and evil LGBT people (as seen in older APs), just as with any other part of society.

Thanks for the info. Any other ......... issue relevant enough for paizo to care about?

Matt Thomason wrote:


I don't believe there have been any statements about whether anyone in the fictional Golarion setting is specifically anti-LGBT. I believe its mostly recognized that such individuals or societies may exist, but if so that they're very much the exception and haven't been mentioned specifically at this point.

If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

For a lawful evil nation, it could make a lot of sense. After all, one needs a constant supply of cannon fodder for any world conquest activities/human sacrifices for pleasing evil gods and at least L, G and T activities do tend to result in less offspring aka cannon fodder compared to straight. Just take the couple from wrath of the righteous 1, seeling a useful sword so the partner changes in a way that reduces the likelihood of offspring, is something which an evil overlord could have reasons to frwon upon. Treating it equal makes little sense for evil overlords.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

I don't see it as a political issue.

I am quite confident that i could find a few so called western democracies, in which currently some of the major political parties (meaning >20% of votes) are in favor of allowing gay marriage and some are against allowing gay marriage and in which laws regarding the issue have been passed in recent years or were at least proposed in parliament and failed, in both cases with considerable political discussion happening. I do not see why "political issue" is a wrong term. Its obviously a matter currently fought over in politics.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Anyone who feels that's a matter of opinion is quite frankly someone that isn't a welcome member of civilized society.

Ok, so Poland is not a civilized country.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Whether or not guns should be available to the public is an example of a political issue. Whether it's okay to shoot an innocent person in cold blood with one certainly isn't, and the same is true of bigotry.

There are people who see guns also as an issue with clear right and wrong. That does not change it into a non-political issue. And there are people who discuss it as a political issue when its ok to administer to an innocent and not consenting person a shoot of deadly muscle relaxant. So you view about what is non-political issue due to clear right and wrong differs from that of other people.

But whatever it is called, is not the thread question.

Questions are whether this "non-political" issue will continue to have its place in paizo publishing and whether other "non-political" issues might also get their place.

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:


Please be specific as to what you consider the political issue to be.

Whether or not a society treats legally all possible consenting sexual relations exactly equally or not. And whether a society is absolutely neutral regarding all potential consenting wishes/desires in that respect or indirectly or directly prefers some via law/customs.

KSF wrote:


Deliberate exclusion of LGBT people sends as much of a message as their deliberate inclusion.

Exclusion would not need to be deliberate and therefore does not necessarily send message.

For example, in Jade Regent having a male PC relation to Ameiko was clearly an option authors had in mind. Yet they did not spend any thought on whether or not Ameiko would use contraception in the thrill of romance, how she would react to being pregnant, how one can access safe and legal abortion while crossing the crown of the world, whether giving the new born to some nice couple along the way is an option because it would be to endangered when going into the lions den or how Ameikos ascent to the Jade Throne is impacted by having a child with an outsider without any hint of imperial blood or impacted by their rivals through scrying finding oout that she had sex before marriage and killed the human being in hew womb who would have been next in line for the throne (depending on however these people handle such issues). By leaving this info out Paizo for example did not sent any message that people should not care about contraception and the risk of pregnancy or about abortion.

But if Paizo had included such stuff, it would have sent a message (the exact message depending upon what they would have decided upon).

So inclusion of something does certainly send a message, exclusion does not necessarily send one.

KSF wrote:


If you read some of the threads on the topic, you'll see that demographic arguments such as that one have received criticism.

Whatever method is used to decide, i do not care, its just whether this would be something kept in mind while deciding upon future NPCs.


Finally reading through wrath of the righteous 1 and 2 and reading some somewhat intense threads, it seems paizo decided to indirectly take a stance regarding some politics stuff via background stories.

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

What i would like to know, is first, can it be expected to continue (so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

And if there is any intent or idea about taking a stance about other political issues or is this just one special issue, somehow an exception?


If as published in bestiary is the criteria, draugr captains are also very deadly.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/draugr

draugr captain is advanced version thereof, can cast 3 times obscuring mist and level drains with a weapon. So stats like this:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/draugr/draugr-adva nced
but without boring nauseated and level drain instead. With power attack its +6 1d12+10 + drain (which is at least as good as + 5 dam) at CR3. 1d12+10 + drain one hits a lev 2 char without crit.

Compare that to the alternative CR 3 drain monster (wight)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/undead/wight
and you see its deadly.

Also, draugr captain explicitely states most draugr captains have class levels, so a nasty CR 4 lev2 antipaladin draugr captain is not a bit breach of rules. That allows with furious focus and power attack +12 2d4+16 (18-20) + drain. Published lev 2 rogue at least gets mwk scimitar +11 (1d6+13/18–20 plus 1 negative level)
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-4/draugr-captain-draugr -rogue-2


I consider the young template for incorporable undead creatures to be a too good to be true exploit, especially because the quick and rebuild rules would differ too much for incorperal undead creatures. (Although in carrion crown 2 that exploit is officially used.)


Im just uncertain whether a ghost seugathi (CR8) or a level 2 monk advanced zombie lord seugathi or a level 2 monk advanced juju zombie seugathi (both CR 9) would be deadliest.


As some mention class levels and templates, does the discussion include alterations of monsters via templates and class levels?


Yes, i also saw it afterwards.

But nobody discussed it. I would guess its very close to number 1 or number 1, because at lev 4 (the intial idea was a monster CR 2 or so higher, thats likely to TPK) even a paladin will have only +6-8 will and therefore be able to attack the seugathi 50% of the time and will spend 30% or so harming himself and allies.


Thats except for a cha upped lev 1 fey bloodline sorcerer with cha+4 race simply dropping the entire party lacking elves with 1 DC 20 sleep.


I think the best TPK monster for its CR is the seugathi:
https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/aberr ations/seugathi

will 20 every round with no averting eyes, mind fogDC 19 guranteing auto failure for several rounds and the seugathi selecting action for 1 confused PC every round can easily end up with 2 of the 4 party members killing each other, while the other 2 can act only every second round against the seugathi.


Dekalinder wrote:


And if they want myrm can dump str too.

That would cause some backpack problems early levels, since medium encumberance ends with str 7 at 46 lbs and chain shirt weighs 25 lbs, scimitar 4 lbs, clothing 3, boots 1, so just 13 lbs for anything else. Add a light crossbow and 10 bolts and its just 8 lbs left. Have something to drink for 2 lbs.


well, its quite late, but kensai misses lev 19 ability for an effective +10 ini. Lev 19 ability is worth 3 feats or more, depending upon whether additional level 4 or lower spells are still of interest, +10 ini is probably worth less than 3 feats.

1 to 50 of 913 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.