Sanctioning Update: Adventure Paths

And, as I have stated repeatedly, I have no issue with the decision to not sanction AoE.

I see nothing else to discuss then.

That is how Paizo used to describe it in 1st Ed... as I recall, that made it into the old Guide... (I want to say, somewhere in the Season 3-4 range... not sure...

If/When they changed it, I don't know.

As a person who edited, compiled and discussed *every* guide change since season 5, I guarantee that "Campaign Mode = Home Game" was never intentionally inserted into the guide.

In fact quite the opposite, I was in several discussion on how to use the relative freedom of campaign mode to make it *more* feasible to run entire Mods / APs at PFS events.

It is my 'bad' habit of nitpicking semantics...

~

And now for something completely different

... so, TOZ any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

I would love it if the Character option boons were not all tied to the PC with the chronicle...

I would love the archetype(s) for one character... the Snares for a second... and the Spells/Summoning for a third...

...

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

And now for something completely different

... so, FLite any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

... so, TOZ any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

I would love it if the Character option boons were not all tied to the PC with the chronicle...

I would love the archetype(s) for one character... the Snares for a second... and the Spells/Summoning for a third...

I honestly haven't even looked. I should see what jumps out for my -002 with the Plaguestone credit.

The first chronicle has Juggler or Staff Acrobat access...

Environmental Spells...
A few Expanded Summoning options...
and some interesting 'nature-y' snares...

...

As Jayne Cobb would say... I just get excitable as to choice... I kinda want to build 4 characters out of those options...

Sounds like a druid would go well with those and the Plaguestone chronicle.

I have to admit that I was, at first, disapointed with the decision to not give chronicle sheets for running AoE, but since then I've learned that my experience with "campaign mode" is different from what goes on elsewhere.

I've always assumed campaign mode's purpose was to reward people who play AP's/modules as homegames for supporting paizo, by offering them PFS credit for those adventures. Reading this discussion and talking with other VO's, it's become clear that while that may have been the intent, and while that may be how some of us view campaign mode, campaign mode also means that stuff sanctioned for campaing mode can be run in conventions - and if it can be run in conventions to fill a slot and earn GM rewards and credit, then it will be run in conventions.

This AP - while I really, really love it so far -, isn't suitable for random players in a random environment. It requires forethought and a good group, and it requires discussion beforehand with the players about consent, the social contract, and the themes of the game. I wouldn't play it for random players. I would heavily edit the themes if I ran it for random players. I wouldn't allow it in a con I'm running - not because of the content directly, but because I simply can not trust that a random GM or random players can handle the themes and content responsibly, and without causing issues with the other players.

I'm sad that I won't be getting xp and gold for my PFS characters. I'm worried that some of the coolest items and stuff might not be offered as ACP, and I'm slightly jealous that some of them will be offered to -everybody- instead of -just those who played through the AP-. Still, this is looking like it might be one of the best adventures I'll end up running, and I'm excited to experience it with my players, even if it we have to *gasp* actually talk through some issues.

I don't know how to put this into words, but - if a random player in my table acted as the AP acts at times, I'd ask them to leave and tell them that they aren't welcome to my public games until they know how to behave. >.>

Sounds like a druid would go well with those and the Plaguestone chronicle.

I was noticing that too...

As I recall, AoA had mostly Occult/Arcane spells... so we are getting a nice mix so far...

Do you know of any Ooze summoning spells? We have gotten 'access' to a couple from Expanded Summons between the two APs...

Jared Thaler - Personal Opinion wrote:

...

Sanctioning Adventure Paths for Pathfinder Society blog

I'm going to just post up the link... can we quick picking at this, please?

Monty Python wrote:

And now for something completely different

... so, FLite any plans for interesting builds from the options on the Extinction Curse chronicles?

Not yet. I have been avoiding looking at them so I don't spoil anything. I want to play them first.

That said, I want to get a shoony boon at some point, so I can do an aasimar shoony champion.

(Haven't decided between lawful good boi, or chaotic good boi.)

, campaign mode also means that stuff sanctioned for campaing mode can be run in conventions - and if it can be run in conventions to fill a slot and earn GM rewards and credit, then it will be run in conventions.

Ah. That definitely explains it to me as well <_< This isn't really good ap to be run with random people in the current times

For the record I don't think the rules for campaign mode were ever articulated in PF2E. Everyone just made the connection even though there was never actually one

Also, speaking as a transgender person who sat through Golemworks it's transphobic as all hell. I figured I'd mention it since blood and gore wasn't the issue. It's worst than City of Strangers because that's more an issue with the community being bad.

For the record I don't think the rules for campaign mode were ever articulated in PF2E. Everyone just made the connection even though there was never actually one

Sanctioned adventures operate in Campaign Mode, which does not use Pathfinder Society rules. GMs set the rules on character creation and may freely modify the encounters and story.

player Basics - Adventures

Those are the (current) rules, as articulated in the guide. (Further rules may exist in specific sanctioning documents.)

I have "get more specific on campaign mode." on my to do list. But it has been moved to the very bottom of the list. (even below "make things pretty")

For the record I don't think the rules for campaign mode were ever articulated in PF2E. Everyone just made the connection even though there was never actually one

Also, speaking as a transgender person who sat through Golemworks it's transphobic as all hell. I figured I'd mention it since blood and gore wasn't the issue. It's worst than City of Strangers because that's more an issue with the community being bad.

Honestly, City of Strangers, the problematic element is an *optional* element, inserted as an *example* of the type of encounter you could use in the scenario. As such it can be fixed by simply omitting that element.

Golemworks also has body horror and loss of agency horror elements that can come into play.

I mean it really tics a *lot* of boxes.

Also, speaking as a transgender person who sat through Golemworks it's transphobic as all hell.

I find this to be an interesting characterization. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's a good reminder that those of us who don't have personal experience often don't have the perspective of those with closer connections to an issue often do.

I figured I'd mention it since blood and gore wasn't the issue.

Again, that's a different perspective from mine. This scenario had quite a lot of "icky" stuff in it. Like much of the first half of Season 4. I was/am very hesitant to offer those scenarios because of the many varied types of horror they contain.

** spoiler omitted **

Context is key.

Many stories of that time depict people's transgender identity as part of their criminal identity. Either as part of a cause, or as a motive, or as a method. Or even by simply making all transgender people happen to "coincidentally " wind up being criminals
(Just like for a while, same sex love interests only showed up for two or three episodes before getting killed off.)

By adopting those elements, in the context of that existing trend, it links itself to the prevailing toxic narrative.

Taking each, seperate, individual incident, divorcing it from it's context, and demanding that the targeted minority "proves" that each item on it's own is as bad as the whole and then dismissing them as over reacting when they don't is a tactic taught by people who want to continue this behavior that targets the minority with harmful stereotypes.

We aren't talking about an AP. This discussion is about Golem Works incident which is a scenario.

That aside, you are missing the point. This depiction of people crossdressing is part of a toxic stereotype common in media of "people crossdressing as part of criminal behavior."

This stereotype was part of the impetus behind things like the "wrong bathroom" bills.

The fact that *you* don't see it as a problem, is not relevant to the issue. The fact that it contributes to a media narrative where in people dressing as the opposite gender are ill/ violent is.

MurderHobo#6226 wrote:

Question for whoever at Paizo about the chronicle for SFS Threefold Conspiracy - Puppets Without Strings (Book 6):

** spoiler omitted **

Hoping this doesn't get buried in the PF2 discussion...

Yeah, that should be a one-time cross off!

Kinda thought so, though I'd hoped against hope not.

Thanks, Thursty!

This is getting way, way, off side, but: if anyone is actually interested in learning why representation matters and how depictions of trans people in media like those in the Golemworks Incident are bad and can harm people, I encourage you to watch Netflix's excellent documentary on the subject, Disclosure. (Or, heck, for those without the time, here's an 11 min clip with the filmmakers.)

If there is something I'm missing about that story, please enlighten me.

The general argument goes:

And that's only considering the cis perspective. To borrow a scenario from up-thread: imagine you're a 12-year old who is maybe questioning their gender identity living in Smalltown, USA. Probably never met a trans person nor been exposed to the ideas; you may not even know the words. You're at a convention and sit down to play Golemworks Incident, and lo and behold, here, in this fictional product, is represented someone who dresses up like their mother. That kinda maybe sounds like you? But, ooh, also, in this scenario the person is an insane serial killer.

Is that how the world sees you? Are there others like you, going through what you're going through? Are they all...homicidal? Is something wrong with you? Are you going to start killing people and dressing up as your parents? Is this what puberty is? This may read like hyperbole, but if you talk to trans folks, and hear their stories, I bet you'll find a lot of similarities.

This is high-level and very general, but you get the gist of it. If you (or anyone) is interested in learning more, there's loads of academic writing about it. In addition to that documentary I linked above, googling "is Psycho transphobic?" will probably turn up some articles?

Just to clarify something here.

Crossdressing is not the same or even close to the plights and social troubles that the Trans community and individuals are subject to in their journey. There are many people that crossdress in dresses and such and are not themselves trans.

The person in question in the scenario has a lot more going on that is troublematic than the fact that he is in a dress.

Crossdressing is not the same as being transgender, but negative, stereotyping depictions of crossdressing contribute to transphobic perceptions.

That's more than enough reason to step away from that content.

Crossdressing is not the same as being transgender, but negative, stereotyping depictions of crossdressing contribute to transphobic perceptions.

That's more than enough reason to step away from that content.

Yep!

So, for clarification, the story of the scenario in and of itself is not transphobic, it is external context?

Pretty much. I mean there is a lot more to unpack about that context and why this particular representation is worse than some other variations on this theme. But yeah, basically. (That said, there are also far *worse* variations on this theme. This isn't an either / or, it is part of a wide range.)

GM Sasha wrote:

So, for clarification, the story of the scenario in and of itself is not transphobic, it is external context?

Pretty much. I mean there is a lot more to unpack about that context and why this particular representation is worse than some other variations on this theme. But yeah, basically. (That said, there are also far *worse* variations on this theme. This isn't an either / or, it is part of a wide range.)

Sorry. The story in and of itself *is* a toxic stereotype of trans people behavior.

It's not just "external context" that makes it damaging.

Okay, so how is it in and of itself a toxic stereotype? I'm clearly missing something therein. I'd like to understand.

Okay, so how is it in and of itself a toxic stereotype? I'm clearly missing something therein. I'd like to understand.

(...just to check, you're genuinely interested, right? Meaning no offense, but on The Intarwebz sometimes it's hard to tell between "legitimately asking" and "respectful trolling.")

Aside from the external cultural context, what makes it problematic (from an LGTBQ2+ perspective at least - as others have said there's loads to unpack there for portrayals of mental illness, abuse/trauma survivors, etc) is that their non-cisness is conflated with mental illness, along with the rest of the grab bag of psychotic issues the villain has.

Including "cross dressing" along side "killing people" and "delusional detachment from reality" and "thinking you are your murdered mother" and "fracturing the souls of your dead sisters" is, like, problematic, right? The latter four are obviously bad, and some of them objectively, capital-E Evil, things to do. "Cross dressing" or "not being cis" more generally, are not objectively bad, nor capital-E Evil, things. The latter four are serious mental illnesses brought on by trauma (in the scenario.) "Not being cis" is neither a mental illness nor brought on by trauma, and it's problematic to treat it as if it were.

Yes, I know, the adventure doesn't explicitly say that the cross-dressing is related to the rest, and you could argue that it's just a component of the "being dead mom" thing, but the fact remains it's lumped in by association. It's implied to be, like the rest, a deviant/unnatural reaction to trauma and abuse. To a casual outside reading (which is what most playes/GMs would give it) the cross-dressing / non-cis gender portrayal isn't separated from the Evil stuff. I really doubt most consumers of that media are going to give it as much thought as we are doing in this thread, to really try and understand the villain.

Maybe it would be different if the scenario portrayed the villain as a happy, well-adjusted, person who lived their best life and merrily enjoyed cross-dressing for years, until the day tragedy struck, and all of the Evil stuff happened after that. If the "serial killer" stuff was explicitly separate from the cross-dressing. (Although even then, I would suggest that if a villain's hobbies / gender identity aren't relevant to their villainy, why mention it at all. To do so risks reinforcing that association of "non-cis = danger" I spoke about earlier.) But, here we are.

Hmmm, given that most villains are not trans and the fact that they are cis is not associated with or a cause of their villainess, I don’t understand why changing the villain to trans which would provide more examples of inclusion in the narrative would suddenly be associated with the cause of their villainess. To each their own, but it seems like an over-reaction to me. If we want fair and equal representation, we have to accept the representations appearing throughout character demographics not just ones perceived as “good.”

Hmmm, given that most villains are not trans and the fact that they are cis is not associated with or a cause of their villainess, I don’t understand why changing the villain to trans which would provide more examples of inclusion in the narrative would suddenly be associated with the cause of their villainess. To each their own, but it seems like an over-reaction to me. If we want fair and equal representation, we have to accept the representations appearing throughout character demographics not just ones perceived as “good.”

Cis people have the luxury of not being stereotyped. People don't assume that cis people are dangerous, and don't automatically assume that they are evil/sinful/bad people . They are given the benefit of the doubt, and assessed based on individual behavior, not broad assumptions about how "those people" act.

Trans people are frequently stereotyped. And the stereotypes make it difficult for trans people to get treated as individuals. Because of repeated presentations of trans people as dangerous, continuing that stereotype is not "inclusion". It's perpetuating the stereotype.

When sufficient trans characters have been portrayed as sweet, wonderfully nice people, then perhaps balance will be obtained, and all trans people will automatically be seen that way. When being trans is accepted as "normal", then the trans=evil stereotype will have been vanquished.

Until then, characters that further that stereotype are causing harm to real people who are automatically assumed to be examples of that stereotype and not individuals.