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.
I do find it a little odd that Sandpoint has an abortionist and a homosexual, but the continent itself has no humans that look like Asians or Africans. There are three races of Humans that look European, but none that look like the humans of other places. Maybe Paizo has an abortionist and a gay person on the payroll, but not an Asian or African-American?
Pres, you are letting the fact that you are a "right to life" advocate color your opinion of the herbalist.
Please do me the favor of not trying to assume that you have any idea about my real life moral beliefs, ok. I am discussing a viewpoint, it is, you know, possible to do so without actually holding that viewpoint. Well maybe you don't know.
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.
So basically you are saying, she is good because her stat block says so. We can't base anything off of real world morality also? Ok, so what does it mean to be "good" then? Are players suppose to say, "My character does good stuff, I have no idea what good stuff is, but since my character is good, the stuff they do is good."?
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.
Did I just come into an entire new discussion? Who has suggestion she should be killed or that she should be lumped in the "enemies who need to die" group? Where did that come from? Or are only the good people the ones that shouldn't be killed? Is neutral really just "evil lite"? (I will admit that a few of the descriptions do sound a little like that)
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 said the alignment was problematic, as it indicated something about the morality of her actions (i.e. she is good, she does these things, thus these things are consistent with being good). I fail to see why I shouldn't have looked at her alignment? Why was it put in there if it was not meant to be considered?
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.
As I have said repeatedly, I don't think there was any intentional effort to do so. But it has been stated that it was known that it would ruffle a few feathers by the designers, and they choose to do it saying it was worth it to them. I think it would be better to include them but assign them as neutral, but whatever, what do I care, I don't any of my characters will be getting knocked up (me and my wife are not exibitionists and I doubt she'd be ok with me role-playing encounters with the other women, as for the guys, well let's say I was never "called to be a paladin").
I do find it a little odd that Sandpoint has an abortionist and a homosexual, but the continent itself has no humans that look like Asians or Africans. There are three races of Humans that look European, but none that look like the humans of other places. Maybe Paizo has an abortionist and a gay person on the payroll, but not an Asian or African-American?
Actually I think Sheriff Hemlock is suppose to be dark skinned, at least the picture in the Player's Guide looks like it (which would also mean his brother would probably be also).
Lyrie Akenja looks clearly like someone who could be of african descent.
I think Ameiko Kaijitsu looks like she could be of asian descent.
EDIT: Actually now that I think of it though, I am surprised that there aren't atheists (I mean when you have "gods" dying, is it really that unreasonable?) or peace activitist (let's make friends with the goblins) specificly described. ;)
Creative Director
|
I do find it a little odd that Sandpoint has an abortionist and a homosexual, but the continent itself has no humans that look like Asians or Africans. There are three races of Humans that look European, but none that look like the humans of other places. Maybe Paizo has an abortionist and a gay person on the payroll, but not an Asian or African-American?
Actually... the sheriff of Sandpoint is black. And several of the characters in Burnt Offerings are Asian (the Kaijitsus, although in the art for Ameiko and Tsuto is kinda not easy to tell that). In fact, at current count, there's about 20 different ethnicities of humans in Golarion. So far, in Varisia, we've focused on three (Cheliaxian, Varisain, and Shoanti) but there's obviously more of them.
|
Creative Director
|
EDIT: Actually now that I think of it though, I am surprised that there aren't atheists (I mean when you have "gods" dying, is it really that unreasonable?) or peace activitist (let's make friends with the goblins) specificly described. ;)
I'm sure there are. In 96 pages, though, we can't have one of everyone.
|
Please do me the favor of not trying to assume that you have any idea about my real life moral beliefs, ok. I am discussing a viewpoint, it is, you know, possible to do so without actually holding that viewpoint. Well maybe you don't know.
This is disingenuous. You have not explicitly stated that you believe that herbal birth control (the herbalist is NOT performing abortions!) is wrong. That is true. However your argument has taken for granted that the actions/lifestyles in question are "bad".
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,
Actually, you could easily argue that it is not a life and not innocent. Women who performed these services in the past were almost always described as dealing with women as soon as they suspected they were pregnant. THis was something of an ancient 'day after pill'. Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.
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:
Can be offensive to some.
Pathfinder, and to a greater extent, all of GameMastery, takes the view that our readers are older than 13 years old and unprejudiced.
So even after several Paizo staffers have told you that their audience is adult AND likes grittier and mature material AND that they are not even actively trying to appeal to a more general outside demographic, you refuse to concede your argument about "the harm of this portrayal" to gaming and Paizo's sales. I think its clear that your point has been made, its been heard, and politely rejected.
pres man: the horse is dead. If you continue to beat it, I will have to contact PETA about animal cruelty.
I just want to express my extreme respect for all of you Paizo folks. Any realistic setting should include gay characters, but most companies would not have included them at all for fear of offending someone. I was thrilled to find that not only were there gay NPCs in town, but that they were portrayed in a positive light (a paladin, no less!). I really feel that there are a lot more gay gamers than there are extremely conservative gamers, and I think your policies will bring you a lot more fans than detractors. I especially respect you for coming on to the forum and defending your decisions from naysayers. I was already a Paizo fan but your integrity is inspiring me to be a Paizo fan for life!
Some of the discussions in this thread got me thinking about a quote from Sir Winston Churchill: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
I for one applaud Paizo's efforts to create a setting that will appeal to a more adult audience, especially since WotC seems to be going the other way. This gives those of us who are more interested in mature themes something to spend our money on. I don't think the good folks at Paizo should try to steer away from sensitive issues, because there's always a zealot out there that will be offended by something.
|
Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.
Hmmm, legal understanding in a lot of places want to have their cake and eat it too, as in, 'having an abortion is ok, its not really a life' but, if, God forbid, someone kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two murders? Why is it a life in one case, but not the other? Therefore, I'd say you can't really bring 'legal understanding' into the question, nor can you say only the 'right to life movement would put it in such terms', when plainly the state also defines it as such, 'in certain circumstances.'
Now, bring on the ninjas!!!!!
|
|
Sandpoint would be TRULY amazing if those evil Shaolin Monks were beaten off by the lawful good Ninja Pirates!!!!!:D
Then we could have a celebration, and have those wonderful little goblins burn EVERYONE at the stake with molten glass thongs!!!
Yeeeaaaa!!!!
By the way Paizo, Sandpoint IS amazing, seriously, one can tell a lot of time and thought were put into the product. It doesn't matter what you do, you can never make everyone happy all of the time, but, you do make most of the people happy most of the time.
From an european point of view i have to say this discussion is really frightening, seeing people arguing about this kind of topic in a FICTIONNAL town... homosexuality is part of life anyway.This is really surealistic (not sure this word exist in English).
This is disingenuous. You have not explicitly stated that you believe that herbal birth control (the herbalist is NOT performing abortions!) is wrong. That is true. However your argument has taken for granted that the actions/lifestyles in question are "bad".
Actually it is implied and been confirmed on this thread that she does in fact do "herbal" abortions, she also performs midwife functions as well as "birth control" as well, prefering to 1) have children brought to term or 2) not be concieved in the first place. (though depending on how the herbs work, it may stop contraception or it might merely stop implantation, very different from a moral standpoint). My arguments have been made taking from granted that there is different views on these issues. I don't believe that all of those different ones are unreasonable merely because I don't agree with them, and some of them perhaps should be heard.
Actually, you could easily argue that it is not a life and not innocent. Women who performed these services in the past were almost always described as dealing with women as soon as they suspected they were pregnant. THis was something of an ancient 'day after pill'. Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.
Actually I believe most junior high (heck probably younger in fact) would say you are wrong. The definition of life is not a legal definiton but a scientific one. There are conditions that must apply inorder for something to be a life versus say a rock which is not (at least not without bring in earth elementals ;) ). "Microscopic piles of cells" demonstrate all of those requirements. It is a parasitic organism that has distinct genetic make up from the host (as opposed to say your thumb), that genetic make up is consistent with a sentient species. So, going by the scientific definition there is no question as to if it is a life or not, the question is a legal and moral one, is it a "person". And as you put in, even if it was a person in D&D, would it be considered "innocent" (since good folk are expected to protect innocents this matters for alignment purposes). As for the legal part as tigger1tom pointed out in real world legal systems it is not even consistent.
So even after several Paizo staffers have told you that their audience is adult AND likes grittier and mature material AND that they are not even actively trying to appeal to a more general outside demographic, you refuse to concede your argument about "the harm of this portrayal" to gaming and Paizo's sales. I think its clear that your point has been made, its been heard, and politely rejected.
Actually I did "concede" to the view that paizo staffers didn't care if they upset a few of their customers (both current and potential). From post my third post on page one:
Yet if paizo is not concerned about doing it to potential customers, what do I really care, it doesn't bother me personally.
pres man: the horse is dead. If you continue to beat it, I will have to contact PETA about animal cruelty.
People Eating Tasty Animals? Oh no, not them. I was just trying to tenderize it for them.
Sandpoint
Kudos on the content! I enjoyed the writeup. It made the town come alive what with the historical elements and the more personal elements of the NPCs. I would like to see visual descriptions of all of the named NPCs and typical clothing norms for commoners.
I do hope that Paizo continues to follow their respective muses wherever they may take them, because only in that place will we continue to see the quality products we have been seeing.
Extraneous discussion
Note, I think all of this extraneous talk should be moved elsewhere. But, of course, I feel compelled to respond.
For Pete's Sake! It is a fictional world we are talking about where a basic assumption is that a DM can -change- anything they like to suit their particular tastes, and in fact will most likely change at least some elements of an adventure before running it. So, what exactly is the problem? I have to ask myself why even bring it up when a basic element of DnD is that you can -change anything- to suit your gaming table? Furthermore, why bring it up on a public forum, where others can read it, when the very hint or reading of it can cause those with certain sensibilities to become upset? Bah! I say.
It is a bit ironic that there is a concern for the sensibilities of young Christian gamers, when the Bible has many stories/scenes that are extremely violent, and deal with objectionable material, such as incest. In addition to that the Bible is typically presented as "the" truth, whereas DnD is presented as fantasy (ie untruth).
The homosexual couples could be seen as simply "two people that like each other's company". The herbalist could be seen as simply "helping a pregnant woman". In fact, I dare say that if these situations were not called attention to they would be barely visible to a young gamer, unless they were taught to explicitly look for these things. It is only seen as something "bad" because they have been taught to think that way. That they could be "harmed" by something that they have been instructed to think is "bad" is something you need to address with yourself and your family environment. You want them seen in a particular light that you create, and therefore hold the responsibility for the outcome.
With all that said, if reading something about a fictional world, which ironically enough can all be changed to suit one's taste, can cause such a crisis then one shouldn't be playing DnD to begin with.
This is really surealistic (not sure this word exist in English).
Mrs. Bell is here to answer your question about English. Surreal would the adjective you are looking for, meaning bizarre and dreamlike.
For Pete's Sake! It is a fictional world we are talking about where a basic assumption is that a DM can -change- anything they like to suit their particular tastes, and in fact will most likely change at least some elements of an adventure before running it. So, what exactly is the problem? I have to ask myself why even bring it up when a basic element of DnD is that you can -change anything- to suit your gaming table? Furthermore, why bring it up on a public forum, where others can read it,
While I agree with your position in general, one has to then turn it around. If a DM can change anything they like, why should it bother, say someone that is homosexual, if no homosexuals are presented in a game, or worse if they were presented in a less than "ideal" manner (only homosexual was for example evil)? Do you think that wouldn't bother anyone? But why should it? And why should someone be inspired to come on a public forum and talk about how "great" it is to include such characters in the official town description? What does it matter if such were included or not?
Though I am not sure if this is Extraneous discussion. I mean the original post was talking about these issues, that seemed to be a major part of it.
|
|
Ok, my last post may have been saltier than needed. For that I apologize. I just get a little frustrated when selective interpretation leads you to dodge my main point. Let me try to clarify and address your points quickly.
Actually it is implied and been confirmed on this thread that she does in fact do "herbal" abortions.... I don't believe that all of those different ones are unreasonable merely because I don't agree with them, and some of them perhaps should be heard.
Ok, I explained this before, but I will clarify even further. Women who got these herbal treatments did so VERY early (usually as soon as they knew they were pregnant). I had a long answer here but deleted it since it was straying very far into the science of procreation and its relation to abortion. I'll contain myself to stating your point has been refuted by prior posts and there is NOT a need to hear this point continually brought up. It has been made clear that the majority are fine with it (her inclusion and alignment), and most importantly, you need to stop obsessing over a single paragraph in a 100 page book.
Actually I believe most junior high (heck probably younger in fact) would say you are wrong.
Yes, and when i want an authoritative opinion, I turn to preteens. Brilliant.
So, going by the scientific definition there is no question as to if it is a life or not, the question is a legal and moral one, is it a "person".
The scientific definition of life includes 'The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.' Please note the bold conditions are not met by a 'microscopic pile of cells'. Sorry, no room for debate here on a scientific basis. Therefore, its clear you have staked out a controversial point, claimed it as universally accepted common sense, and suggested that those who don't agree with you are unreasonable.
Actually I did "concede" to the view that paizo staffers didn't care if they upset a few of their customers (both current and potential). From post my third post on page one
Funny, the following TEN posts don't sound like you conceded your point. Its apparent that you were being sarcastic or facetious when you stated that the point was conceded. It IS disingenuous to suggest that you conceded the point and then have continued to argue it making you one of the largest contributors to the thread. It is clear that you do hold strong beliefs on the topic (regardless of your denials) that are not consistent with Paizo fan's demographic, age range, or tastes.
I don't want to claim you don't have the right to believe as you do. What I will state is that many things you claim as indisputable, can be disputed, that your interpretation of science does not connect with the scientific mainstream, and that your claims of NOT having strong beliefs on the matter is disingenuous.
...none of the NPCs in Pathfinder are based on anyone I know.
My appologies.
Actually, you could easily argue that it is not a life and not innocent. Women who performed these services in the past were almost always described as dealing with women as soon as they suspected they were pregnant. THis was something of an ancient 'day after pill'. Defining a microscopic pile of cells as a life is not consistent with legal understanding in the past or today. Only the right to life movement would put it in such terms.
Actually I believe most junior high (heck probably younger in fact) would say you are wrong. The definition of life is not a legal definiton but a scientific one. There are conditions that must apply inorder for something to be a life versus say a rock which is not (at least not without bring in earth elementals ;) ). "Microscopic piles of cells" demonstrate all of those requirements. It is a parasitic organism that has distinct genetic make up from the host (as opposed to say your thumb), that genetic make up is consistent with a sentient species. So, going by the scientific definition there is no question as to if...
My bold.
I think when underling says "a life" he means a human life.
You, Mr. Pres, give the definition of a living thing, then you switch your definition of "life" over to "a life". Nicely mangled pro-life argument.
Is this argument really necessary (directed at all parties)? Change her alignment in your campaign, problem solved. Paizo stands by their decision: why should you let that ruin your fun?
|
|
Sandpoint
The homosexual couples could be seen as simply "two people that like each other's company". The herbalist could be seen as simply "helping a pregnant woman". In fact, I dare say that if these situations were not called attention to they would be barely visible to a young gamer, unless they were taught to explicitly look for these things. It is only seen as something "bad" because they have been taught to think that way. That they could be "harmed" by something that...
I think it is called teaching your children morals, something the 'education system' is doing their absolute best to do away with. They just turn to name calling then and label you a bigot for not being 'sensitive' to others. I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they? I know that the punishment for adultery is still stoning for a fact. I don't know their standing on 'witchcraft', which is what the herbalist would have been accused of, would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.
Now can we bring on the goblins with molten glass thongs, and pirates, and ninjas, and Shaolin monks,...??? Please?...Pretty Please??
The scientific definition of life includes 'The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.' Please note the bold conditions are not met by a 'microscopic pile of cells'. Sorry, no room for debate here on a scientific basis.
Please provide evidence that a pile of microscopic cells does not do chemical changes to provide energy (i.e. metabolism), so preborn humans do not have functioning mitochondria?
Please provide evidence that reproduction is not relevant. Considering first that the cells do reproduce, specificly they undergo mitosis reproduction. If instead the issue is one of "sexual reproduction" then that would have to mean that no one is alive until they hit pubity, I would find that a very strange definition for one to hold (though there may be some primitive cultures that do). But some "piles of cells" can produce new individuals, specificly in the case of identical twins.
Please provide evidence that a parasitic organism does not respond to stimuli.
Also I think you are trying to apply all of these parts for something that no underdeveloped member of any species could qualify for (I am guess your problem with the reproduction issue is one), does that mean the only way to qualify as a lifeform is to wait until one can reproduce (puberty in humans), what about those people that are sterile, are they alive? They can't reproduce, right?
think when underling says "a life" he means a human life.
You, Mr. Pres, give the definition of a living thing, then you switch your definition of "life" over to "a life". Nicely mangled pro-life argument.
Actually I have been quite clear about the difference between a lifeform (or a life as I refer to it) and a person (or a human life as you and I assume underling mean, though a sapient life would probably be better for a fantasy game). I do this for a very clear reason, when someone says it is not alive, then are showing just how ignorant they are of the scientific facts. If they say it is not a person, that is an entirely different issue. Being alive just means that they are some organism, in this case a parasite. We destroy other organisms, especially parasites, all the time, we don't feel bad about it because they are not people. So if you want to support abortion from an educated standpoint, you do it from the stance of it not being aborting a person, if you do it from an uneducated stance, you claim that the fetus/embryo is not alive.
Yes you have been quite clear. You have also been quite unclear. That goes for both of you.
Sorry I said anything, you just go at 'im tiger: this heavily punctuated, and even fractured argument hasn't gone nearly as far as it could, and has only achieved a fraction of the inappropriateness it possibly can. Don't be embarrassed or anything, let it all out.
I'm gonna go enjoy my book. Have a nice day.
|
I think it is called teaching your children morals, something the 'education system' is doing their absolute best to do away with. They just turn to name calling then and label you a bigot for not being 'sensitive' to others.
As a member of the "education system" you find fault with, I thought I'd take a moment to clear up some of your misguided confusion. The role of educators in a classroom is not to teach morality. We are there to teach language skills, mathematics, social studies, fine arts, foreign languages, science, or a myriad of other subjects. The responsibility to instill in a child morality- the difference between right and wrong- falls on the all-too-often-narrow shoulders of that child's parents. When a child sets his first foot into the kindergarten classroom, unless he is a sociopath or was raised by sociopaths, he should have a fundamental understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And by the time I see students (in high school) that understanding is etched in stone (perhaps not inexorably, but certainly close enough for this discussion). If a teacher believes that a student possesses a skewed perception of what is right and what is wrong, that teacher may try to get the student to see another point of view. However, a good teacher will do this outside of the classroom, making it the action of an individual rather than the system.
It could be argued (and perhaps would be, so let me head this off before it even happens) that schools should be teaching morality. Other than a few concepts which are no-brainers (don't murder, don't torture, don't steal- all of which should have been learned outside of the classroom anyway) "morality" is subjective and has no place being taught in a school. This is complicated by the fact that the morality you want taught in schools is a conservative, surely fundamentalist, Christian morality. That might be good for you, but it isn't for me (and, for the record, I'm Christian), and it's certainly not for a countless number of other people. Here's why- a) it's a morality based on a text that has been translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia by accident and by people with far spookier agendas than the education system could come up with, all of which makes its morality suspect at best, and b) the religious morality that you want taught comes from an arrogant belief that the meaty little brains we humans possess could ever begin to comprehend the thoughts and desires of whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist.
Finally, you accuse the education system of name calling and labeling those who it finds insensitive. Let's examine then what you call "sensitive".
I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they?
By "them" you are undoubtedly referring to queers. So your definition of sensitivity is not murdering through torture members of the GLBT community? Are you kidding me? I'm going to remind you that I'm speaking as an individual and not a representative of the education system right now and tell you that if that's what you really believe than you're worse than a bigot. If that's what you really believe, the words that you deserve to be called would sully this message board and I won't use them. Perhaps you should consider moving to one of those countries under extremist Islamic law where the murder of homosexuals is condoned. I suspect you'd be much happier there.
NINJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
With each additional post to this thread, I respect Paizo more. I doubt they intended this debate. More likely, they had no idea it would spark such scrutiny. However, in an attempt to create a living, breathing world they have caught people's imaginations so strongly they are arguing issues which we face almost daily.
As I have said before, I believe this to be art. People are thinking. They may be bickering, arguing and defending their position out of blind loyalty...but I believe they are thinking. The gears are grinding. No one may change their perspective in this thread; after all it is unthinkable to ever admit you are wrong. However, days from now they may slowly begin to see things in a new light.
This is not directed at any one person. I am not saying person A is right and person B is wrong. I am just saying that I think this is good, healthy debate and I thank Paizo for inadvertently starting it.
I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they? I know that the punishment for adultery is still stoning for a fact. I don't know their standing on 'witchcraft', which is what the herbalist would have been accused of, would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.
Excuse me? I'm supposed to be grateful that you don't automatically, legally and routinely (not to mention, with God's divine sanction) kill me by torture, immolation or mob violence, just because I'm gay, or perform abortions, or don't believe in your God, or have brown skin, or some other arbitrary thing about me you don't like? Really? I, or anyone else should be grateful?
Did I sum up the argument you just made correctly?
Because if I did, I think we can safely conclude that your philosophy and outlook on life is morally bankrupt, and you have no place talking about instilling morals and values in children, in society, in gaming products, or in these threads.
Am I at the wrong spot? I thought this was the "Sandpoint is Amazing" thread. I don't see much of that here.
(To be fair, the only thing that's keeping me from jumping into this debate is sheer laziness. Plus, it's Saturday and the sun's out.)
Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to read all about Sandpoint, but I'm sure it's great. James Jacobs really excels at this. He wrote the Saltmarsh chapter in the DMG2. Every location and individual in the city is a potential adventure hook. A tremendous resource and inspiration for any DM, especially beginners. I am PRAYING TO GOD there is a similar chapter in the 4E DMG.
|
Creative Director
|
I doubt Paiso intended this debate. More likely, they had no idea it would spark such scrutiny. However, in an attempt to create a living, breathing world they have caught people's imaginations so strongly they are arguing issues which we face almost daily.
You're absolutely correct. On one level, though, I'm very pleased that people are talking about Pathfinder so passionately. Makes it feel like what we're doing is worth doing.
But yeah, I'm a bit surprised at how heated discussion in this thread is growing. I probably shouldn't have been. And I certainly don't want to squash the thread or lock it or everything... which I won't have to do as long as folks remain civil and avoid personal attacks or hatemongering.
And while we certainly do listen to our readers on many things... Pathfinder is going to continue to have gay/lesbian/bi characters in its pages now and then. Hell... I'm almost tempted to make one of our iconics homosexual now!
Hell... I'm almost tempted to make one of our iconics homosexual now!
What! Are suggestion that they are not right now! How dare you oppress us with your heterocentric thinking! :P
|
|
Hell... I'm almost tempted to make one of our iconics homosexual now!
Ooh. Ooh. Ooh. Make it a dwarf barbarian. It'd be great--skips the whole effeminate, "fabulous" gay male Hollywood stereotype and goes straight (er... gaily forward?) to a bear-skinned "bear" who just happens to like a bit of spelunking. :D
You should totally do it!
|
|
I think we're being very sensitive, we don't stone them anymore, or burn them at the stake, do we? Be thankful you don't live under Islamic law, they still kill homosexuals, don't they? I know that the punishment for adultery is still stoning for a fact. I don't know their standing on 'witchcraft', which is what the herbalist would have been accused of, would be, I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant.Excuse me? I'm supposed to be grateful that you don't automatically, legally and routinely (not to mention, with God's divine sanction) kill me by torture, immolation or mob violence, just because I'm gay, or perform abortions, or don't believe in your God, or have brown skin, or some other arbitrary thing about me you don't like? Really? I, or anyone else should be grateful?
Did I sum up the argument you just made correctly?
Because if I did, I think we can safely conclude that your philosophy and outlook on life is morally bankrupt, and you have no place talking about instilling morals and values in children, in society, in gaming products, or in these threads.
That was meant to be a joke, guess it fell flat on its face. I knew I should have put the little ":)" in there so everyone knew that.
Like the kinds of "jokes" Ann Coulter tells? Those are "funny" too.
|
|
And while we certainly do listen to our readers on many things... Pathfinder is going to continue to have gay/lesbian/bi characters in its pages now and then. Hell... I'm almost tempted to make one of our iconics homosexual now!
Good to hear. D&D needs this sort of diversity which it has been sorely lacking since the game's inception. I'm just as glad to see the racial make-up of the humans in Pathfinder as varied as they are as I am to see the open inclusion of gay characters. It's a bold move and it's to be applauded.
I also hope that the Scarnettis family which has already been describe as being against homosexual relationships and prostitution will later come out against Hannah as well, and then have their alignments shifted squarely to LE where such conservative thinking truly belongs. Hopefully then they will either be killed by the paladin or run out of town to die in the wastelands, as is fitting for such close-minded folk.
|
Creative Director
|
I also hope that the Scarnettis family which has already been describe as being against homosexual relationships and prostitution will later come out against Hannah as well, and then have their alignments shifted squarely to LE where such conservative thinking truly belongs. Hopefully then they will either be killed by the paladin or run out of town to die in the wastelands, as is fitting for such close-minded folk.
I can say this. Things don't turn out so well for the Scarnettis in Pathfinder 4. At least... not so well for their house.
I can say this. Things don't turn out so well for the Scarnettis in Pathfinder 4. At least... not so well for their house.
Alright!
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I also hope that the Scarnettis family which has already been describe as being against homosexual relationships and prostitution will later come out against Hannah as well, and then have their alignments shifted squarely to LE where such conservative thinking truly belongs. Hopefully then they will either be killed by the paladin or run out of town to die in the wastelands, as is fitting for such close-minded folk.
I was hoping the patriarch of the family would get busted soliciting the paladin in the stable restrooms...
I want to voice my support for the direction Paizo has taken their products. Both the horrific elements and the "political" elements are things which I personally value highly in my entertainment, and I'm extremely pleased that James and his contributors will be continuing along this course.
On another note: I'm a strong supporter of prominent non-white ethnicities in fantasy, so I'm going to emphasise diversity within each of the human ethnicities we've seen so far. Chelaxians per se might be "white", but if there are many people who call themselves Chelaxians I'm happy to make them a diverse group. Likewise, Varisians often have deep olive skin - in my games, they'll range from Mediterranean in appearance through Middle Eastern to light-skinned Indian. Shoanti won't all be dark-skinned like Sheriff Hemlock, either.
|
Creative Director
|
On another note: I'm a strong supporter of prominent non-white ethnicities in fantasy, so I'm going to emphasise diversity within each of the human ethnicities we've seen so far. Chelaxians per se might be "white", but if there are many people who call themselves Chelaxians I'm happy to make them a diverse group. Likewise, Varisians often have deep olive skin - in my games, they'll range from Mediterranean in appearance through Middle Eastern to light-skinned Indian. Shoanti won't all be dark-skinned like Sheriff Hemlock, either.
Correct. Many of the human ethnicities will be diverse. Some won't be; that's part of their theme and identity.
|
|
As this appears to be too big to respond to all at once, I'll have to try to break it down by paragraph.
As a member of the "education system" you find fault with, I thought I'd take a moment to clear up some of your misguided confusion. The role of educators in a classroom is not to teach morality. We are there to teach language skills, mathematics, social studies, fine arts, foreign languages, science, or a myriad of other subjects. The responsibility to instill in a child morality- the difference between right and wrong- falls on the all-too-often-narrow shoulders of that child's parents.
I think it is called teaching your children morals, something the 'education system' is doing their absolute best to do away with. They just turn to name calling then and label you a bigot for not being 'sensitive' to others.
I never said it was the job of the 'education system' to teach morals, I said they were trying to do away with them altogether. I just wish they would stick to teaching the named subjects above, maybe there wouldn't be so many functionally illiterate people in this country then. It is a parents job to teach morals, whether they do it or not, but, it is also not the job of 'educators' to nay say parents and attempt to thrust their moral interpretation on a child.
When a child sets his first foot into the kindergarten classroom, unless he is a sociopath or was raised by sociopaths, he should have a fundamental understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And by the time I see students (in high school) that understanding is etched in stone (perhaps not inexorably, but certainly close enough for this discussion). If a teacher believes that a student possesses a skewed perception of what is right and what is wrong, that teacher may try to get the student to see another point of view. However, a good teacher will do this outside of the classroom, making it the action of an individual rather than the system.
If you, as a teacher, attempt to tell my child that 'it is okay to be gay', then I say you have the 'skewed perception' of right and wrong.
I've been sitting on the fence trying to decide whether or not to splash out my hard-earned cash on Pathfinder. Seeing that you have gay and bisexual characters in Sandpoint pleases me, and is actually enough to make me want to get Pathfinder and recommend it to gaymer friends of mine as well.
In fact, it's a big thing. Most games of any genre have simply ignored the existence of same-gender relationships. It's hard to describe how nice it feels to finally see someone you can relate to in pop-culture to someone who's in the majority and sees it all the time.
I heartily applaud any American publisher who has the guts to stand up to those small, extremist, inhumane, pressure groups and not censor themselves. I think your country might be a lot better off if more businesses followed your example.
One thing in this thread really makes me sad to see though. There is the implication that bisexuality and homosexuality is somehow a "mature subject". It's really no more of a mature or sexual subject than heterosexuality is. We live and love the same way that straight people do.
PS! Try saying "lifestyle choice" or "homosexual agenda" to my face. That's not a threat, rather you'll see what "rolling on the floor laughing" really looks like. ;-)
|
|
If you, as a teacher, attempt to tell my child that 'it is okay to be gay', then I say you have the 'skewed perception' of right and wrong.
I have told students that, and I'll continue to. I've said that to students one-on-one, and I've said it in front of entire classrooms, both high school and college. I'll tell you why I do it-
It's okay to be gay.
Period. End of story.
Intolerant and possibly homophobic, though? That's a completely different story.
And just FYI, I'm not queer. I just have the good sense to understand that people are born that way and that there's nothing wrong with it (although even if it was a choice, it would still be a fine decision). I like to think that it's the way God made them. :)
|
|
It could be argued (and perhaps would be, so let me head this off before it even happens) that schools should be teaching morality. Other than a few concepts which are no-brainers (don't murder, don't torture, don't steal- all of which should have been learned outside of the classroom anyway) "morality" is subjective and has no place being taught in a school. This is complicated by the fact that the morality you want taught in schools is a conservative, surely fundamentalist, Christian morality.Are you saying I don't have a RIGHT to teach my children 'conservative, fundamentalist, Christian morality'? But you have the right to force YOUR 'morality' on my children!? I definitely DON'T want you or any school teaching your brand of morals to my children.
That might be good for you, but it isn't for me (and, for the record, I'm Christian), and it's certainly not for a countless number of other people. Here's why- a) it's a morality based on a text that has been translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia by accident and by people with far spookier agendas than the education system could come up with, all of which makes its morality suspect at best, and b) the religious morality that you want taught comes from an arrogant belief that the meaty little brains we humans possess could ever begin to comprehend the thoughts and desires of whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist.
I think I just read there that you are a Christian. If you believe what you wrote in 'a', that the Bible is a 'book' that has been changed so much that it is meaningless, and 'b', "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist", I guess you don't even know what a Christian is and therefore can't be one. You may go to Church, but you're still a hypocrite. A "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist" is not God, and since you don't believe the Bible, as it has been "translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia" you obviously can't accept the Truth.
|
|
I think I just read there that you are a Christian. If you believe what you wrote in 'a', that the Bible is a 'book' that has been changed so much that it is meaningless, and 'b', "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist", I guess you don't even know what a Christian is and therefore can't be one. You may go to Church, but you're still a hypocrite. A "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist" is not God, and since you don't believe the Bible, as it has been "translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for...
Faced with an attack that erudite, compelling, and well thought out, I can only suggest that you get a Livejournal account as quickly as you can.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think I just read there that you are a Christian. If you believe what you wrote in 'a', that the Bible is a 'book' that has been changed so much that it is meaningless, and 'b', "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist", I guess you don't even know what a Christian is and therefore can't be one. You may go to Church, but you're still a hypocrite. A "whatever high consciousness or divine powers might exist" is not God, and since you don't believe the Bible, as it has been "translated, changed, edited, and manipulated for millennia" you obviously can't accept the Truth.
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Please don't tell other people whether they are correctly interpreting God's Will or enacting it in their lives or not. Or if they are or are not a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew or whatever. You really have no way of knowing. Unless you are yourself God.
|
|
If you, as a teacher, attempt to tell my child that 'it is okay to be gay', then I say you have the 'skewed perception' of right and wrong.
This is flawed greatly. If you don't think gays are ok, put your kids in a religious private school
Gay children and children of gay parents have the right to go school without being harassed. And the only way to keep them from getting beaten up constantly is to teach all the kids that there's nothing wrong with it. If they're constantly being told it's wrong and evil without an opposing viewpoint the gay children (and straight children of gay couples) are not going to be able to get their education in the safe environment they deserve.