If Salome successfully pushes back the Zombies with her turn attack, do they release Mal, or take him with them?!?! ;) Just kidding! (I Hope!)
If I remember the rules from The Complete Simpsons, "The ventriloquist goes to heaven but the dummy doesn't." :)
I'm so far from being a rules-maven, it isn't even funny. I have far too much other stuff to keep track of in my life; I'll let someone else figure out the nuances of the game.
First, a BBEG (WHAT do those stand for anyway?!?)...
Big Bad Evil Guy, I believe.
I agree with what Rags said, I hate it when things are too easy in a game or when someone takes it easy on me in a game. I like a challenge like this, even if it kills me (although I'd rather avoid that).
I think everything you guys have shared is completely fair. I'm in the same place, too. I want memorable, challenging encounters as well. I'm just hoping my very first one isn't my last... ;)
--Neil
At the rate my characters are going, Ehlissa could bite it too.
This encounter doesn't seem that much more difficult than previous encounters; IC has been distinctly unhelpful, but that's the roll of the dice. Unlike previous encounters, I'm not as stressed as usual about having enough useful spells to get by.
I think it bears pointing out that the DM has no incentive to kill off the entire party; he wants a successful and enjoyable game as much as the players do. Also, there's a difference between malicious and diabolical. This challenge may be diabolical, the monsters may be evil, but the DM pulling the strings is not malicious.
Actually, my impression is that he trusts the players to be clever, resourceful, and powerful enough to withstand this kind of challenge. And just like the Alzanist door, I refuse to be defeated by a puzzle that's clearly meant to be solved.
|
Even though I know NSpicer isn't complaining, and JSL isn't rebuttal...ing, I thought I'd throw in my two cents. Why not? I always do!
I like the difficulty-level of the challenges that we've faced. I think the more danger that the characters are in, the better. I'm really trying to have Vesh walk the line between a heroic figure and a regular guy...I mean, really, would anyone in their right mind after almost getting squashed by zombies, go back to possibly get squashed again? I'm trying to wrap my mind around what would motivate a chaotic good character to do so. I think I'm hanging my hat on loyalty.
Also, as much as I love Vesh's character (he's turned out to be great fun to play), I'm not so attached to him that I can't appreciate what his death might have done to the party's motivation level. I mean, how sweet, story-wise, would it have been for Vesh to bite it a mere two days after declaring that the party was his adopted family? How would Salome have reacted to his death after having danced with him and getting brought out of her shell a little? How would the town have reacted? Father Zantus? Shayliss? Ameiko? Bethana? Corran? That would have been such great RPing fodder, it almost makes me sad that Vesh didn't bite it.
I'm also the type that likes to create new characters all the time, so that might have something to do with it. At any rate, I'd just like to say, "keep up the good work," to everyone. This is still (after six months) a lot of fun.
Also, as much as I love Vesh's character (he's turned out to be great fun to play), I'm not so attached to him that I can't appreciate what his death might have done to the party's motivation level....That would have been such great RPing fodder, it almost makes me sad that Vesh didn't bite it.
Yeah, I can understand and relate to that. I've willingly sent some of my favorite characters to a heroic death before...just to weave it into the story and set up some really great roleplay (both for the remaining characters and my new PC).
I'd be willing to have something like that happen to Zieke, too...but hopefully not in the very first scene, you know? Otherwise, the impact of his death isn't really all that dramatic to anyone. So, I'm still gonna struggle to keep him alive a bit longer for now. ;)
Excellent points, though. I completely agree.
--Neil
Yes. That would be more ironic than tragic. Good point...go Zieke, go!
We'll see how far he gets soon enough, I guess.
Has anyone heard from JSL recently? I asked a question awhile back about how much healing a cure light wounds potion will provide...and whether he rolls it or I do...but never heard back. Now my questions is likely buried behind several new posts.
He usually lets us roll it.
Be aware that we have a house rule that says OUTSIDE of combat all healing is automatically maximized. But this also takes up to a minute of game time,and since we're still 'on alert' we are probably considered in combat.
Has anyone heard from JSL recently?
JSL who? :)
I asked a question awhile back about how much healing a cure light wounds potion will provide...and whether he rolls it or I do...
When healing IN combat, player or healer (if done by a spell) rolls.
When healing OUT of combat, player gets automatic full healing benefit of potion/spell.
(Rags was right.)
When healing IN combat, player or healer (if done by a spell) rolls.
Check. So, a potion of cure light wounds heals 1d8+1 (minimum 1st level caster). I shall now endeavor to consult Invisible Castle to reveal Zieke's fate... ;)
--Neil
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!
Just be glad we don't use one of these.
Careful San, your starting to sound like I feel!
And Arc? PLEASE stop giving the nice if diabolical DM ideas! ;)
Oh it's monday alright! Rassin Frassin' day!
What we did decide our XP count was? Or IS I should say? (I really need to update soon,...) ;P
And Arc? PLEASE stop giving the nice if diabolical DM ideas! ;)
If you insist.
What we did decide our XP count was? Or IS I should say? (I really need to update soon,...) ;P
As of this Monday (thanks for the reminder Santinj@), my total is 4630 XP. I think that we have the same XP total, but I'm not sure.
As of this Monday (thanks for the reminder Santinj@), my total is 4630 XP. I think that we have the same XP total, but I'm not sure.
I just looked back at that conversation before updating my XP. To simplify (and catching up those of us who came into the game a little late), JSL standardized XP to 4530 (santinj@'s figure) for everybody last week. Add this week's 150, and we should all be to 4680 (right, santinj@?).
From recent posts, it sounds like your Monday is my Saturday. 14 hours straight -- voluntary and unpaid.
|
|
Add this week's 150, and we should all be to 4680 (right, santinj@?).
Yep. We should be at 4680 this week. When in doubt, check Vesh's character sheet. I update his total (with date) when I send out the Monday reminder. I do this because I want you all to think I'm altruistic. In reality I'm a greedy XP ho.
From recent posts, it sounds like your Monday is my Saturday. 14 hours straight -- voluntary and unpaid.
Say what? What do you do?
Thank you Santinj!
What would my Xp be without you?!?
From recent posts, it sounds like your Monday is my Saturday. 14 hours straight -- voluntary and unpaid.
You are so close, it isn't even funny. Except that it's my JOB!
Thank you Santinj!
What would my Xp be without you?!?
No problemo!
Congratulations. 300 XP for the fight.
That's what I'm talkin' about--fo' shizzle!
In reality I'm a greedy XP ho.
Greed is a sin.
In reality I'm a greedy XP ho.Greed is a sin.
Ha! We don't want to get into this discussion, Joe. May I call you Joe?
Wow! Y'all have sure been busy today! Look what I get for actually WORKING...
Say what? What do you do?
From recent posts, it sounds like your Monday is my Saturday. 14 hours straight -- voluntary and unpaid.
Didn't you read my song lyrics? :)
To paraphrase "Sixth Sense":
Actually:
Oh Yeeeeaaah!
NOW I remember!
(I guess every few pages of this thread you'll just have to remind us again,...)
;P
No Offense, But I always thought that you'd have to be crazy to want to be any kind of psycho-analyst, therapist, etc. ;P
(On the other hand, takes a good person to do what you just mentioned above, keep up the good work! We'll be here ta help you unwind!)
further to your objection to Paizo' imagery. The idea of the Dark Mother is a fairly ancient and potent one e.g. Kali Ma from the Indian subcontinent. But as well as bringing destruction, this figure also heralded creation. Now, the figure of Lamashtu is presented as Eeeeeevillll without any redeeming qualities. It would have been more interesting to have made her as ambivalent as realworld deities of this sort, and have her worshippers be the ones twisting her creative powers to create monsters.
I have to say that in some ways, I'm an oddity here in not being terribly impressed with some of Paizo's stuff in Dungeon and Dragon. I pretty much stopped reading it fairly soon after they took over, I must confess.
Some of their design and 'flavour' choices don't sit well with me. I am enjoying JSL's version though; it's balanced fairly, and is very exciting.
further to your objection to Paizo' imagery. The idea of the Dark Mother is a fairly ancient and potent one e.g. Kali Ma from the Indian subcontinent. But as well as bringing destruction, this figure also heralded creation.
There is an archetypal dichotomy between the feminine powers of creation and destruction. The process of creation (i.e., childbirth) itself is both tender and extremely painful. I think this dichotomy is something we're sensitive to, even as children, when we see our mothers as all-powerful beings who can dole out both love and punishment. That, I'm OK with; it works.
Now, the figure of Lamashtu is presented as Eeeeeevillll without any redeeming qualities. It would have been more interesting to have made her as ambivalent as realworld deities of this sort, and have her worshippers be the ones twisting her creative powers to create monsters.
Exactly. "Pregnant" dieties don't give birth to monsters; they give birth to gods, worlds, races, and ideas. As a pregnant woman, the idea of a pregnant female figure being something to be feared, reviled and possibly destroyed is particularly repugnant. While I haven't read Paizo's material extensively, there does seem to be a subtle (and often not-so-subtle) thread of misogyny that runs through much of it. I'm not going to walk around all offended and wounded by it. However, as the group's resident female, I feel like it's important to point things like this out and, as Salome does, shine a light on the evil things that hide in darkness.
Also, the responsibility for content rests firmly on Paizo. I agree that JSL is doing a great job of telling the story and modifying things so that they work for our group and improve on what Paizo has published, and I'm sure he'll handle this fine.
While I haven't read Paizo's material extensively, there does seem to be a subtle (and often not-so-subtle) thread of misogyny that runs through much of it.
Ah, well, phew not just me who thinks so. Even if they (the writers/designers) aren't aware of it.
Just chipping into a thread I've got nothing to do with to agree wholeheartedly. Quite a bit is flinch-inducing. Apologies for thread hijack. *Backing off politely now*
Don't flinch away Rev, I know you read Hook Mountain last night aka "it's all mom's fault!"
If Nic's reading this, then rest assured I don't think you're a mysogynist! But it does add up to one weird adventure path with 'bad mother' characters...
|
|
Dreamer: Sorry about the momentary brain freeze. I remember now; you're getting your clinical hours. How many do you have to in Cali?
While I haven't read Paizo's material extensively, there does seem to be a subtle (and often not-so-subtle) thread of misogyny that runs through much of it. I'm not going to walk around all offended and wounded by it. However, as the group's resident female, I feel like it's important to point things like this out and, as Salome does, shine a light on the evil things that hide in darkness.
I think that it'll be interesting to see Salome inject some of this sensibility in the party. I had thought about making Vesh more of a chauvinist, but it never emerged from him. Probably for the best.
At the risk of sounding like a Paizo apologist (I'm not), I think the misogyny that you see has been in the RPG industry since the beginning. I think the problem lies in the fantasy genre as a whole, or the market for that genre. Have you seen the demographic numbers for attendance at Gen Con? Nineteen percent of the attendees were female last year. I'm sure that's an increase in female attendees over prior years. As a whole, I think the whole industry is at fault for perpetuating this attitude, not just Paizo. Seems like post-Tolkien, pulp fantasy collided with the sexual "revolution" of the sixties and seventies and--boom--you've got chainmail-bikini-clad-babes straddling dragons.
There is that, but the misogyny we're sensing differs from this. That is more "Oooh babes!", this is more "Women... yuck".
|
|
There is that, but the misogyny we're sensing differs from this. That is more "Oooh babes!", this is more "Women... yuck".
Yes. I guess there is a distinction to be made between the objectification/chauvinism that I'm talking about and the outright misogyny that you and Dreamer have pointed out. (I also wonder if it's two branches on the same tree, though.) Hmmm--if that's really the subtext of what's going on with Pathfinder, I'll have to rethink my subscription. What do others think? I'd be interested in hearing from Arct, Rags, Nspicer, etc. on this.
s
What do others think? I'd be interested in hearing from Arct, Rags, Nspicer, etc. on this.
I don't mean to come across flippant or anything on the issue. But, for me, I don't perceive an intentional degradation of women in Paizo's products. I took literary criticism in college, so I'm sure a lot could be made of the individual author's choices (Nick Logue, anyone?) with regards to how far they push the envelope on some stuff. The same goes for the conscious design choices made by the designers at Paizo, too, of course. I get the sense they're more about storytelling and building interesting, plausible characterizations for why certain things exist in the fantasy world of Golarion. So, Lamashtu doesn't come across to me as a misogynistic jab at pregnant women. It's more of a "this is how monsters came to be" from a mythology point-of-view as a world designer.
On the whole, I'm not so put off by any of the subject matter or portrayals in Pathfinder as to cancel my subscription...though I did speak up about some of the over-the-top depictions in HMM. I'm much more likely to discontinue as a subscriber purely because I've accumulated more adventure paths than I'll ever need. And, even if I disagree with how certain elements of Golarion or an adventure path come across, I'll tweak them so the harsher things are blunted. I get the sense JSL is positioned to do the same. And, honestly, all good GM's do exactly that. These types of products (meaning, Pathfinder) are designed as springboards for the imagination of not just the players, but also the GM. They aren't the be-all, end-all, because there's always room for recasting stuff.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
|
JSL and Dreamer: I am so sorry that you are having crappy days. Thank goodness that you are okay Dreamer! Sorry about your car, though. What a pain! And don't get me started on absentee babysitters! Sheeesh.
It's more of a "this is how monsters came to be" from a mythology point-of-view as a world designer.
This is a good point that sparks a thought on world-building from a game standpoint vs. world building from a purely storytelling standpoint. But that's off-topic.
For everyone interested in a few more off-topic thoughts...
|
|
***I omitted quoting your post when I saw you deleted it.***
Yeah, I felt that way at first as well, but then I started to read some stuff Erik wrote on one of these boards (I thinks its the "Get Greyhawk Back" thread or somesuch). I can't go into everything that he wrote there right now, but he talks about things like the loss of Vancian magic, starting hp being higher, more class powers, etc. not "fitting" with what has traditionally been Greyhawk. Again, I can't do his arguements justice, suffice to say that they were compelling...
Okay, I could say more about that but don't have the time right now. The short(er) version is that he made a point that I think was validated by the FR Podcast that I listened to yesterday. WotC is advancing the FR timeline 100 years, primarily so they could explain why features of the game rules had changed. I'm not a fan of retconing, but in one fell swoop the campaign world is now playing second-fiddle to the rules. Sorry, but that seems to run counter to WotC's own core design philosophy for 4E, or at least how I understood their design philosophy.
Whew. Gotta run. This is a poor explanation of where I wanted to go, but it's a start. Now...where were we? Misogyny? More thoughts on how overt it is in Paizo's product line?
Dreamer: Sorry about the momentary brain freeze. I remember now; you're getting your clinical hours. How many do you have to in Cali?
3000 -- but you wouldn't believe the hoops that are required to make those hours count. You must achieve a certain minimum for some modalities of therapy, can't exceed certain maximums for others, and must maintain the appropriate ratios of supervision to client hours, without exceeding a certain number of non-clinical hours for professional development (or too many hours per week). All hours must be earned within a 2-6 year period, which, if exceeded, the earlier hours earned start to disappear. It's all quite byzantine. And if a client doesn't show for whatever reason, I don't have any way to make up that hour. As a result, I will probably have put in 4000-5000 actual physical hours by the time I earn my 3000 countable hours.
Also, thanks for the empathy. What a day... and it's not over yet. I'm still on-call for the crisis line for another 3 hours. Which leaves me more time to explain my stance on misogyny vs. archetype in storytelling -- after I get caught up on the game.
Yeah, I felt that way at first as well, but then I started to read some stuff Erik wrote on one of these boards (I thinks its the "Get Greyhawk Back" thread or somesuch). I can't go into everything that he wrote there right now, but he talks about things like the loss of Vancian magic, starting hp being higher, more class powers, etc. not "fitting" with what has traditionally been Greyhawk. Again, I can't do his arguements justice, suffice to say that they were compelling...
I got quite heated in my post, which wasn't helpful, so thanks for that :D
I still vehemently disagree with the viewpoint Mona espouses and think at some level he is being disingenuous. The feeling on these boards shows what a canny move sticking with 3.5 from a purely business standpoint is.
At the risk of sounding like a Paizo apologist (I'm not), I think the misogyny that you see has been in the RPG industry since the beginning.
I think that's very likely.
Who is the target audience here? Look in at the stereotypical "hook in" demographic: A group of 4-6 late middle school/early high school boys are introduced to D&D (and I would guess DMed at first) by an older boy whom they like and admire. Coincides nicely with the discovery of girls, the combination of fear and fascination with the opposite sex (and sex in general), and the insecurities of adolescence. This group is probably not made up of the jocks or other early-maturing boys who can get placed at the top of the social hierarchy based on testosterone levels alone. They need a place to play out their fears, fantasies, and dreams -- and someplace in their lives where they feel valuable, powerful, and heroic.
On the positive side, I think that the qualities of the Hero archetype define some of the best, most noble masculine qualities: strength, bravery, responsibility, care/protection of others, sacrifice, etc. But these qualities have their Shadows. Without a conscience or compass, it is all too easy for masculine power to be based on subjugation, intimidation, cruelty/devaluation of others, selfishness, etc. Unfortunately, our culture and media do more to reinforce the link between sex and violence, objectification of women, and negative masculinity, than to encourage mutual respect, understanding, and "heroic" ideals.
I think the problem lies in the fantasy genre as a whole, or the market for that genre.
Fantasy does not equal misogyny. The "high fantasy" of Tolkein, C.S. Lewis, and Lloyd Alexander; childhood fantasy literature; typical pretend/dream-play of 3-4-year-olds; and even traditional fairy tales and Disneyfied fairy tales are neither inherently sexual, sexist, nor misogynistic. However, when it comes to adolescent sexual fantasies -- reinforced by the likes of Harlequin (ladies) and Playboy (guys) -- sex (frequently mixed with violence; see the latest incarnation of Grand Theft Auto or spend a half an hour watching music videos) sells. So does fear, incidentally.
There was a brouhaha last summer about the paucity of females as main characters in Pixar films. And there's been another controversy this spring about what the Princess phenomenon means for feminism. What the people doing the complaining don't understand is:
1. Everyman relates to humanity, and stands for everyone until a contrast (i.e. Woman) is introduced. Everywoman cannot represent everyone; she can only represent Womanhood. This is illustrated really well in "The Dark Crystal" when Jen meets Kyra. Up to that point, our hero is an androgynous Everyman. When the hyperfeminine Kyra shows up, it turns into a story about a Boy and a Girl who in the end become the Adam and Eve of their world. Another illustration of the same concept: imagine if the patient in the Operation game was a female. That changes everything!
2. A girl is not just a boy dressed in pink. Assuming or requiring sameness (nearly always in direction of valuing masculine qualities over feminine qualities, which are seen as weak and undesirable) does just as much as overt chauvanism to negate and devalue the positive and unique qualities of feminity.
3. Prior to the Princess archetype, the main feminine archetypes were the Madonna (sexless, pure, maternal) and the whore (sinful, sexual, seductive). In that light, Princess qualities (youth, beauty, inherent value, innocence with potential for an adult relationship, and romance that is neither strictly platonic nor demeaning and dirty) are not that bad! However, the Princess needs a Shadow and a villain to come up against. Hence, the Crone (who, incidentally, looks a lot like a post-menopausal woman -- older, possibly wrinkled or having unwanted facial hair, more self-assured and powerful, and although past the age of fertility and creation is still capable of destruction) filled that need as a Wicked Witch or Evil Stepmother. Again, gender is important. The Princess is nearly always put in a very vulnerable position (e.g., Rapunzel in the inaccessible tower; Sleeping Beauty and Snow White asleep; the Little Mermaid without a voice). What if the captor/villain in a princess story were male? What would he do to Rapunzel if he were the only one who could get to her in a tower? What would a Wicked Wizard do to Sleeping Beauty for 100 years? What can be done to a girl who can't shout or scream or make her wants and needs known? The feminine villain in this case is both the princess's Shadow and, in a way, a protection from a truly misogynistic villain.
To finish the Princess story, from her vulnerable position, the princess inspires Prince Charming to heroically "rescue" her. It's important that Prince Charming put for this effort, to prove himself and rise up to those heroic qualities. Would a Princess settle for anything less? By requiring the Prince to be a hero, he is required to embody those positive masculine qualities. If she has to rescue him, he's never going to rise to his potential, and she's going to spend the rest of happily-ever-after continuing to rescue him, take care of him, and pick up his dirty stockings off the floor because he never had to be capable or responsible!
Ultimately, it is the Princess who brings about the Crone's final defeat (breaking the spell or ending her reign of terror). Somehow, the coming together of male and female creates something good, and allows for a new beginning and a renewal of the cycle of life (that's the ever-after part).
As a whole, I think the whole industry is at fault for perpetuating this attitude, not just Paizo. Seems like post-Tolkien, pulp fantasy collided with the sexual "revolution" of the sixties and seventies and--boom--you've got chainmail-bikini-clad-babes straddling dragons.
And we laugh at how incredibly inappropriate their "armor" is! As silly or sexy as that imagery is, at least most of those fanatasy-babes are in a position where they have some power (even if it is of the dominatrix type) and there's an implied sense of consent. (We're assuming she picked out her own clothes, even if they shout "shoot me!")
So where is the line drawn? It's when there is a pattern of objectifying or dehumanizing females; glorifying violence, especially sexual violence; and when it is an attack not on a character in a game, but on femaleness.
Back to Lamashtu. There are few things more personal or more core to a woman's identity than her body and her fertility. By being a pregnant figure, Lamashtu is not simply a villain; her Evilness is superceded by her Femaleness, and she becomes first a symbol of womanhood then a symbol of evil. But by the time we get there, that womanhood is evil and must be destroyed. If it's destroyed by men -- what does that mean? If her oversized belly or breasts are targeted (they're big and vulnerable) -- what does that mean? It's fantasy, yes, but there are powerful messages inherent in the stories we tell ourselves.
So we have female villains. That's OK. There's some fun in gender-bending, and giving a twist to the expected (what if instead of a bad-guy, we have a bad-gal?), but when it's consistently twisted in the same direction, and you have example after example of the Evil Woman, the Crazy Woman, the Wrathful Woman, the Sex-Addicted Woman, with no balance (where's the Good Witch? The Wise Woman? The Nurturing Woman? The Virtuous Woman?), and no redeeming qualities, the message becomes, "Women are bad and must be destroyed, overpowered, or controlled."
To me, that's SCARY. It's the mindset that leads to violence against women in real life.
A final thought...
I want to thank Fabes and PsiFox for their portrayals of Ehlissa and Naelah. As I never read the discussion thread, I was not aware for quite some time that those two characters were being played by men. They were both played to be real, and not as parodies of womanhood. I really appreciate that. Had it been otherwise, I would not have had any interest or desire to join this game.
Why, thanks. Ehlissa is based quite a bit on a friend of mine; I try to make her as inconsistent and surprising as a real person.
I agree very much with your assessment of the female villains phenomenon. I think Salome is an awesome counterpoint to that, and Naelah was too. They both have power and a positive image of the female. Ehlissa is a bit of tomboy princess! :D
It feels rude to post on a thread I've got nothing to do with, but this is too interesting not to comment on.
The root problem for me is when any of us, for whatever reason stop thinking of people as people. Once a person becomes an abstract "thing" then we stop caring. As soon as the dread word "just" creeps in as in "It's "just" a game/book/film/image" the territory changes. That's the kind of cop-out thinking that ultimately can start wars. It's "just" something that happens. No. It isn't. That's an actual choice you made at some level, however minor.
Where all this fits in with Paizo and gaming? Not sure. Just a sense of unease really - nothing more concrete than that. As a female gamer I've had my share of eejits making dumb comments. I've made a lot of dumb comments myself (stopped seeing people as people, they were "just" testosteronly challenged blokes - it works all ways).
The pregnant Lamashtu weebles me a bit. Dark goddess is old stuff, but the whole point about those old Dark Goddess myths is that they are the Shadow. For me it needs both sides for the image to have power, otherwise it's "yick". "Hook Mountain" - well yes, I get the genre and it's not my personal bag, but no problem as such ... except ... I do have a problem with it and I'm not sure why. And that bothers me.
Rant over.
Just as a side note - like Dreamer I do wonder if some fantasy artists are even aware that a bra is a functional item, not a piece of decorative tat held on with double-sided sticky tape.
Going away now. Again, my apologies for butting in.
|
|
Wow. I have a lot to read. Unfortunately, I'll be in a meeting all day and probably won't be able to post here or as Vesh until later or tomorrow morning. Thanks for taking the time to respond--I am consistently impressed by the thoughtfulness of everyone here. Oh, and Rev, stop apologizing for posting here. You're always welcome!
Um,... wow.
That's a lot of reading!
Still digesting most of it, and I don't want to post without being able to contribute something, especially since the most of the discussions/opinions/etc are so well thought out.
(Kudos to all, as I have a larger-than-average vocabulary, and I was forced to look up the meanings of a couple of words to make sure I was understanding their usage correctly!)
BUT, since I'm here, and I seem to be blessed with a complete lack of self-control when it comes to vocalizing, (Or typing, apparently) I will bring a couple of thoughts to the table. (And I will ATTEMPT to remain concise, as MY ramblings could become somewhat painful, as opposed to the flowing, well-ordered prose of some of the posters here!)
Disclaimer- The following is an opinion only, and in no way should be taken as as argument or attempt at rebuttal for any of the above-posted, well-thought out and eloquently written posts!
First Thought- The first thing I thought of as I read through all of the above posts was, 'Wow, These guys and gals write REALLY well, and all have solid, defendable opinions and positions. I need to stay out of this! (Especially as I don't DISagree with any of them!) I'm outta my depth!' (Not that ever stopped me before!)
My first (Constructive) thought and contribution to the discussion though, is:
Are we trying to hard here? Are we looking TOO hard for 'this'? (Whatever 'this' is, misogynic expressions seems to be the tying theme here)
I ask this because I am at a point in my life where I have no longer able to do the things I did in my youth. And that has caused me to attempt to adopt a 'work smarter, not harder' outlook. (Not real successful so far, but hey,)
Also, I am reminded of one of my father's sayings. (Most of which are not as good as this gem)
"If you look hard enough for something to offend you, you will always succeed."
(Trying to tie my thoughts together, bear with me!)
All of the above analysis and commentary are wonderful, (I can't say that enough!) But, are we looking too hard for something that wasn't MEANT to be there?
As an example to try and explain myself,lets take a look at one subject we can all relate to at least a little bit. Star Wars.
I cannot tell you how many articles I have read that use Star Wars as the base subject, and write about how all these characters fit into certain archetypes, or don't fit into certain archetypes, or how the characters meant this when they did a certain action, etc etc. There must be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of articles written by everybody from magazine reporters, to high school students, to college professors. And yet they all express differing views on the same subject!
As a writer and a director, I am sure that George put a LOT of thought into his story. Probably a LOT more than would actually fit onto the screen, or in the dialogue. Or even into the Novelizations. But there is simply no way under Heaven that George could have contemplated or conceived of ALL of the differing thoughts and opinions that ALL of us who have ever seen, or will see, these movies will come up with! Some of these ideas that we think we see in his work were simply never meant to be there!
Is it possible that we are repeating this with Paizo's work?
Second Thought-
Now, does having an opinion, or seeing something in a body of work, make you wrong? Of course not. It is an opinion. To my knowledge opinions cannot be wrong! Only FACTS can be right or wrong! (Please feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but be kind, I am a Theatre major, not a scientist or a rules lawyer!)
And, As I have already mentioned, all of your opinions are well thought out, logical etc.
Third Thought-
The GOOD thing about a situation such as what we have here, whether with my Star Wars example, or with Paizo's body of work, is that it promotes the formation of these opinions and reviews, whether they be happy, or discontented, or whatever. I welcome all of your ideas and thoughts on the subject(s) at hand, because I have come to value your opinions and thoughts. Whether I agree with them, disagree with them, or simply have no opinion on them one way or another!
I have not yet read HMM or the following, but I fully intend to. (Otherwise, why am I spending al this money?!?) And I am afraid that I may be being unduly influenced by ALL of the opinions I have read regarding it's content to date. But I will do my best to keep an open mind when I do get the chance to peruse it, and hopefully form my own, unbiased, opinion on it.
Fourth Thought-
The BAD thing I can see about this situation is, (even if you take into account that those who are disgruntled about something tend to be more vocal (in general) than those who are pleased, or at least ambivalent, about the same thing will be), There are a LOT of people who have posted that they have found certain depictions and subject matter in HMM and following to be offensive. This leads me to believe that there must be SOMEthing in there that a fairly large amount of people have found to be offensive.
PLEASE note that I have not yet ventured my opinion on this subject matter, as I have not yet read it. However, I was raised in a conservative Christian household, with the belief that certain things are right, and others are wrong. While my understanding of these things has matured over the years, as an adult I have chosen to continue following these basic Christian premises. So it is very likely that I will be in agreement with many of the opinions I have read about.
NOW, Just because they did not MEAN for something 'to be in there', doesn't mean it isn't! As a very verbose person, I have a bad habit of running my mouth before engaging my brain! I am WELL aware of what a few, simple, poor word choices can do!
(Foot in mouth? NO. I have LEG in mouth syndrome!)
The point of my over-verbosity (Boy, can I ramble or what?!) is simply trying to say that while there is SOMEthing in this material that has offended some people, (Whether overtly, as depictions in HMM, or more subtly, as a continued use of Mysogenic characters and images,) I have a hard time believing that 'they' set out to offend people on purpose. (Again, haven't read HMM, I'm sure that graphic descriptions of murdered families will set me off,)
I find it far more likely that what we are seeing is being taken as larger than what it was meant to be. That it is a poor choice of words or images, made several times possibly, and is now being seen as an "Overall Theme" in these products. When it simply wasn't INTENDED to be there.
With respect to our guest poster, Rev Rosie, (Welcome Rev. As above, never feel the need to apologize for joining in. This may be our OOC thread, but many pages ago we decided to make it an open forum for subjects like this, away from some of the inanity of other threads!)
I respectfully submit that sometimes, a comment or description is "just" what it is. And never was intended to be or indicate anything else.
In my humble opinion, it is far easier to make a statement that can be misconstrued as having deeper meaning, than it is to deliberately make a statement trying to subtly influence others to accept something that they know is wrong.
Lost count now,...
Now, in my (not so much) humble opinion, This is FANTASY, a place where we can safely explore those things, whether growing up, or as grown adults of varying ages, that we KNOW are wrong, or obnoxious, or offensive, or whatever. I am NOT a psych major, and so Dreamer is undoubtedly far more qualified to speak on this subject than I, but I believe that is good to have a place where we can explore these things, (within reason!) It is a way to safely explore darker portions of our psyches and desires, or fears. We can explore them, experiment with them, and then put them safely back in their box at the end of the session.
Example 1- I am not a 'sexually permissive' person. But I have made more than one character that was, shall we say 'frivolous' with his affections? It was fun, and I will do it again. And yet my wife and family are safe from me 'acting out' this fantasy in the real world!
Example 2- Killing and maiming people is wrong, and yet there are MANY fans of horror movies. I do not believe that these people have a secret desire to go out and kill others. But there is something about seeing something so horrific from the safety of a theatre seat. We laugh (mostly in nervous relief) when Freddy or Jason behead someone in a new and inventive way. And yet we would run screaming and be scarred for life if such a thing were to happen in front of us in real life!
Example 3- Rape is wrong. I am vehemently against it. (You don't believe me, try touching my wife or children. The only question you will hear is, "Which of YOUR body parts do I hand to you first?!?) But I am willing to accept a FANTASY world where Half-orcs, and even Half elves, are most likely not the products of happy homes.
Wow. I CAN ramble! I apologize for the length and will try to sum up now.
1) All of your previous points are valid. Just because I do not see something that you do does not mean it is not there.
2) If many people are seeing the same things, then it is possible I am missing something.
3) I can accept a FANTASY world where uncomfortable, or even horrific things happen, as long as they are not there ONLY for the shock value, but in order to create a villain that SHOULD be defeated. I am willing to believe that the authors put in the overtly horrific things in these modules in order to make it easier to see these monsters as the 'bad guys'. Otherwise, what makes them any different than elves, dwarves or halflings? ("They are intelligent, thinking creatures. Why should we be so willing to kill them?" "Well, because they are NOT these other races, the ogres will really eat your babies if you don't stop them!" "OK, I'm off to do a pre-emptive strike on the ogres before they attack the village!")
As others have stated before, This does not mean I want it to be a recurring theme, which seems to be a concern with Paizo products I have seen posted in this thread. But horrific villains are also make great heroes. The more terrible the villain, the greater the hero must struggle to overcome him (or her!) and the greater he ends up being because of it!
4) I submit for your consideration that we are looking deeper and harder for hidden meanings than this particular subject may actually require. The overtly offensive or uncomfortable things should be taken at face value. If, taken at face value, you still find them offensive or uncomfortable, fine. But I do not believe that you should go looking for deeper, hidden meanings in these things.
The following is a first reaction to reading some of the above posts, and is not ot be taken as a rebuttal! OR as a defense of something that you might find offensive! It is merely my first thoughts, which I hope you will simply consider, before deciding to accept or ignore.
5) Hm, the subject of archetypes and misogyny is a bit more tricky really, and I've spent over two hours typing this already. Let me say that some have found the images of Lamashtu, a demon-clawed lady, and a Runelord of Lust to be disconcerting for them. But consider, we really only have two choices of sex to show.
- Lamashtu is relegated to being female simply by the virtue of being the "Mother of Monsters". Again, I do not believe the authors intention was to degrade or desensitize us to the plight of females, just trying to give us a (possibly poor) choice of visuals to accomplish that with.
-The demon-clawed girlfriend, disturbing. But for me in a "Holy cow, what happened to her, and can we save her, or will we have to kill her?" way, rather than anything offensive. Again, a choice on the part of the author to evoke emotion regarding a villain. If it were a demon clawed guy trying to burn down the town, would it simply be another monster variation to kill? Would we even consider that we might be able to save him? There is something about a woman being in danger, even if she is the villain, that is ingrained into our social mores and training that makes us want to help her! And she's the villain! (Or am I the only one on this thread who was raised believing that chivalry is NOT dead, just buried deep?)
-IF these roles roles were reversed, for example if we were given a Male Runelord of lust, my reaction would undoubtedly be different. Being a straight male, I would possibly be uncomfortable with finding naked statues of this being lying around instead of the ones depicted in the material. But more importantly, (To me) how would it change the way the game (was intended) to play and feel? Personally, In my limited experience, females have so much MORE power than the male when it comes to sex. Males may be (in general) stronger physically, but (with the possible exceptions of a few VERY well-practiced individuals,) It seems that it is generally easier for a female to convince a male to go to bed with her, than the other way around.
Again, having been married twice, and having only slept with those I am married to, I will admit that this is observation, not experience!
Ergo- a female runelord of lust. With all of the accompanying statuary.
So much for summation!
Thanks for bearing with me! Back to work now!
:)
Herewith my cessation of apology. Thanks all.
Dear gods that was alot of reading.
While I hadn't really picked up much on the misogyny angle, I had noted that Paizo's authors sometimes go overboad with their depictions of darker elements of humanity and society in their stories while not depicitng the better elements to an equal degree. I also respect that this has (and not unreasonably) offended some people and, to some extent, has offended me.
I submit for your consideration that we are looking deeper and harder for hidden meanings than this particular subject may actually require. The overtly offensive or uncomfortable things should be taken at face value. If, taken at face value, you still find them offensive or uncomfortable, fine. But I do not believe that you should go looking for deeper, hidden meanings in these things.
This is similair to my own feelings on the matter. I don't believe that Paizo has any hidden agenda or message that they're trying to portray; I think that, in trying to craft a more mature setting, they have gone too far with some elements.
The demon-clawed girlfriend, disturbing. But for me in a "Holy cow, what happened to her, and can we save her, or will we have to kill her?" way, rather than anything offensive. Again, a choice on the part of the author to evoke emotion regarding a villain. If it were a demon clawed guy trying to burn down the town, would it simply be another monster variation to kill? Would we even consider that we might be able to save him? There is something about a woman being in danger, even if she is the villain, that is ingrained into our social mores and training that makes us want to help her! And she's the villain! (Or am I the only one on this thread who was raised believing that chivalry is NOT dead, just buried deep?)
I think that, to most males, a female villian is more compelling than a male one. Like Ragadolf said, it is socially and biologically ingrained in us to be more protective of women. Therefore, as a storytelling device, making Nualia a woman makes it more likely that the players of the AP would look into her history and possibly even try to find a way to save her.
IF these roles roles were reversed, for example if we were given a Male Runelord of lust, my reaction would undoubtedly be different. Being a straight male, I would possibly be uncomfortable with finding naked statues of this being lying around instead of the ones depicted in the material. But more importantly, (To me) how would it change the way the game (was intended) to play and feel?
Again, I think that this was more of a marketing choice than a choice based upon sexism or misogyny. Since, while the number of female gamers may be increasing, the demographic Paizo appeals to is mostly male and therefore would have a less favorable reaction to a male Runelord of lust. For most it would not get the lust part of the Runelord of Lust and therefore would not serve it's purpose as a paragon of the sin. I would personally not find it at all representative of lust.
It is not my intention with any of these comments to insult or degrade anyone else or their opinions. I am merely stating my own opinions and really have no argument with the opinions anyone else has stated.
The point of this discussion - rather than to point fingers - is to explore the tolerance level of the group and ensure that everyone is comfortable and has a good time. I don't want to offend anyone. Yet, when the authors include content that some (perhaps many) may find offensive, I am put in hard place. Since I don't know you personally, it is very worthwhile to have these discussions and a forum where we can have them without influence from some of the noisier quarters on these boards. While they are entitled to their opinions, this is your game, not theirs', and your opinions matter more.
I feel that the tone of the game so far has been excellant and the game is very enjoyable due, in no small part, to the quality of the DM and other players. Personally my tolerance for most things (at least in stories) is rather high. As long as an element serves an actual purpose in the story, whether establishing a character or the story itself, I'm am loathe not to include it. However, when the more 'mature' elements are included gratuitiously for no apparent reason other than for shock value and because the author could, it irritates me since I feel that it cheapens the story.
|
|
Just wanted to note that I have a very specific job here, which I take seriously. :)
Yes, and a fine job you are doing! I appreciate the level of thought that everyone has put into this discussion, and I applaud JSL for taking the sensibilities of his players into account.
I'm pretty open to 'mature' (what a horrible usage of the term) content in regards to this game. We are all adults, and I don't mind exploring darker themes in our game. Having said that, I think the question becomes, what is pertinent to character knowledge and driving the plot/story forward and what isn't? What I question, and what JSL has pointed out in another thread to (largely) deaf ears, is that when the harsh content in HMM, for example, is behind the scenes with little-to-no likelyhood of the characters finding out the details of just how perverse the Ogres actually are, why is it there at all? How is it a good use of page space from a game standpoint? But, I digress into a subject that has been discussed ad nauseum...
Thanks for the good discussion.