Szadek's page

"Correct, I am in favor of their choice to stop writing for a subject that no longer has a place in their creation."

Then there's no issue.

"As far as trying to be clever, I speak in broad strokes for a reason to avoid going into countless tangents."

There's a difference between succinct and vague, especially when you step into an already in progress argument.

You are correct and I concede to you. In future post I will do a better job of being less vague.

Private individuals criticizing a work of art isn't censorship. Let's be serious here--it's part of the artistic process. This is especially (but not exclusively) true when the individuals are themselves affiliated with the work's creation.

Let's say I write a book. I feel pretty good about it. Someone comes along while I'm writing the sequel and says, "Hey, nice book, but I didn't like how you included the chapter with the talking basset hound. I thought it undermined my enjoyment of the story."

Now, I think about this, and I decide, hey, if the basset hound weakens the story for people, maybe I wrote him badly. I go back and review the material, and they're right! I write the basset hound out of the sequel.

Have I been censored, or have I responded to feedback?

People urging Paizo towards a social obligation isn't suppression of the arts. It is, as with the basset hound critic, offering feedback about the impact of the art upon the people who consume the art.

Now, mind you, if your concern is with the capitalist profit model creating an extra strain, that's fair. It doesn't apply to this situation at all, but it's fair as an abstract principle. But we can't control that and neither can Paizo. Would you ask us to refrain from critiquing because of a system we have no control over? Would you ask them to accept severe losses because of a system they have no control over? It's a pointless critique because really, you should be lobbying for an expansion of the NEftA, not complaining to Paizo.

Critique should always be welcome to an artist, that doesn't mean feelings wont be hurt but it does help us evolve. What I was trying and seemed to have failed to bring to the table was a company/artist should not be censored in their creation even if we as individuals have issue with its content (Bar breaking of laws). As I stated I support their choice if this is the direction they wish to go along with. The issue I was bring in and again I do apologize for failing to convey intent clearly, was there are a fair number or artist, companions and the like that are actively being faced with people trying to censor their work because subject X, Y and Z are in it. Be it because creatures that control ones free will, demons that represent sin incarnate, the corruption of people, etc.

One of the poster pointed out not a good time to hit the forums medicated, I will heed their advise and revisit this when I have a clearer mind and can properly discuss the topic.

“ Should I be censured on my lets play streams because of it? Should the content I create and sell be disallowed because it offends someone?”

1) how does some writers not wanting to write slavery themed stories anymore censor you in any way possible?

2) that entirely depends on what you’re streaming.

To answer your questions, writers do not have an effect on the things I create other then inspiration for good or ill. What does have an effect on writers and other artist in the many fields, is people trying to demand change in their work because they disagree with it on some level and want creators to fit into their perfect little box of ideals of what should be allowed. This does lead to writers, artist, musicians, and the like to be censured or made to feel like they cannot express themselves in fear of retaliation. On note, I purposely did not use slavery in my post because the issues of censorship or what should and should not be allowed in a TTRPG goes beyond just that subject.

As for as what I stream, A general rating is given as well as content warning so those that find such things distasteful or hurtful in anyway can avoid it. I have no desire to bring unwanted distress on anyone or open wounds someone is healing from.

I have been DM'ing games for over 26 years and anyone is welcome at my table, no matter the color of their skin, beliefs, sexuality or how they wish to be identified. It falls on me to ask my players what content is off limits for the game and to be respectful of that matter. I personally enjoy dark fantasy and a world that is filled with a sense of realism. As we only have one world to truly compare realism to, the settings I run for my adult players have a lot of subjects that could be considering taboo to some people. Should I be censured on my lets play streams because of it? Should the content I create and sell be disallowed because it offends someone?

I ask in general because when does it fall on the individual to realize not everyone has the same set of morals, beliefs and ideals of what good and evil is? I'll use myself as an example again, to me, good and evil, right and wrong, are subjective to the individual. You could split the world in half and on one side subject A is right and on the other subject B is right. Should one side truly be condemned because they have different views then what the other considers the right way?

I know that is a very simplified example but it holds point. The fact that we sit here online and complain about topics of interest offends parts of the world to the point they hate us. Should we simply shut up and be censured because we offend them or do we say screw it and keep on doing what we are doing?

In the end there should be nothing wrong with a company that wants to stop writing about a subject or not have work created for their game because it no longer matches their values. On the other hand, a company should not be made to feel they have to stop creating fictional content because there are those that do not like the content and consider it taboo. I'm not saying that is what happen here but it is happening not just in the TTRPG circle but all works of fiction and art.

P.S Sorry for grammar errors, typos and rambling. I am heavily medicated due to a bad injury.

nephandys wrote:

page 550 of the core rulebook: wrote:

Injury: An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item. If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.

While it might require some inference I think that poisons/afflictions tied to an injury/attack only occur if damage has taken place.

...except that reading on the ghoul's paralysis, it specifically references if the attack hits - not if it deals damage.

Then defer to specific beats general as stated in the CRB in regards to monster attacks that say on hit instead of dealing damage.