| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any update on restock of medium red bases?
Good afternoon! I just wanted to bump this and see if there was any new information on this being released. Thank you very much!
stuff Great idea. The errata notes would be a fantastic "behind the scenes" look at the developer's mindset behind the changes, and help to understand why they were made. Along with this, providing the errata for earlier editions - i.e. the CRB errata only shows errata between the print and 6th Edition. I'd like to be able to look at 1st to 2nd or 4th to 5th, as not everybody at the table has the same version of the book, and it would be incredibly helpful to see the differences. Certainly some of these existed at some point, if only as "1st to 2nd" and "1st to 3rd" and so forth.
So, does this eliminate the mass-market paperback sized version completely, then? No "release the trade paperback now, the mass-market later" kind of deal? Because that's a very major disappointment.
Looking at cached versions of that site, it's pretty quickly clear that the C&D was issued because that site was pretty much playing cut-and-paste with stuff out of the books. They weren't using the SRD for their content, and they weren't limiting things to books that provided open content.
The OGL was never really a master stroke for WotC. It was good for the industry but it's debatable how good it was for WotC - after all, they were keen to abandon it when 4e came along (don't know what the arrangements are for 5e, haven't paid attention). It is the OGL which allows Paizo to create Pathfinder and use it as the basis for its business, thereby using what is essentially WotC's creation to cannibalise their profits. In the end, how smart was that? How smart was it to terminate anyone and everyone involved with the project, and then, by and large, ignore it? People always seem to forget that the whole OGL deal is a two-way street, and WotC basically squinched their eyes, stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed "NA NA NA NA NA" when it came to their ability to use open content to their own benefit. The OGL was certainly a master stroke. Their inability or unwillingness to embrace that which they created was the problem, not the thing they created itself. We've all heard about the whole "D20 Glut" and all of the oh-so-horrible stuff there. WotC, as the gatekeepers to the game, were in the perfect position to seperate all of the diamonds from the rough and polish them up, incorporating that into the system, enhancing and expanding it. Their keenness to abandon it simply underscores that those that made that decision just flat didn't understand it, and refused to try to do so.
Here's the Murder in Baldur's Gate stuff: (3.5 stuff is at the end of the document - it contains 5E/Next, 4E and 3.5) And here's the Legacy of the Crystal Shard stuff: Legacy of the Crystal Shard PDF - 3.5
I heard Orson Scott Card causes global warming and also kicks puppies.
Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I didn't see it in a quick search of the thread. Will the "double-sided, full-color pull-out poster map" included in this and all upcoming modules be available separately for purchase? I'd really prefer not to remove the map, and have an extra one for use, while maintaining the minty-map in the booklet.
Would moralizing about situations in game worlds count as a sacred cow of D&D/Pathfinder, or RPGs in general?
The thing is, you don't have majority opinion behind you. The majority opinion, as evidenced in a bunch of these threads, supports the staff and moderation action. Coupled with the outright fact that moderation here is FAR more lenient than most other RPG fora, you're not doing yourself any favors by repeatedly restarting locked threads on the same topic. And I say that as someone who has disagreed with more than a couple threadlocks, and someone who believes that moderator bias towards a particular subject has played a decision in a couple of those locks. Even with that, the vast majority of the moderation is even-handed. You're going to do whatever you're going to do, but like someone else asked, is it really worth it? If you so vehemently disagree with how the operations here are handled, in what is demonstrably a minority opinion, that you're willing to get banned for the effort, why bother? Why not just find a forum suitable to your tastes? Or, self-moderate, chill a bit, and contribute to the forum.
You're neither satiric nor ironic.
Leeroy Jenkins is copyrighted. Stop infringing on someone else's work.
I will say, though, I almost wish there had been a Spelljammer by the name of the Princess Ark in her novels. It would have been interesting to see if Heard would have maintained the same level of calm in addressing the situation...
Y'know, it's all in reaction to how she handled it, and her popularity or financial success from this endeavor really has no bearing on the situation. Had she not engaged in a continuous backpedal of excuses ranging from "It's all original, just coincidence!" to "It must have been inspired by my gaming!" to "It's not infringement, it's homage!" all the while threatening legal action against people and maintaining that she's done nothing wrong, I seriously doubt it would have gone on that far. No sympathy, myself.
More importantly, couldn't those agencies have just located the missing episodes for us?
Eh, I can understand it. Some of those people are the ones that actually created the works she's plagiarizing, and, playing by the rules, they're not allowed to do what she's done, nor are they (or the current copyright holders) receiving any credit. It's a situation she's brought upon herself, and I can't really sympathize with her at all, especially after she's threatened legal action against these folks.
Y'know, I just thought of something: Since Stephen King was used as an example... Carrie was published in 1973. At that time, copyright was for a term of 56 years (double the original 14 years + renewed 14 years). It has been implied that reducing copyright terms would provide a disincentive to create, yet, history shows us that, prior to the 1976 extension, authors were perfectly willing to create works that only received 56 years of protection. The first revision to our copyright law, the first extension, was to extend copyright to 28 years plus a 14 year renewal - largely the result of lobbying by Noah Webster, and sponsored by his brother, Daniel Webster, so people couldn't copy his dictionary. So, the root of copyright extension is a desire to control (and profit from) the spread of knowledge, supported by corrupt politicians. Nifty.
And I think code should be treated differently than literature, for much the same reason that inventions are treated differently. And once again, I think that it should all be treated equally. Great literature doesn't go out of print that easily. Check the shelves in any B&N or library. Typical / average works may, but that pretty much eliminates the "harm" caused when it drops out of print. There isn't enough time in any life to read every average work published. Especially these days when far more is published than in the past. Why limit it to what someone else's subjective opinion is on the matter? Just because you consider something "average" doesn't mean that others will. Just because someone else considers something "great" doesn't meant that I do. Yeah, the "classics" and the popular stuff will remain in print - as I stated, but the other stuff? Lesser known works by popular authors? Those aren't always in print, because someone doesn't deem it profitable enough to keep in print. And hey, what about extending this to video games? How many classics are no longer available for whatever reason? The video game industry is seeking to undermine the right of first sale by twisting copyright about by "licensing" a work to us, rather than selling us a copy. This helps to destroy our collective cultural trust. In older works immediate popularity is not as important; it tends to be about the critical quality of the work. Again, subjective. Personally I think we would be more enriched by new thoughts / concepts, but that's just me. As fan fiction that's fine, I would prefer there be some sort of judgment applied to who can make use of an author's work. You do realize that these things aren't mutually exclusive, right? That is, to say, one can create a derivative work that has plenty of new thoughts/concepts. Again, examine the plethora of derivative works of H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" for examples. It may not be "enough time" for an inventor to profit. Say somebody invents something and nothing happens for 20 years. Suddenly due to other inventions his work is wildly popular. He gets nothing. The time limit on patent was chosen as a compromise of inventors rights and the public good. Copyright of literature is not a roadblock to progress. That's why the author gets more time than the inventor. His rights to his (intellectual) property is not as much a problem to the "public good". But, that's NOT why the author gets more time. The author didn't originally get more time (relatively). The time limit on copyright, as originally enacted, was 14 years, with a voluntary (not automatic) renewal term of 14 years. Copyright has not been extended on behalf of the creator, it's been extended on the behalf of corporations. Now, I'm not by any means anti-corporate, or going to go off on an "evil profiteering corporation" rant (they're supposed to profit, duh), but, fact is, copyright hasn't been extended as some magnanimous act of Congress because the little guy doesn't have enough time to profit. It's been extended, repeatedly, because large corporations, rather than be forced to innovate (which is what that relatively short copyright term was supposed to force them to do in the first place!), they'd rather continue to milk old work. That doesn't benefit anyone but the copyright holder, and that's the opposite of why copyright exists. Yes, they do get the comparative shaft. Again the weighing of public good v. private property rights is the reason. The dividing point in the time line has to be marked somewhere. Where depends on the product. It's forever (barring eminent domain or failure to pay property taxes) for property, it's life + 70 for literature (copyright) and twenty years (patent). Different types of product different times for the duration of protection. Physical/real property rights have nothing to do with this, and illuminate the problem of applying terms related to tangible items to intangible items (like ideas, concepts, etc.) - but that's an entirely different debate. To turn it around on you: Rather than trying to prove why the public good is benefited by restoration of appropriate copyright terms, can you explain why the public good is NOT benefited by said term restoration? And, ultimately, if a copyright of life + 70 years is acceptable, then why isn't perpetual copyright acceptable? What's the difference? Why is one better than the other? If the positive benefit to the public good of a 20 year copyright is unjustifiable, why is a life + 70 year copyright somehow more justifiable? Because there is less reason to infringe the rights of the individual (author). But plenty of reason to infringe on the right of the public, apparently...
No; that's why I wrote that I would share. OK, so, I understand that you said you would share. However, to clarify, is your "No" answering the question of "should you be able to prohibit use?" If you feel that you should not be able to prohibit use via patent for a term equivalent to that of copyright, why is that you feel patent should be different than copyright in that respect? This works well when the author is Poe or even Lovecraft; not so well when the author is Never-heard-of-him Andrew Turner. How does a hypothetically enacted law ensconcing a right of paternity for the original author work better for Poe or Lovecraft, but not you? I don't want to need to steal my stolen work... A derivative of your work is not your work. It's based off of your work. It uses your work, but it's not your work. Tracey Alley is a good example of this: Tracey Alley has created a work derivative of Mystara. She is prohibited, by copyright, from selling/distributing/whatever that work, but she actually has a copyright on HER work. Let's assume that, when all is said and done, the various copyright holders have sued her to stop her from continuing said infringements. She doesn't magically lose her copyright, unless that was actually part of the settlement or judgement. This is why a LOT of publishers and others don't accept unsolicited submissions of work, because until a contract is in place, they don't hold a copyright to that submission. They may hold a copyright to much of the subject matter, but they don't automatically get a copyright on work they didn't create. That's precisely what this thread is about: Alley has lifted the work of others and called it her own. Only in part. I should have clarified that statement under the context of the right of paternity discussion, which is what it seemed you were referring to earlier with your statement that someone could simply republish something you created, and then take credit for it. Alley hasn't whole-cloth republished previously existing work, claiming credit for it. She has, quite clearly, infringed upon other copyrighted work, and has, quite clearly, lifted much of the work of others, and not credited them for it. But, that said, her overall story is her own - it's not a novel written by someone else. And, yeah, under current copyright law, that's illegal. One could additionaly argue that, even if it WERE legal under current copyright law, which doesn't currently contain any right of paternity for the original authors/creators, it's unethical to not credit the original authors/creators.
I really can't imagine a worst problem for authors than limiting copyright to twenty years. Authors would be forced to abandon popular creative settings because suddenly every fanfiction writer (regardless of how good a writer they were) could then produce sequels to books that were earlier published. None of that forces them to "abandon" a popular creative setting. And if such a creative setting truly is popular, why would the fanbase abandon the author? Whats more authors would loose any creative control of their property in film and other media. Imagine when in a few years A Game of Thrones copyright expires...now we can get all sort of "improved" versions from Asylum films and other companies where Ned doesn't die, or where Tyrion is actually a gorgeous fashion model. No thanks. Only the most popular authors actually retain meaningful creative control, these days. Even then, drek doesn't survive today. It wouldn't survive in a copyright-term-limited world. Sure, it gets out there, but it pretty quickly turns into "direct-to-video" style garbage, if even that. As far as the comment about "improved" versions, referring to significant changes, hell, we regularly see that today with copyrighted works, because, as I mentioned, only the most popular authors actually retain meaningful (if any) creative control. How many significantly different versions of Batman or Superman have made it to the screen? Or, to use a current movie example, how about World War Z? Max Brooks has been quoted as saying that the only thing the movie and the book share is the title. Further, it's ridiculous to assume that simply because a work is creatively restricted by it's creator that this is some measure of quality. Witness the debate on Star Wars - there's a pretty good case made that the more Lucas was involved with "creative control", the worse the work got. A person can have great, amazing ideas. That doesn't mean that this person is necessarily the best at developing those ideas. I think it would also severely undercut an authors ability to actually profit from their work, as you would see huge cuts in advances and pay from contracts, as a book would be overall much less profitable. Quite a few authors are not George R.R. Martin or Stephen King or J.K. Rowling; they are not rolling in cash and cuts in pay would probably eliminate their ability to pursue a profession in writing. As if they're not already seeing huge cuts in advances already. Only the most popular authors get financially significant advances anymore. Certainly, this would impact financial benefits that some authors see today. Since Stephen King was cited as an example, yeah - King wouldn't be making the money he's made off of works older than 20 years. But I fail that as a bad thing, especially when considering that the term of copyright was never intended to be as long as it is now (were such an intent existent, it would have been enumerated originally, instead of having been extended legislatively multiple times, after significant lobbying by the affected industries. The extent of the profits seen by corporations and creators due to these copyright terms never should have existed in the first place. Now if you want to argue that copyrights should expire shortly after an author's death, I have less of a problem That'd be better than things are now, but still not enough.
When did the burden of picking up the slack that other people failed to pick up become the OP's? This is PFS, not someone's home campaign. Isn't it supposed to be more open and flexible? Based on his game report, it seems he performed admirably, and covered the bases when the specialized characters couldn't handle their specialties, so how is it that he's as useless as "a first level commoner, holding horses and providing comic banter?"
Oh, I'm quite sure the Tolkien or ERB estates are quite fine with current terms. I'm sure Disney and others are, too. For now - because I'm also quite sure that when these works come up for copyright expiration/termination, that yet again, politicians on the take will yet again extend copyright for another ridiculous term, so it's now life + 100 years, or whatever. But, let me ask: why is it OK for the inventor of something physical, protected by patent, only allowed 20 years? Do you think patent should be for life of the creator? Imagine, if you will, that the automobile or the assembly line had been able to be protected by patent until some time in the last decade or two. Do you really think the public good would be served by that? A house is a physical piece of property, and is a ridiculous analogy to utilize. Instead, we'll use patent: If a definitive cure for cancer was invented tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you believe he should be allowed to patent such a cure and prevent anyone from using that cure for 20 years? For life plus 70 years? If cold fusion were discovered tomorrow by Andrew Turner, do you feel that he should be able to keep it from the public for 20 years? For life plus 70 years? If not, why do you think copyright should be any different? Or is your prejudice only against people who's work is phyiscal, as opposed to intellectual? I have no prejudice. What I do have is a belief that copyright has been perverted by corporations and politicians, and that the public good is not served by copyright terms as excessive as they are. I believe that, like things used to be, and like patent, copyright should last for a truly limited term, then fall to the public domain for everyone to benefit from. The limited term provides a very adequate time for the creator to be the sole beneficiary of the work, and then it falls to the public domain for the public good, and encourages the original creator to create again.
And I challenge you to defend why you think that copyright should have been extended to the obscene terms that it has, mostly by corporations buying corrupt politicians to extend it to their benefit. Support of obscene copyright terms is not support of copyright, it's actually anti-copyright.
Oh, I most assuredly do believe such a thing. Copyright originally had a far shorter term - 14 years plus a 14 year renewal. I'd be willing to accept a compromise of that term, but I'd far rather a standardization to patent terms of 20 years. And just because a copyright expires doesn't preclude the author from creating new work, or continuing to publish old works. Copyright, at least in the US, isn't to (solely) benefit the creator. It's to benefit the public good, and the public good is not served from copyright terms being anywhere near as long as they are. Create your work, market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Make new work. Market and profit from it exclusively for 20 years. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Well, if five people at the table were having fun until you sat down, it's hard for me to suggest that they're the ones marching out of step. So, don't sit down at a table full of prima donnas, and then proceed to show them up when they fail to be as awesome as they thought they were. Check. That said - if the OP wants to 'role play', he should find a like-minded group.That's hard to do at PFS. So, don't show up expecting to play a roleplaying game, even though you're there to play a game that is a roleplaying game. Double-check! Which gets back to the "you need to be prepared to play with the roll-players and design accordingly." If you're going to a potluck picnic, you should ask yourself what kind of food everyone at the party is likely to want. Even if you absolutely love your mother's recipe for roasted bald eagle in baby harp seal sauce, it might be better to save that recipe for a time when you know the audience will be more appreciative, and just bring macaroni salad instead. So, bring the same thing as everyone else, since it's a potluck, and forget the silly notion that the whole concept of potluck is variety. Triple-check! Seriously: The infestation of jerks* at PFS at witnessed at multiple different stores is just a complete turn-off to the whole thing. And, at least in observation in the wild, this isn't a unique thing only rumored on this message board. *Jerks is too tame of a word for what I'm feeling right now, but I'd prefer to avoid a post deletion.
Looks like an author, Tracey Alley, has ripped off, at a bare minimum, the Mystara world map and country names for a series of hack fantasy novels, and has been caught doing it: Mystara IP Theft Part 2 - with map overlay goodness showing the pretty-much direct trace of the map, with little more than place names moved around. It's even got Karameikos on it, still. One of the books has a Pathfinder gobbo on the cover, even (though, I don't know what the copyright rules are there - is their "distinctive image" covered?). I would ask how people think they'll be able to get away with this, but apparently, she's been doing so for about three years, if publication date of the first novel is any indication.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is only needed in criminal cases. Since you're using legal analogies, this would have more likely been a civil matter, in which case, you only need a preponderance of evidence - of which had been provided that the person in question was, more probable than not, an insufferable boor. An insufferable boor, I would point out, that you'll never meet (or, never know if you had), so getting worked up in said anonymous boor's defense to an extent that you're attempting to equate a social situation to a criminal (or otherwise) court case is rather wacky. I'm reminded of a phrase, "You only get one chance to make a first impression." This person certainly made a memorable one.
It might be irrelevant to you, but it's not irrelevant to me. If a container arrived, and they felt that it was worth updating their website or Facebook, then they should have updated Kickstarter. I'll reiterate: ANY and all updates should be posted on Kickstarter, FIRST, before posting anywhere else. Not their forums, not Facebook.
Could Reaper have communicated better? Yes. I get frequent updates from Dreamscarred. Are there delays? Yup. delay happens. Live and learn. IF this was something I was expecting within a certain time frame, I'd be more upset, but that's my own damn fault. Agreed. Dreamscarred is fantastic with their updates, and while I'd love to have the mountain of books I pledged for show up today, the regular updates about production status keeps me satisfied that things are progressing well. I think the problem that I have (and it appears others have) with the communication from Reaper, and the frustration I experience when someone says "But they updated on Facebook" or "They posted this on their forums" is that: I didn't pledge money via Facebook or the Reaper forums. I pledged money via Kickstarter, and Kickstarter has a perfectly serviceable update and communication method. I'm learning more about the current status of Bones from this thread, rather than via the Kickstarter updates. That's a problem. It's great that they have their forum, it's great that they have Facebook. The very first place an update regarding the delivery of Kickstarter backer rewards should be posted is Kickstarter. All other locations for status updates are irrelevant. It's not like Reaper spent my investment on another project entirely *coughNorthern Guncough* Or spent your money on stuff unrelated to the project goals *coughTerahcough*
I assume you mean "anyone who stands for" and please do not start a debate on gay marriage here. But feel free to continue the off-topic religious debate that should be in the off-topic section, because, hey, selective enforcement kicks ass!
The reason religious types like to portray Atheism as a 'belief in a lack', rather than a lack of a particular belief is so that they can deflect criticism of Theism by claiming that Atheism is just one form of Theism. As a not-religious-type, I call your statement here hogwash. Part of the reason I consider Atheism (capitalized by you, not me) a religion is the zealotry displayed by those who defend their beliefs - illustrated quite nicely by your posts. You have an established belief system - one that may not be consistent with other denominations or sects of Atheism, but ultimately, a generally consistent belief system. Much like Christianity - the various denominations or sects don't agree on everything, either. Nothing more than a shameless debating tactic which does not stand up to scrutiny. Saying it doesn't make it so. Really, it's amusing that you go to such an extent to disprove that your religion is a religion in it's own right, because it's not as if the label harms your belief structure or your argument.
We don't want to 'convert' people from one religion to another. Some of us want religion to go away. Bwahahah! You don't want to convert people from one religion to another - you want religion to go away. Which is to say, you want to convert others from their religion to yours. And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that. But denying that what you're practicing and preaching isn't a religion, in an attempt to look down your nose at other religions? Gimmie a break. That's why some of us feel the need to defend our position, and hope that the world will be free from life-affecting superstition sooner rather than later. Proselytizing your faith. I've no doubt that some people reading this will take this as an attack on religion, and therefore 'not okay'. But others are free to support a religion in terms just as strong and don't suffer the same stigma. Religious people making public statements supporting their own religious views, and asserting the 'Truth' of their religion is 'okay', but the contrary position is 'not okay'? 'Religious hatred'? Nope. It's totally OK that you have these beliefs, and it's totally OK that you want and try to convert others to your faith. That's perfectly acceptable, and that's one of the big freedoms our Constitution secures and protects. And as far as your martyr complex of oppression, it's amusing that you don't realize that you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing your so-called oppressors of doing: Trying to shut down those who believe in something different than what you're doing. Nope. Atheism totally isn't a religion. No sirree Bob.
Atheism isn't a dogma, but the lack of a dogma. Really? Much like folks have a problem with religious fundamentalists of any stripe, other folks have a problem with fundamentalist atheists. If atheism isn't a dogma, then its fundamentalist proponents need to be a bit less dogmatic in their proselytizing of their faith.
Can you point me to a successful cyberpunk game currently on the primary market other than Shadowrun?
I'm neither particularly surprised or frustrated at the moment. I simply agree with folks that think there should be more communication on the matter of delays, and I disagree with folks that are trying to say that Kickstarter isn't (or hasn't been allowed to be co-opted into) a preorder system. If you have no issue throwing money at folks and not expecting accountability or timely delivery, that's fine. More power to you. But lambasting folks who do expect promised deliveries, who expect them to be delivered on the schedule that they were promised, and ultimately, who expect timely communication when those are not met? Shame on you.
Well, that's just it. If it wasn't marketed as a preorder system, then these enormous preorders wouldn't exist. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of pledges to this Kickstarter weren't altruistic donations of funds by folks who would not expect, but be pleasantly surprised if they actually received rewards. Kickstarter is pretty clear in their Terms of Service. Project creators are expected to deliver what they promise, or refund if they can't. So, given the marketing and the KS ToS, yeah - this WAS a preorder.
Thank goodness someone less snarky than me replied to that post.
When did , "Not getting it your way" become a punishment? Probably somewhere around the same time that someone decided not getting XP for a gaming session they didn't show up to was a punishment.
I made no ‘accusations’. I merely point out that it is a new poster whose first thread is on a hot topic. Is there a need to call out the new poster in this manner? Folks can then make whatever decision or conclusion they want to. And indeed, in several threads when I pointed this out, the Op never came back. Perhaps they felt unwelcome by your implied accusation and decided to avoid people acting like jerks. Seriously, how about you just stop that kind of behavior, and assume good faith in the poster?
B-b-b-but aren't you afraid that playing a bigot is reinforcing a bigoted worldview, and will result in you becoming a bigot in real life?!
I'd rather have setting material, background stories and story "seeds" than adventures, myself. An adventure path once a sizable setting book is released might be acceptable. Print is very important to me.
I don't think failing to include homosexuals in a world is automatically a statement. Not everybody reflexively thinks, "I better consult the U.S. Census before designing this town's populace." Not everybody thinks, "Gee, 10% of America's population is Asian*, I better include one Tian NPC for every nine non-Tian." I must say, I do find it rather ironic and amusing that, in other discussions on these messageboards, when people have stated that "including X in my game makes it seem unrealistic" they've been mocked for such, since it's a fantasy game with magic and dragons, yet, here we are on this subject.
I'm cool with agreeing to call it passive contribution. The word "active" is nebulous enough to allow for easy misinterpretation. I'd dispute that it's even contributing, period, considering that I don't allow the content (or lack thereof, as it may be) of a game to dictate or influence my worldview, which is already inclusive and accepting of the subject matter at hand. I'd like to think we're all just a little more intelligent than that. The whole idea is a just a repackaging of ridiculous notions that "D&D = Satanism" or "Video Games Cause Mass Shootings," but I'll back off on the subject.
I'm not calling it malicious, but it does demonstrate a point: Almost none of us, myself included, would think to give the sexual orientation of NPCs in our hastily-made fantasy world any serious thought, and yet not doing so is missing an opportunity. And presented in that manner/context, I can't help but agree with you. The statement "actively contributing to discrimination," however, implies maliciousness where none necessarily exists. It's needlessly combative.
What, exactly, would the thought process be behind creating a fictional world and deciding to populate it with nothing but heterosexual relationships and not with any homosexual relationships? Apparently, an attempt to coerce my friends into assisting me into "actively" oppressing minorities. Seriously, though - perhaps ya'll get a bit deeper with your worlds than my group does, and that's great. But I don't create a fictional world and actively think about populating it with heterosexual relationships anymore than I think about populating it with homosexual relationships. It's not that I'm at all opposed to it - I run the APs and modules that Paizo publishes as written. I don't edit out or change that much, and certainly have never given any consideration to changing any of the hetero sexual or homosexual relationships that have been depicted in those APs or modules. But the assertion that someone "actively" discriminates by not including something in their homebrew fantasy world? That's utter nonsense. Pure and utter nonsense.
Yes, I believe that every time you create a world, you're also (intentionally or not) putting forth a worldview. Or, y'know, maybe we're just playing a game. To shift the discussion away from orientation to a different example, if you create a world and don't include any female leaders in that world (assuming, of course, that the point of the story isn't to create a dystopian society), you're putting forth a worldview that says that it is abnormal or unnatural for women to lead. Or, perhaps, we haven't developed the world all that much as of yet? Or, again, maybe we're just playing a game.
Who said anything about agendas? What I reacted to was the crazy assertion that one is ACTIVELY contributing to discrimination by not having a same-sex relationship in their game.
I believe that if you decide to create a fictional society and don't include any same-sex relationships in it, you are actively contributing to a cultural narrative that treats same-sex relationships as something abnormal, foreign or other by tacitly denying their existence in "normal" society, and therefore actively contributing to discrimination. I believe statements like this are ridiculously inflammatory. I mean, seriously. Someone doesn't add any same-sex relationships to their freakin' elfgames, and now they're "actively contributing to discrimination" ??! Good grief. Is Paizo going to sell a set of Golarion-themed hip-waders anytime soon?
And really, what if the other three players at the table ask the DM to let their friend have his fun as well with the concept? Are you REALLY going to continue to ignore the multitude of times this has been answered? The GM can only GM if the players are willing to let him/her. If all of the players feel so strongly about said concept that the GM refuses to entertain, then they have the power to do something about it. Exercise that power, and stop playing the victim.
|