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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

0gre wrote:
Well the alternative is an all monk campaign that doesn't worry about pants at all.

Loincloth, toga, or "I fear change and will keep my bushes" campaign?

The Exchange

0gre wrote:
Well the alternative is an all monk campaign that doesn't worry about pants at all.

With a specific rule that says no Monks of the Empty Hand?


A Man In Black wrote:


Zombieneighbours wrote:
Why is it that he thinks that the inclusion of this trait is bad?
Because an option to get bonuses for being a prostitute (in a general-topic sourcebook) is offensive to me.

Well, if it offends you, here are a couple steps to follow:

1. Buy a bottle of white out.
2. Turn to page with trait.
3. White out the one(s) you don't like.
4. Stop imposing your opinion upon other people.
5. More on and enjoy the game.

My opinion:

Spoiler:

IMHO: stating that Killer, Brute, Pesh Dealer, and other traits are acceptable while stating that Prostitute is immoral is pathetic... It's stating that it ok to destroy lives, brutalize and kill people but don't take them into a back room or Hades will be your home.

Shadow Lodge

Larry Lichman wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


I believe that prostitution is an objective moral evil.

Anybody else see something wrong with this statement (emphasis mine)?

His statement about objectivity seems to me very subjective...

Well if nothing else, this thread proves that having prostitutes in the game is but the first step in a chain of evil that leads to naked monks being the preferred character class so everyone can avoid getting ambushed as they leave the jakes. It's totally objective.


ntin wrote:
Sacred prostitute is somewhat more popular than the profane prostitute.

but the profane prostitute is problably more fun:)

Liberty's Edge

I'm saddened and amazed that this is an issue.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
PirateDevon wrote:
0gre wrote:
Well the alternative is an all monk campaign that doesn't worry about pants at all.
With a specific rule that says no Monks of the Empty Hand?

That option is obviously too broken. For example if you jump a monk of the empty hand while he's with a prostitute he can jump into combat right away. All the other classes have to spend at least a standard action working their zipper and even then risk zipper injury. The monk of the empty hand just clubs the would be mugger upside the head with the nearest available object (likely the prostitute).

Really Calistrian prostitutes should be getting a bonus to avoid being used as improvised weapons. Also, what sort of combat maneuver is it to use another creature as an impromptu weapon? I suppose we have to buy another book to get that rule?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

InfoStorm wrote:
IMHO: stating that Killer, Brute, Pesh Dealer, and other traits are acceptable while stating that Prostitute is immoral is pathetic... It's stating that it ok to destroy lives, brutalize and kill people but don't take them into a back room or Hades will be your home.

That strawman has been battered to a pile of loose straw and set on fire. That isn't anything similar to my position.


northbrb wrote:

i would argue that a profession would be any trade used to gain goods or services, in that thinking the first profession would be prostitution because using sex for favor's or food or protection would have been the very first trade.

I would presume that it would be a skilled flint-knapper trading a handaxe that he spent the whole day making, and thus was unable to hunt, with the hunter who had a spare muskrat but needed a good handaxe, was probably the first profession. After all, food, tools, and a place to take shelter usually take priority among people living in very marginal conditions, over using the services of a whore when you probably already have spouse/mate anyway, since you need to start reproducing young and early if the tribe isn't going to die out because of massive mortality rates.

Especially since prostituting yourself is likely to get you killed by an angry spouse, or thrown out of the tribe to starve in the wild for causing disruption in the social fabric through jealousies, fights, and possibly violations of taboos -- which are not an invention of Queen Victoria, no matter what the revisionist PC historians would like to say, but generally exist to place some limits on potentially destructive human behavior. And screwing around for favors, especially in a very small, closed society like a tribe, IS destructive behavior -- there are too many powerful emotions and too much possibility for conflict in a situation where you all need to work together, or die, for it to be tolerated, generally.

Honestly, the modern world's obsession with its genitals gets a little wearisome after a while.


ShadowcatX wrote:
I'm saddened and amazed that this is an issue.

My heart just bleeds for you. I know that it's so tragic that someone doesn't bow before the Wondrous Altar of Prostitution and sing its praises all day long, with bright and happy expressions and squeals of rapture and Politically Correct yowls of delight -- I can see why you're "saddened".


Swordpriest wrote:
northbrb wrote:

i would argue that a profession would be any trade used to gain goods or services, in that thinking the first profession would be prostitution because using sex for favor's or food or protection would have been the very first trade.

I would presume that it would be a skilled flint-knapper trading a handaxe that he spent the whole day making, and thus was unable to hunt, with the hunter who had a spare muskrat but needed a good handaxe, was probably the first profession. After all, food, tools, and a place to take shelter usually take priority among people living in very marginal conditions, over using the services of a whore when you probably already have spouse/mate anyway, since you need to start reproducing young and early if the tribe isn't going to die out because of massive mortality rates.

Especially since prostituting yourself is likely to get you killed by an angry spouse, or thrown out of the tribe to starve in the wild for causing disruption in the social fabric through jealousies, fights, and possibly violations of taboos -- which are not an invention of Queen Victoria, no matter what the revisionist PC historians would like to say, but generally exist to place some limits on potentially destructive human behavior. And screwing around for favors, especially in a very small, closed society like a tribe, IS destructive behavior -- there are too many powerful emotions and too much possibility for conflict in a situation where you all need to work together, or die, for it to be tolerated, generally.

Honestly, the modern world's obsession with its genitals gets a little wearisome after a while.

They have shown that female monkeys will prostitute themselves, so I really doubt that this is true.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Swordpriest wrote:


My heart just bleeds for you. I know that it's so tragic that someone doesn't bow before the Wondrous Altar of Prostitution and sing its praises all day long, with bright and happy expressions and squeals of rapture and Politically Correct yowls of delight -- I can see why you're "saddened".

Did anyone else see this new magic item in the APG?!?! Sounds awesome. Do you think it's like a Horn of Valhalla, but for hookers instead?

Edit: Doh. Found it. Turns out it's more like the Porcelain Altar. It's a cursed item that gives you festering sores on your lips and tongue. Bummer.


Malaclypse wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:

i lol'ed at this thread.

First sex priestess were very common. It was quite an honor to be a priestess of say a Aphrodite.
they were not exploited or enslaved, and in general one had to have high breeding to become. I think what has happened is that people keep trying to view somthing from the past with modern lenes instead of viewing the situation as it existed then.

You should probably talk to a historian about that. According to the best scientific knowledge of history today, scared prostitutes didn't exist in the way you seem to imagine. While there is of course evidence of slaves donated as prostitutes to temples, I doubt this has the positive connotation you seem to refer to. Modern scientific views are something like this:

Stephanie Budin, PhD wrote:

No longer seeing sacred prostitution as an historical reality, it now becomes feasible to study supposed references to this institution in a different light, dealing with issues of symbolic language rather than historical accuracy. In my paper, I discuss two of the earliest perceived references to sacred prostitution in the Classical corpus -- Herodotos 1.199 and Pindar frag. 122. The former relates how all Babylonian women, once in their lives, must have sex with a foreigner in honour of the goddess Mylitta. The latter describes the “donation” of a group of prostitutes to the goddess Aphrodite. A dominant theme in both passages is the conflation of religion and rape, how the manipulation of women’s sexuality in the name of a deity is used to express defeat on the part of the feminine or effeminized characters, divinization on the part of the masculine.

In the end, I argue that, contrary to many modern perceptions, sacred prostitution does not extol sexuality or fertility as expressions of religious devotion. Rather, the religio-sexual subjugation of the “prostitutes” serves as a metaphor for human hubris at best and tragedy at worst.

Obviously, this realistic view doesn't hold the allure...

The dr is not expressing the "scientific or realistic view" she is giving her own view. And in my opinion she is doing what others her are doing, which is she is viewing the evidence from her point of view rather than its orginal context.

To me her view is the same as the european view of the Burka. She is superceding her views unto her subjects and making a determination not on the feelings of the participants but of herself.

The primary text I have read on the matter, clearly state that it was honor to be chosen and trained as clergy of aphrodite.

That ms budin disagrees with the primary text is not a realistic or scincetific view, it is only HER view.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
Swordpriest wrote:


My heart just bleeds for you. I know that it's so tragic that someone doesn't bow before the Wondrous Altar of Prostitution and sing its praises all day long, with bright and happy expressions and squeals of rapture and Politically Correct yowls of delight -- I can see why you're "saddened".
Did anyone else see this new magic item in the APG?!?! Sounds awesome. Do you think it's like a Horn of Valhalla, but for hookers instead?

But does it rotate?

Shadow Lodge

Sebastian wrote:
Swordpriest wrote:


My heart just bleeds for you. I know that it's so tragic that someone doesn't bow before the Wondrous Altar of Prostitution and sing its praises all day long, with bright and happy expressions and squeals of rapture and Politically Correct yowls of delight -- I can see why you're "saddened".

Did anyone else see this new magic item in the APG?!?! Sounds awesome. Do you think it's like a Horn of Valhalla, but for hookers instead?

Edit: Doh. Found it. Turns out it's more like the Porcelain Altar. It's a cursed item that gives you festering sores on your lips and tongue. Bummer.

What the hell that whole page was carefully cut out of my book with a razor blade and replaced by a pamphlet from some church group talking about how loose women are the downfall of mankind.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:


What the hell that whole page was carefully cut out of my book with a razor blade and replaced by a pamphlet from some church group talking about how loose women are the downfall of mankind.

man, I love boobquake.


A Man In Black wrote:
InfoStorm wrote:
IMHO: stating that Killer, Brute, Pesh Dealer, and other traits are acceptable while stating that Prostitute is immoral is pathetic... It's stating that it ok to destroy lives, brutalize and kill people but don't take them into a back room or Hades will be your home.
That strawman has been battered to a pile of loose straw and set on fire. That isn't anything similar to my position.

Ah, but logically, your lack of complaint of the former compaired to your complaint of the latter implies that the former is more acceptable than the latter. At least, that is what I can guarantee people are reading into this.

So, follow my 5 steps and let's kill this thread to move on.

(uses scythe to get the +4 damage from the killer trait.)

Dark Archive

Swordpriest wrote:
Politically Correct yowls of delight

Wait, the politically correct 'this offends me, so *you* shouldn't be allowed to discuss it' side of the discussion is now accusing the free speech / personal responsibility side of the discussion of being politically correct?

Good googly-moogly! We've gone straight to plaid!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

ikarinokami wrote:
Speaking as a lawyer and a scientist,

I wonder what your qualifications are on the subject.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

A Man In Black wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Speaking as a lawyer and a scientist,
I wonder what your qualifications are on the subject.

He once attended a class on history?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Sebastian wrote:
He once attended a class on history?

Well like.

I'm not going to link anything, but he too is posting on a public forum under his real name. When you go and say, "I happen to be an authority on this subject!" and Google seems to disagree, I wonder what's up.


houstonderek wrote:
What's the point of slaying dragons and saving the universe if you can't celebrate with hookers and blow? Being an adventurer would be boring without the Conan levels of debauchery, dammit!

I know I'm coming in late to all this but, you rock, man!


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

I have to say, I think MiB is right. I think he went about saying it in antagonizing ways which hasn't helped his position.

The designers made Golarion Gods complex, so none of them are perfect. See Erastil's sexism thread. I think the Callistra prostitution angle is great, but it should be in the Golarion material. Tackling issues of sexuality is great, but it shouldn't be in the Core line. This particular trait shouldn't have been included in the APG.

I want to be able to run Pathfinder with my niece and nephew when they are a little older (they are 5 and 7 now). I wouldn't present 'past prostitute' as a background trait for them. Not until they are much older (by much, I mean 12-14). Yes, the game has violence. I can tone that down for children though. Individual parents will have different opinions on when to broach such subjects and it should be very optional in a game.

So I think it was a mistake to allow that particular trait to slip through. The Core line should be PG. I don't think it is a big deal, but I do think it should have been kept out of the main line of books. The Companion line is a fine place for it, since it is easy enough to run the game without those. I can present the world as I want, even if I base things off the Golarion material.

I also realize this thread has degraded way past the point of normal discussion, but I figured I'd express my opinion on the matter anyway.

PS: I know the thread has moved with amazing speed, but those asking about how MiB got is book "so early" should note that if he pre-ordered from Paizo he probably got it early in the week. I got my physical copy on Saturday. That is just the way shipping varies. Even if a store let it out a day early, that's not a big deal compared to a week or two early.


ikarinokami wrote:


Stephanie Budin, PhD wrote:

No longer seeing sacred prostitution as an historical reality, it now becomes feasible to study supposed references to this institution in a different light, dealing with issues of symbolic language rather than historical accuracy. In my paper, I discuss two of the earliest perceived references to sacred prostitution in the Classical corpus -- Herodotos 1.199 and Pindar frag. 122. The former relates how all Babylonian women, once in their lives, must have sex with a foreigner in honour of the goddess Mylitta. The latter describes the “donation” of a group of prostitutes to the goddess Aphrodite. A dominant theme in both passages is the conflation of religion and rape, how the manipulation of women’s sexuality in the name of a deity is used to express defeat on the part of the feminine or effeminized characters, divinization on the part of the masculine.

In the end, I argue that, contrary to many modern perceptions, sacred prostitution does not extol sexuality or fertility as expressions of religious devotion. Rather, the religio-sexual subjugation of the “prostitutes” serves as a metaphor for human hubris at best and tragedy at worst.

Obviously, this realistic view
...

OK, fact is that the problem of sacred prostitution is thorny for the scholar of antiquity. You find quite a large number of opinions and there are no "primary texts" as such, as our sources are quite ambiguous and since ancient influenced by ideologies (such as parlance of supposed sacred prostitution in the Old Testament to deride non Yahweh cults; or the references to prostitution in New Testament and Patristic literature). Many scholars make the mistake of trying to find a "global" explanation to the prospective phenomenon, according to their area of expertise: Classicists will export conclusions from Greece to Ancient Mesopotamia; Assyriologists will assume that the situation in Syria and the Aegean was a mirror image of the Sumerian servants of Inanna, etc.

We cannot assume the phenomenon was monolythic in time and space. What Budin (a really fine scholar, though we do disagree in this issue) presents as valid for Greece could be the result of social transformation, she may be examining a "degraded" form of cultic prostitution and projecting it to earlier periods. It is true that some scholars have idealized the idea of the Mother Earth-Matriarchy-Sacred Prostitution to the point of absurdity, but the sources also do indicate that female goddesses, females priestesses and female cultists supposedly prostitutes in ancient Mesopotamia appear more strongly in earlier sources, and are progressively displaced by male-dominated pantheons and cults. So we should be cautious either to defend or deny historicity. What is seems visible in the sources is that sexuality was conceived in a quite different way than our post-Judaeo-Christian morals, and that the social role of prostitutes still needs more contextualization. In RPG parlance, a medieval peasant character would probably be more exploited than a cultic prostitute of some ancient cultures. In fact, a peasant could not become an adventurer (and carry weapons) without being rendered an outlaw in most kingdoms and fiefs! Actually, espousing a vision of sex workers in a fantasy game which presents women as empowered and resourceful (even if it is not a 100% accurate historical reflection) is a considerable source of inspiration and reflection on the miseries of the real world.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

deinol wrote:
So I think it was a mistake to allow that particular trait to slip through. The Core line should be PG. I don't think it is a big deal, but I do think it should have been kept out of the main line of books. The Companion line is a fine place for it, since it is easy enough to run the game without those. I can present the world as I want, even if I base things off the Golarion material.

FWIW, Paizo has said several times that they aim for PG-13 in their gaming materials, not PG. If they ever introduce a stripped down set of basic rules or another introductory product, that might be more PG-ish, but as of now, PG-13 is the standard. It's possible that will change if there is enough opposition to it (e.g., the gore has been dialed down slightly from the early days), but I don't think your expectations are lined up with Paizo's intentions.

Shadow Lodge

Sebastian wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
ikarinokami wrote:
Speaking as a lawyer and a scientist,
I wonder what your qualifications are on the subject.
He once attended a class on history?

But was it a class on historic prostitution? Generalists are just dabblers. Personally I prefer to do first hand research on this topic rather than rely on sterile text regurgitated in classrooms.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Sebastian wrote:
deinol wrote:
So I think it was a mistake to allow that particular trait to slip through. The Core line should be PG. I don't think it is a big deal, but I do think it should have been kept out of the main line of books. The Companion line is a fine place for it, since it is easy enough to run the game without those. I can present the world as I want, even if I base things off the Golarion material.
FWIW, Paizo has said several times that they aim for PG-13 in their gaming materials, not PG. If they ever introduce a stripped down set of basic rules or another introductory product, that might be more PG-ish, but as of now, PG-13 is the standard. It's possible that will change if there is enough opposition to it (e.g., the gore has been dialed down slightly from the early days), but I don't think your expectations are lined up with Paizo's intentions.

That maybe true, but I still think that the Core line (and core line only) should stick with PG. The Core rules are used for way more settings than just Golarion. I want the APs and other settings books to push the envelope, being PG-13, R, NC-17, whatever. I'm all for that. But the core rules should focus on being rulebooks, a base that many types of games can be built upon. For kids and adults.


deinol wrote:

The designers made Golarion Gods complex, so none of them are perfect. See Erastil's sexism thread. I think the Callistra prostitution angle is great, but it should be in the Golarion material. Tackling issues of sexuality is great, but it shouldn't be in the Core line. This particular trait shouldn't have been included in the APG.

I want to be able to run Pathfinder with my niece and nephew when they are a little older (they are 5 and 7 now). I wouldn't present 'past prostitute' as a background trait for them. Not until they are much older (by much, I mean 12-14). Yes, the game has violence. I can tone that down for children though. Individual parents will have different opinions on when to broach such subjects and it should be very optional in a game.

To be fair, Calistria is in the core rule book right there on pg. 43 in the cleric entry.

I'd like my daughter to play when she gets older too. Again, to be fair, this is just one of dozens of things in Pathfinder that I wouldn't present in a game I'd run for her until the appropriate age.


0gre wrote:


Well if nothing else, this thread proves that having prostitutes in the game is but the first step in a chain of evil that leads to naked monks being the preferred character class so everyone can avoid getting ambushed as they leave the jakes. It's totally objective.

And that comment just made this entire thread totally worth reading.


deinol wrote:


The designers made Golarion Gods complex, so none of them are perfect. See Erastil's sexism thread. I think the Callistra prostitution angle is great, but it should be in the Golarion material. Tackling issues of sexuality is great, but it shouldn't be in the Core line. This particular trait shouldn't have been included in the APG.

I want to be able to run Pathfinder with my niece and nephew when they are a little older (they are 5 and 7 now). I wouldn't present 'past prostitute' as a background trait for them. Not until they are much older (by much, I mean 12-14). Yes, the game has violence. I can tone that down for children though. Individual parents will have different opinions on when to broach such subjects and it should be very optional in a game.

If you're toning down the violence, you can tone down the traits (or anything else) too and omit the ones that bother you. I really don't see why there's this tempest in the teapot.


deinol wrote:


That maybe true, but I still think that the Core line (and core line only) should stick with PG. The Core rules are used for way more settings than just Golarion. I want the APs and other settings books to push the envelope, being PG-13, R, NC-17, whatever. I'm all for that. But the core rules should focus on being rulebooks, a base that many types of games can be built upon. For kids and adults.

That is an opinion that I do agree with.


deinol wrote:

I have to say, I think MiB is right. I think he went about saying it in antagonizing ways which hasn't helped his position.

The designers made Golarion Gods complex, so none of them are perfect. See Erastil's sexism thread. I think the Callistra prostitution angle is great, but it should be in the Golarion material. Tackling issues of sexuality is great, but it shouldn't be in the Core line. This particular trait shouldn't have been included in the APG.

I want to be able to run Pathfinder with my niece and nephew when they are a little older (they are 5 and 7 now). I wouldn't present 'past prostitute' as a background trait for them. Not until they are much older (by much, I mean 12-14). Yes, the game has violence. I can tone that down for children though. Individual parents will have different opinions on when to broach such subjects and it should be very optional in a game.

So I think it was a mistake to allow that particular trait to slip through. The Core line should be PG. I don't think it is a big deal, but I do think it should have been kept out of the main line of books. The Companion line is a fine place for it, since it is easy enough to run the game without those. I can present the world as I want, even if I base things off the Golarion material.

I also realize this thread has degraded way past the point of normal discussion, but I figured I'd express my opinion on the matter anyway.

PS: I know the thread has moved with amazing speed, but those asking about how MiB got is book "so early" should note that if he pre-ordered from Paizo he probably got it early in the week. I got my physical copy on Saturday. That is just the way shipping varies. Even if a store let it out a day early, that's not a big deal compared to a week or two early.

This view I respect and understand. I personally don't have any issue with the inclusion of the trait, but I can see how people have problems with it on this ground. Unfortunately that was not how MiB phrased his argument, and in his he insulted people who disagree with him.

Edit: And to the people who say he can just edit it out, its really hard to do when they want to look through the books themselves and you have to cover something up. They will see it, and you can't take it out of the book. That is the problem.


Malaclypse wrote:
[...] While there seems to be a consensus that temple prostitutes existed [...]

off-topic: I repeat, there isn't a consensus that temple prostitutes existed.

Now,¨....carry on moral debate.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Caineach wrote:
This view I respect and understand. I personally don't have any issue with the inclusion of the trait, but I can see how people have problems with it on this ground. Unfortunately that was not how MiB phrased his argument, and in his he insulted people who disagree with him.

I haven't insulted anyone in this thread, and I've endured a great deal of personal abuse, up to and including suggestions that I had been sexually abused. So maybe we could stow the false equivalence.


A Man In Black wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This view I respect and understand. I personally don't have any issue with the inclusion of the trait, but I can see how people have problems with it on this ground. Unfortunately that was not how MiB phrased his argument, and in his he insulted people who disagree with him.
I haven't insulted anyone in this thread, and I've endured a great deal of personal abuse, up to and including suggestions that I had been sexually abused.

Actually, yes you have. Saying that other people's views are not valid is insulting. By consistently stating that prostitution is an objective moral evil you insult people who do not think it is objective. I do not condone the insults to you personally, your views are just as valid as everyone elses.

edit: in fact, you said that my moral views were horrible earlier in this thread.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
A Man In Black wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This view I respect and understand. I personally don't have any issue with the inclusion of the trait, but I can see how people have problems with it on this ground. Unfortunately that was not how MiB phrased his argument, and in his he insulted people who disagree with him.
I haven't insulted anyone in this thread, and I've endured a great deal of personal abuse, up to and including suggestions that I had been sexually abused. So maybe we could stow the false equivalence.

Awww.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
anthony Valente wrote:

To be fair, Calistria is in the core rule book right there on pg. 43 in the cleric entry.

I'd like my daughter to play when she gets older too. Again, to be fair, this is just one of dozens of things in Pathfinder that I wouldn't present in a game I'd run for her until the appropriate age.

Core Rulebook wrote:
Calistria CN Goddess of trickery, lust, revenge Chaos, Charm, Knowledge, Luck, Trickery whip

While Calistra is in the main book, there isn't that much information described. There is no mention of prostitution, or any details about her worship. There is the word lust on the page, but I can explain that in ways she'd understand if she asks about it.

As it is, I'm not saying I wouldn't let them see the Core books. I don't think the core line pushes the envelope much past PG. The prostitute trait is pushing the line, and while I think it was a mistake I don't think it was that big of one.

I think Paizo needs to be aware that while edgy adventures are great, the Core rules should be for everyone.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Caineach wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Caineach wrote:
This view I respect and understand. I personally don't have any issue with the inclusion of the trait, but I can see how people have problems with it on this ground. Unfortunately that was not how MiB phrased his argument, and in his he insulted people who disagree with him.
I haven't insulted anyone in this thread, and I've endured a great deal of personal abuse, up to and including suggestions that I had been sexually abused.
Actually, yes you have. Saying that other people's views are not valid is insulting. By consistently stating that prostitution is an objective moral evil you insult people who do not think it is objective. I do not condone the insults to you personally, your views are just as valid as everyone elses.

I hate participating in the meta-debate of who hit who first, but, to be fair, MIB has been preceding those comments with "I think" or similar words that imply he's expressing his view on the subject, not an objective fact. It does come across as "I subjectively believe X is an objective fact", but I think the intent is to express a value without implying that the value itself is universally held.

At least that's my take on it.


Bill Dunn wrote:
deinol wrote:


The designers made Golarion Gods complex, so none of them are perfect. See Erastil's sexism thread. I think the Callistra prostitution angle is great, but it should be in the Golarion material. Tackling issues of sexuality is great, but it shouldn't be in the Core line. This particular trait shouldn't have been included in the APG.

I want to be able to run Pathfinder with my niece and nephew when they are a little older (they are 5 and 7 now). I wouldn't present 'past prostitute' as a background trait for them. Not until they are much older (by much, I mean 12-14). Yes, the game has violence. I can tone that down for children though. Individual parents will have different opinions on when to broach such subjects and it should be very optional in a game.

If you're toning down the violence, you can tone down the traits (or anything else) too and omit the ones that bother you. I really don't see why there's this tempest in the teapot.

That is a point I support. No game is going to have content that pleases everyone. Most people will have issues with one or two things regardless of how much you try to tone stuff down. Those traits were added into it to show examples of "Campaigne" and "Religious" traits. It wasnt presented in a vulgar fasion and it fits in the context of the game as a whole. Most mythologies have a god or godess that it would be appropriate to have a "Sacred Prostitue" type trait for.

When I find one or two things I find distasteful or of a subject that I wish not to include in my game I simply dont include them in the game.

When running a game for a younger crowd I would definately ton down alot of things from core. The violence would be the first thing for me. But the Core game isnt aimed for youngsters, its aimed for early teens to adults. I wouldn't run a game where a 8 year old was playing a murderous Anti-paladin anymore than I would run a game where the 8 year old was playing a "Prosti-tot".

You control what is in your game.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Actually, yes you have. Saying that other people's views are not valid is insulting.

No, it's a disagreement, not an insult.


On one hand, I agree that as far as the core material goes, it should be kept as PG as possible to be able to approach the widest possible fanbase.

ON THE OTHER HAND

I disagree that prostitution is an objective evil. For that matter, in regards to the "real" world as opposed to "fantasy" worlds, I disagree that there is anything that is an objective evil. Some evils are far closer to objective than others, but there are ALWAYS exceptions.

Also, geishas, hosts, hostesses, and Falls-From-Grace would like to have a word about that objective evil.

Regarding slavery being used as some sort of comparison...people need to look up the definition of slavery. Every country that has a judicial system practices slavery. Putting a person in jail is slavery. Making a person do community service is slavery. For that matter, everyone who obeys the laws of their nation, or cleans their plate when mother says so, is a slave.

Because the definition of slavery is much broader than "a practice of beating the hell out of someone to make them work till they drop of exhaustion on their straw mat, getting two hours of sleep before you let them eat half a bowl of old gruel and drink half a cup of dirty water". Just like the definition of prostitution is broader than "some guy who beats and demeans women coerces them via drug addiction and violence to go out and do sexual acts for money and then brings the money to him".

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

deinol wrote:


I think Paizo needs to be aware that while edgy adventures are great, the Core rules should be for everyone.

You may want to start a new thread on the topic when everyone's back from GenCon (it's likely to get ignored for now). There's a pretty good chance it'll go the same direction as this one, but, as I mentioned before, Paizo did dial back the gore a little after complaints about the adult nature of content. I'm happy with Paizo's products as they stand, I imagine they'll probably explain that they want to stick with the PG-13 mindset, but it never hurts to raise the issue.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

How has this thread gone on for eight pages without getting Smurfed even once?


Epic Meepo wrote:
How has this thread gone on for eight pages without getting Smurfed even once?

Because Smurf prostitutes are just wrong.


Irony, thy name is Smurfette . . .


This thread seems to have turned into "let's gang up on the guy with an unpopular opinion!", which is a shame. Though at least it's taken more of a turn towards general silliness in the last page or so!

I'm pretty sure that pretty much everybody would have some point where a trait could be made that they could find offensive. It just so happened that this trait reached MiB's threshhold. It's perfectly fine to disagree with him on that, but do we really need literally hundreds of posts telling him that he's wrong for thinking prostitution is bad?

Larry Lichman wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:


I believe that prostitution is an objective moral evil.

Anybody else see something wrong with this statement (emphasis mine)?

His statement about objectivity seems to me very subjective...

For what it's worth I think his statement makes perfect sense. It's one thing to believe that there is such a thing as objective evil, but that doesn't mean that everybody agrees on what is in that 'objectively evil' category.

Liberty's Edge

Epic Meepo wrote:
How has this thread gone on for eight pages without getting Smurfed even once?

I'm still working on Smurf Haiku.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Kalyth wrote:

When I find one or two things I find distasteful or of a subject that I wish not to include in my game I simply dont include them in the game.

When running a game for a younger crowd I would definately ton down alot of things from core. The violence would be the first thing for me. But the Core game isnt aimed for youngsters, its aimed for early teens to adults. I wouldn't run a game where a 8 year old was playing a murderous Anti-paladin anymore than I would run a game where the 8 year old was playing a "Prosti-tot".

You control what is in your game.

That is true. I also remember that my cousin and I started gaming when I was 7, with no parental supervision and the 1st edition AD&D Player's Handbook. I don't want to have to control everything my kids do. I'd like to give them the basic books and let them play by themselves as well.

I still will, I don't think Paizo has crossed the line (for me). They just got near it.

The Exchange

Caineach wrote:

Actually, yes you have. Saying that other people's views are not valid is insulting. By consistently stating that prostitution is an objective moral evil you insult people who do not think it is objective. I do not condone the insults to you personally, your views are just as valid as everyone elses.
edit: in fact, you said that my moral views were horrible earlier in this thread.

There is a difference between being insulted by what is said and what is said being insulting.

One implies his intent the other implies the listener's reaction.

He is allowed to disagree and I haven't seen him use names, slurs, rude language or any other trait normally attached to an obvious intent to insult.

Perhaps I am wrong but I have been following things pretty closely...


Studpuffin for you:
Prostitutes are the topic.
Smurfs are what result.

351 to 400 of 639 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Advanced Player's Guide silliness: Bonuses for being a prostitute All Messageboards