Actually, my chief problem with the picture is not the obesity nor is it what she is eating. It is the nudity. I can't use that picture in a game with kids. I would prefer the editors to aim for a PG-13 with the artwork.
Not intending to step on your toes here, Wicht, but it has been mentioned repeatedly that Paizo isn't aiming at a kids' game with Pathfinder. Accordingly, it makes sense that they commission art that fits the mood they are trying to convey.
I realize that this is just you speaking up about what would make PF even better for you, personally, but if you run (let's say) Hook Mountain, you'd have to tone down the content for a kids' game anyway. Finding a different ogre illustration to use is, actually, just one more change in the same vein: you are adapting an adventure idea that was targetted at a different audience to your own game. That's fine, but if you go to such lengths, changing a single picture should not be that much of an effort.
I rather prefer adventures in which art and content are consistent (no matter which audience they are aimed at!) to ones where the art is "clean" but breaks the mood.
YMMV.
|
Not intending to step on your toes here, Wicht, but it has been mentioned repeatedly that Paizo isn't aiming at a kids' game with Pathfinder. Accordingly, it makes sense that they commission art that fits the mood they are trying to convey.
Don't worry about my toes. I can take it. :-)
As I said I like the AP and I am using it for kids. I have no problem altering it however I feel like. The adventures are sound and the story is good.
That one picture however means I don't want to leave Pathfinder #3 lying around where just anyone can flip through it.
Gotcha :-).
|
Most of the nastiness is actually, in my opinion, gratuitous - it doesn't add much to the playability of the module, or its plot. We know ogres are bad - that is what Chaotic Evil means.
On the contrary, I think many DMs and players have forgotten what Chaotic Evil means. Good and Evil are too often portrayed as Road Runner and Cyote. Pathfinder portrays unredeemable Chaotic Evil as it should be.
But make no mistake, as previously mentioned, Pathfinder aims to differentiate itself from it's competition, and is aimed at a specific audience. It probably should contain a content warning on the cover - I have already purchased one copy of Burnt Offerings for a nephew for Christmas, based on the sheer quality and enjoyment of the product, but I won't be following that up with Skinsaw Murders.
I really don't see Pathfinder content any worse than Vampire or other World of Darkness (White Wolf) releases, just that it is perhaps the first time many of us have seen this in D&D.
I don't believe that discomfort to certain themes should be assumed to be generational, conservative or religious based. I'd suggest that personal experiences more likely forms an individual's opinions on such matters. Nualia's back-story, for example, might make uncomfortable reading for someone who had given birth to a still-born.
A friend of mine was recently telling me how a particular roleplaying game claimed it used racist words and situations for historical accuracy. I thought - no, that's using historical accuracy as an excuse for promoting racist material. I'm not suggesting that scenes of racism shouldn't appear in roleplaying games at all, but rather they should be crafted to promote a better understanding of the issues and consequences of racism, how devastating it can be to individuals and our communities; not just so that a group of 15 year-olds can enjoy playing racist behaviours.
While I sometimes question the influence media has on our society, I wouldn't expect Paizo to censor every sensitive issue from their products for fear that it might offend someone. Racism is just an example, but it applies equally to sex, violence and similar controversial topics in role-playing games, it needs to be handled responsibly, not gratuitously.
Thus far, I have immensely enjoyed Pathfinder. Some scenes have left me feeling uneasy, but in a well-written "horror movie" kind of way. And sometimes, I appreciate that a villain, by definition, needs to be offensive.
|
Hmmm. I play D&D for escapist fun, not to wallow in real-life horror. Violence and horror are nothing new, it's whether we really want them in our living rooms or not. Some people do, as they like the horror genre. Some of us don't.
But you are right - it is in the eye of the beholder (your comment on Nualia's backstory is spot on) and a line has to be drawn somewhere. Someone will take offence at anything, so that line is fuzzy at best.
I dislike horror as a genre. In particular, I dislike the use of gore as a tool for showing something is bad. I don't watch any horror movies, and I dislike movies of other genres that use gore to make a point instead of finding another way (e.g. the version of Dune they made a couple of decades ago; or, the vast majority of the Book of Vile Darkness, which focused on gore rather than on evil acts). On the other hand, I like the more subtle "horror" of the old Alfred Hitchcock movies (Rear Window, Vertigo), where the frightening things are what you can't see or don't yet understand. Intelligent horror writing, as opposed to shock-horror.
I thought the Skinsaw Murders was very well done. I didn't find it offputting at all. Yes, it has some fairly violent content, but it was handled with a deft touch, and my recollection of it doesn't include anything that was gore-over-substance. It was classy horror, very intelligent.
The third adventure is well-written, but many of the scenes are gratuitous. They're not so overdone that I can't present them in an acceptable way (I run at a gaming store in the mid-south/bible belt, with young teens and pre-teens running around the game room, and I'm very careful about what I present in my games because of this). I think this adventure pushes about as far toward that sort of genre as I can tolerate, and while I find it far less engaging than it could have been otherwise, it's okay as a once-in-a-while sort of thing.
If James had told us that the level of gore and shock-horror would be increasing, I'd probably be deciding right now that I won't be running these adventures for my group after all. As it is, and with what we've been told to expect in the future, I'm still comfortable planning to run these in a couple of months.
But put me down as a vote for "less gore" in future adventures. Haunting-style horror is good. Lantern Man is good. Detailed gross-out descriptions are just distasteful and unnecessary. And if this means I'm not part of Paizo's target market, that'll eventually drive me away, I guess. I'd rather it not come to that, because nobody else does adventures the way Paizo does. So I choose to believe this is as far as it goes, and it won't be the predominent style of adventures in the future, but an occasional spice instead. And that would be okay.
We played Call of Cthulu only a few times (maybe three times at the most), but those games will be etched in our memories forever. Heck, as a DM, just reading the adventure modules for Call of Cthulu gave me the creeps (and even had a nightmare about it).
I think the little gore that is presented in RotRL is very interesting. It shows the players just how twisted and demented chaotic beings can be. It puts a whole new twist on those all too familiar goblins.
More please! Just my thoughts...
Ultradan
I dislike horror as a genre.
Same here. I certainly wouldn't say that Pathfinder so far as been torture porn. It's a good story and all fits very well. I just don't personally care for it. (The analogy I like is mint ice cream. I have nothing against it and fully understand that some people love it. I just can't stand it myself.) :)
I'm much more of an action/adventure kinda person (both movies and rpgs). So I'm glad to hear that the upcoming Pathfinders tone down the gore some and appear to be more action oriented.
I realize that horror might be the best selling, and it's pretty apparent what genre Dr. Jacobs loves the most, but I don't personally care for it. So long as Pathfinder mixes it up some (and I fully expect it to), then I'll stick with it. But as it stands, I doubt I'll ever run Skinsaw and Hook Mountain given all the other great adventures I have that better fit the themes we like.
So as long as "horror sells well" doesn't get so powerful to make Pathfinder more horror than not, then it's still useful to me.
Oh, and this definitely refers to modern/gory horror, not the classic horror (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.) stuff. Classic horror can be fun, but gory horror I just find boring.
RotRL is skating the edge of my (and my players') comfort zone, and I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I will probably insert something light-hearted between #2 and #3, depending on how things go.
Overall, great job, and pleased to hear we'll get a variety of "dark" levels.
And for the record, I never watch horror movies - I'm rarely scared by them, and don't enjoy being scared in the least.
|
|
No. It does not feel like "torture porn" at all. My players are very into "torture porn" and one has even stated that if someone isn't killed or maimed graphically in this first 10 min of a "horror" film its crap. So...knowing my particular audience, I am actually going to "torture porn" up Hook Mountain.
I think its actually refreshing to be in my mid-thirties and actually having modules presented ina more mature format. I can handle the darker themes. Its the Fluffy clouds, Rainbows, and Ponies that offend me more.
My wife HATES the RotRL. I read the "background" stuff to her (she doesn't play D&D) in bed. However, she gets it: The greaterthe evil, the more depraved, sick, twisted the bad guys are, the greater heights of heroism the characters can rise to. If RotRL was presented as Stat-Block Goblins, Stat-Block "cultists", Stat-Block Ogres, without any flavor, then the characters end up as Stat-Block heroes. But saving Sandpoint from maniacal goblins, stopping a Charlie-manson like cult of murderers in Magnimar, and eradicating hillbilly inbred ogre psychos (a la "Devil's Rejects") is a reward in and of itself.
Examples of making Hook Mountain into "Torture Porn" (avoid spoiler to avoid torture porn)
1. Mammy and one of her sons will be encountered together. VERY close together.
2. The captured Rangers at the Graul's will be in "torture devices" a la the "Saw" movies. Basically they will be traps that unless disarmed will trigger killing the victim (and possibly damaging the PCs...I have only sketches at this point)
3. The "Skull-Jig" will be graphically described. Right now I am contemplating a complicated "Hacky-Sack" type dance with a head as the "sack". Participants keep the head from the ground. If a participant 'allows' the head to hit the ground, he is "out" of the dance. The Last participant must keep the head aloft until it is stripped clean of flesh, leaving only the skull. Few dancers have this skill, but when it happens it is cause for celebration. Often the skull is kept as a treasured trophy by the winner, and in very rare instances enchanted as a reward by the tribal shaman.
4. Grazuul will be encountered in the process of peeling off his own flesh from his head.
5. The Hags will be naked and "decorated" with bizarre piercings...I am contemplating downloading some images from S&M porn sites and cutting and pasting the various "body parts" of those images into a Frankenstien monster image for each Hag. I know my players will absolutely LOVE it, but I am not sure I want to be trolling S&M porn sites for pictures. (You don't understand honey. It's not for me, it's for the D&D game on Saturday)
6. MY wife suggested this last. I was reading the Barl encounter and she asked what was in it, expecting something gruesome. She said, "That's it? Wow. I expected them to be Gay Lovers dressed like the Village People or something". I don't usually like to over-parody encounters, it kills the verisimilitude. But I can't help imagining Barl wearing the "Indian Chief" outfit and his bodyguard wearing the "Gay Biker" outfit. Heck, even describing them both as wearing "assless chaps and nothing else" might be enough giggle. Besides, Once Barl starts to throw down down, the laughing might stop fairly quickly.
I like it the way it is. Dark and gritty, where being Evil is being truely evil. Not kicking puppies and being emo. And at the same time it's appropriate for the context that it is used in.
The horror of The Skinsaw Murders is appropriate because thats exactly what that module is revolving around. It needs to scare the pants off the PCs. My players had a lot of fun running through it because it was fun playing SCARED OUT OF YOUR MIND PCs and at the same time be safe in my living room. PS: Richard ROCKS.
Hook Mountain Massacre has a texas chainsaw/hillbillies gone wrong feel to it. I have read through it and I expected just what I got. Grotesque masacres, enraged and down right vile ogres, and the mind breaking visions of hillbillies (ogrekin) doing things that will not vanish from my PCs eyes. (thats what mindblank is for). I will probably even increase the rating.
We're all mature people in our late 20's. We all enjoy this kind of thing. Its sickening and horrifying, and yet it fun and keeps us moving wanting to know what happens next.
I say good job keeping the true essence of horror and gore, and still keeping it on track and not gratuitous. Everything seemed to blend in exceptionally well with what the modules NEEDED to get its particular theme just right.
I think Paizo could marginalize most of my concerns with the simple addition of a “modules intended for ages X and up” sticker blurb.And for the record... I thought Saw was a TERRIBLE movie. Not for the gore (I have a pretty strong stomach there) but simply because I thought the acting, the directing, and the story were just wretched. The director's gone on to show some promise (he just did the Kevin Bacon movie earlier this year, "Death Sentence"), but I doubt I'll ever be commissioning a movie based on Saw. Movies like Seven and The Hills Have Eyes, however... that's a different story! :)
I have to disagree-the saw series, and to a lesser extent the hostel movies, hold a mirror up to society and what we're capable of. I find that jigsaw, the protagonist of the saw movies, is actually pretty complex and has a lot of social commentary built into his madness. He's, IMHO, on par with Hannibal Lecter in the creepy department, but with a clearer backstory (the recent hannibal prequel movie notwithstanding)...I think the point of saw 3
shrug-to each his own
i hope i made those spoiler thingies right, never done it before...
My group really enjoyed the Skinsaw Murders. Only one is into horror movies, the rest avoid it. Im curious how they will react to the Hook Mountain Farm. I might tone it down a little. I prefer Skinsaw. Still I like that the ogres are monsters, not CE stat blocks inbetween orcs and giants.
But Jacobs is saying this is the gore climax of the adventure. I guess the Stone Giants will be our big example of Greed. Which is good 2 of 6 bieng dark and gory is fine.
I too have really enjoyed Pathfinder, but while I don't agree completely with the OP, I'm glad to hear that the rest of series pulls back from the gore/horror angle. After we finish Hook Mountain, I'll be ready for my players to step out into the wild world and face adventure on a grander scale. Horror adventures are somewhat claustrophobic, "inward" adventures - small, hidden locales, haunted houses, narrow passageways, dark secret rooms, murky hollows where evil lurks, etc. I'll be ready to run an "outward" adventure - fighting giants, taking on a dragon on the snows of a mountaintop, racing across the wide Storval Plateau, that kind of thing.
I thoroughly abhor the "torture porn" fad in movies; Scary movies are one thing; but I think wallowing in such depravity as torture porn can only be harmful and serves to diminish those who revel in it. In our roleplaying, we play heroes (even ones with dark sides) that fight evil. Would our characters enjoy watching someone being tortured merely for the sake of their personal entertainment? I would dare say that the vast majority of D&D'ers characters would not. What's the difference between a depraved fictional Pathfinder ogre dancing the skull-jig on the body of his victim and the real-life fools clapping with diseased, sick glee while watching the depiction of a fellow human being slowly murdered in movies like Saw or Hostel? Not much. And yes, I realize I'm making a value judgment here.
That being said, I do not necessarily mind that the villains in Pathfinder are so disgusting - the more evil they are, the more glory there will be for our heroes to gain by defeating them. I don't believe that the violence or gore presented in the modules is simply gratuitous; evil is EVIL, and it shows. While it skates close to the line, I don't feel that the Pathfinder modules are written to be "torture porn". I do find it interesting though, now that Paizo is out from underneath the thumb of Hasbro they are free to explore these darker themes.
Each DM can decide for themselves how much gore/horror elements to include in their game. Steve Grimwold above stated that his players like gore, so he's including more. Good for him; a good DM knows his audience and adjusts accordingly.
I absolutely love how games where creatures are described as slaughtering whole villages, but where the gruesome details are avoided, are games about "Fluffy clouds, Rainbows, and Ponies". Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?
By the way, when I mentioned the other thread, it was not to suggest that Paizo was actually going to do it. But instead so when someone comes on hear and says, "We are listening to our customers." We can think about what customers are being heard.
But make no mistake, as previously mentioned, Pathfinder aims to differentiate itself from it's competition, and is aimed at a specific audience. It probably should contain a content warning on the cover.
This is getting to the crux of the issue. Most of the competition in official D20 adventures still caters to the "Narnia" fans; there's plenty of material still being produced for those who want their D&D more Disney-like rather than Brothers Grimm (by the latter I mean the uncensored original stories, not the movie). People preferring a G/PG rating would be better off sticking with Hasbro/WotC adventures, or some of the excellent 3rd party efforts by Goodman Games, Necromancer Games, et al.
For those of us who prefer a slightly more mature product, Pathfinder fills that niche perfectly. Anyone who wants to go beyond that... well, you'll have to make up your own material, as many earlier posters seem to be doing. I'll keep subscribing to Pathfinder because it targets me, and people like me, as an audience. Too much more NP-17-rated and it would become cheesy and silly. Too much more sanitized and it would be like all the other D20 adventures. James & co. at Paizo have hit this one just right, I think, and I commend them for it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?
Don't we have enough "what is evil" threads without turning this into one too?
Maybe the next adventure path could revolve around fighting kenneth lay and big tobacco. Using the legal system, of course. It would be a nailbiting fight against the forces of darkness and completely gore free.
|
|
Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?
Don't we have enough "what is evil" threads without turning this into one too?
Maybe the next adventure path could revolve around fighting kenneth lay and big tobacco. Using the legal system, of course. It would be a nailbiting fight against the forces of darkness and completely gore free.
I think question is rhetorical, and the point that when trying to "demonstrate" how evil someone is that it seems to be becoming de rigeur that they be some sort of monstrous, sadistic pervert who violates the living and the dead. Just killing people isn't enough anymore.
But yeah, Big Tobacco - some scary guys there.
|
|
I have to disagree-the saw series, and to a lesser extent the hostel movies, hold a mirror up to society and what we're capable of. I find that jigsaw, the protagonist of the saw movies, is actually pretty complex and has a lot of social commentary built into his madness. He's, IMHO, on par with Hannibal Lecter in the creepy department, but with a clearer backstory (the recent hannibal prequel movie notwithstanding)...I think the point of saw 3
** spoiler omitted **
shrug-to each his own
i hope i made those spoiler thingies right, never done it before...
That's Eli Roth's justification for his unpleasant movies, but they are purely about exploitation and "yuk" factor. Saw 2, 3 and 4 are about flogging a franchise, not holding up a mirror to society.
Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?
For me, the answer is "Yes."
And I'll tell you why.
Killing hundreds of people quickly and efficiently isn't evil in and of itself. I imagine your asking your self how that can be. But I can imagine several scenarios where doing so could be considered beneficial. (Let's not turn this into a morality debate. I am not asking anyone to agree with me.)
Killing one person (or hundreds) needlessly slowly and deriving pride and pleasure from the act (so much so that you would wear trophies of your work) is "real evil."
But people have different lines of morality.
Pres man clearly doesn't match my line.
And ultimately, that is a good thing.
But more of a "preview" of basic topics covered in future AP's might be a good idea. Even if I don't agree with those that think RotRL is overboard, I don't like the idea of people getting stuff they don't want.
I don’t believe anyone genuinely dislikes the material, I just think it’s poorly labeled (something James addressed farther up - thanks for that, by the way, even disagreeing without being dismissive counts as a big positive).
The problem I see with the labeling is if you slap a content warning on it, people are going to expect seriously freaky crap and be upset that it isn’t mature enough! Then again, Paizo has some very creative folks working there, I’m sure they could find a happy medium.
|
|
Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?For me, the answer is "Yes."
And I'll tell you why.
Killing hundreds of people quickly and efficiently isn't evil in and of itself. I imagine your asking your self how that can be. But I can imagine several scenarios where doing so could be considered beneficial. (Let's not turn this into a morality debate. I am not asking anyone to agree with me.)
Killing one person (or hundreds) needlessly slowly and deriving pride and pleasure from the act (so much so that you would wear trophies of your work) is "real evil."
But people have different lines of morality.
Pres man clearly doesn't match my line.
And ultimately, that is a good thing.
But more of a "preview" of basic topics covered in future AP's might be a good idea. Even if I don't agree with those that think RotRL is overboard, I don't like the idea of people getting stuff they don't want.
I think you miss the point. Pres Man wasn't asking "What is evil?" The question is, if the evil of the perpetrator of the two acts is given, which is more evil? The one who idly slaughters hundreds without fuss, or rather orders such slaughter, to further his schemes. Or the one who eviscerates slowly one person on the winter solstice. The implied question is whether we really need to have the latter imagery to demonstrate evil.
Is it "real evil" when a being kills one person and wears their skin for a cloak, but not "real evil" when another person kills hundreds of people quickly and efficiently?
Don't we have enough "what is evil" threads without turning this into one too?
Maybe the next adventure path could revolve around fighting kenneth lay and big tobacco. Using the legal system, of course. It would be a nailbiting fight against the forces of darkness and completely gore free.
And THAT, Sebastian, is why I LOVE your posts-ROFL
I think you miss the point. Pres Man wasn't asking "What is evil?" The question is, if the evil of the perpetrator of the two acts is given, which is more evil? The one who idly slaughters hundreds without fuss, or rather orders such slaughter, to further his schemes. Or the one who eviscerates slowly one person on the winter solstice. The implied question is whether we really need to have the latter imagery to demonstrate evil.
And my answer still holds.
An idle slaughter is easily dismissable to me. Because without demonstrating the Evil in other ways, the idle slaughter could be construed as a beneficial act. Even if I do not think it was.
Without fully understanding the intentions behind the idle slaughter, I can not judge the act as Evil outright.
That's Eli Roth's justification for his unpleasant movies, but they are purely about exploitation and "yuk" factor. Saw 2, 3 and 4 are about flogging a franchise, not holding up a mirror to society.I have to disagree-the saw series, and to a lesser extent the hostel movies, hold a mirror up to society and what we're capable of. I find that jigsaw, the protagonist of the saw movies, is actually pretty complex and has a lot of social commentary built into his madness. He's, IMHO, on par with Hannibal Lecter in the creepy department, but with a clearer backstory (the recent hannibal prequel movie notwithstanding)...I think the point of saw 3
** spoiler omitted **
shrug-to each his own
i hope i made those spoiler thingies right, never done it before...
I strongly disagree, but to each his own--I haven't seen 4, but saw 1-3 had quite a bit of symbolism and social commentary-i think people were often so turned off by the gruesome content that they missed much of the underlying stuff (like the social commentary in romero's dead films, you strip it out, and you're left with Zak Snyder's awful 2004(?) remake of dawn of the dead).
I also think people don't like when the morally reprehensible villain, a la' jigsaw, is the one DOING the social commentary...
I disagree. Callous slaughter in absence of remorse or feeling of any kind is significantly more evil that the simple whack job that cuts up people and wears them as jewelry.
The loving father / cold blooded sociopath we had around here recently comes to mind.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think question is rhetorical, and the point that when trying to "demonstrate" how evil someone is that it seems to be becoming de rigeur that they be some sort of monstrous, sadistic pervert who violates the living and the dead. Just killing people isn't enough anymore.But yeah, Big Tobacco - some scary guys there.
I didn't see it as rehtorical - it was the same old lesser of two evil questions. Yes, some evils are lesser. The law distinguishes between stealing money with a computer and stealing money with a gun. So do people. Not only that, there's a lot less drama pursuing and stopping the guy who steals money using a computer than the guy who steals money using a gun. There's a reason the Law and Order franchise has yet to produce Law & Order: White Collar Crime Unit. It would be boring.
The basic thread of arguments has been that to a certain extent, heroism is measured by the evil you defeat. If you're just going after Ernie the Accountant, the worst he's going to do to you is maybe throw a stapler. But if you tangle with Jeffrey Dahmer and lose, you're lunch. Not only that, more people are going to suffer and die as a result of your failure. The dramatic costs of failure increase and so do the rewards of success.
And, if killing people efficiently is the yardstick of evil, then the most evil men on earth all served as U.S. Presidents, who commanded the U.S. military, an organization who's mission is largely to kill people efficiently.
What's that you say? There's a difference between the president ordering the U.S. military to kill and a mass murderer?
Why yes there is. Yes there is.
Creative Director
|
You liked Hills Have Eyes? You mean the remake? Weird. I really really wanted to like that movie.
I do NOT mean the remake. The remake is pedestrian and tame and dull. I much prefer the original Wes Craven-Directed version, and that's the one I'm talking about inspiring Hook Mountain.
|
I don't think these adventures come anywhere near the level of the so-called "torture porn" movies. See in another thread where I express my derision for that particular term. Hey, I'm glad someone has finally had the gumption to write adventures where evil is really evil and wounds actually bleed. Horror in general is a booming business these days! Just look at how many horror movies are released each month and how big a holiday Halloween has become.
Having said that, and being a fan of graphic horror (not to mention a writer of extremely graphic horror stories); Pathfinder is a maybe a hard PG-13 to low-level R rating. They don't dwell on the viscera or revel in the pain like an Eli Roth or Saw film might. So I disagree.
I also want to reiterate that I am a HUGE fan of movies like Saw, Hostel, Cabin Fever, High Tension, Wolf Creek and The Hills Have Eyes remake. They are the cinematic equivelant of a rollercoaster ride and are both exciting and gut-wrenching. They certainly aren't for everyone; but I don't think they are going anywhere soon either. Thank heavens for the freedom of expression.
|
Creative Director
|
Actually, my chief problem with the picture is not the obesity nor is it what she is eating. It is the nudity. I can't use that picture in a game with kids. I would prefer the editors to aim for a PG-13 with the artwork.
Noted, and normally we won't include nudity in art, but in that case I felt it was justified to add to the horror and disgust of the NPC in question.
|
|
I would be interested in hearing where Paizo plans to go with the next few adventure paths?
Continue dark horror/gore for all Pathfinder APs?
Mix it up with each AP having a different tone? (Some darker, some lighter? Less horror, more action/adventure, etc?)
For me, I like a mix. Too much of any one gets tedious after a while. I am not a big horror fan, but I like a good story and plotline - in any context.
I do think horror/gore will please some folks and turn off others. Paizo knows that too. They will be weighing the comments, so keep on discussing your impressions so far...
|
|
Noted, and normally we won't include nudity in art, but in that case I felt it was justified to add to the horror and disgust of the NPC in question.
LOL. I had to go look at the picture again. I didn't even notice it. Wardrobe Malfunction, har har.
For me personally, that's pretty tame, but *IF* I were the editor I would have nixed the nipple. Here is my test: If you REMOVE it does the horror and Disgust of the NPC remain? In My case, It sure does. I was disgusted and I didn't even notice the nudity. Therefore, Its unnecessary.
I think that test should also apply with respect to the Thread Topic. If you drop the "Torture Porn" elements (whether or not they actually qualify, we know what those elements are) does the story remain as strong?
I think, in the case of the Grauls for example, that the story would be significantly changed if you remove those "darker" elements. Indeed, remove them entirely and the PCs might be facing their own moral dilemma as they slaughter the hillbillies, a sort of Pathfinder Ruby Ridge moment.
Food for thought.
The basic thread of arguments has been that to a certain extent, heroism is measured by the evil you defeat. If you're just going after Ernie the Accountant, the worst he's going to do to you is maybe throw a stapler. But if you tangle with Jeffrey Dahmer and lose, you're lunch. Not only that, more people are going to suffer and die as a result of your failure. The dramatic costs of failure increase and so do the rewards of success.
This is, what is it called, a Strawman argument? (I am not up on all the technical fallacy terms)
Nobody is agruing that the pencil pusher is as equally evil. Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be is Dalmer more evil then say Stalin. Heck let's put it in terms of RotRL, are the ogres more evil than Karzoug? More disgusting sure, but more evil?
|
Creative Director
|
Dark horror will not be the rule for all Pathfinder Adventure Paths. It will, in fact, not be the rule for all Rise of the Runelord Adventure Paths, in fact. Mixing it up is important, since it keeps things from becoming too pedestrian and expected.
Curse of the Crimson Throne will have its dark moments as well, as will Second Darkness. There will hopefully also be lighthearted moments and times of not-opressive gloom, since All Gloom All the Time is no good either. That's something I need to keep mentioning to the authors, probably...
Torture porn? No. I took it as excessive dark humor. "Dark silliness" or "dark goofiness" might be better terms. Reading the adventure, I found it mildly entertaining in a tongue-in-cheek kind of way. However, come time to actually run the adventure, I'm looking at some serious revisions to water-down said goofiness and rework the plot so that it's less piecemeal. So, while I may pass verdict on it being a weak adventure, I didn't see anything that could accuse the author or the editors of being shallow and depraved. Juvenile, yes, but nothing worse...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
This is, what is it called, a Strawman argument? (I am not up on all the technical fallacy terms)
I can tell. That wasn't a strawman argument. The argument was that the scope of the personal peril is part of the measure of heroism. If that peril is not shown or is not of sufficient scope, the heroism loses value. There is a big difference between "I fail to stop the villian, and thus my friends and family get tortured" and "I fail to stop the villian, thus he has to allocate more men to kill me or to accomplish his plan."
If the agents he sends after me are the family killer/torturers, yeah, he's pretty nasty, and needs to be stopped. But if he just sends out some new guards to replace the ones I killed or hires a hit man to just kill me, the peril is not so high. At least not at a dramatic and personal level, as opposed to some abstract "how many people did you kill" kinda way.
Part of what makes the mugger more evil than the embezzler is the threat of personal bodily harm even though the crime (theft of money) is the same. You seem to be saying that the crime (killing people) is sufficiently evil regardless of the method. Thus, you mistake quantity for quality.
Nobody is agruing that the pencil pusher is as equally evil. Your analogy is flawed, a better analogy would be is Dalmer more evil then say Stalin. Heck let's put it in terms of RotRL, are the ogres more evil than Karzoug? More disgusting sure, but more evil?
See above. Part of what makes him evil is that he employs minions that do very nasty things to people. If his minions do nasty things like torture you whereas Karzoug is the kinda guy that will put you in a cell, give you a last meal, then have amazonian women hump you to death, all in the name of ruling the world for the sake of Evil (whatever the hell that is in the abstract - I guess killing people you don't like, albeit in a humane and kind manner), it's just not as dramatic or personal.
And just like that, you're back to a ways and means discussion of alignment.
Anyway, I'm done with arguing, straw man or otherwise. The thread title indicates you were looking to rouse discussion and you did so. There's no objective answer to the question of how much gore is too much, and I'm not interested in debating how many nuns Jeffery Dahmer has to torture to be more evil than Stalin or who a hero should kill. To me, the game is about drama, which occurs at the personal level as experienced in the game and not in some abstract "Sarumon killed an arbitrarily large number of imaginary people" kinda way. A history book does not become a horror novel by virtue of listing Stalin's atrocities.
People have voiced their opinion, Paizo is most likely listening, and they'll do what they believe to be appropriate based on that information rather than the abstract quantity of evil contained in each bite of Karzoug-O's.
A little gore and violence gives you an adventure that feels like it's for adults. Too much gore and violence gives you an adventure that feels juvenile and gratuitous. The problem of course is that all of us have a different point at which we think it's "too much".
For me, Hook Mountain crossed the line over into juvenile and gratuitous. I grew progressively more uncomfortable reading it, and I was fairly disgusted by the time I got to the
Do we really need that? What does it add that we haven't already seen at least a dozen times before that point in the adventure? Ok, I get it, ogres are bad, can we move on please?
But then, upthread someone was complaining that the worst thing about Hook Mountain was a picture with an exposed nipple and breast. I didn't bat an eye at that, and wouldn't be bothered by more explicit pictures or text in the future. So everybody has different things that bother them I guess.
|
|
I also think people don't like when the morally reprehensible villain, a la' jigsaw, is the one DOING the social commentary...
Well, if you say so. I remain to be convinced. But a meaning which is imputed to a body of work (can you call Saw of Hostel art?) may be valid even if not intended by the makers. But the basic reason they are made is not as social commentary but to earn a quick buck. Which is a commentary in itself. Or something.
I'll stop now.
|
|
For me it is not an issue of whether there is worse, it is what I like, and am interested in reading/watching/purchasing.
I am a major horror fan. I have enough Lovecraft, King, and Straub sitting around to break a foot if I dropped the box on you, and then there are the RPG books.
I love many horror films, but I find the current batch (Saw, Hostel, and so forth) inane. I am not horrified by any of them. I am not exactly nauseated, just repulsed. I find nothing of any entertainment value in them.
There is more to horror than just gore. That is not to say there has been nothing else in Pathfinder, there has. I would like to see more of the other kinds in the future, and not see the gore element expanded. (Which it seems is recognized at Paizo, which I see as a good thing.)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For me it is not an issue of whether there is worse, it is what I like, and am interested in reading/watching/purchasing.
I am a major horror fan. I have enough Lovecraft, King, and Straub sitting around to break a foot if I dropped the box on you, and then there are the RPG books.
I love many horror films, but I find the current batch (Saw, Hostel, and so forth) inane. I am not horrified by any of them. I am not exactly nauseated, just repulsed. I find nothing of any entertainment value in them.
There is more to horror than just gore. That is not to say there has been nothing else in Pathfinder, there has. I would like to see more of the other kinds in the future, and not see the gore element expanded. (Which it seems is recognized at Paizo, which I see as a good thing.)
This is an excellent summation of my feelings, thanks Sam. I'm not a fan of the latest crop of "horror" movies and I expect Paizo will continue to use gore as but one tool in their storytelling arsenal. In the meantime, I am relatively happy of their use of the tool thus far - particularly if you consider the entire range of Paizo products, including the Gamemastery modules, which tell good stories and are not particularly gory.
I like peanut butter.
I also think people don't like when the morally reprehensible villain, a la' jigsaw, is the one DOING the social commentary...Well, if you say so. I remain to be convinced. But a meaning which is imputed to a body of work (can you call Saw of Hostel art?) may be valid even if not intended by the makers. But the basic reason they are made is not as social commentary but to earn a quick buck. Which is a commentary in itself. Or something.
I'll stop now.
Yeah, I'm starting to feel like I should expect Chainsaw and Dave from Summer School to show up to discuss the literary value of horror movies. :)
Actually, my chief problem with the picture is not the obesity nor is it what she is eating. It is the nudity. I can't use that picture in a game with kids. I would prefer the editors to aim for a PG-13 with the artwork.Noted, and normally we won't include nudity in art, but in that case I felt it was justified to add to the horror and disgust of the NPC in question.
** spoiler omitted **
As a child I saw scads of nudity which nourished my mind like a vitamin. I grew to 6'2" with a shiny coat and no inhibitions about tossing my savage junk on the table during dinner. I highly recommend it for all children. Go nature!
|
|
I think question is rhetorical, and the point that when trying to "demonstrate" how evil someone is that it seems to be becoming de rigeur that they be some sort of monstrous, sadistic pervert who violates the living and the dead. Just killing people isn't enough anymore.But yeah, Big Tobacco - some scary guys there.
I didn't see it as rehtorical - it was the same old lesser of two evil questions. Yes, some evils are lesser. The law distinguishes between stealing money with a computer and stealing money with a gun. So do people. Not only that, there's a lot less drama pursuing and stopping the guy who steals money using a computer than the guy who steals money using a gun. There's a reason the Law and Order franchise has yet to produce Law & Order: White Collar Crime Unit. It would be boring.
The basic thread of arguments has been that to a certain extent, heroism is measured by the evil you defeat. If you're just going after Ernie the Accountant, the worst he's going to do to you is maybe throw a stapler. But if you tangle with Jeffrey Dahmer and lose, you're lunch. Not only that, more people are going to suffer and die as a result of your failure. The dramatic costs of failure increase and so do the rewards of success.
And, if killing people efficiently is the yardstick of evil, then the most evil men on earth all served as U.S. Presidents, who commanded the U.S. military, an organization who's mission is largely to kill people efficiently.
What's that you say? There's a difference between the president ordering the U.S. military to kill and a mass murderer?
Why yes there is. Yes there is.
Sebastian, you really have missed the point. Sorry.
We are talking about the depiction of sadistic violence. In the RotRL it has been used, with varying degrees of graphic description, as a shorthand (or longhand, since it takes longer to write) as "Whoa, these guys are evil". The question being asked is not "Is it more evil to kill thousands quickly and efficiently, rather than individually, slowly and sadistically?" (the latter being the RotRL literary quirk at the moment) but "Is it really necessary to depict gory, violent torture, violation and death to get the idea that these guys are evil?" I.e. evil takes other forms. The violent, sadistic example is one, and a valid one, but there are others (like casual extermination of a population). After all,
Yet all we seem to get is the same old entrails thrown about the room. What I'm looking for is a discussion of whether the violence is therefore necessary or gratuitous. My view is that, in some instances, especially in Hook Mountain, the context does not support the "evil" being depicted. And lets face, the PCs are doing the "save the world" thing. From who?
There must be more convincing, more all-encompasing depictions of evil than that.
EDIT: I see Sam Weiss had summarised me more succintly. And nice to see we agree after all, Seb. :-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian, you really have missed the point. Sorry.
We are talking about the depiction of sadistic violence. In the RotRL it has been used, with varying degrees of graphic description, as a shorthand (or longhand, since it takes longer to write) as "Whoa, these guys are evil". The question being asked is not "Is it more evil to kill thousands quickly and efficiently, rather than individually, slowly and sadistically?" (the latter being the RotRL literary quirk at the moment) but "Is it really necessary to depict gory, violent torture, violation and death to get the idea that these guys are evil?" I.e. evil takes other forms. The violent, sadistic example is one, and a valid one, but there are others (like casual extermination of a population).
There must be more convincing, more all-encompasing depictions of evil than that.
And, as I said, the violence at a personal level is more meanginful than the violence at an abstract level. I suppose if they could work in a good story involving a non-violent evil act (of which there are many) that would be swell, but it would also be difficult to translate into a threat against a generic set of PCs. The number of imaginary people Sarumon may have killed, casually or not, is completely without emotional value.
So yes, it is a fundamentally different ball game to say "if you fail you die" and "if you fail, you get tortured for 3-5 days, and then die."
Edit: A lot of this reminds me of a story I heard on NPR about a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. Apparently, packs of wild dogs were a constant nusiance to the base, and could even kill people if they were not careful. The soldier was involved in combat and even killed enemy combatants. He also killed the wild dogs.
Guess which one people got more upset about.
That's what we're talking about - the emotional punch of the acts of evil, not the level of the evil itself.
(not that I'm saying the soldier is evil, just that people were more upset by an act that would, theoreticaly, be more justifiable in a moral sense. and not that I'm saying that gore can't lose it's emotional punch or be a cheap substitute for emotional reaction, but it is the emotional reaction that is of value, not the amount of evil)
|
|
And, as I said, the violence at a personal level is more meanginful than the violence at an abstract level. I suppose if they could work in a good story involving a non-violent evil act (of which there are many) that would be swell, but it would also be difficult to translate into a threat against a generic set of PCs. The number of imaginary people Sarumon may have killed, casually or not, is completely without emotional value.
So yes, it is a fundamentally different ball game to say "if you fail you die" and "if you fail, you get tortured for 3-5 days, and then die."
Hmm - harder to write, maybe, but I suspect far from impossible. Body horror loses its impact after a while (otherwise surgeons couldn't cope). But yes, it would be a challenge to a writer, DM and players to do something more abstract and have it elicit a big reaction.
