Slaves now legal to own in PFS?

[Mystically Inclined]

Two hundred sixty nine posts later - over triple the size of the original thread and still going - Onikokoro Vallaway (the poster that necromancied this 4 year old thread) is celebrating what may possibly be one of the most successful pieces of trolling in the history of the forums.

[N N 959]

Sniggevert wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Jason Hanlon wrote:

While I wholeheartedly agree that slavery is a very deep subject that must be treated with caution and maturity by players, I disagree with a number of things that N N 959 has said. Chief among them is the idea that crimes are somehow worse because the victim is part of an ethnic group.

i didn't say that, nor did I intended to say that.

<jaw drops>

N N 959 wrote:

10. Evil acts that do not or did not historically target ethnic groups are irrelevant.

Are irrelevant to the basis under which I object to players owning slaves in PFS. It is not because slavery is or is not an evil act, it is because it is a racially sensitive topic in the US and I've seen no argument that PC ownership of slaves is necessary in PFS.

[talbanus]

Mistwalker wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

You're not fathoming the issue. Slavery is a politically inflammatory topic in our society. Why? Because of the racial undertones and the horrible atrocities associated with it. None of this other stuff that is arguably immoral was conducted on a racial basis as was slavery ...here...in the US.

This is an approach that irritates the rest of the world - you are only taking a very narrow US based point of view. To some, that will smack of racism - if you aren't American, you are not important.

Could you point out where anyone else has brought race into this discussion, besides yourself that is?

<points to self> Not overtly, but, I pretty much inferred it. Again,IMO, this stuff (roleplaying slave ownership) belongs in a home game, not in PFS.

[MYTHIC TOZ]

Jason Hanlon wrote:

Two hundred sixty nine posts later - over triple the size of the original thread and still going - Onikokoro Vallaway (the poster that necromancied this 4 year old thread) is celebrating what may possibly be one of the most successful pieces of trolling in the history of the forums.

Hell of a delayed blast that one.

[The Beard]

talbanus wrote:

Then what was your point? Please explain.

My point (aside from me somehow writing pissed instead of missed) was that the majority of US citizens do not find slavery an offensive subject. No attempt was made to convey in some manner that the minority is irrelevant.

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:

Jason Hanlon wrote:

Two hundred sixty nine posts later - over triple the size of the original thread and still going - Onikokoro Vallaway (the poster that necromancied this 4 year old thread) is celebrating what may possibly be one of the most successful pieces of trolling in the history of the forums.

Hell of a delayed blast that one.

... This isn't just a delayed blast. I think maximize, empower, intensify and persistent are involved somewhere in there as well.

[N N 959]

Mistwalker wrote:

This is an approach that irritates the rest of the world - you are only taking a very narrow US based point of view. To some, that will smack of racism - if you aren't American, you are not important.

I'm not entirely sure I know what it is your are trying to say, but if you are playing this game in, I don't know, Manipur and you want slave ownership to be allowed, fine by me. I don't really care what rules PFS uses in Manipur.

And more to the point, if people in Manipur felt certain themes would socially inappropriate, I would applaud PFS for banning those things in that country. If you want to argue for removal of themes that are offensive in your country, I wouldn't have a problem with that, especially when it had so little substantive impact on the game as in this case.

[Leg o' Lamb]

N N 959, have you played #1-33, Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible?

Just curious if you have and how you felt about a certain plot point...

[The Beard]

jon dehning wrote:

N N 959, have you played #1-33, Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible?

Just curious if you have and how you felt about a certain plot point...

... I was just thinking that. >_>

But seriously. Hey, Paizo staff. HEY, LISTEN, HEY, LISTEN, HEY, LISTEN, HEY, LISTEN! PRESS C UP TO TALK TO ME! Thread needs locking in the worst way.

[Leg o' Lamb]

The Beard wrote:

jon dehning wrote:

N N 959, have you played #1-33, Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible?

Just curious if you have and how you felt about a certain plot point...

... I was just thinking that. >_>

But seriously. Hey, Paizo staff. HEY, LISTEN, HEY, LISTEN, HEY, LISTEN, HEY LISTEN! PRESS C UP TO TALK TO ME! Thread needs locking in the worst way.

Us Chelaxians think alike...

[N N 959]

The Beard wrote:

My point (aside from me somehow writing pissed instead of missed) was that the majority of US citizens do not find slavery an offensive subject.

I don't find slavery an offensive subject, I find the PC ownership of slaves in the context of a organized play game socially inappropriate.

I also applaud the banning of evil characters for fundamentally similar reasons. In a home game, do what you want. At a game store...no thanks. I actually would not be playing PFS if evil characters were allowed.

[Mystically Inclined]

MYTHIC TOZ wrote:

Hell of a delayed blast that one.

It was a (poor?) attempt at repeating the 'lets not get into this - don't feed the trolls' posts back at the thread's revival.

Beard- Just keep flagging. They'll get here. ;)

[talbanus]

The Beard wrote:

My point (aside from me somehow writing pissed instead of missed) was that the majority of US citizens do not find slavery an offensive subject. No attempt was made to convey in some manner that the minority is irrelevant.

The subject of slavery, as in an academic discussion, and that subject being role-played out aren't the same thing. As far as the majority of Americans not finding portrayals of slavery not offensive, I'd like to see the numbers on that. Perhaps offensive is not the right word -- maybe upsetting? And, yes, before anyone goes there, there have been many such portrayals on stage and screen. The two most recent that leap to mind are Django Unchained and 12 Years a Slave. People did go to see the movies, but I contend they knew what they were getting into. That, contrasted to a new player sitting down at a table of PFS and immediately being confronted with a slave-owning PC? Yes, a rare occurence, if at all, but is what this adds to the campaign worth the risk of alienating even one new player?

[N N 959]

jon dehning wrote:

N N 959, have you played #1-33, Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible?

Just curious if you have and how you felt about a certain plot point...

I have not. But i did have strong objections to the Shadow Lodge faction mission Blakros Matrimony. There was no way my Andoran character would have agreed to that outcome, and luckily we had no one from that faction.

I made several posts about it in the GM thread, but mainly on the grounds that it is a land mine for PvP...which is not allowed. So why set up the PC's for that kind of confrontation?

On this topic, I have more moral objections to it.

[TriOmegaZero]

I should stop reading this and the SKR farewell thread at the same time.

Odd juxtaposition.

[N N 959]

nosig wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

Mistwalker wrote:

This is an approach that irritates the rest of the world - you are only taking a very narrow US based point of view. To some, that will smack of racism - if you aren't American, you are not important.

I'm not entirely sure I know what it is your are trying to say, but if you are playing this game in, I don't know, Manipur and you want slave ownership to be allowed, fine by me. I don't really care what rules PFS uses in Manipur.

And more to the point, if people in Manipur felt certain themes would socially inappropriate, I would applaud PFS for banning those things in that country. If you want to argue for removal of themes that are offensive in your country, I wouldn't have a problem with that, especially when it had so little substantive impact on the game as in this case.

Historical side note: 60 years ago, in the US, it was considered to be "socially inappropriate" to use "persons of color" in positions of authority, and movies in the southern US were banned for that reason (or modified).

"If you want to argue for removal of themes that are offensive in your country, I wouldn't have a problem with that, especially when it had so little substantive impact on the game as in this case."

wow...

That's pretty ridiculous for you to try and take a statement out of context and twist it into saying something it's not. I'm flagging your posts for being offensive.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking. I think we're done here.