| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
While it may be true that the degree and pervasiveness of oppression and privilege may vary depending on the quality in question - handedness, race, sexual identity - we shouldn't be in the business of telling anyone their concerns aren't as important as someone else's, certainly not with respect to gaming.
Thank You.
RPG's are predominantly a white male/female hobby. Never am I more reminded of that when a topic on race (especially and specifically about blacks) rears it's head on an RPG message board. Even one as "progressive" as Paizo's. To clarify: that wasnt a slam @Paizo writers, developers or editors. It was a slam at the community. Especially those who, in this thread, resorted to the old canard or "well I'm not offended by it so you must be thin skinned and looking for something to be offended by." which is obviously fine to level in terms of race but if someone had said this about women and or the LGBT community? The offenders would have been shouted down in an EPIC (or should I say MYTHIC *wink wink*) thread of no less than 30 pages.
I understood what the OP was getting at. I also disagreed with it as I'm a little more well versed in the geography and populations of Golarion than he/she was. I could also see that how someone from the outside might make those connections based on OTHER pulp or fantasy correlations of Black people = some sort of beast or animal. Granted it wasnt accurate in this case but instead of people just coming out and saying so (which some of you did - so THANK YOU for that ) others thought it best to resort to the old "You saw it as racist so that means YOURE RACIST" canard that I've seen many times on RPG message boards. It's an attempt at silencing and shaming the speaker and no less offensive than when guys do that sort of thing to women on boards like these. Except that it's more accepted. Because there's probably a higher ratio of women to black gamers in the hobby I think.
Anyway just wanted to chime in on this thread.
One of the reasons that I'm pretty firmly in the corner of Paizo and Pathfinder is their level of inclusion in terms of representing different people. I like that the (original art) for Sheriff Hemlock resembled a black man or the image of Seelah a black woman in full plate. When I'm looking through my Pathfinder Books and my 11 year old son looks through them over my shoulder he can see people that look like him. For a kid that's kind of important and something that I notice a lot of gamers take for granted. Heroic representations of black people in the media (especially boys and men) are very, VERY few and far between. So when we DO see one we tend to hold it near and dear. That wasnt a call for Paizo to create a Black Male iconic. But we (my son) and I do appreciate the fact that you guys make the effort.
Thank You Paizo Staff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the reasons I introduced my own daughter to gaming was because of the wealth of positive, heroic female characters displayed.
Sure, there's still a lot of chainmail bikini going on in the hobby, but there's a good bit of Conan leather loincloths as well. I appreciated that I was able to include her in an activity where females were literally the equal to males in every mechanical way.
It is my opinion, for what little it is worth, that RPGaming is almost by nature an inclusive endeavor.
Yeah, I've also noticed as ShinHakkaider notes above that the hobby is predominately white. I wish that wasn't the case, but I don't see that changing very rapidly. Which I consider to be a shame because I think the hobby teaches lots of valuable life lessons and skills that anyone can benefit from.
Now if we could only get them to stop slandering and persecuting goblins...Goblins are certified members of the Pathfinder Society now. The emerald ceiling has been broken. :)
Huh. So I can stop posting offers to bribe PFS gamemasters for that Player Boon? Sweet. I couldn't actually afford the $100 anyway.
|
To jump back to something someone said earlier about the girdle of opposite gender: It was indeed unfortunate that we forgot to move that out of cursed items when we moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I presume that the thinking was "well, it's still cursed because you often put it on without knowing what it does and then have a hard time removing the effects," but the term "cursed" is loaded and problematic.
On the plus side, my understanding is that of the several times the girdle's shown up in adventures or setting books, its been to help folks transition. So regardless of where it's listed in the book, there are certainly folks in-world who don't think it's cursed!
Which is understandable.
I just thought of a magic item that never occurred to me before this thread, that would make sense, be kinda weird. Not something Paizo would ever need to put into Pathfinder but something I could really see getting made if magic really existed. Though maybe it was made in the BoEF.
I'm wondering, how is a desk right- or left-handed?
A common school desk design here is a vaguely L-shaped surface attached to a chair, with the long end on the student's right to support the writing arm and the left side open for the student to get into and out of the chair. A left-handed desk would have the opposite orientation.
Thanks, Joana. I can see how it would get difficult, sitting at the wrong desk. I'm not sure how it is today, but these kinds of desk were not in use when I went to school here in Germany, so I didn't think of them kind, although I must admit I have certainly seen them in numerous high-school-based movies and tv shows.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of the major reasons why I buy Paizo's stuff and why I like Golarion. I appreciate the staff's (and freelancers') engagement with these issues, and their acknowledgement of both how complicated and how important they can be. I appreciate that they remain engaged despite how frustrating or difficult it can get. It's the very opposite of, "Well, we had a gay NPC this one time, so problem solved."
Seriously, thanks for being inclusive (and trans-inclusive in particular), in your products and on the boards.
Getting back to the original question, yeah, given the history of such portrayals, choosing a gorilla to represent the Africa-analogue was probably not the best choice. I don't know what the story on the poster in question was, but I suspect it was a forest-for-the-trees moment -- someone liked the art and didn't consider the implications of choosing it for that purpose.
On inclusiveness in general:
(Going to apologize in advance for being rambly -- I took some migraine medication which has does wondrous things in getting rid of my headaches but tends, I'm told, to make me more verbose than usual.)
I personally think it's a responsibility of storytellers and world-creators to try. I've called on stories and characters with whom I identified to help me handle difficult situations, to help me imagine myself as strong or courageous or heroic. Stories are one of the fundamental ways we process and understand what it is to be human, how to relate to other people, and how to think about ourselves and others. Empathy is largely just emotional imagination, and stories are a call to imagine.
If we use that space to evoke empathy for people just like us and just like our audience, and for aliens and animals and monsters and angels and fey, if we get into their heads and evoke commonalities and show them as thinking and feeling beings, and give them moments of heroism, and ask our audience to see themselves in them, and don't do that for people who differ from ourselves and our audience in skin color or sexual orientation or level of religious faith or gender -- if there are people out there who feel unwelcome in our game, who love our stories but feel like our world doesn't see them as potential heroes, because we can dare to imagine our way into the heads of an elf or a runelord or an orphan but not a transwoman or a black man -- well, it seems a waste of the power inherent in calling people to imagine things with us. And it also seems strange that we would limit ourselves in that way. It's not that every story has to include everyone, but the more stories you tell and the more world-building you do, I think, the greater your responsibility becomes.
Paizo's not always going to get it right, but I'm confident we will keep trying, and that our audience will keep spurring us to get better and letting us know when we're not getting it right.
As a gay, left-handed, latino gamer (talk about minorities), I don't think Pathfinder is ethically problematic in the least.
...Except for all of that rampant anti-goblin bigotry...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's presented as a cursed item currently, but I personally wish it was not—I'd rather there be spells in the game or magic items that allow for gender changing as a boon, not a curse. And in fact, there are elements of that kind of magic in Wrath of the Righteous.
James! Can we make a cool new magic item? :-D
I wish! I haven't read the second racist screed, but, as I recall, the first one perpetuated the noxious stereotypes that goblins are militantly illiterate and prone to cannibalism!
Fireworks are cool, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I'm looking through my Pathfinder Books and my 11 year old son looks through them over my shoulder he can see people that look like him. For a kid that's kind of important and something that I notice a lot of gamers take for granted. Heroic representations of black people in the media (especially boys and men) are very, VERY few and far between. So when we DO see one we tend to hold it near and dear.
Well, this gets me right in the feels. :-)
Thanks for sharing with us, ShinHakkaider.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understood what the OP was getting at. I also disagreed with it as I'm a little more well versed in the geography and populations of Golarion than he/she was. I could also see that how someone from the outside might make those connections based on OTHER pulp or fantasy correlations of Black people = some sort of beast or animal. Granted it wasnt accurate in this case but instead of people just coming out and saying so (which some of you did - so THANK YOU for that ) others thought it best to resort to the old "You saw it as racist so that means YOURE RACIST" canard that I've seen many times on RPG message boards. It's an attempt at silencing and shaming the speaker and no less offensive than when guys do that sort of thing to women on boards like these. Except that it's more accepted. Because there's probably a higher ratio of women to black gamers in the hobby I think.
I'll admit, I thought this when I read the OP.
It wasn't about shaming the OP into silence, but rather my shock in thinking: "Really? That's the first thing your mind reached for?"
Honestly, I do think that leaping to that association is a form of institutionalized racism. It's not the kind that ought to be condemned, it's the sad legacy of overexposure to that kind of attitude in our culture.
The OP's alright in my book, I'm sorry that they had to deal with interpreting the material in that way. There's plenty of evidence in this thread that if they dig a little deeper and look past their first (erroneous) impressions, they'll be pleasantly surprised at their misjudgment.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because some people find homosexuality gross or immoral does not make someone homophobic... I however get offended by being called a racist if I don't agree with a black person or homophobic if I state that I find homosexuality iky.
You seem to be arguing that homophobia is only actions, not attitudes, but I'd say finding the idea of two men in a romantic relationship "gross" is pretty much an exemplar of a homophobic attitude. There's a significant difference between disagreeing with someone who's of a different race on a particular issue, and finding who someone is "iky."
And frankly, I get offended that someone is willing to dismiss my friends, my loved ones, and some of my colleagues here at Paizo, as "iky" because of the gender of the people they love.
I acknowledge your right to think it, though. I will remind you, however, that you're in our house, and derogatory or abusive comments about LGBTQ folks (or based on people's race, etc.) are against our messageboard rules, so be careful in how you express your disgust. Your right to think what you like doesn't translate to a right to say whatever you like, in whatever manner you like, here on our boards, and your comments about homosexuality are edging pretty close to the line.
All of that said, what exactly constitutes homophobia in general is more of a topic for the Off-Topic forums than this particular thread.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You seem to be arguing that homophobia is only actions, not attitudes, but I'd say finding the idea of two men in a romantic relationship "gross" is pretty much an exemplar of a homophobic attitude. There's a significant difference between disagreeing with someone who's of a different race on a particular issue, and finding who someone is "iky."
You know, I think I'm going to have to get up and defend the "ickiness" as not being particularly homophobic. I've read too many accounts by gay men who find women's genitals "icky" compared to what attracts them (including by columnist Dan Savage) and I doubt I'd really call them misogynist or heterophobic for doing so. They're just reacting viscerally to something they're not wired to find attractive. For that matter, people often think that all sorts of things that other people do is icky even if they do share the same general sexual orientation.
The point of having a non-homophobic/ racist/ heterophobic/ whatever-ist society is to not let our those visceral reactions affect how we treat the dignity other people or their access to the rights and privileges we grant to those who don't trigger the icky reaction.
I mean, it's "icky" to imagine Mittens and Ann Romney together, so I don't think "icky" is an offensive ideal in and of itself.
Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to. Or else you have a problem. If you think you're allowed to believe and feel what you like, you are fooling yourself.
Jessica, you were doing so well until this... Oh well.
Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to. Or else you have a problem. If you think you're allowed to believe and feel what you like, you are fooling yourself.
Jessica, you were doing so well until this... Oh well.
Don't get so dramatic - she was just telling her/him that we aren't allowed to express certain opinions under Paizo's roof, which is a totally legitimate request on her part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get so dramatic - she was just telling her/him that we aren't allowed to express certain opinions under Paizo's roof, which is a totally legitimate request on her part.Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to. Or else you have a problem. If you think you're allowed to believe and feel what you like, you are fooling yourself.
Jessica, you were doing so well until this... Oh well.
Nope. Here's what she said:
You seem to be arguing that homophobia is only actions, not attitudes, but I'd say finding the idea of two men in a romantic relationship "gross" is pretty much an exemplar of a homophobic attitude.
There is no way to interpret that other than saying that in her opinion, if you find the idea of homosexual behavior "gross" then you are not merely homophobic but are an EXEMPLAR of homophobia.
Defend it all you like. I'm sure a ton of people agree with her. I don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I took issue with immoral, not gross. :)
Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to.
I think you missed this part:
I acknowledge your right to think it, though.
I took issue with immoral, not gross. :)
That's better EL, but still, I take issue with the idea that it is wrong to be different. I would guess that most people who find contemplating homosexual behavior "gross" will tell you that they don't MEAN to do that, it's not something they CHOSE to do, it's just something that they were born with.
You know .... sort of like...
Don't get so dramatic - she was just telling her/him that we aren't allowed to express certain opinions under Paizo's roof, which is a totally legitimate request on her part.Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to. Or else you have a problem. If you think you're allowed to believe and feel what you like, you are fooling yourself.
Jessica, you were doing so well until this... Oh well.
Nope. Here's what she said:
You seem to be arguing that homophobia is only actions, not attitudes, but I'd say finding the idea of two men in a romantic relationship "gross" is pretty much an exemplar of a homophobic attitude.There is no way to interpret that other than saying that in her opinion, if you find the idea of homosexual behavior "gross" then you are not merely homophobic but are an EXEMPLAR of homophobia.
Defend it all you like. I'm sure a ton of people agree with her. I don't.
I'm not defending anything; you're just getting dramatic and not reading what she's saying.
Example 1: "Eww, those two guys are kissing - that's gross!" <-- a valid opinion
Example 2: "Eww, those two women are in love and buying a house together - that's gross!" <--- homophobic
You are free to find actions gross, but when you find romantic relationships gross, you're being unreasonable.
Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to.I think you missed this part:
I acknowledge your right to think it, though.
I generally ignore weasel words intended to allow someone to pass judgment by then claiming not to be.
You are free to find actions gross, but when you find romantic relationships gross, you're being unreasonable.
The relationship implies the actions. It may be impossible for someone to encounter one without contemplating the other.
I'm done with this. I'm well aware of the thought police and how they will react to my comments. It's OK to attack other people for their beliefs and customs if they are the RIGHT beliefs and customs to attack.
And so it goes.
This is why our group plays Pathfinder in the Conan setting...to avoid these sorts of intractable ethical dilemmas.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are free to find actions gross, but when you find romantic relationships gross, you're being unreasonable.The relationship implies the actions. It may be impossible for someone to encounter one without contemplating the other.
I'm done with this. I'm well aware of the thought police and how they will react to my comments. It's OK to attack other people for their beliefs and customs if they are the RIGHT beliefs and customs to attack.
And so it goes.
I don't see any thought police - I only see people with differing opinions from you voicing those opinions. It doesn't do anyone any good for the dialogue if you get upset and storm out of the thread, but I guess you're free to do so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I said quite clearly that I respect people's right to hold whatever views they like. Classifying something as homophobia isn't saying they don't have a right to think it. Thinking gay people are icky is homophobia. Homophobia isn't limited to actions; it is also attitudes. (So is racism, for that matter -- if you think people of different ethnic backgrounds are inherently inferior, that is racism, even if you don't act on it.)
I don't have a problem with people finding the mechanics of sex between two people of the same gender icky. It's when you extend that disgust to the people and their relationships that it becomes more than simply a matter of preference.
I find many of the practices involved in BDSM viscerally repulsive. That doesn't mean I think that people who practice it are icky, or bad people, or whatever. That doesn't mean that I see their relationship as less than anyone else's. I just don't want to do some of the things they do in the bedroom.
I also find cream cheese disgusting, and in fact even get kind of grossed out by watching people eat it. That doesn't mean I think less of people who like it.
And as I said multiple times in that post, you can think whatever you want, in whatever terms and whatever language you want. That doesn't extend to being allowed to say it here. I don't see any reason why random posters should be free to tell the LGBT members of our staff and community that they're disgusting or icky or so on, and I prioritize their ability to feel welcome here more than I prioritize someone's freedom to talk about how gross they think homosexuality is.
Don't get so dramatic - she was just telling her/him that we aren't allowed to express certain opinions under Paizo's roof, which is a totally legitimate request on her part.Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to. Or else you have a problem. If you think you're allowed to believe and feel what you like, you are fooling yourself.
Jessica, you were doing so well until this... Oh well.
Nope. Here's what she said:
You seem to be arguing that homophobia is only actions, not attitudes, but I'd say finding the idea of two men in a romantic relationship "gross" is pretty much an exemplar of a homophobic attitude.There is no way to interpret that other than saying that in her opinion, if you find the idea of homosexual behavior "gross" then you are not merely homophobic but are an EXEMPLAR of homophobia.
Defend it all you like. I'm sure a ton of people agree with her. I don't.
Reread what I said, please, more carefully. I didn't say the person was any sort of exemplar of anything; I said the attitude was an exemplar.
ex·em·plar (g-zmplär, -plr)
n.
1. One that is worthy of imitation; a model. See Synonyms at ideal.
2. One that is typical or representative; an example.
3. An ideal that serves as a pattern; an archetype.
4. A copy, as of a book.
I am using the term in the sense of #2 -- representative. Finding a romantic relationship between two men "gross" is a representative example of a homophobic attitude.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not wanting to go too far with this, I'd say it's very much about how it's expressed.
If you find the actual mechanics "icky", but don't bring it up unless asked or in meta discussions about homophobia (like this one), I don't think that's a big deal.
If you see two guys holding hands on the street and go "Oh gross!" to your friends, then you're over the line.Of course, if you use your "icky" feelings as a reason to not support gay rights or to not want to see them in your gaming material, then you're over the line as well.
Very solid point. I find people who eat fish to be "icky" (everything that comes from the sea smells terribly bad, and lobsters are basically cockroaches with the "aquatic" subtype). Doesn't mean I'm gonna do anything about it or go around saying bad things about people who eat fish.
The automatic "don't ever say the idea of a gay relationship unsettles you due to the physical relation it includes" is just a reaction to the fact that for many around the world, homophobia is still relevant.
Here's hoping for a day when saying "gay intimacy is icky" is not more offensive than saying "eating fish is icky".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I generally ignore weasel words intended to allow someone to pass judgment by then claiming not to be.Yes, it's not enough that you ACT the way others want you to Deran, you must also THINK and FEEL the way they want you to.I think you missed this part:
I acknowledge your right to think it, though.
"Weasel words" is starting to feel a bit personally antagonistic to me, so please knock it off.
Respecting your right to think something is not the same as believing you are correct to think it. Tolerance is not agreement. I am not disrespecting your right to think whatever you want to think if I say I believe you are wrong, or even if I say I think you're a bad person for thinking it.
I am not infringing upon your freedom by disagreeing with you.
I stand by both things I said: I believe it's wrong to see others as less because of the gender of the people they love, and I respect the right of others to hold that opinion.
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To jump back to something someone said earlier about the girdle of opposite gender: It was indeed unfortunate that we forgot to move that out of cursed items when we moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I presume that the thinking was "well, it's still cursed because you often put it on without knowing what it does and then have a hard time removing the effects," but the term "cursed" is loaded and problematic.
That particular item was left out of the Core Rulebook for a reason. (Probably more than one reason, actually.) We also nixed it from Munchkin Pathfinder, where it would have been a curse card. (Gender changing is a not-uncommon mechanic in regular Munchkin.)
It's one thing to say that it's a cursed item because you can't easily remove it; implying that the *act* of changing gender is a curse is another thing entirely, and one we don't support.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's plenty of evidence in this thread that if they dig a little deeper and look past their first (erroneous) impressions, they'll be pleasantly surprised at their misjudgment.
If the complaint is that the impression is problematic, then the impression is not erroneous. You could take issue with the phrasing with the thread title, but since it's phrased in the form of a question, I don't see it as dismissive. "My impression is that this is incredibly racist," is true, if that is my impression.
Impressions matter.
I just want to say, thank you Jessica Price, and others, for making this a welcoming community. My impression is that you are fantastic people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They're one of the most violent, crazy, pyromanic, baby-eatingly evil races on the planet...and they manage to be prolific as all hell in spite of people wanting to see them wiped out for such. Goblins be doing well, in my opinion.See! This is what I'm [redacted] talkin' about! We're not any more violent, crazy or baby-eating than you [redacted] pinkskins, regardless of your particular individual skintone.
We do like fire, though.
I think that is the key issue. "Most violent, crazy, pyromaniac, baby-eatingly evil races on the planet"? Yep, Goblins are exemplars... so exemplary, in fact, we personify those qualities that the pinkskins don't wish to perceive in themselves. Pinkskins, please: don't look in the mirror and hate yourselves; embrace your "negative" qualities. Once you accept yourselves, then goblins and pink-, er, hoo-mahns can live and kill and baby-eat and ignite the world in togetherness and harmony.
And then we can get to the root of the real problems: dwarves! {waves "To Serve Dwarves" book} There's a recipe for slow-cooked dwarf au vin that I've been anxious to try... dibs on a left-handed one!
There's plenty of evidence in this thread that if they dig a little deeper and look past their first (erroneous) impressions, they'll be pleasantly surprised at their misjudgment.If the complaint is that the impression is problematic, then the impression is not erroneous. You could take issue with the phrasing with the thread title, but since it's phrased in the form of a question, I don't see it as dismissive. "My impression is that this is incredibly racist," is true, if that is my impression.
Impressions matter.
I believe you're arguing semantics, but I will cede the point.
The impression was erroneous in the sense that the impression did not convey an accurate picture of the whole setting. That's what I meant anyway. You are right, it is unfortunate that anyone got that impression at all.
Goblins are exemplars of sexiness. You think that's gross? Bigot!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will jump back in to say just this: to the Paizo employees on here, thank you for keeping a continued presence on this thread. This is the sort of thing that makes an awesome company, a willingness not just to talk about their product line for marketing purposes, but to discuss the larger meanings and implications of the ideas and merchandise directly and honestly with their fans and consumers. Extra special prize to Jessica Price, manning the trenches continuously even when it gets nasty.
Also, since it's come up here and there, I'm sorry for implying that most people don't know what cissexism is. Maybe most people don't, but I kinda pulled that one out of nowhere special.
Lastly, to the goblins on this thread: you're a horrible bunch of psychotic little shark-mouthed freaks with a flame-thrower fetish that should all be punted off the top of Mhar Mhasshif. Keep up the good work.
Don't be surprised, Citizen Seven, if you are visited by the Stinking Buzzard Commando Squad later tonight.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To jump back to something someone said earlier about the girdle of opposite gender: It was indeed unfortunate that we forgot to move that out of cursed items when we moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder. I presume that the thinking was "well, it's still cursed because you often put it on without knowing what it does and then have a hard time removing the effects," but the term "cursed" is loaded and problematic.That particular item was left out of the Core Rulebook for a reason. (Probably more than one reason, actually.) We also nixed it from Munchkin Pathfinder, where it would have been a curse card. (Gender changing is a not-uncommon mechanic in regular Munchkin.)
It's one thing to say that it's a cursed item because you can't easily remove it; implying that the *act* of changing gender is a curse is another thing entirely, and one we don't support.
The vast majority of people find gender changing to be bad, isn't that the whole agony of the transgender being stuck in the wrong body? Lycanthropy is a curse but you will find people that would desperately want it if it really existed.
