| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dotting. This just might be my favorite thread on all of Paizo Forums.
Search Posts
Doesn't Seoni need to have her tattoos visible as part of her magic? I thought I read about that somewhere. Then again, I never play with the iconics in my campaigns so I know very little about them.
Personally, I was raised under "you never hit a woman, no matter what." As such, I wouldn't want to compete against women in physical contact sports. I like how the flipside of that is, "It is perfectly reasonable to hit other men, and you should expect it." Honestly, self-defense is self-defense no matter the gender of your attacker. Unless you are in a sport which requires it, there should be no reason to hit anybody in polite society. Why all this pretense about not hitting women when we shouldn't be hitting anyone? Never mind the implication that statement has about women being weaker than men.
...we don't have coed boxing, coed mixed martial arts, etc. There is a reason for that. We don't have co-ed bathrooms either. There's a reason for that.
Note that altho "cis" started out as a neutral term, it has devolved into a derogatory term. It's pretty tasteless to use it now. As a cisgendered dude, kindly speak for yourself.
I like my fantasy setting not to be overrun with modern western Political Correctness. YMMV Clearly, it is so much more noble to leave modern values out of your game as political statement, rather than simply seeing yourself as a purist of the fantasy genre.
Since you are so confident about the examples name them. Name specfically the ones in which the women either did not pretend to be men, or were not specifically designated as men. If you're going to list Joan of Arc, remember it was because of those particular activities. (and being on the wrong side of a political struggle), she was burned at the stake as a heretic. And Boudicca was betrayed by her own chiefs, presumably because among other reasons, they resented being led by a woman I don't think anyone is saying that those examples don't count. One thing you should notice, especially since you linked that specific page, is that despite the fact that women fought, it was the exception and not the norm. I mean, is there a page on wikipedia for "men who participated in war" or are the pages on most wars just about men by default? On the actual topic of this thread, why do world builders have to be bound to one culture in one corner of the globe in one time period? What if I want to do a campaign based on Feudal Japan or the Ancient Aztecs? Is that not fantasy?
Pointing out that there is a gay paladin in Sandpoint or that the Chelaxian faction leader has bdsm equipment in her bedroom is not appropriate for a game in which you may have a ten year old playing. Well, you're not completely wrong about the BDSM equipment. Hardly the same as a gay paladin though. There are a lot of parents that would be horrified if their young child came to them and said. "I played PFS today, and we had to rescue a guy from his former guy lover. What's a lover?" Would they be any less horrified if the kid said: "Today we had to rescue a girl from her former guy lover. What's a lover?"
Are Trox males smaller and more colorful then? I've got a male trox NPC and pictured him looking more or less like the one in the book.
Kappa - The Bestiary 3 description says that they love to wrestle.
A recently GM'd a game where these two monsters formed a wrestling club with a human fighter.
I've already gone, but a few people mentioned Dammerich. I'm gonna have to say I find his concept really cool. Executioners with their black-hoodeds and big axes always seem to be stigmatized as bad dudes in fantasy RPGs. They have a really crap job and people hate them for it, but in the end someone has to do their duty. Especially in a world of magic users, werewolves, and other essentially super-powered criminals. I really respect the effort on Paizo's part to expand the meaning of good to more cynical or solemn stuff. There's a lot more gray area (and in my opinion, freedom of character) in the alignment system that way.
I'll have to say it's a toss-up between Arshea and Irez. Arshea for all the reasons listed above. It is refreshing to have a sex positive force on the side of good, as sex in role-playing games has been labeled as a weapon in evil's corner for so long. Irez because she appears to be a giant serpent-woman who lives in the ocean. She's a perfect example of how Paizo is creating unconventional celestials. Korada is also worth mentioning, because I'm pumped to see his stat-up when I grab a copy of Bestiary 4.
"Kitchen sink" is a relative term, bro.So is "Constrained Setting" Yes, that too. Are we really talking about "a setting with noticeable restrictions in place" vs. "a setting with no perceived restrictions"? My homebrew setting, only with most other settings IMO, is in the gray area between the two extremes. The main continent is home to more than several dozen different types of monsters, and has a wide variety of player races, but it also has certain class restrictions and the nations in it are drawn from specific cultures. Still, I don't want to call it constrained when an oread monk, a wayang oracle, a half-orc rogue, and an elf ranger can ride into battle on the back of a gargantuan foo smilodan against an invasion of hungry ghosts. It is slightly kitchen sinky. I have on occasion bent some of my restrictions for my player's benefit. I hadn't written anything about elves in my world before the elf player came along. So I made her character one of the last of the elves, and we worked out that she was raised by an orc hunting band. It ended up being an awesome roleplaying experience, because her identity as an orc conflicted with the expectations of others who wanted her to be like the elves of legend. The whole process may have made my setting more kitchen sinky on an arbitrary scale, but nothing actually even changed. Except some lore, which took two seconds.
"Kitchen sink" is a relative term, bro.
It has come to my attention that apparently I have been actively arguing against the existence of breasts. I was not aware that I was doing it, but after going back and reading my posts I realize their must be no other alternative. Because indeed, to argue against boobplate is to say that boobs must be always hidden. But this is not true. Boobs must always be everywhere, because women want it that way. It is all so clear to me now: men have never wanted to show themselves off to the extent women do. All women wear provocative clothing because they can't help themselves. They've shaped their own culture into one where you must "go big or go home" and we men have no role in it. How sexist of these women to exclude us, simply because we lack breasts of our own. How exclusionist and wrong that women get to wear such impressive boobplate armor and we cannot. So why be exclusive any longer? Boobplate for all! Men, women, children, dragons, gnolls, kytons, oozes... Everyone! Why let copyright infringement stop us? I want to see beholders and mind flayers in boobplate or this thread will have been for naught. Let us put boobplate onto other boobplate! Let us drag this boobplate into the twenty-first century! ... I'm probably leaving this thread for more productive ones.
This farce of a debate made up of people on one side going, "Guys, come on... it's clearly a sexist thing." and the other side going "NOPE NOPE NOPE Shut up NOPE NOPE." What really gets me is the people who say that they don't even like boobplate, but will still argue for it on the principle of showing up those "noisy feminists." Then we get to the people who are simply saying... "But I like boobs... D:" Hey, I don't blame you. I like boobs a lot too! They are wonderful! There is no shame in that (even snarky sarcastic shame). But you know... metal bumps on armor? Shouldn't really do it for anyone older than 12. Put boobs in your game if you want, but don't create weird new sets of armor to "accentuate" them in battle. What is more satisfying to you? A female warrior wearing a bumpy tin can into battle or a female warrior sweating in her more conventional tin can... taking it off after a battle... and then bearing her heaving breasts in lighter clothing. You can't tell me any of you really want to climb into bed with a women who is wearing boobplate? That would be strange.
I highly doubt anyone with a size category/int score over 2 would be intimidated by armor-muscles. You're right. Maybe people should stop wearing "showy" armor in the first place. ;)
A note about male version of "boobplate" since it keeps coming up. The grecian muscle cuirass was worn almost exclusively by generals and not by common soldiers. As many people have said, it was used to impress and intimidate people. However, certain individuals have neglected to mention that it was an ornamental armor not to be worn into battle. Military Leaders would be dressed in this manner of armor at parades and medal-giving ceremonies. Click the link below if you don't believe me. Now then, we can put to rest the notion of men "being forced" to wear impractical armor into battle. It assuredly never happened. Even if it did, what are the men showing off exactly? They are showing off muscle, which exudes raw power. Women are more than capable of having that kind of abdominal strength themselves. If muscle cuirass armor was actually viable, it should logically follow that women could and should wear it as well as men. Because according to your own words, the message of armor is to "impress" the enemy and exert dominance over them. Unless, somehow you've confused impressing the enemy with providing titillation for the audience. Go ahead and explain to me how a red dragon is going to be frightened by a pair of big metal boobies.
My question: Why should the females depicted in Pathfinder (or most other RPG) art be attired reasonably/sensibly/realistically? The males quite often are attired just as ludicrously. There is a difference between outfits that are sexy and lolawesome, and outfits that are flat-out exploitation. The implications of boobplate are that even in battle women must prove their femininity or else they are considered to be wearing "men's armor". I personally am far less annoyed with Seoni's outfit than I am with any character wearing boobplate. Seoni is a sorceress whose class features do encourage drawing her with a lack of armor. Though she is a "Ms. Fanservice" character, it doesn't come off as mind-numbingly stupid as putting a fighter in boobplate. Female Warrior: Yes, blacksmith. I'll wear this armor. I was afraid that nobody would know I was a women when I'm smashing in the skulls of goblins. Thank you for understanding that my gender matters more than my competence.
I'd actually rather a player come up with a crazy Gothic Lolita style Dress/Full plate hybrid with cool boots and a nice hat Now, that would be absurd. Not that I wouldn't like to see it...
Alright, boys. Don't paint me as a puritan now. It's shocking to see how much boobplate specifically means to some people. But sure, I'm the creeper. Look, this isn't about not including sexy in your game. The magus example is a class that doesn't wear heavy armor. He has every right to be showing off his abs and biceps. In fact, it may affect his arcane casting not to. ;) If you want to put your "heavily-armored" female characters in unfittingly skimpy armor or form-fitting armor or what have you at your own gaming table... go right ahead. But please don't try to disguise it as rescuing the virtues of a genre from the clutches of "overbearing PC meddlers". Be honest and admit that boobplate turns you on. Would you have it in your game for any other reason?
So, seriously, in a mechanical context, how does this even come up? Boob plate is fluff, AC is crunch. There is no such thing as "boob plate armor" in the armor descriptions, so from a mechanical perspective it simply doesn't exist. Female armor with boob protrusions is entirely a artwork and miniature thing, so it doesn't exist at all in a mechanical way. Again, it isn't about the mechanics. It's about the objectification. People can complain about the helmet being weird or useless, but it isn't the same. Just for curiosities sake, is there any Pathfinder artwork featuring boobplate? I get the impression that we might be arguing about something that is not relevant to this specific company.
While I'm all for more female gaze in fantasy gaming, adding more of it doesn't make boobplate any more or less okay. Look, I get it. Guys like boobs. We're allowed to. That doesn't mean we can force our sexual preferences onto character designs under the pretenses of "it grabs attention and enriches the design." There are many other ways of making a character designs stand out, and even if none come to mind you can just throw a ton of belts or goggles on there. The reason why boobplate is the subject of argument, while oversized swords aren't, has to do with the context. Boobplate is an objectification trope towards women, and ultimately it is there for the sex appeal. Contrast with a big sword, which doesn't objectify anyone. Throwing egregious manservice at us equal the amount female fanservice is not the answer. You can still do it, but tone down the female designs for a change. There is already a huge backlog of boobplate and chainmail bikinis. For the people who want it, it is already there. We really don't need anymore of it right now.
I think that the in-game reason why Golarion is so important is because it is a cage for Rovagug. You do raise an interesting point though. Maybe aliens become petitioners too? Is there anything that states that all petitioners have to look humanoid?
Gorbacz, I think you are forgetting that tabletop games are the Devil's playground. Everyone knows that by playing a tabletop game you are signing your soul away to the dark powers below. Direct implementation is the only way to keep the eternal fires of the inferno at bay. Weird way to step into this thread on my part, but I couldn't resist.
Well... that was less reading than I expected, but still more than I hoped. I had imagined (perhaps under crude assumptions) by the title of thread that this would be a discussion of sophisticated world building. I imagined that we would be brainstorming ways to step outside the faux-midieval europe quagmire that still exists as a meta-setting across the mainstream gaming community. I thought we would be able to honestly address the fact that older roleplaying texts such as "Oriental Adventures" were a unabashed mash-up of real-world cultures that played into silly stereotypes and moreover ceased to be coherent. I imagined this would happen without feathers/jimmies being rustled. I didn't expect so many people to immediately jump at the opportunity to call each other racists. (This is directed at both sides of the abstraction that is this debate.) Though I'm more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to OP and those who have made an effort to follow OP's discussion. Not only because I agree with this threads basic premise, but because I think it is rude to enter a forum thread for the purpose of promoting the exact opposite sentiment. ... On the subject of the Erastil alignment debate, which is quite off-topic: A paladin who slays demons for a living and protects the townspeople is a good person. He may also be a misogynistic person who thinks a women's place is in the kitchen. Is he flawed for thinking that way? Many, including myself, would say yes. Does this invalidate his noble actions? For some, a little but not completely. TLDR for this paragraph; Good characters can still be or not be jerks, but it doesn't do much to change their alignment.
I'm really happy with what Paizo is doing with Golarion in terms of representing cultures. Though some of the parallels with real world culture may seem overly similar, I'd rather have carbon copies of underexposed cultures than another planet of medieval caucasians. *Pitches tent* Don't mind me, I'm just going to set up camp in this thread. Good vibes here.
96) A mystical shepherd whose favorite herding dog hails from another plane.
89) The summoner is a beastbrood tiefling and their eidolon is the reincarnation of the distant rakshasa ancestor that sired them. The eidolon aches to return to full power, and manipulates its progeny towards ends that will facilitate a better incarnation. The summoner themselves wishes to learn from the eidolon and rise to become a true rakshasa after this life. 90) Through some strange magic, this summoner and eidolon are trapped within each others bodies. The summoner's mind has difficulty adjusting to every evolution its new alien body must undergo, meanwhile the mind of the eidolon feels shackled in the body of a humanoid. So far both have been successful in acting as the other, and no one has yet noticed the difference. These two now share a goal of reversing the magic that has altered them.
69.) The summoner is a kyton cultist who modifies and mutilates his own body in disturbing ways to reflect his eidolon's evolutions. The eidolon itself is a biped and vaguely resembles a human, but has the appearance of being gruesomely disfigured from torture. At first glance, the summoner and his eidolon are nearly identical.
I love that the title of this thread could be used in a pejorative way. "You watch porn? What kind of unintelligent monster likes porn?" Just found that funny.
Why are there so many offended Hama threads these days?
Whether or not somebody is being rude in any given situation is entirely dependent on the reactions of those involved. The concept of rudeness is not enforced by some invisible yet universal ruleset. Rudeness is determined by whether or not the people experiencing the situation deems that behavior as rude, and even then it is extremely subjective. Outside people who hear of the same situation can have their own opinions as well, but this too adds to the overall nebulous and subjective nature of what rudeness really is. What it really comes down to is what each persons stance is on the matter, something that cannot be determined to have one standard emotional response. To assume that a single set of strictures represent the vast spectrum of human emotion and ethics is to ignore the fact that our laws are entirely figments themselves. TLDR; You can't force your narrow code of conduct on everybody else.
You leave the game. If you were being harassed, then you acted to maintain your self-respect. If the game wasn't fun, then you are leaving because you perceive better ways to spend your time. In both cases, you have left the game... and that makes you a bad person automatically? You know, I feel as though you might have wanted to refrain from murder comparisons. Besides subconsciously causing us to equate game-leaving with taking the life of a human being; it's a fallacy, and meant to startle more than argue your point cogently.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of combat (or even not in combat) would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer. This argument more or less falls apart when you realize the game is powered by imagination.
I'd rather this thread not become another thread for discussing "player entitlement". It hardly seems relevant to the topic of discussion: whether or not to leave a social gathering that fails to be a positive experience for an individual. Since we have now received testimony from a GM who left a game mid-go it should abundantly clear at this point that the sides of this conflict are not drawn along the borders of a binary DM and Player Identification. In addition, each situation where a person leaves a session partway through is wholly different and should be treated as such. There is no finite code of conduct or "solution" that covers all of these situations. Instead of assigning good or bad stigma to the phenomena as a whole, we should embrace the wackiness and variety of stories on this thread and continue to post more absurd experiences.
Well said, Ataraxias. I think it would be nice to get a few different GM perspective on this phenomena. I'd actually not be offended at all if a player walked out on one of my sessions. I would take it as an indication that the game did not match their tastes. Judgements towards my own character or the character of the players come secondary. (I don't mean in-game character, I mean character in the sense "personality") Truly, I think communication as others have said does wonders to solve these problems. I really want my players to know what kind of world they will be playing in, as well as the overall tone I'm going for. I certainly am not strong-arming any players to stay and play my game against their will. Likewise, a player who isn't having fun is somebody I don't want at my table (no jugdement towards their reasoning). For both our sakes, mine and the player, I would let them go everytime than adjust combat accordingly to accommodate the now-shrunken group. See, as a DM, I control everything in universe, but I have no gripes if real life is beyond my control once and awhile.
Sounds like an awesome idea for a book. I'm in.
I agree wholeheartedly with the Monstrous Codex/Ultimate Monsters idea. Savage Species is one of my favorite 3.5 supplements. To have a Pathfinder equivalent of the book would be a dream come true, especially I find many of Paizo's monster design a lot more compelling than their D&D counterparts. That being said, I wouldn't mind a few less common races being featured as NPCs in the base class section of the book. Maybe one of the ninjas could be a kobold, or one of the oracles could be an aasimar. There is a lot of potential for flavor there, and that's something I put a lot of stock in.
I shudder to mention it, mostly due to the backlash this class feature seems to receive on these boards... A NPC Codex which features summoners would logically also have a section to detail their eidolons. There would be stat ups for eidolons corresponding to levels 1st-20th. I know this isn't everybody's cup of tea, but I would like to hear people's thoughts. Should eidolons by part of NPC Codex 2? I say yes. I am perhaps one of the few who enjoy eidolons mechanically and believe that such a section would not only be helpful for GMs who want to generate quick eidolons stats, but would add a lot of flavor and potentially give us some amazing artwork. Plus, the way characters in the codex are built, these eidolons wouldn't be min-maxed and the synthesist probably wouldn't even be mentioned.
I'd like to see a quadrupedal player race which isn't tauric. Perhaps a medium-sized species of sauropod which can wield weapons in it's mouth and tail, instead of arms. Mechanically no different, but rich in flavor. On the outsider front, I want to more varieties of Asuras, Kytons, and Proteans. I also agree with Ulgulanoth about making some brand new monsters. I'd love to see some really out there stuff in the next one.
Anti-paladins too! :) I almost forgot about them. I'd love to see the the prestige classes from Advanced Player's Guide explored as well.
Following the release of Bestiary 4, I would love to see an NPC Codex featuring the classes from the Advanced Players Guide. It would draw from the following list. Alchemist
If possible, having it include the Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat bases classes would be all the more better. Gunslinger (slightly worried about this one, tbh)
I often run NPCs and PCs of the advanced classes so it would benefit me immensely.What's everybody else's thoughts on a second NPC Codex?
Imma dot this early so I can keep up with it.
Long-fingered is a good look for them, I'd go as far as to make it one of their defining features. I think I would prefer to have them less elfish, though your description did help me visualize them in a new way. Here's some lore on them, just to clarify them a bit. You weren't to far off with the city description. "The serene wabise are a race of aesthetics, dedicated to the philosophy of wabi sabi. They believe that the world’s most beautiful fact is that nothing can be perfected and that all things are transient. While other races may misinterpret their ideals as morbid, wabise view their tastes in a much more positive light. To a wabise, an unfinished object or one weathered by time evokes a longing fascination. Perhaps as a reflection of their race’s world view, wabise possess the ability to shift the contours of the natural world. They use this power to shape the rocks and trees around their remote mountain settlements. Famous for their arts and crafts, wabise like to create masterpieces that demonstrate the beauty of flaws. Wabise also have a cultural obsession with wearing broken masks over their faces, and it is often the unique fragmentation of these masks that sets individuals apart." Other than masks and long fingers I still need to define them as having a certain visual design.
I'm creating a new eastern fantasy race called the wabise based on the following concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi Here's what I have for racial traits: Wabise Racial Traits:
Where I'm really stuck is coming up with an appearance for this race. What should the Wabise look like?
I'm about halfway through Perdido Street Station by China Mieville. I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
Demodands are built-up as one of the most powerful and evil outsider races in the game, and they have the stats to show it. The lowest CR demodand is the tarry, who is said to be merely a foot soldier by demodand standards but weighs in at CR 13. Since armies of demodands are heavily implied to be a thing... what is stopping them from conquering the material plane? Especially if one factors in the Thanatotic Titans. Just to clarify, I would like people to brainstorm creative world-building reasons that demodands aren't able to wreck everything.
|