Advanced Player's Guide silliness: Bonuses for being a prostitute

[Zaister]

A Man In Black wrote:

Because an option to get bonuses for being a prostitute (in a general-topic sourcebook) is offensive to me.

So basically, it comes down to the fact that the concept of a player character prostitute offends you, however a player character assassin does not. Is that right?

[Krome]

A Man In Black wrote:

Because an option to get bonuses for being a prostitute (in a general-topic sourcebook) is offensive to me.

but murdering isn't?

[Gorbacz]

MiB, I have a question to you.

Do you find the artwork on page 321 of APG offensive ?

[Ordinary Kraken]

A Man In Black wrote:

Ordinary Kraken wrote:

Or is this expression of suprise in par with the US idea that it is OK to graphically kill someone, but sex is somehow taboo? I can't ever understand this strange take people have to sex, its something we all (eventually) do after all, which thankfully is not the same for most other aspects of RPGs.

Where are you from that prostitution isn't considered exploitative and taboo?

Where are you from that murder and thievery isn't? (Kick in the door kill things and take their stuff)

I am neither condoning or condeming prostitution (and by the way, many cultures do not have strong taboos against prostitution). I merely find it amusing that we can play a game about killing random individuals to take their magic sword, but think that sex or anything attached to it is somehow off limits.

[Demon Lord of Tribbles]

"Wait we have sacred prostitutes? Why did no one tell me!"

Goes off in search of sacred prostitutes , naked with a coin purse and a bottle of Rum

[A Man In Black]

Zaister wrote:

So basically, it comes down to the fact that the concept of a player character prostitute offends you, however a player character assassin does not. Is that right?

No, the concept of getting bonuses for being a prostitute offends me.

Gorbacz wrote:

MiB, I have a question to you.

Do you find the artwork on page 321 of APG offensive ?

In poor taste. It's completely out-of-context gore that doesn't actually illustrate anything. Why do we need a picture of someone being disembowelled here, particularly when you could illustrate any of the new combat maneuvers described in the section?

[ithuriel]

The APG isn't giving out bonuses randomly to all the prostitutes of Golarion. It is a trait which can only be taken by temple trained adherents to a particular goddess.

So it isn't prostitute = bonus.
It is training = bonus.

Since Calistra is a well established part of the world and she does run temples which revolves partly around sex the trait doesn't really seem like an issue to me. Very few players are going to take it but if they want that angle, there it is. Also- there were equivalent temples in ancient Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, and Jerusalem not to mention sources like Firefly as mentioned above.

[seekerofshadowlight]

A Man In Black wrote:

No, the concept of getting bonuses for being a prostitute offends me.

They are gaining the bonuses because of training in a temple. How is this any diff from stealth Bonus or a Knowledge bonus? You gain them from background training how it this any diff?

[TriOmegaZero]

Gorbacz wrote:

Do you find the artwork on page 321 of APG offensive ?

Yes.

[GeraintElberion]

Are you really so naive as to think that people doing unpleasant jobs might not pick up some skills from doing so?

Personally, I dislike the institution of prostitution and the people who exploit these women, but I have no quibble with prostitutes themselves.

[Zaister]

A Man In Black wrote:

No, the concept of getting bonuses for being a prostitute offends me.

The character gets bonuses because of certain skills picked up in the character's background. So what? Nothing unrealistic or objectionable about it to me.

[A Man In Black]

ithuriel wrote:

Since Calistra is a well established part of the world and she does run temples which revolves partly around sex the trait doesn't really seem like an issue to me. Very few players are going to take it but if they want that angle, there it is. Also- there were equivalent temples in ancient Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, and Jerusalem not to mention sources like Firefly as mentioned above.

Well, then I'm offended by a "sympathetic" religion with cult prostitutes, for the same reason I'd be offended by a sympathetic religion that practiced human(oid) sacrifice.

[Carpy DM]

A Man In Black wrote:

ithuriel wrote:

Since Calistra is a well established part of the world and she does run temples which revolves partly around sex the trait doesn't really seem like an issue to me. Very few players are going to take it but if they want that angle, there it is. Also- there were equivalent temples in ancient Greece, Rome, Mesopotamia, and Jerusalem not to mention sources like Firefly as mentioned above.

Well, then I'm offended by a "sympathetic" religion with cult prostitutes, for the same reason I'd be offended by a sympathetic religion that practiced human(oid) sacrifice.

...did you just equate prostitution with murder?

[Zaister]

OK, we have established, it's just your personal sense of propriety then. Most other people seem to think different. Personally I'd rather have an all-prostitute group than a single evil PC, but that's just me.

But its easier than with contentious rules, if some background elements offend you, simply don't use them in your game.

I think we can consider that matter closed.

[ithuriel]

That's fine. It's not for me to tell you what is offensive to you. Cut it out of your game. Why are you trying to convince us to be offended? Why are you making an argument that the book should have been edited to your considerably more conservative sensibility? The rest of us may enjoy having more options.

[Zombieneighbours]

It isn't being a prostitute that gives you a bonus here, it is being a sacred prostitut in a temple of Calistria. They have lived in an enviroment in which sex, vendetta and intrigue are a constant element of life.

Now if you accept that traits make sense, in that elements of a characters background have a mechanical effect, and that exceptionally rich parent would result in you starting with more money, or that having trained at a fencing school might make you better at disarming your opponent, why is it offensive to say that people who live within the conditions of such a temple, might be good at observation and diplomacy, especially if it is part of their training?

[Krome]

A Man In Black wrote:

No, the concept of getting bonuses for being a prostitute offends me.

I can appreciate your opinion that you find this perhaps to be glamorizing, or romanticizing prostitution. I don't want to diminish your opinion of that matter.

I just find it odd that the approach to the issue seems to convey the impression (this is the way I see many of these kinds of posts- so I apologize if I am over generalizing) that you wish that Paizo had published this books to conform to your particular opinions and values.

I cherry pick what I want out of books. They are written for a very wide audience. What I don't like I exclude.

Now on this topic in particular, and THIS is not directed solely at you you, MIB, is the idea that prostitution, in any form is abhorrent and should be excluded from the game while at the same time playing a character that engages in murder and theft (because when we get down to it, even if we slap a "good" alignment on the character, that is exactly what adventurers do). The disconnect that murder and theft are somehow more acceptable than sex in general (for some people- not necessarily you MIB) or prostitution specifically is hard for me to grasp.

[A Man In Black]

Carpy DM wrote:

...did you just equate prostitution with murder?

In that they're both unsympathetic, yes, I did equate them. Pimps are reprehensible in the same way (if not necessarily to the same degree) as murderers. I'd feel the same way if there was a supposedly-sympathetic religion with cult slavery, too.

ithuriel wrote:

Why are you trying to convince us to be offended? Why are you making an argument that the book should have been edited to your considerably more conservative sensibility?

Wait, WHAT. Since when is considering prostitution a blight conservative? Don't get into this false equivalence nonsense with me, having an issue with prostitution doesn't mean that I have some hang-up about sexual topics. Sex is healthy and natural, sexual topics are unavoidable in any game with a social setting aimed at people over the age of 12, but prostitution is an ugly practice that is an unqualified blight on civil society.

In the books I own and have read (I honestly never did get around to reading the Pathfinder setting book, even though I got a free copy), they've never sprung on me, "Oh, hey, the goddess of love practices cult prostitution." I do have a problem with cult prostitution being presented in a sympathetic way.

And you know what? There isn't a single reason that cult prostitution needs to be mentioned at all. Knowing how to listen sympathetically (and getting a bonus to doing so) is a learned skill for any practicing clergy of any religion ever, regardless of the particular rites of that religion. That trait could be assigned to the clergy of any religion ever (barring, say, a religion dedicated to utter sociopathy, but then I wonder how there's any religion at all there). They don't need to foist their grimdark idiocy on me in what is supposed to be setting-independent book full of character-building tools.

So yes, I am mad that they sprung the dumb grimdark parts of Golarion on me unexpectedly.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

It isn't being a prostitute that gives you a bonus here, it is being a sacred prostitut in a temple of Calistria. They have lived in an enviroment in which sex, vendetta and intrigue are a constant element of life.

"You worked as a cult prostitute in a temple. Here are some bonuses appropriate to having worked in a temple."

"You worked in a temple. Here are some bonuses appropriate to having worked in a temple."

Nothing of value is lost.

In fact, it's quite similar to the image on page 321. Completely gratuitous.

[PathfinderEspañol]

My opinion:

Traits are supossed to be backgrounds, and prostitution looks as good as slavery, murder, etc.. the trait doesn't make your character a prostitute, it just means that once in the past it was. The trait is absolutly ok.

What's more, prostitution has many forms. A lady dancing and speaking with constumers in a place for high class gentlement, and getting money from either the clients or the place owner, is a prostitute (you can call it in many other forms, trying to be polite, but time ago it was a prostitute, and it still is).
Nothing in the trait rules that the service provided by the sacred prostitute were sexual. Also there is no mention to whether the prostitution is forced or not.

I would stop the paranoia and would adapt the trait to my sensibilities.

[The Killer Nacho]

I don't see what the issue is. MiB, if prostitutes getting bonuses really offends you, don't play with the trait. It's as simple as that. However, I don't think you have much of an argument that the trait somehow doesn't make sense (a trained prostitute WOULD excel at those things). If it infringes on your delicate sensibilities, don't play with the trait. As a DM, you can ban it. As a player, you can choose not to take and and ask others at your table to not take it either (honestly, I don't think most other players would want to take it except for fluff, there are better options).

However, like many, MANY people said on this thread... prostitution was a part of medieval (and therefore, fantasy) culture. To exclude it from a place where it should probably exist just because OUR culture doesn't approve is silly. Even if you exclude the assassin class (since it is evil), the Pathfinder RPG still includes murder, thievery, racism, and slavery. Things that are considered horrible by our society, but even good characters can participate in (The vigilante CG character, a Robin Hood type of thief, Killing goblins because they have green skin and you don't, a good king having slaves and servants). Further, you claim there is no trait that is an "assassin" trait. Please look again. There IS a trait that is just that... a trait designed to give you a bonus for being a good murderer:

Killer
Benefit: You deal additional damage equal to your weapon’s critical hit modifier when you score a successful critical hit with a weapon; this additional damage is added to the final total, and is not multiplied by the critical hit multiple itself. This extra damage is a trait bonus.

In conclusion, there is no reason why this trait shouldn't exist. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to play with it. I, for one, and glad that it was included and if any of my players want to use it, I will be more than glad to let them take it.

[Cydeth]

*shakes head* Considering that, in their time, many of the real world's sacred prostitutes were respected individuals, and, at least in ancient Greece, among the only women who were educated and allowed to participate in politics? Eh. I find your opinions insulting, honestly.

[hogarth]

On a rare occasion, some of Paizo's stuff strikes me as a little "ooh, check us out, we're edgy; this ain't your mama's D&D". That kind of thing is not my cup of tea, but I'm not offended, of course.

[A Man In Black]

Cydeth wrote:

*shakes head* Considering that, in their time, many of the real world's sacred prostitutes were respected individuals, and, at least in ancient Greece, among the only women who were educated and allowed to participate in politics? Eh. I find your opinions insulting, honestly.

Many of the real world's slavers were respected individuals, and in ancient Greece slaves could live fairly comfortably depending on the status of their owners. If you plopped down ancient Greece unchanged in most games, they'd still be the bad guys, or at least a society players would be fighting to reform.

I'm offended by a poor effort to propose sympathetic pimps.

hogarth wrote:

On a rare occasion, some of Paizo's stuff strikes me as a little "ooh, check us out, we're edgy; this ain't your mama's D&D". That kind of thing is not my cup of tea, but I'm not offended, of course.

Maybe someone was nostalgic for Gygax's cringeworthy "camp follower" tables.

[Cartigan]

A Man In Black wrote:

Kaiyanwang wrote:

And again, consider prostitution as taboo and assassination as perfectly fine is a sort of logic that makes me scaried.

I haven't spotted an assassin trait yet.

Well there is a class...

A Man In Black wrote:

I'm offended by a poor effort to propose sympathetic pimps.

To quote the White Stripes, "You can't be a pimp and prostitute too."

Pimp != Prostitute

[ithuriel]

You should probably read the source material in question then,

Gods and Magic - Calistra wrote:

"Many priests work with or as prostitutes, always in a manner that assures the safety of those in the profession; the church does not make its priests into victims, as they are people with great power who greatly enjoy what they do for a living."

"Good temples try to serve the community and usually function as a brothel with sacred prostitutes, as they believe that the relief of sexual needs eases other tensions that might lead to violence."

The idea that divinely ordained priests and priestesses are lorded over by some kind of fantasy age pimp is pretty ridiculous. Becoming a priest in a fantasy setting like this is a path to power and respect- not victimhood.

[DrowVampyre]

1) There's nothing in there about pimps. These are not streetwalking prostitutes being exploited by a guy in a brightly-colored suit with a feather in the hat - these are very respected members of the clergy who choose to serve their goddess (the goddess of lust, trickery, and vengeance, mind you) in this manner. There's no pimp to be sympathetic to - a Calistrian sacred prostitute is as close to an almost-sex-slave prostitute as a volunteer soldier is to a Somali child-soldier kidnapped from their family, made to kill them on the spot, and hooked on drugs to keep them loyal.

2) Is Calistria a "sympathetic deity" anyway? She's no good-aligned, her domains don't include typically "good" traits...

[Cydeth]

I find your opinion insulting because of a number of things.

1) You're patronizing and full of hyperbole in my experience.
2) You're trying to inflict your morals on a game played by many people. Your opinions should not shape the game for the rest of us who might like things that are different and moral quandries.
3) The trait in question is a religious trait for their world. Not yours or mine, unless we use their deities. And so far as I know, no one is holding a gun to my head forcing me to use deities as is.

That is more than a little annoying, as I have done research on this, and you might want to actually look up the various sacred prostitutes. Unless you're looking at it from a purely Christian standpoint, things are nowhere near as cut and dried as you seem to be implying.

[DCironlich]

I'm glad to see the issue of sex addressed in Pathfinder. If a PC can get a bonus to more effectively damage an opponent in battle, then it makes sense a prostitute might get a bonus to more effectively seduce a client or gather information.

In this discussion, it seems that everyone has focused on women being exploited by prostitution. Keep in mind that men can be prostitutes as well.

I wonder if all sexual issues are too sensitive for some Pathfinder players? Are all sexual issues seen as inherently evil? Is prostitution more or less evil than seduction for other nefarious purposes?

[A Man In Black]

ithuriel wrote:

You should probably read the source material in question then,

Augh, that's horrible. Especially offensive is the idea that the idea that the brothels cater to people inclined to violence. That's some of the worst treatment of sexuality in roleplaying I've read in a book that wasn't FATAL.

[Berik]

I think people are being a bit harsh on MiB here to be honest. I don't personally have a problem with the trait (though I doubt it would really see play in any groups I've played in), but I can understand why some people might. I'm sure there are plenty of people who think the trait is fine, plenty who wouldn't have use for it but don't mind it existing, and plenty who find it offensive (probably to varying degrees). MiB is obviously in the last group and it's probably not a bad thing for Paizo to get an idea of how many of their customers hold that sort of belief.

The Golarion world flavour also isn't really all that relevant to the discussion since the APG is a setting neutral book. I agree that the flavour about Calistria may help make the trait more acceptable to some people, but that information isn't in the APG so shouldn't be necessary to keep it from being offensive.

[Cartigan]

A Man In Black wrote:

ithuriel wrote:

You should probably read the source material in question then,

Augh, that's horrible. Especially offensive is the idea that the idea that the brothels cater to people inclined to violence. That's some of the worst treatment of sexuality in roleplaying I've read in a book that wasn't FATAL.

I agree. Churches should kick out everyone inclines for violence. No more blessings for you, Mr Fighter. Any Rogue coming within 100' of a church in Golarian will immediately be arrested.

[ithuriel]

Considering MiB isn't one of their customers according to him... I'm not sure what the point is.

[A Man In Black]

Cartigan wrote:

I agree. Churches should kick out everyone inclines for violence. No more blessings for you, Mr Fighter. Any Rogue coming within 100' of a church in Golarian will immediately be arrested.

See, this is the passive-aggressive sarcasm getting in the way again. Make your point directly and clearly so there can be a discussion. Merely alluding to it with sarcasm is useless noise.

ithuriel wrote:

Considering MiB isn't one of their customers according to him... I'm not sure what the point is.

Well, I bought the APG and all.

I'm curious who write that boneheaded passage in G&M so I can avoid their work in the future, though.

[Themetricsystem]

A Man In Black wrote:

Troll-bait

Seriously dude, we get it you don't like it. Now is the part where you realize that other people don't see it that way and stop fueling argument.

That being said, I disagree that you believe it is distasteful.

[The 8th Dwarf]

Arrrgh I am getting flashbacks from the Erastil is sexist thread.

MIB you are offended - noted

I am not offended its a fact of life it has always existed and will allways exist.

Paizo has no qualms about using adult themes and this is what makes them unique and beyond the usual post puritan vanilla that comes out of the US. Where for some bizarre reason shooting people in the face is cool but sex is not.

Prostitution happens (check out the history of the wild west, lots of school teachers from back east made a lot of money selling sex) and then set them selves up legitimately.

Present day unfortunately a lot of women find it necessary to strip or enter into prostitution to put themselves through university... Or go to a isolated mining town in Alaska or the Kimberleys and prostitutes earn more per hour than the highly paid miners.

It is not inconceivable that they learn all kinds of social skills from their professions and also pick up a lot of information that they can use. Ask the prostitutes from a mining town about which mining stocks to invest in as they will know before it is made official if a strike has been made.

So MIB this is an issue for you and not an issue for a lot of people, you have made your opinion known and I value and respect your opinion but I disagree.

I will be highly offended if Paizo starts censoring itself (which I doubt with those rouges Pett and Logue on the books). I do not want safe and bland Paizo I want challenging and kick arse Paizo.

[northbrb]

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

Arrrgh I am getting flashbacks from the Erastil is sexist thread.

MIB you are offended - noted

I am not offended its a fact of life it has always existed and will allways exist.

Paizo has no qualms about using adult themes and this is what makes them unique and beyond the usual post puritan vanilla that comes out of the US. Where for some bizarre reason shooting people in the face is cool but sex is not.

Prostitution happens (check out the history of the wild west, lots of school teachers from back east made a lot of money selling sex) and then set them selves up legitimately.

Present day unfortunately a lot of women find it necessary to strip or enter into prostitution to put themselves through university... Or go to a isolated mining town in Alaska or the Kimberleys and prostitutes earn more per hour than the highly paid miners.

It is not inconceivable that they learn all kinds of social skills from their professions and also pick up a lot of information that they can use. Ask the prostitutes from a mining town about which mining stocks to invest in as they will know before it is made official if a strike has been made.

So MIB this is an issue for you and not an issue for a lot of people, you have made your opinion known and I value and respect your opinion but I disagree.

I will be highly offended if Paizo starts censoring itself (which I doubt with those rouges Pett and Logue on the books). I do not want safe and bland Paizo I want challenging and kick arse Paizo.

+1 i don't want to play a game aimed for kids

[mdt]

If it offends you, that's fine. You're entitled to that opinion.

Don't buy the product. If it really offends you, don't buy anything from Paizo, vote with your $$$'s.

What I find offensive is the Moral Minority who insist on trying to push their beliefs and morals off on the rest of the world. Who post to try to get companies to cater to their version of Morality over everyone elses.

I knew a guy who played D&D who would not play if demons were used. He considered it a sin. There could be aliens, but not demons. He was perfectly fine with playing a cleric that worshiped a different god than his own, he was perfectly fine with killing kids in character. What he couldn't handle was demons because the demons were real and he didn't want to attract their attention, because it was a sin to do so.

To me it was the height of hypocrisy to say I can pretend to worship a different god, and I can pretend to kill murder and maim, but I can't pretend to kill demons in the name of good.

This argument pretty much reminds me of that, it's ok to maim, kill, destroy, but not anything to do with sex.

[Matthew Morris]

A Man In Black wrote:

I'm curious who write that boneheaded passage in G&M so I can avoid their work in the future, though.

Wrote, not write. (Hey, if I can take my frustration at 'ardowesp' in good fun, deal with the tense.)

Gods and Magic
Design: Sean K Reynolds
Editing: James Jacobs and F. Wesley Schneider

Personally, I don't see an issue with it. Sacred Prostitutes date back at least to Ishtar, IRL. The section does read "Religion traits are tied to specific deities. The following religion traits reference the deities presented on page 43 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook."

Of course, being raised a Devil Worshiper (Asmodean Demon Hunter) or 'booze makes me better *hic*' (Fortified Drinker) is so much better morally. *rolls eyes*

I like the trait, it makes sense.

[A Man In Black]

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I am not offended its a fact of life it has always existed and will allways exist. etc.

This may be the source of the disjoint.

I don't have a problem with prostitution as a background. Escaping an unfortunate situation is a common fantasy story element. This is not escaping an unfortunate situation. This is "You were trained by your religion to be a prostitute" alongside "You were trained by your religion to destroy undead" and "You were trained by your religion to teach history." This is presented as a profession trait, not a background trait, alongside professions the PC will actually be doing over the course of a campaign.

If a book is offering "former prostitute" as something to write on their character sheet, that's acceptable if declassé. I don't want a book full of character options to give people reasons to write "practicing prostitute" on their character sheets, especially without any kind of warning for what I'm in for.

Matthew Morris wrote:

Of course, being raised a Devil Worshiper (Asmodean Demon Hunter) or 'booze makes me better *hic*' (Fortified Drinker) is so much better morally. *rolls eyes*

No effort is made to make the devil-worshippers sympathetic, and there's particular emphasis on PCs being former followers.

Excessive drinking is a blight in general, but nearly everything about Cayden Cailean is a joke, so the trait is equally silly. If Calistrian Prostitute is a joke, I don't see the humor.

[Krome]

A Man In Black wrote:

Cartigan wrote:

I agree. Churches should kick out everyone inclines for violence. No more blessings for you, Mr Fighter. Any Rogue coming within 100' of a church in Golarian will immediately be arrested.

See, this is the passive-aggressive sarcasm getting in the way again. Make your point directly and clearly so there can be a discussion. Merely alluding to it with sarcasm is useless noise.

ithuriel wrote:

Considering MiB isn't one of their customers according to him... I'm not sure what the point is.

Well, I bought the APG and all.

I'm curious who write that boneheaded passage in G&M so I can avoid their work in the future, though.

Okay, I can see where you were surprised since you did not read the background book that is referenced. THAT is not an issue at all. You should NOT be expected to. And to an extent Golarion should NOT be required reading to enjoy the APG or Core Rules, etc.

The point I think Cartigan was making is the one sided hatred of prostitution while supporting murder and theft. Now the reason I say that is you play Pathfinder/D&D which encourages and promotes killing and theft.

BUT let me offer this, as I hope the conversation becomes more civil (sorry MIB but sometimes your tone just ruffles my feathers and I react poorly), that without this addition to the book, regardless of what you think of the topic, it HAS promoted discussion on the topic.

I suggest we turn this all around and point the conversation to a more positive direction. I understand now why MIB reacted the way he did. I apologize for my response. I understand MIB's values. It is a good thing to sometimes draw a line in the sand. The line differs for different people.

A civil conversation along those lines is a good thing.

And MIB, I do apologize. Like I said sometimes I respond poorly to certain perceived tones. Obviously that is something I need to work on. :)

[Cartigan]

A Man In Black wrote:

See, this is the passive-aggressive sarcasm getting in the way again. Make your point directly and clearly so there can be a discussion. Merely alluding to it with sarcasm is useless noise.

Fine, you want it bluntly? Your point was stupid and nonsensical since churches, especially those fantasy ones in a violent game world, INHERENTLY cater to the violent individuals in order to preach nonviolence.

Quote:

This is "You were trained by your religion to be a prostitute" alongside "You were trained by your religion to destroy undead" and "You were trained by your religion to teach history." This is presented as a profession trait, not a background trait, alongside professions the PC will actually be doing over the course of a campaign.

Uh no. This is "You were trained by your religion to be a prostitute" alongside "You were trained by your religion to be a murderous pirate" or "You were trained by your religion to kill your traveling companions"

[GeraintElberion]

A Man In Black wrote:

ithuriel wrote:

You should probably read the source material in question then,

Augh, that's horrible. Especially offensive is the idea that the idea that the brothels cater to people inclined to violence. That's some of the worst treatment of sexuality in roleplaying I've read in a book that wasn't FATAL.

Whoo!

The shark nearly bit you that time.

If you would like, I have a selection of bait that you can buy for your fishing expeditions that does not require you to jump over sharks.

[Berselius]

Uh, guys, I think A Man In Black is making the minor mistake of assuming the sacred prostitutes of the Church of Calistra are pimps (aka men of our modern age in the real world who exploit the most desperate women for prophet) or slaves being exploited by pimps. It's actually quite the opposite AMiB. They are powerful clerics who believe in gaining control of society and enjoying life by embracing their most sensual desires and helping others to embrace theirs as well. They aren't being used AMiB or exploited as the goddess Calistra grants them spells and power in return for following her edicts. If anything they enjoy being what they are not only due to the divine power they gain from their goddess but also from the political and social connections they obtain through simply helping men and even women come out of their shells or just being someone to comfort an adventurer (even if it's being a willing sexual partner). You have to remember AMiB that this is a completely different world and that the the deities of this world are not like ours. Calistra is a goddess who teaches women and men to use their feminine wiles if not their outright sex appeal to gain power over society and individuals. Though there is that vengeance aspect in her divine portfolio, she tends to only manifest this when either her followers are harmed or she herself is personally insulted in some fashion.

All that being said, I very much agree that slavery and the exploitation of women by turning them into slaves and forcing them (whether as slaves or as financially indentured servants) to sell their bodies so that they can afford another meal or even pay their rent is horrific and abhorrent and while those two aspects certainly exist in Goloron, the Church of Calistra is not an organization of pimps exploiting masses of "desperate women". If anything they are an organization that seek sensual fulfillment and the desire to obtain power (from their goddess and other sources) through that fulfillment. Hope that helps you to understand AMiB. Always remember, while the real world has many of the same evils that Goloron has, Goloron is NOT the real world.

Oh, and for the record, I am not blaming female (or even male) prostitutes in anyway for anything. I personally empathize with all of them and am only demonizing the men/women who exploit their financial desperation.

[northbrb]

A Man In Black wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

I am not offended its a fact of life it has always existed and will allways exist. etc.

This may be the source of the disjoint.

I don't have a problem with prostitution as a background. Escaping an unfortunate situation is a common fantasy story element. This is not escaping an unfortunate situation. This is "You were trained by your religion to be a prostitute" alongside "You were trained by your religion to destroy undead" and "You were trained by your religion to teach history." This is presented as a profession trait, not a background trait, alongside professions the PC will actually be doing over the course of a campaign.

If a book is offering "former prostitute" as something to write on their character sheet, that's acceptable if declassé. I don't want a book full of character options to give people reasons to write "practicing prostitute" on their character sheets, especially without any kind of warning for what I'm in for.

so your real problem is you don't want players playing prostitutes? and you dont want them to gain a bonus for being a prostitute?

[GeraintElberion]

A Man In Black wrote:

Well, I bought the APG and all.

Can you get in touch with Lisa nd let her know where you bought it.

She takes it seriously when stores sell Paizo products ahead of release dates.