I knew it my digression has opened up a can worms. . . ninja worms.
Back on topic . . .Sandpoint is amazing.
Contributor
|
Yes, that is all good and well, but do you employ ninjas? Hmm? Let us not start talking politics and correctness, lest we overlook the plight of the modern ninja, so shunned, so forgotten.
I am sorry . . .too much caffeine for the Rogue today. Carry on.
I too feel for the poor, downtrodden ninjas. That's why I donate to the Feed A Ninja Fund.
Really, with all the attention pirates have received lately, it's no wonder more ninjas haven't starved to death. :(
Cry me a river about the ninjas already ...
And Sandpoint is amazing ... though I really liked the Thassilon backdrop. I think that backdrop is where this settings legs really are.
1- Abortion clinic. Wrong way to view this. There is a LONG traditional of using herbal extracts to terminate pregnancies in Europe, middle east, and asia. These practices were done by women for women for several thousand years and in many cultures helped lead to the classification of a single woman who made a living as a midwife and herbalist as a "witch" who needed burning.
Putting the herbalist in is actually more in line with a fantasy setting than the modern day.
Since they were burned, wouldn't that indicate that in those settings they were in fact thought of as "bad"? Seems making them aligned good would be more in line with modern viewpoint then some "fantasy" viewpoint (by fantasy I mean heavily influenced by a historical culture it resembles).
3- alignment. OK, this is IMO the silliest. Folks regardless of how you personally feel about a social issue, does it make someone EVIL or GOOD by where they choose to stand on it? Sexual orientation and moral alignment (good - evil) cannot possibly be correlated in any reasonable person's mind. You may think the lifestyle is evil, but certainly the person is not. That determination would have to be made off of their actions and motivations. Would you really argue that an herbalist and midwife who has dedicated her life to helping others should not have a good alignment because she provides herbal options to terminate a pregnancy? By her profession and description she seems to be a caring person who puts others before herself and helps where she can. Sounds good to me.
Well let's see. Good beings protect the innocent. The Women's Clinic worker agrees to kill unborn children (can't get much more innocent then that), therefore she is ... good? If she directed the women to someone with lower morals or she only aided in terminating pregnancies when the mother's life was in danger, a much stronger position for good would be present.
Again, I personally don't care if she is good or not. But it is silly to assume that there wouldn't be people out there that could have legitimate moral problems with someone like her being classified that way. And implying that people who do have problems with it are immature or prejudiced:
Pathfinder, and to a greater extent, all of GameMastery, takes the view that our readers are older than 13 years old and unprejudiced.
Can be offensive to some.
By the way it is impossible to be unprejudiced, there may be certain things individuals might not hold predudices about, but to be unprejudiced about anything is unrealistic.
|
As ultra-conservative as I am, I own and use tid-bits from the Book of Erotic Fantasy. Some of it is silly and some of it pretty intense, but a lot of it is applicable to games with adult themes (have you seen Wolfgang's description of Malcanthet's hangout in Enemies of my Enemy?).
|
Personally I think they would have been better off going with pres_man's rule for RL morality and game alignments.
"If a topic is contraversial in RL then its designation of alignment in game is neutral."
This seems to imply that you think abortion should be Neutral. Fine, I can see that. It's not Good, it's not Evil.
But why can't soemone who performs this Neutral act have a Good alignment?
Are NPCs with Good alignments not allowed to perform Neutral acts?
This seems to imply that you think abortion should be Neutral. Fine, I can see that. It's not Good, it's not Evil.
Sort of, actually I am not making any claim as to how I personally feel about it, I am merely suggesting a way to define it in the alignments of the game to make it "palatable" to all involved. That way people don't feel like they are forced to set their own moral views aside. It is a small difference. I think it is wisest to define it in game as neutral (as well as other equally divisive topics).
But why can't soemone who performs this Neutral act have a Good alignment?
Are NPCs with Good alignments not allowed to perform Neutral acts?
Not at all. Good characters can certainly perform neutral acts (what is going to the bathroom?). I would agree that a good character could have an abortion and still be good. A good character certainly could do an abortion and be good. But at what point does it become often enough to be a problem? Is it a simple matter of mathematics, they did x neutral acts and x+1 good acts so therefore they are good? Of is the type of action and its effect also a weighting factor.
But my main issue was with the idea of being presented, that the one known for this practice in town was good. Thus there seems to be an implication that this is something that good people, in general, should have no problem with. Now I don't think that is necessarily what paizo is doing, but what would a person who just happened to look over this material think? What is the image being presented here? What are people who have strong moral convictions against abortions (except in some rare situations) being suggested about their beliefs (beliefs that do not need to be religious in nature)? Making the women's clinic worker good puts all of those in play, because we assume being good MEANS something. If they were neutral, most of those things wouldn't be an issue.
Well let's see. Good beings protect the innocent. The Women's Clinic worker agrees to kill unborn children (can't get much more innocent then that), therefore she is ... good? If she directed the women to someone with lower morals or she only aided in terminating pregnancies when the mother's life was in danger, a much stronger position for good would be present.
You are making the assumption an unborn child is an "innocent person" in need of protection, perhaps with a higher priority than the mother. Not everyone believes that.
Besides, just because a person has a "good alignment" that doesn't mean that they've never comitted an immoral act, or do things that they consider the "lesser of two evils".
It's a rough world out there. If someone in Sandpoint suffered ostracism due to an unplanned birth, the consquences could be dire. If some girl got kicked out of her family and scorned by the father, where is she going to go? If she leaves town, there is good chance that she will actually be eaten by a wandering monster.
Anyway, since most of the town is open minded, I'm sure the need for abortion is rare. I bet that Kaijisu clan might be wondering if things would have worked out better for them if Ameiko and Tsuto's mom had visited the herbalist...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You know what this discussion needs as it rapidly approaches the nexus of alignment and politics - the paladin's code! Come on people, can't we work that in somehow? Here, I'll give you the angle:
How can someone be a paladin and be gay? Shouldn't that be breaking the paladins code of...not being gay!?!? Come on now, he shouldn't be a paladin anymore.
|
|
But my main issue was with the idea of being presented, that the one known for this practice in town was good. Thus there seems to be an implication that this is something that good people, in general, should have no problem with.
I disagree. Just because the person who is known for the act is Good, does not imply that most Good people won't have a problem with it. There are a variety of opinions among those of Good alignment.
But, I'm guessing, as suggested in your next line, that you are referring to people who don't know much, if anything, about the D & D alignments.
Now I don't think that is necessarily what paizo is doing, but what would a person who just happened to look over this material think? What is the image being presented here?
When you say "a person who just happened to look over this material", are you talking about people who don't play the game? Because, my thought would be that people who understand the alignment system (as much as anyone can) wouldn't assume that just because the person who performs "abortions" has a Good alignment, the publishers are stating that abortion is Good. And if they don't play the game, well how can Paizo be expected to publish material designed to be inoffensive to people who don't play?
What are people who have strong moral convictions against abortions (except in some rare situations) being suggested about their beliefs (beliefs that do not need to be religious in nature)?
They should either realize that nothing is being "suggested" about their beliefs (if they play the game), or they should take some time to learn the context of the issue before getting all upset. Paizo can't be expected to write gaming books for non-gamers.
Making the women's clinic worker good puts all of those in play, because we assume being good MEANS something. If they were neutral, most of those things wouldn't be an issue.
Being Good MEANS that the character is generally a good person within the limits given in the alignment descriptions in the PHB/SRD.
Well let's see. Good beings protect the innocent. The Women's Clinic worker agrees to kill unborn children (can't get much more innocent then that), therefore she is ... good? If she directed the women to someone with lower morals or she only aided in terminating pregnancies when the mother's life was in danger, a much stronger position for good would be present.
Again, I personally don't care if she is good or not. But it is...
She is not just good. She is neutral good.
so this means she acts, as in what SHE THINKS is good.I have n.p. with her alignment.
NOTE: she is an NPC too not a rl person..............
|
Actually, I think what Paizo did here, in todays world, is "politically correct", nobody wants to upset 'the homosexual agenda, gotta include them so they're not offended'. That part actually offends me, but, as I like the rest of it, I'll overlook and ignore it. Controversial elements are great in an adventure, but some things should not really be discussed, i.e. politics, religion, (real world, and this topic IS real world), as someone WILL be upset, and things start going down hill from there.
I have no illusions that some of Pathfinder's content will alienate some customers. I'd rather do that than err on the side of political correctness or not ever include controversial elements in the adventure. I trust that our readers are mature enough to know that Pathfinder's not trying to reprogram them or promote a hidden agenda any more than J. K. Rowling is trying to turn today's youths into Satanists.
I think that I was misunderstood here, JJ said "I'd rather do that than err on the side of political correctness or not ever include controversial elements in the adventure". To me, he's saying he'd rather add controversial elements than be politically correct, I, on the other hand, merely was pointing out that the 'controversial elements' that were included, in the liberal media today, ARE considered politically correct. Nobody wants to offend any other group by excluding them, so all are included.
I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.
You are making the assumption an unborn child is an "innocent person" in need of protection,
Exactly. What is the definition of a person? Certainly you can't argue it is not a life, but is it a person and does that mean they have certain "rights" (right to life for example)? And what does it mean to be "innocent"? For example, the main baddie had a miscarriage and the child was describe as misshapened and even a fiend. Now wouldn't it be interesting if this miscarriage was actually arranged? Would it be ok for a paladin to detect evil on a pregnant woman, learn that a fiend is growing in her, and have another good person arrange for certain herbs and things to be consumed by her?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
You are making the assumption an unborn child is an "innocent person" in need of protection,Exactly. What is the definition of a person? Certainly you can't argue it is not a life, but is it a person and does that mean they have certain "rights" (right to life for example)? And what does it mean to be "innocent"? For example, the main baddie had a miscarriage and the child was describe as misshapened and even a fiend. Now wouldn't it be interesting if this miscarriage was actually arranged? Would it be ok for a paladin to detect evil on a pregnant woman, learn that a fiend is growing in her, and have another good person arrange for certain herbs and things to be consumed by her?
Hey! I've got an idea! How about we stop this line of discussion before it degenerates into an abortion debate (which is practically guaranteed to offend someone)? Thanks.
I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.
Ah, what? I don't think I have specifically talked about the paladin, I think you might be confusing me with someone else.
|
|
Sort of, actually I am not making any claim as to how I personally feel about it, I am merely suggesting a way to define it in the alignments of the game to make it "palatable" to all involved. That way people don't feel like they are forced to set their own moral views aside. It is a small difference. I think it is wisest to define it in game as neutral (as well as other equally divisive topics).
I think it wisest to leave real world morality out of the game altogether. Everything you have stated in this thread is contingent upon accepting a number of premises as fact that are not accepted in society at large. the number of people who play D&D AND buy from Paizo AND find this objectionable AND choose therefore, not to buy Paizo products would be very, very small. I think they can safely stick with their current design decisions.
As for your answer to my post about historic accuracy, I'll ignore your selective reading of my post and try to clarify in a simple fashion:I was being sarcastic about burning the witches.
Society had no problem with herbalists and midwives before the spread of "peasant Christianity" in Europe (by that i mean Christain beliefs as interpreted by the illiterate local parish priest. They brought us such things as limbo, purgatory, and a hot hell. The church was often forced to retroactively accept these dogmatic changes as they had spread to far to be rooted out). So no, most Europeans during much of the medieval period and earlier would NOT have had a problem with this. If you don't believe me, visit any university library and use the JSTOR database of article abstracts to read about just this issue.
I think it wisest to leave real world morality out of the game altogether.
I agree, now if we can come up with a way to leave ALL real world morality out of the game, I'd certainly like to see it.
|
|
I think it wisest to leave real world morality out of the game altogether.I agree, now if we can come up with a way to leave ALL real world morality out of the game, I'd certainly like to see it.
cute. I'm checking out of this discussion, pres_man. I am not sisyphus.
Paizo: Sandpoint is awesome as conceived. I am a big fan of the detail and life you breathed into the setting and can't wait to get to run this for my group (after I finish my current Ptolus campaign. and do a shortened version of Savage Tide. Never enough time. sigh...)
keep up the good work!
Shouldn't that be breaking the paladins code of...not being gay!?!?
What?! I thought being gay was a prerequisite to being a paladin. They wear the most fashionable armor, don't ya know.
Sandpoint is nifty. I like goblins wielding hot glass tongs. I think every town should have goblins wielding hot glass tongs. That's the world I would someday like to live in.
|
|
I disagree with Pres Man about the Paladin, from a Christian point of view, homosexuality may be a sin, but it is not AGAINST the law, therefore it is lawful, and if the man is good, he is lawful good by alignment. Because you disagree with him does not make you good or him evil. As far as the herbalist goes, I won't go there.Ah, what? I don't think I have specifically talked about the paladin, I think you might be confusing me with someone else.
Sorry pres man, reading so many posts at the same time, ohhhhh I'm sooooo confussssed!! I apologize.
<Looks Left> <Looks Right>
<Jazzhands>
NINJA!!!!
<Looks Left> <Looks Right>
<Jazzhands>
NINJA!!!!
haha lol thats aewsum1!!
<3
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, let me offer three perspectives in descending order of your probable interest based on the foregoing why I think Paizo is making a decent mistake with a gratuitous insertion of an abortion clinic and homosexuality.
Until you read the adventure, I'm not sure basing your reaction off of a bunch of threads is the best way to go. For the record, the inclusion of a gay couple and an herbalist who performs abortions is NOT gratuitous. At least, not in my opinion. I don't think it was a mistake to include these elements in the adventure at all. It's worth noting, I suppose, that the herbalist who seems to be according to this thread a remorseless baby-killer in fact encourages her patrons to carry to term and that other solutions are used when there's no other option—that the vast majority of her services in town are as a midwife; she (like every NPC in Sandpoint) is a complex character.
And to tell the truth, Pathfnder is not necessarilly inteneded for young audiences. Our solicitations for the product to distributors suggest ages 16 and up. Our market research indicates that the average age of our customers is in the late 20s. Mature elements will continue to appear in Pathfinder now and then as a result. I suspect STRONGLY that sanitizing Pathfinder so as not to offend anyone would result, overall, in a loss of business for us, based on the fact that in Dungeon, the darker and grittier adventures routinely won us the most praise and support from our customers.
Anyway, despite the amount of attention these topics have garnered in these messageboards... they're really VERY MINOR elements in the grand scheme of things. Scroll back up through the posts to the ones that said things to the effect of, "What? That was in there? I must have missed it!" for proof of that.
With all due respect, I doubt anything was included in the backdrop as a gratuitous attack on Christian morality or on young readers. Everything that's been discussed on those issues is for the most part a few sentences of backdrop for the adventure and the town. Easily taken out or glossed over if it isn't right for one's own game. As far as 10-11 year olds getting a hold of it, parents should be proactive about what's permissable to their children, which includes reading through their D&D adventures. Over the course of the last twenty years, the game has gone from what was considered a children's hobby complete with action figures and cartoon shows to a hobby enjoyed mostly by adults (that may have grown up with the game). There is material out there for both sides of the gaming demographic.
I find it interesting that the concern is specifically about these two hot button issues while I haven't seen too much discussion about an encounter in the main adventure in Sandpoint that the designers felt merited a sidebar asking "How far do you want to go? What's your group's comfort level?" Especially since that encounter is so much more prominent (with its own illustration, though the picture itself is perfectly safe) than what amounts to roughly a paragraph/half a paragraph of backdrop material that many groups, quite frankly, won't even deal with. Violence is perfectly fine, but anything to do with sex and reproductive rights is not?
For my taste, I prefer a game that's more oriented toward mature adults that doesn't sugar coat things or sweep them under the rug. With the aforementioned NPC relationship aspects, Sandpoint becomes something I can relate to rather than another cookie cutter RPG settlement. And I believe that that was the rationale, to avoid the "A Very Special Episode of Rise of the Runelords" situation in which you have the after-school special game to tackle real world social issues. It's in the background so it can be brought up or ignored at one's own leisure.
I gotta say, I agree with both James Jacobs and James Keegan
I agree Pathfinder is for a mature audience. And honestly, an herbalist who occasionally terminates unwanted pregnancies and a gay paladin are just no big deal. Those are things that are similar to real world situations that aren't that unusal. They are legal and at least tolerated by most people in the real world. These are things that a 10-year old has probably already encountered or will encounter. And it won't give the kid nightmares, whatever his family's moral stance on those topics is.
Then there's a kid who really has a monster in his closet, it kills his dog, nibbles on his arm, and then eats his dad's face off. Now that's scary, grownup stuff. I wouldn't tell my 9-year old that story. I'm not sure he'd be uspet about the dead dad, but he would be very upset about the dog with a knife in its ear. He's an animal lover.
As others have pointed out, it's pretty easy to edit those things from the game. But I find it disturbing that some posters think that these minor story elements will cause some kind of huge groundswell of moral outrage in the general populace. I think they underestimate how tolerent most people are.
This thread, I fear I've created a monster!
Yup, you've totally created a monster.
Should've visted the herbalist.
Just kidding. This thread is king of interesting, even if some folks are worried it's doomed to be locked.
Hey Coridan, if they lock the thread, maybe it will show up in your profile along with reviews, etc. It would be like getting a merit badge
txwad: Well I believe someone said that the town of Sandpoint is based on a real world city. My guess is that in said real world city there is a planned parenthood or other women's clinic, and the people involved with the developement of the product don't see anything wrong with abortion (being all "unprejudiced"), ergo NG abortion provider.
...in fact encourages her patrons to carry to term and that other solutions are used when there's no other option-...
Such a description in fact is more in line with neutral though.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Violence is perfectly fine, but anything to do with sex and reproductive rights is not?
Is the violence demonstrated by individuals that the reader is suppose to feel friendly towards, or is it done by individuals that the reader is suppose to feel ok with being killed (or at least defeated)? A certain level of violence is usually ok if the most heinous acts are done by evil doers and those same evil doers get their's in the end.
Now these other characters that we are talking about are they suppose to be defeated or at least opposed (evil alignments) or looked up to (good alignments)? Heck we haven't even mentioned yet the Pixie's Kitten, with its owner another good character involved with what people in the real world would be questionable actions. As I said, for myself personally, I wasn't so much disappointed with the inclusion of these characters but with their descriptions.
Pres, you are letting the fact that you are a "right to life" advocate color your opinion of the herbalist.
The herbalist is good. She isn't neutral, because she does in fact go out of her way to protect the innocent and help others. She just has a different opinion about who needs protecting, because she's a "woman's right to choose" advocate. If you cast detect alignment on her, she would detect as good, no question, because that's what the stat block says. Like James Jacobs said, you can't directly translate D&D alignments to real world morality. You may disagree with the choice thing, but since the stat block says NG, in almost every situation, the herbalist will make the "good" choice.
If the someone killed her, I think it's a loss for the town, because she's an asset. I think it's unfair to lump her in with the "enemies who need to die" because of that one thing.
I'm amazed that you were reading the information so closely that you even noticed that the herbalist's alignment and background were in conflict (when viewed through your own moral compass, which you have a right to).
I think it's weird that you feel that this one relatively small issue gives the entire adventure some kind of "moral taint". I don't think that Paizo was making some sort of huge morality statement when they created a "wise woman" character who can help out "a girl in trouble" in a pinch.
|
|
And speaking Ninjas!!!
Chinese Monks Deny Online Tale of Ninja That Bested Them, Demand Apology
08-31-2007 6:03 PM
BEIJING (Associated Press) -- China's Shaolin Temple has demanded a public apology from an Internet user who claimed a Japanese ninja beat its kung fu-practicing monks in a showdown, a lawyer said Friday.
An open letter from the temple posted on the Internet Thursday denied the fight ever took place and called on the person who posted the claim to apologize to the temple's martial arts masters.
Monks from the temple, nestled in the Songshan Mountains of central China's Henan province, said they will consider legal action if the person doesn't make a public apology.
The incident comes amid lingering tensions between China and Japan over World War II atrocities. China is highly sensitive to anything that smacks of Japanese militarism, particularly because many believe Tokyo has yet to show adequate remorse for its wartime actions in China.
The posting last week on the "Iron Blood Bulletin Board Community" described a ninja who challenged the monks of the Shaolin Temple to a fight in August after practicing boxing at a Japanese mountain retreat for five years. The Internet user claimed the monks accepted the challenge and the ninja won, proving the monks are trained to perform rather than fight.
The Shaolin Temple's letter said the posting was "evil" and "a pure fabrication." It said the account of the ninja's victory had been widely commented on and distributed, especially in Japan.
"This extremely irresponsible behavior not only impacts the Shaolin temple and its monks, but also the whole martial arts community and the Chinese people," it said.
|
Creative Director
|
txwad: Well I believe someone said that the town of Sandpoint is based on a real world city.
Sandpoint is VERY loosely based on my home town of Point Arena, drawing inspiration from my 18 years of living there and the town's 150 or so years of history. Some minor elements (such as the mirror hanging outside town, or the beach side junkyard) are in fact lifted directly from Point Arena. Most of the elements are from my own mind, including all of the NPCs.
I'd just like to say that I am behind Paizo 100% on this.
Added is the fact that DMs have the discretion to change anything they wish. Teenage DMs, who are probably mature for their age already, are aware of abortion and homosexuals, and if they purchase this product and have issues with such themes they can deal with the themes as they see fit, and it would probably be good practice for them as they will be exposed to these issues in real life later on.
|
Creative Director
|
Yup; the average D&D player today is in his/her mid to late twenties these days. Maybe it's the proliferation of video games, maybe not, but there's not a lot of kids playing D&D these days. And those who are, I suspect, are generally fairly mature for their ages since D&D more or less requires you to be a voracious reader.
When I was a kid, yeah, a lot of other kids were playing D&D. But those days are, I suspect, LONG gone. In any event, Pathfinder itself is not aimed at kids, nor is it a product aimed at getting kids to play. It's not even really a product aimed at getting new D&D players to play. It's aimed primarily at those who read and enjoyed Dragon and Dungeon, and if we can grow it beyond that arena, awesome!
But yeah. The contents and topics in Pathfinder were not randomly or idly chosen. They're very much the result of me working on Dungeon and the adventure paths for the past 4 years and keeping a pretty close eye on messageboards and what our readers liked and didn't like over those 4 years.
As for Sandpoint... most of the entire 14 page gazetteer on the town has nothing to do with the plot of the adventure. That's not its goal. It's goal is to present a realistic, highly-detailed backdrop for the adventure to take place in, and to give the GM something to go to when (invariably) the PCs go "off the adventure's rails" and look for intrigue or trouble elsewhere. Each GM is free to use or ignore any element they wish, of course, be it the sexual orientation of a character, the level of gore in a certain goblin vs. dog encounter, the type of monster guarding the treasury, or the amount of treasure we hand out.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
This thread is king of interesting, even if some folks are worried it's doomed to be locked.
We hardly ever lock threads. Of the 17,000+ threads on our messageboards, we've locked less than 30. Heck, we didn't even lock the "Failed Wil Save" thread, and that one probably cost us a valuable contributor.
I see no reason to lock this thread right now.
Making NPCs complex individuals based on individuals the author knows is a gratuitous usage of an adult theme? I hope Paizo continues to gratuitouses all over future releases. If it offends you, don't buy it. If you do not want your children exposed to it, then don't. I, personally, don't want to play in Pleasentville pre-color.
I also find it interesting that killing and worshiping other deities doesn't even elicit a meep, but just hint that there is a homosexual in town and out come the pitchforks and torches. Last I remember, the first two made it in the top ten things thou shall not do.
I see no reason to lock this thread right now.
Just wait...we haven't gotten to the name calling yet. (evil grin)