You miss my point entirely. You offended by being IN certain company, not by the mere act of BEING certain company.
I should have been more specific. Once I attended a function as the guest of a female co-worker, who happened to be white. I am Black. If I were white I doubt we would have gotten the comments aimed our way. Hence, the being IN certain company AND BEING certain company. I didn't feel the need to go into specifics before but since you're essentially telling me I dont know what I'm talking about I thought that I should clarify.
You are offending me, and I want someone to come in on my behalf and tell you to stop. Better yet, someone else should be offended for me and make you conform to groupthink.
I'm sorry for offending you.
If you can tell me what I said I'll try to understand why it offended you and try not to do it again. I'm not in the habit of being a dick and trying to offend people on purpose because I like to treat people how I like to be treated. So again if I've offended you in anyway please let me know and I'll try to communicate in a way that I can get my point across without being rude, offensive and boorish.
The only problems I had with it was it didnt delve far enough in a lot of places like the alternate playstyles, and the riddles and puzzles.
+1.
|
You know what else people need to do? Stop telling other people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. We get it. You're not offended and you think it's stupid that people are getting offended by it.But isn't that, at the root of it all, what's happening here in this thread? By pressuring Paizo to remove the supposedly offensive content, aren't they telling Paizo what they should be offended by, and ipso facto, what the customer base should be offended by?Not saying they should be offended. Merely asking that they be more sensitive and aware of the portrayal of "primitive" cultures and saying we would have been much more comfortable with the baseline "Tribal" NPC being named Tribal Warrior instead of Cannibal.
But apparently that bothers some people.
What I don't get it is why the word "Cannibal" is so offensive? Tribal does NOT refer to the American Indian in any way other then they have "Tribes". I think, personally here mind you, that you need to be less sensitive about the word used and not be offended by this. Even with the picture while you may not agree with it and the theme that is pictured there does not mean that, THAT particular person is a cannibal. If that was the case it would show her eating flesh and it does not.
The book does broach some sensitive topics and says as much when it does. While not everyone agrees with it, but to call it racism is I think overly sensitive and uncalled for. If you did not like it then you should not have bought it or at the very least better researched it before buying it. If when you DID get it you "could" have returned it back to Paizo too. You also implied that it was blatant racism and that is not even close to it at all. If I was as sensitive as you then I would be flat out offended by the word primitive when referring to the tribal cultures too.
Also you should base this on your own opinion ONLY instead of using the word "we" when you are saying something like this. "We" implies that you speak for all of us and not just yourself, in which case you do not. You most certainly do not speak for me and from what I am reading in this thread not a whole lot of others either.
I will thank you to not tell me I was doing something I was not. I did not hunt through the book looking for things to take issue with. It was something that stuck out to me, and didn't sit well with me. And I wanted to tell Paizo about it.And apparently I'm badwrong for wanting to say anything.
And where the hell did I say we should ignore actual cannibal cultures? All I said was that they could have presented a more generic and inclusive Tribal Warrior instead of painting that block with a pulp cannibal brush(read: "Pulp Cannibal", not nuanced representation of real world cannibal cultures).
Hell with it. I'm done with this. This day has been crappy enough already. Enjoy your damn dogpiling.
Don't let them get you down, M. Some people are simply incapable (or unwilling) of understanding that while something may not be offensive to them, it can still be offensive to others. It takes empathy and effort to see things from someone else's perspective; not everyone is able or willing to do that.
Like many such questions, the issue is more nuanced than many seem willing to admit. Sometimes complaints are valid, sometimes not. Sometimes the complaint is valid, but conflicts with fundamental rights. For example: "Your jokes about my religion are offensive," versus "The Right to Free Speech."
The real challenge, on a personal level, is trying to find the path that doesn't needlessly offend while still adhering to core beliefs. Doing so is much harder than it sounds, however. Sometimes, accomplishing both is impossible.
The one thing of which I'm sure, is that Paizo doesn't wish to intentionally offend anyone, and that they do, in fact, appreciate it when someone points out something that they hadn't considered. Sometimes accommodations can be made, sometimes they can't. But it's always better to know, than not to know.
And I hope your day gets better.
|
Something that's been niggling at me about this thread.
The book states at least a dozen times that the NPCs are to show two things:
1) How to pick skills etc to create NPCs of a specific type that are "memorable"
2) To give a list of stat blocks to cover a wide range of levels to be used in a pinch.
It couldn't be more clear on the fact that these stat blocks show only one way to create that prostitute, or dealer, or cobbler or king...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There's a difference between being offended by something someone said and somone saying something offensive.
Along those lines I offend lots of people stating my opinion. Now my opinion can be wrong (keep the snark to a minimum, people) but if you launch a jihad to try to clean the world of content people find offensive, you quickly run out of ways to communicate.
Indeed, sometimes the efforts to raise offense can backfire in an amusing fashion. Everyone remembers the "When you use the word 'gay'" commericals, but how have they changed the dialog? I know my friend's teen aged daughter and her friends mock the commercial when someone says 'that's so gay'. Yeah, real effective folks.
(aside, was there a campaign to fight against the changing of the meaning of the word originally? Radio ads going "I'm gay." "Really? you don't seem happy to me.")
Anyway... I don't see anyone (except my snarky comment) saying that all the white folks in photos near 'brigand' 'torturerer' etc. is racist. So yeah, I find cries of implied racisim in the native shaman type being next to cannibal a bit overwrought. The term 'cannibal' may have been a bad choice of words, but there's no malice involved.
The term 'cannibal' may have been a bad choice of words, but there's no malice involved.
The term cannibal wasn't a bad choice of words. It's the most natural word to use to describe someone who eats their own species. I suppose they could have used a 'PC' phrase like 'many of these savage tribes display self species ingestation tendencies', but honestly, that sounds pretty bad.
Historically, most cannibalistic societies were tribal in organization. That's simply a fact of history. Since all games are root based in our own history and mythos (which a quick glance through the rules and bestiary will confirm), it is very natural to conclude that if you are going to put a cannibal in the book, it should be in the tribal section.
I think that's the disconnect people who are offended are missing. It is not that the decision was made to denigrate tribal societies. I can almost hear the conversation now.
A) Let's put cannibals in so we get as much variety as possible.
B) Ok, where do we put the cannibals in?
C) Well, I did a wiki search and most cannibals were in small tribes in the South Pacific, Africa, and South American jungles.
A) Ok, well, do we have a tribal section?
B) Yeah, so far we have a shaman and a chief for that section, but no low CR example.
A) Ok then, change the chief to a cannibal chief, and make the low CR entry a cannibal too.
C) What about the shaman?
A) Hmm, not sure if shaman fits with cannibal, at least to most of our readers, so leave the shaman non-cannibal. That'll give us a representative of the non-cannibal tribes.
B & C) Ok.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The term 'cannibal' may have been a bad choice of words, but there's no malice involved.The term cannibal wasn't a bad choice of words. It's the most natural word to use to describe someone who eats their own species. I suppose they could have used a 'PC' phrase like 'many of these savage tribes display self species ingestation tendencies', but honestly, that sounds pretty bad.
True, my explaination might be a better example of a bad choice of words. :-)
I hesitate to continue fanning the flames of the discussions about racist or insensitive cultural stereotypes in Pathfinder, but I think it has to be said: if anyone can manage to work themselves up so much about game product elements that could be construed as racist or sexist as to demonstrate the level of outrage seen in some posts here, then you must really blow a gasket when you turn on the TV news or read current events articles online.
I say this as someone who is very much bothered by a lot of things that I read in the news on a day to day basis; I'm sure many of my Facebook friends are tired of hearing my liberal tirades over news items that get my dander up. But I've never seen anything in any gaming product that could inspire as much rage as reading about actual injustice and oppression in the real world - and when I look at it from that standpoint, it strikes me as even more ridiculous to make mountains out of these types of molehills.
The fact remains, too, that medieval/renaissance societies like the ones we typically see lampooned in fantasy simply weren't nice places, especially for women and minorities. Writers like George R.R. Martin and Joe Abercrombie do a very good job of portraying that harsh reality in their books, and those are concepts I've tried to incorporate into my games as well - at least in the less-enlightened societies that do burn heretics and systematically oppress women and ethnic minorities, anyway.
Regarding the actual content of the GMG, I rather liked the book and find regular uses for it at the table. The most obvious benefit to me is the huge amount of pre-generated NPCs, though they do occasionally require some tweaking if you're using them in combat to provide an appropriate level of challenge.
The various tables of random info like tavern names and ghost ships can potentially be very useful when you're stuck on a piece of info that players have asked you for but you haven't prepared to provide.
The advice offered in the book was valuable to me, as well. One bit that really stuck with me was about using stats for an entirely unrelated monster to "eyeball" an opponent or villain, like using stats for a giant to represent an especially formidable human warrior (The Mountain That Rides, anyone?). The more I run games, the less guilty I feel about "cheating" - which is to say, not obsessing over EVERYTHING in my game being RAW-compliant to the letter.
The GMG does a good job of teaching GMs who are afraid of breaking rules to think outside the box, with specific examples of how to do so.
I very often glaze over the "How To Gamemaster" portions of RPG books because they all tend to say the same boring things. This wasn't the case when I picked up the GMG. Thanks, Paizo.
|
|
I should have been more specific. Once I attended a function as the guest of a female co-worker, who happened to be white. I am Black. If I were white I doubt we would have gotten the comments aimed our way. Hence, the being IN certain company AND BEING certain company. I didn't feel the need to go into specifics before but since you're essentially telling me I dont know what I'm talking about I thought that I should clarify.
You miss my point entirely. You offended by being IN certain company, not by the mere act of BEING certain company.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
People who take offense at every slight like to crusade to make it so that everyone should be more sensitive to other's feelings, no matter how valid their percieved offense. Which I find silly. You sir, by the accident of your birth, offend some people in this world, as do I by my nationality, my religion, and region of origin. These people are stupid, backward and ignorant racists. Should you give a rat's fat arse what these losers think, or if they are offended, or if there is anything you can do to ease their sense of ire?? Hell no, of course not.
Likewise, the OP claimed he was so offended by this book that he wasn't going to buy any more Paizo hardbacks, and as evidence, he referred to passages that did not exist anywhere in the book only in his percieved recollections. Thus, he saw racism where none was intended, and his preconcieved notions and predeliction for offense concocted offense where none was written (specifically mentioning how tribals prey on the "white man", or some such nonsense) nor intended by the authors. I therefore submit that his feelings of offense are as equally dismissable as those of any klansman to your very existance.
It seems to me that using the charge of racism for such obscure and questionable evidence cheapens the word and insults those who have had to suffer the real thing.
I purchased the PDF of the book and was astonished how this picture or text could have been perceived offensive--and even more so when the totality of the book's content is considered.
The OP asserted the book had "flat out racism". I say nonsense. Others have asserted it might be an obscure or vague or unintended form of racism. I say guys use your imaginations for productive purposes. Stop chasing every perceived slight, else you'll become bitter, anxious, angry and unhappy.
+1!! I fully agree. Also, I have meet people that are offended by the slightest perceived notion of racism, disrespect, rudeness, clash of personalities, or whatever else they want to have "an issue" with. They are very bitter and unhappy people, and I do my best to steer clear of them.
I hesitate to continue fanning the flames of the discussions about racist or insensitive cultural stereotypes in Pathfinder, but I think it has to be said: if anyone can manage to work themselves up so much about game product elements that could be construed as racist or sexist as to demonstrate the level of outrage seen in some posts here, then you must really blow a gasket when you turn on the TV news or read current events articles online.
I say this as someone who is very much bothered by a lot of things that I read in the news on a day to day basis; I'm sure many of my Facebook friends are tired of hearing my liberal tirades over news items that get my dander up. But I've never seen anything in any gaming product that could inspire as much rage as reading about actual injustice and oppression in the real world - and when I look at it from that standpoint, it strikes me as even more ridiculous to make mountains out of these types of molehills.
+1!! I fully agree! There's more important things to get irked over that some fantasy rule system. Taxes, your job, and your family come to mind.
Holy crap. Step away for five minutes and all hell breaks loose! :P
First of all, the NPC statblocks are not useful TO ME. Further, they aren't particularly reflective of what one might expect given the stated demographics. I never said they were wrong, or useless to everyone, nor did I make all sorts of other silly inferences. Untwist thy knickers.
Second, not everyone who gets offended is looking to be a victim, or "working themselves up." Yes, there is such a thing as getting offended past the point of reason, but reality can't be put into neat little polar categories. Not everyone is either a blubbering PC complainer or a Real American(tm) individualist. Once again, untwist they knickers.
The reality is every single one of use is woefully ignorant about any number of things, and we'd all do better to remember that a little more often.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I think this thread has served its purpose, and now that it has degenerated into members of the community questioning each other's emotions, or taking offense that someone was offended by someone taking offense, I'm going to close it.
Message received. Thread ending in:
3
2
1