Tribal Cannibals:
Most weren't, but there were some Native American tribes who were big into the cannibalism thing. Aztecs were into it, too. You know what that is? Precedent.
The art and NPC stats/descriptions don't bother me at all.
If they intended to keep the book pollitically correct, they wouldn't have included a prostitute npc, or added drug use rules. Hell, they wouldn't even have a section on how to deal with the more sensitive topics.
However, if it was an unintended offensive mistake, I bet it's because there were probably too many people involved. Guy 1 says to Guys 2 and 3 "hey, lets gets some tribals in here, go do your thing" and so Guy 2 goes off and stats them up, Guy 3 writes the description and Guy 1 organises the art and it ends up just a liiiittle bit (one word) off-key.
If it offends you, change it for your game.
10th level Mayor:
Mayor. Aristocrat 3/Expert 7. BaB +7, 44hp, 16AC. +3Fort/Ref, +8 Will.
+13 to Profession, +15 Perform Oratory. Armed with a Dagger and a +1 Rapier.
If all 10th level characters and NPCs were as weak as this guy, the world would be a much more dangerous place. If my current 5th level character came across this guy in a fight, I'd kick his butt - excepting that this silver-tongued leader of people would talk me out of it, because hey, that's what he does.
He's a mayor, statted out for mayoral duties. If he needs to fight something, he's going to hire guards or PCs to do it for him.
Go look at the King. Aristocrat 16, BaB +12. How did he ever manage to kill those hundreds of trolls to get to 16th level? Easy, he didn't. He did his duties as a Prince, then a King, and got awesome at it.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, so we have...
Really, I'm not seeing the hostility towards the book.
No, it would not. And frankly I am insulted by your supposition.Slapping the analogue of any real-world "primitive" culture right next to the Cannibal NPC as it was written would have been equally insulting.
Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.
It would have been far better to have simply presented them as tribal warriors rather than open with such a loaded term as "Cannibal".
All of that said, I'm glad Paizo is at least aware that some of us have issues with the way some things have gone, and it sounds like they're sensitive to the matter rather than brushing it off.
Damn it. I stepped in the thread. *sigh* Sorry, I didn't mean to be insulting. Just pointing out that anything associated with that would be considered insulting to someone. I have degrees in anthropology (as well as history) and ritual cannibalism as an idea just doesn't hit me that hard I guess. As for the fantasy trope of degenerate cannibal, I'd say it's there for the adventures that need it. It could be attached to any ethnic group real or imagined, as needed. Sensitivity is one thing, being overly sensitive is another.
*edit* And, damn it, I didn't mean you were being overly sensitive just that if you worried about everything that could offend someone in a book like this you would end up not publishing it. Hopefully that clears that up...
|
Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.
It would have been far better to have simply presented them as tribal warriors rather than open with such a loaded term as "Cannibal".
All of that said, I'm glad Paizo is at least aware that some of us have issues with the way some things have gone, and it sounds like they're sensitive to the matter rather than brushing it off.
Well...some primitive societies were bestial and degenerate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice
As James put it, they included both the positive and negative. The NPC list includes good and evil characters. There is a whole section of cult characters.
Man's inhumanity to man is what it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
Really, I'm not seeing the hostility towards the book.
In our postmodern world of ubiquitous lattes, bottled water that costs more than gasoline, 9999 channels on the TV, instant communication, easy credit, air conditioning, central heating, HE washing machines, microwave ovens, et cetera, I sometimes feel like the only thing left that requires any effort is moral outrage. Therefore, I exercise my mind until it is muscle-bound with suspicion from constantly jumping to conclusions, preferably ones that make me look good on my high horse compared to the people whom I lash with presumption.
But, hey, that's just me.
|
Tribal Cannibals:
Most weren't, but there were some Native American tribes who were big into the cannibalism thing. Aztecs were into it, too. You know what that is? Precedent.
Except people aren't saying cannibals shouldn't be possible.
People are mad because Pulp Cannibals are presented as the baseline of the Tribal section.
If it offends you, change it for your game.
Unfortunately I'm having to do this quite frequently.
As for the cannibal "controversy", what's next? The Village Idiot? It's just a suggestion.
Honestly? I could have gone without that too.
*edit* And, damn it, I didn't mean you were being overly sensitive just that if you worried about everything that could offend someone in a book like this you would end up not publishing it. Hopefully that clears that up...
Don't worry. Sorry if I sounded snappy. It's just a number of things in the setting have been piling up and really bugging me for the past few months....
I think the only reason they were labeled "cannibal" is because they were barbarians with the new bite barbarian rage power. The description says to use other feats and rage powers for non-cannibals, or something to that effect.
The artwork clearly isn't depicting a savage cannibalistic warrior.
When I think of tribal cannibal warriors, I always think of the Reavers from Firefly and the enemies from the 13th Warrior (which I think takes place in northern Europe).
I think there were tribal cannibals in Heart of Darkness (the classic story by Joseph Conrad) too, but it has been thirteen years since I read it and I can't remember. That may actually be classified as Imperial Literary Racism though, if such a term exists. That story was more about Imperialist persecution of the native peoples of Africa and the corruption born of absolute power than anything though.
|
|
Well...some primitive societies were bestial and degenerate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrificeAs James put it, they included both the positive and negative. The NPC list includes good and evil characters. There is a whole section of cult characters.
Man's inhumanity to man is what it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
The problem is that the Tribal had such a loaded term dropped in it that painted tribal societies with a pretty large brush.
Again, it's not that there are "degenerate, bestial cannibals" in the book. It's that the baseline NPC for tribal societies is painted as such via their very name.
The Golarion setting actually features sympathetic, non-evil, non-bestial, non-degenerate canniablistic societies, but that doesn't really come across, and can't, in such a short NPC blurb.
Also, I really like the GameMastery Guide. I found the NPC section to be incredible because the last thing I want to do is sit around statting up every NPC in town just because I fight could break-out.
I actually like the GameMastery Guide more than the Advanced Players Guide, but that may just be because I haven't spent enough time with the APG.
*sigh* And I was going to watch the fun (puts down popcorn)... The native American themed art was, imo, the Shaman. Girl. kneeling in supplication with wolf image = Shaman. There isn't any specific art related to the other two. I suppose a picture of a Polynesian / South Pacific native near the cannibal description would have been all right with you?Put me down as another person that really did not appreciate "cannibal" being the baseline NPC name under the Tribal section.
Yeah, that right next to the Native American-themed art was pretty damn uncomfortable to me.
I'm not saying it was done out of active malice, but that(and other race-related issues that I don't want to derail this thread with) is an example of stuff I hope Paizo actively works to avoid in the future.
No, it would not. And frankly I am insulted by your supposition.
Slapping the analogue of any real-world "primitive" culture right next to the Cannibal NPC as it was written would have been equally insulting.
Or is the objection to cannibalism in any (human) group? Cannibalism (ritual) has been practiced by numerous societies on pretty much every continent. While they could have named it a "tribesman" and mentioned cannibal as a possibility *someone* would have been upset, no matter the artistic depiction used...Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.
It would have been far better to have simply presented them as tribal warriors rather than open with such a loaded term as "Cannibal".
All of that said, I'm glad Paizo is at least aware that some of us have issues with the way some things have gone, and it sounds like they're sensitive to the matter rather than brushing it off.
I suppose it could also be inserted here that not everyone goes out of their way to be offended by art, or anything else for that matter. But I suppose this is the next logical step in the ultra-PC world we now live in. I'm not saying you can't be offended if that's you choice, just don't expect everyone to join you.
In our postmodern world of ubiquitous lattes, bottled water that costs more than gasoline, 9999 channels on the TV, instant communication, easy credit, air conditioning, central heating, HE washing machines, microwave ovens, et cetera, I sometimes feel like the only thing left that requires any effort is moral outrage. Therefore, I exercise my mind until it is muscle-bound with suspicion from constantly jumping to conclusions, preferably ones that make me look good on my high horse compared to the people whom I lash with presumption.But, hey, that's just me.
Can you teach me some of those exercises too? I could use a good workout.
|
|
I suppose it could also be inserted here that not everyone goes out of their way to be offended by art, or anything else for that matter. But I suppose this is the next logical step in the ultra-PC world we now live in. I'm not saying you can't be offended if that's you choice, just don't expect everyone to join you.
Because being tired of seeing entire ethnicities and cultures painted with an inaccurate, racist brush throughout the history of pulp and fantasy literature and gaming is being "ultra PC"...
Because being tired of seeing entire ethnicities and cultures painted with an inaccurate, racist brush throughout the history of pulp and fantasy literature and gaming is being "ultra PC"...
I suppose it could also be inserted here that not everyone goes out of their way to be offended by art, or anything else for that matter. But I suppose this is the next logical step in the ultra-PC world we now live in. I'm not saying you can't be offended if that's you choice, just don't expect everyone to join you.
Yes, in fact, it is. I understand that you are offended by the way something in a fantasy role-playing book was portrayed. Please don't tell me that I should also be offended and that the creators of said game should be ashamed of themselves. Some shred of free-market enterprise still does exist in this world, if you don't like a product then don't buy it. Feel free to state your opinion then move on without telling the rest of us that we must agree with you.
|
|
While discussing race on the messageboards is *always* an invitation to disaster, I will say that if you read the text accompanying all the stat blocks, you'll see that we made a clear effort to distinguish between so-called "savage" tribes (malicious cannibals, feral humanoids, etc.) and bands of noble and heroic tribal people. The stat blocks can be used for either, hence the reason they're on the same spread--it's not a comment on character or race. It would certainly have been nice if the shaman illo (which was clearly Native American inspired) could go next to the shaman stat block, but these layouts were templated, and we honestly didn't think anyone would be confused, given the obvious dichotomy between the image and the description of "cannibal." Probably it would have been better to just call the stat block "tribal warrior" and then mention the fact that you could use the stats to represent both good and evil players, but so it goes. If we've offended you, mea culpa.
I'll now leave the subject with the words of Stephen Radney-MacFarland, who in response to this thread, said only: "If I had a problem with Native Americans, I wouldn't have married one."
You do know the whole "noble savage"/"evil cannibal savage" trope came out of very racist 19th Century lit, right?
;-)
|
|
Because being tired of seeing entire ethnicities and cultures painted with an inaccurate, racist brush throughout the history of pulp and fantasy literature and gaming is being "ultra PC"...
I suppose it could also be inserted here that not everyone goes out of their way to be offended by art, or anything else for that matter. But I suppose this is the next logical step in the ultra-PC world we now live in. I'm not saying you can't be offended if that's you choice, just don't expect everyone to join you.Yes, in fact, it is. I understand that you are offended by the way something in a fantasy role-playing book was portrayed. Please don't tell me that I should also be offended and that the creators of said game should be ashamed of themselves. Some shred of free-market enterprise still does exist in this world, if you don't like a product then don't buy it. Feel free to state your opinion then move on without telling the rest of us that we must agree with you.
Except I haven't said you must agree with me. Where have I said this?
And I quite like Pathfinder's stuff in general. There are simply some things that have really been bothering me of late. I'd much rather they shed the negative aspects rather than let them fester and pushing me, and others, away from the setting.
*edit* And, damn it, I didn't mean you were being overly sensitive just that if you worried about everything that could offend someone in a book like this you would end up not publishing it. Hopefully that clears that up...Don't worry. Sorry if I sounded snappy. It's just a number of things in the setting have been piling up and really bugging me for the past few months....
That's just another reason I have my own home brew setting. I only have to worry about my issues and those of my players. Paizo has a much wider zone to cover.
Seriously though, stereotypical pulp NPCs and settings are there because they're useful... people come to the table with the images already in mind from old Tarzan movies, Ben Hur, El Cid etc. No reason not to shake them up and use them. If I recall, Gary Gygax's Greyhawk had fair skinned blond haired (Suloise) tribesmen who were evil cannibals whose ancestors had been into building an empire based on racial superiority. Multiple hits there. I doubt too many Germans took offense though. It was that pulp degenerate descendent's of an evil culture thing. Personally I like taking these things and giving them unexpected twists. I suspect the possibility of offending someone is based on how wide your player base is.
Well, it's clear I'm going to disagree with the OP on why he doesn't like the GMG, since he's shown the type of game he likes to run is fundamentally different from the games that I run. Especially, the advice he quotes (pro-fudging, and the "high road and low road both leading to the same NPC") is great advice for GMs - in fact, that's one of the Great Wisdoms of GMing in my opinion, if there is such a thing.
So I'm not even going to attempt to engage him on that level.
The art/cannibal/tribal thing - okay, I kinda get that. I didn't get it the first time (in fact, when I saw the picture I immediately thought it was the Shaman detailed as the second pregen, since to me the picture didn't scream "cannibal!"). But I could see a person having beef with it. Definitely not malicious, I'd call it an unfortunate mistake of layout.
So whilst definitely a minor point, it is a point nonetheless.
(As to cannibals being the mainline for Tribal... first I wouldn't call them "mainline". They're one of the most likely NPCs needed that can't be easily replicated with another generic NPC block - like, say, "warrior" - when dealing with a tribal situation, however. Strictly speaking, was it necessary to call them cannibals? I don't think so. But this *is* a pulp game, or at least an RPG that wishes to capture the same pulp feel as Robert Howard and the like. So cannibal tribes are pretty par for course. To me, it's a trope of the system. A tad racist, yes, but there's precedent for it.)
Except I haven't said you must agree with me. Where have I said this?
In essence, it seems to me, here:
I'd much rather [Paizo's developers] shed the negative aspects rather than let them fester and pushing me, and others, away from the setting.
So, while you haven't said that Simon must agree with you, you have said that Paizo ought to "shed" things that are subjectively viewed as "negative aspects" because by not doing so Paizo is "pushing" you away.
|
|
A couple of comments...
Having actually met the Paizo team, I am convinced that they would not intentionally put something in their books that would shed bad light on the company. They are a game company, and I take what they produce in the context of a fantasy game that has some dark edges.
When I look at the art in question, I did not come away with the impression that they were labeling American Indians as cannibals. That is clearly not what they were intending.
I found the NPC section of the book to be one of the more useful sections and I have incorporated several of them into my game.
I do recall the page with the pre-generated native american cannibals to be a touch racist. "Chiefs of the indigenous people lead packs of cannibals to eat the flesh of white travelers..." it was something along those lines.
It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't for the artwork of the native american on the side to give an example of what a cannibal looks like.
I have the PDF on the same computer I am posting from. The Tribe entry is on pages 306 and 307. Nowhere does it mention race or color.
Also, if you read the individual entries (Cannibal, Shaman and Chieftain) completely, the descriptions run the gamut from "noble barbarian groups to bestial, degenerate cannibal tribes" and all points in-between.
As a fairly removed Native American (about 8% of me is a mix of Cherokee and Choctaw) with a half Native American wife (Yaqui and Apache mix) and a son who gets both from us, and as a grandchild of a great-grandfather and grandfather born on reservations, and as an owner of land granted my family as restitution from the United States Government, I am prepared to semi-officially forgive Paizo on behalf of all white-looking quasi-Indian dudes everywhere. Seriously, though, I am a sensitive liberal, and if this didn't bother me (it didn't), other people should probably not let it bother them.
As to the GM Guide itself, I didn't feel I needed it, being a 30-year veteran with most of that time going to GMing, but I figured a $9.99 PDF couldn't hurt. To my happy surprise, it has turned out to be handy for more than a few good things, and after all, even an expert musician can get something from a back-to-basics class, or the practicing of simple scales.
|
|
Except I haven't said you must agree with me. Where have I said this?In essence, it seems to me, here:
I'd much rather [Paizo's developers] shed the negative aspects rather than let them fester and pushing me, and others, away from the setting.So, while you haven't said that Simon must agree with you, you have said that Paizo ought to "shed" things that are subjectively viewed as "negative aspects" because by not doing so Paizo is "pushing" you away.
Option 1 : Voice concerns over how some elements are offensive and be called overly sensitive and overly PC.
Option 2 : Just take it and keep quiet and let things continue and stew as they have for the past few decades.
sigh....
I've been a GM for AD&D and now D&D for 25+ years and I still found things in this book that were helpful. Things I didn't find helpful I just ignored. I'm too old and jaded to be offended by anything in it.
*Opens up a new box of Swedish Fish to watch the rest of the show*
Option 1 : Voice concerns over how some elements are offensive and be called overly sensitive and overly PC.
Option 2 : Just take it and keep quiet and let things continue and stew as they have for the past few decades.
sigh....
Actually, Mikaze, I commend you for voicing your concerns. I myself am a minority, though I've grown something of a very thick skin (I was once asked, by a rather well meaning American I think, if my people did not live in mud huts), and I know how difficult it is to be simply dismissed as being overly sensitive.
So while I may not agree that Paizo needs to change this particular aspect of the game, (meaning tribal cannibals) that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a voice or chorus out there reminding people that there is a line, and that line can be easily crossed with good intentions.
|
|
Thanks man. Sometimes I second guess and wonder if I'm getting carried away, but some of it builds up to the point that...eh. If I'm coming across as bullheaded, sorry to anyone that feels offended. It's just that things have been piling up, as said earlier.
Just made a stupidhuge post on that subject elsewhere. Praying it doesn't explode in flames. Should probably just go relax for the night...
Option 1 : Voice concerns over how some elements are offensive and be called overly sensitive and overly PC.Option 2 : Just take it and keep quiet and let things continue and stew as they have for the past few decades.
sigh....
Bear in mind that anyone who uses terms like "ultra PC" and last "shred of free-market enterprise" clearly has their own political axe to grind.
While I didn't reach the same conclusions in regards to the GMG that you did, there are certainly decisions that have been made about the game setting that I find...questionable.
When discussing such things on the boards, however, one must simply expect to be in the minority. After all, if the majority held those views, then the offending sections probably wouldn't exist, or, at least, not past the first printing.
Rather than stew about the things that bother you, feel free to discuss them on the boards. That's what they're here for. If the community can survive the ten thousandth post on how "Wizards Rule!" I think it will survive a discussion of what one person, at minimum, finds to be in poor taste.
Just keep a thick skin and ignore the obvious baiting. I'm willing to bet that while many members of the community may strongly disagree with you, the Paizo staff is probably as interested in the minority opinion just as much as the majority one. Nine times out of ten, the problem boils down to "Huh, we didn't consider that." Just as often, the fix is as simple as labeling an image or adding a little text for clarity.
The one thing of which I am absolutely sure is that Piazo wouldn't be deliberately offensive. Not just because they want to move product, but because they seem to be genuinely well intentioned.
So, what else have you been "stewing" about?
|
|
So, what else have you been "stewing" about?
Most of it got listed over here, since I didn't want to completely hijack this thread(guess I did anyway, sorry about that...). The stuff related to real life ethnicity and culture, at least.
You're right though. Calming down.
|
Like I said, I don't have the book with me today. I do recall the page with the pre-generated native american cannibals to be a touch racist. "Chiefs of the indigenous people lead packs of cannibals to eat the flesh of white travelers..." it was something along those lines.I have my book right here next to me.....the chieftain text says nothing of the sort. "Chieftains lead cannibal tribes and other savage groups through raw strength, fierce cunning, and sheer force of will." That's the sentence. No mention in the entire Tribe section of NPCs mentions anything about "white travelers". Going down to the next paragraph: "As with shamans and cannibals, chieftains can rule either proud, noble barbarian groups or bestial, degenerate cannibal tribes." The text recognizes the full spectrum of possibilities. I do concur that naming the CR1 NPC "cannibal" is out of sorts with the shaman and chieftain descriptions. Even in the Cannibal text, it says "Cannibals can also be used as regular barbarian tribesmen. "Tribesman" or "Warrior" might have been better.
It wouldn't have been so bad if it wasn't for the artwork of the native american on the side to give an example of what a cannibal looks like.Again, "tribesman" would have been better. The image depicted is definitely NOT a cannibal....it's most likely a shaman. Just because it's next to the entry, doesn't mean it IS that entry. Looking at the other NPC categories, many of them depict the 2nd or 3rd NPC templates.
I'm not discounting your opinions, here. I can see how a cursory perusal would lead you to such an impression. I'm just saying that I opened my book, and read the entire section, and can only agree that the "cannibal" label is a bit...unfortunate...and does not reflect the intent in the text.
Was going to reply, but Timitius covered my thoughts very well, and with less snark, so I'll just let that stand.
|
|
*sigh* And I was going to watch the fun (puts down popcorn)... The native American themed art was, imo, the Shaman. Girl. kneeling in supplication with wolf image = Shaman. There isn't any specific art related to the other two. I suppose a picture of a Polynesian / South Pacific native near the cannibal description would have been all right with you?Put me down as another person that really did not appreciate "cannibal" being the baseline NPC name under the Tribal section.
Yeah, that right next to the Native American-themed art was pretty damn uncomfortable to me.
I'm not saying it was done out of active malice, but that(and other race-related issues that I don't want to derail this thread with) is an example of stuff I hope Paizo actively works to avoid in the future.
No, it would not. And frankly I am insulted by your supposition.
Slapping the analogue of any real-world "primitive" culture right next to the Cannibal NPC as it was written would have been equally insulting.
Or is the objection to cannibalism in any (human) group? Cannibalism (ritual) has been practiced by numerous societies on pretty much every continent. While they could have named it a "tribesman" and mentioned cannibal as a possibility *someone* would have been upset, no matter the artistic depiction used...Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.
I'm wondering if you could point me to a cannibalistic society that wasn't bestial/degenerate. And that's only semi-snark because if there have been any, I honestly haven't heard of them and would be interested in learning about them.
And it was painfully obvious that the tribal girl was a shaman so how that could be offensive is beyond me.
Tribal Cannibals:
Most weren't, but there were some Native American tribes who were big into the cannibalism thing. Aztecs were into it, too. You know what that is? Precedent.
Except people aren't saying cannibals shouldn't be possible.
People are mad because Pulp Cannibals are presented as the baseline of the Tribal section.
Just a couple of people, actually. Doesn't offend me at all.
I think the picture of a certain ex president would have worked a lot better, but that's just me.Honestly? I could have gone without that too.
As for the cannibal "controversy", what's next? The Village Idiot? It's just a suggestion.
Well, he's technically not an ex-president yet, but soon.
|
|
Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.
I'm wondering if you could point me to a cannibalistic society that wasn't bestial/degenerate. And that's only semi-snark because if there have been any, I honestly haven't heard of them and would be interested in learning about them.
Real world:
In Golarion:
Some Sakroris tribes practice it as part of their funeral rituals.
|
|
The Aghori.Except these cannibals were described as bestial/degenerate. It was clearly meant to evoke that pulp vision of primitive societies.I'm wondering if you could point me to a cannibalistic society that wasn't bestial/degenerate. And that's only semi-snark because if there have been any, I honestly haven't heard of them and would be interested in learning about them.
Unfortunately that article is very sort and lacks sufficient information to determine their cultural state by itself. However, giving credit on intent. Does the existence of one such culture mean that all literary tropes must be thrown to the wind in spite of many more examples that gave life to the stereotype in the first place?
Option 1 : Voice concerns over how some elements are offensive and be called overly sensitive and overly PC.Option 2 : Just take it and keep quiet and let things continue and stew as they have for the past few decades.
sigh....
Bear in mind that anyone who uses terms like "ultra PC" and last "shred of free-market enterprise" clearly has their own political axe to grind.
While I didn't reach the same conclusions in regards to the GMG that you did, there are certainly decisions that have been made about the game setting that I find...questionable.
When discussing such things on the boards, however, one must simply expect to be in the minority. After all, if the majority held those views, then the offending sections probably wouldn't exist, or, at least, not past the first printing.
Rather than stew about the things that bother you, feel free to discuss them on the boards. That's what they're here for. If the community can survive the ten thousandth post on how "Wizards Rule!" I think it will survive a discussion of what one person, at minimum, finds to be in poor taste.
Just keep a thick skin and ignore the obvious baiting. I'm willing to bet that while many members of the community may strongly disagree with you, the Paizo staff is probably as interested in the minority opinion just as much as the majority one. Nine times out of ten, the problem boils down to "Huh, we didn't consider that." Just as often, the fix is as simple as labeling an image or adding a little text for clarity.
The one thing of which I am absolutely sure is that Piazo wouldn't be deliberately offensive. Not just because they want to move product, but because they seem to be genuinely well intentioned.
So, what else have you been "stewing" about?
Political axe to grind? Not really. I don't subscribe to any particular political view because they all pretty well suck. I have my own views and I know better than to discuss them on the Internet.
Obvious baiting? Not really. What I don't want is a company that I think is perfectly fine as is caving to will of said minority because something hurt their feelings. It is my opinion that some people are willing to go out of their way to be offended by things that frankly aren't offensive.
That all being said, I also looked at the section in the GMG PDF and don't see how there's any way someone could associate the picture of the Native American looking woman for the cannibal block with the shaman block on the facing page. And more on topic, I've also been DMing for many years so I found the book minimally useful. But I don't think I'd go so far as to say I hate it or think it's racist.
The ganemastery guide is my second favorite paizo book ever, I regularly page through it for snippets of insight I've heard before but like to read again - expounded clearly and with an obvious quality of thinking behind it.
I'm glad golarion utilizes stereotypes from the real world. I guess there's always going to be someone who gets bugged by it, but I for one prefer fantasy "like the real world but with a magical twist". Cultures without obvious real world inspiration turn me off as quickly as civilized orcs or reformed drow assassins.
Hmm. I guess I've had too many anthropology and Native American [blank] classes to find this stuff offensive.
1. I am fairly confident that the decision to call the NPC a cannibal stemmed from a large desire to use the barbarian rage power bite attack in a statblock. Nothing does that better than cannibal.
2. Did not link the art with cannibal at all.
3. Native American tribes had a bunch of jerks and nasty people in them. You know, like every other human culture in the entire world, since the dawn of man?
4. The cannibals aren't even Evil aligned, so Paizo is avoiding imposing a moral line on the eating of same species flesh. I think only the torturer (white guy) and slaver were Evil aligned. Maybe the assassins and cultists as well. The only evil aligned NPCs with artwork were all white. Racist? I don't think so. I wouldn't have been upset if the black clad assassin was a black person, a man, gay (tricky to do with single person art, I admit) or anything else that comes from the diverse amount of beings inspired by the human race.
5. Right above the shaman picture, "more than barbarians, such people are lords, servants and kindred of their environment, and demand the respect of all who would trod upon their lands." Just as close to the pic as cannibals, folks.
I feel Paizo does a great job of fleshing out cultures in Golarion, and each runs the gamut of evil to good. The devil worshiping Chelaxians aren't even mono-evil.
But the NPC stats aren't for that. They aren't making any sweeping generalizations about cultures or what not. Each block is given a main use and several alternate uses. They are just there to utilize if sudden stats become important.
I feel Paizo is great not because they avoid offense, but because they actively promote minorities in gaming. Black female paladins and white female barbarians. No mono-themed races among the humans. Gay paladins, lesbian master at arms, the list goes on. Paizo has apologetically promoted a diversity within their game that goes beyond what any previous edition of DnD has done before.
What people forget is that racism in these venues needs to be taken as a whole, not an individual instance. Does Paizo art typically depict non-white races in a subservient position? In an evil light? Caricature-esque? Does Paizo art typically depict white/majority races in a dominant position? In a good light? Is diversity only shown within the dominant majority?
Back when you looked at old fantasy/DnD/pulp artwork, the answer was that yes, you typically (key word, those gunning for Kitiara artwork) saw white males in the position of adventurer, females in the position of sexualized objects, and non-white males in the position of servant or foe. Things have slowly moved away from that, and Paizo leads the way in promoting the varied field of modern fantasy.
Cannibals shot my paw.
Hey. At least the book doesn't have any nipples. Because, you know, the enlightened nation of USA can handle disembowelment, decapitation, defenestration and Native American Cannibal Zombies, but nipples ? Nah, that would be *really* horrible.
Each night I stare up at the pinks of the Areola Borealis and dream of home.
|
(Note: this post should be taken with a grain of salt, as all of it is IMHO and not directed at the OP or any other particular poster on here, it is just my opinion of the thread so far and what I have to say about the GMG and what people are talking about here.)
My favorite part of the GMG is the NPC stats, as a busy person who also GMs this is a life-saver.
The 2nd best part would be the tables, particularly the random treasure tables that should have been in the Core Rulebook. All of the random tables are exceedingly useful and the entire book is great for sparking those ideas that brings your campaign world to life.
The rest of the book would be the 3rd best part all tied together because I love all of it. Since I am running a ship-based maritime campaign using the Golarion campaign world the fast ship combat and sea adventure/encounter ideas are getting a lot of use, as are the Chase rules.
Another great thing about this book is that, when I am not using it as a reference, I can come back to it and open it to a random chapter and read up on some things that, being a fairly experienced GM, I may already know, but there is a lot of great insight into these things that many GMs may take for granted that is not always apparent. Even GMs who have been running the game for decades can benefit from taking a step back from "their way" of doing things and look at running the game from someone else's perspective, (I know a few that probably won't find a group of players to be in any game they run anytime soon unless they figure out how to do this themselves). Even looking at the game from the perspective of someone who has never GMd before is a healthy thing to do every now and then so that your games don't become stale or trite.
Like any GM supplement, you are going to get out of it what you want to. If you've convinced yourself that it's useless, sell it on Amazon or something and someone who will appreciate it more will take it off of your hands, but don't be surprised if one day you've become so certain that your way of running the game is the only way it should be run because that's the only kind of game that you like so it must be the kind of game everyone else should like that you are yelling the finer points of this at your former players as they are walking out of your game, never to return.
As for the possibly offensive stuff, I've never even noticed it. It takes something horrible directed at me personally in order to have a chance to offend me, and most of the time I ignore stuff like that.
{shrugs}
Life is too short to spend any of it in a state of righteous indignation.