
![]() |

I would agree wholeheartedly. It does bring up the issue of environment and parenting. I spent half my life living on a farm with my father and step mother. So I saw procreation, birth, and death (on occasion I had to be the one to kill the animal in question). The other half with a mother who is a nurse. My first observation of animals procreating was answered with a simple "making puppies" more than sufficient for a 5 year old. And honestly meant that I never had another question about the activity, now the biology, chemical reactions, and processes in gestation and as i became intertested in pair forming on my own questions about emotional responses/ impacts sure.
Heh, I grew up in a small town, on a semi-functional farm (we had pigs, raised a cow a year with the blunt names of 'Salt&Pepper' 'Oregeno' 'Terry'(aki) and 'Food'. I also had more exposure to the classics of Tarzan and John Carter (and Tom Swift, and the Hardy Boys, and Jim Kjelgaard) We hunted for food, and ate what we killed. I take pride in being a red neck, thank you very much :P
More 'me' rambling.I've a skull on my desk at work I named Yorik, maybe half my co-workers get the joke (and then get the quote incorrect). I've said "I'd call you a Philistine, but you'd likely tell me you're not from Philidelphia."
That said, I understand the OP's question. While I'm more 'liberal' in my own home, I am a social conservative, and understand his worries about how to explain things to the kids. When I was making a 'Pathfinder sales pitch' I told the guy I was speaking with that the APs do handle mature themes, and it's something to consider when running pregenerated stuff for youths. I've ran PFS adventures for teens though, and ran Hollow's Last Hope for 8-12 year olds (and if I'd thought faster, I'd have had a 6 year old play the fox)
For all the 'fluff vs. crunch' talk, It is a good thing that the mature topics are more handled in the campaign setting instead of the rule books (yeah yeah, page 321's an exception).
If this means monsters wear bras, small price to pay.

Cartigan |

If this means monsters wear bras, small price to pay.
My God! Fantastical half-man made up beasts have breasts! Inconceivable!
Hopefully you won't run into any intelligent children who wonder outloud why mystical creatures are wearing bras in the first place.
-This kind of stuff is why we are a conservative backwater who revels in violence but flies off the handle at the idea that nipples exist - anywhere.

Slaunyeh |

Let me get this straight. You live in Moscow, Russia; and teach English using RPGs as a teaching tool?You, sir, are awesome. (I have no input on the OP though-I have no kids)
D&D is a great learning tool!
I started playing D&D when I was 9 or 10. There about. Didn't speak a word of English at the time*. I had some very puzzled parents and one heck of an abused dictionary. :)
*) This isn't entirely true. I also learned some initial English by playing Kings Quest I. "Pick up mushroom" indeed. :p

Dragonsong |

Heh, I grew up in a small town, on a semi-functional farm (we had pigs, raised a cow a year with the blunt names of 'Salt&Pepper' 'Oregeno' 'Terry'(aki) and 'Food'. I also had more exposure to the classics of Tarzan and John Carter (and Tom Swift, and the Hardy Boys, and Jim Kjelgaard) We hunted for food, and ate what we killed. I take pride in being a red neck, thank you very much :P
More 'me' rambling.
** spoiler omitted **...
While not any thing close to a social conservative sounds like we had similar experiences growing up and shared similar reactions to the art inspired by other artists (Iron Maiden, Led Zepplin, Stephen King's Dark Tower without which I never would have heard of the "The Song of Roland".)
I disagree on the bra thing but National Geographic indicated to me at a young age that breast-coverings were certainly not universal so why would jungle/ savannah living trolls, humans, elves, orcs, or goblins wear them?

![]() |

-This kind of stuff is why we are a conservative backwater who revels in violence but flies off the handle at the idea that nipples exist - anywhere.
I've never really thought of my country as a backwater sort of place before. Maybe its because I've been to some truly backwater areas. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the term as you are using it.
I also must ask, is there something inherently wrong with violence? Or is it merely an activity that is appropriate only at certain times.

Cartigan |

Cartigan wrote:-This kind of stuff is why we are a conservative backwater who revels in violence but flies off the handle at the idea that nipples exist - anywhere.I've never really thought of my country as a backwater sort of place before. Maybe its because I've been to some truly backwater areas. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the term as you are using it.
I also must ask, is there something inherently wrong with violence? Or is it merely an activity that is appropriate only at certain times.
Nothing is wrong with violence. It is in the hypocrisy of accepting violence with a shrug and damning the idea of a nipple from a soap box.

![]() |

Wicht wrote:Nothing is wrong with violence. It is in the hypocrisy of accepting violence with a shrug and damning the idea of a nipple from a soap box.Cartigan wrote:-This kind of stuff is why we are a conservative backwater who revels in violence but flies off the handle at the idea that nipples exist - anywhere.I've never really thought of my country as a backwater sort of place before. Maybe its because I've been to some truly backwater areas. Or maybe I'm just not understanding the term as you are using it.
I also must ask, is there something inherently wrong with violence? Or is it merely an activity that is appropriate only at certain times.
Hell froze over, me and Cartigan agree on something...

Pendagast |

Epic Meepo wrote:Steelfiredragon wrote:...just tell them that necrophilia is a form of corspe desecration...My advice: don't tell your daughter a vague or partial definition of "necrophilia." Especially not one that makes "necrophilia" sound like a word that applies in a wide range of circumstances that have nothing to do with its actual definition. That could lead to an awkward parent-teacher conference the next time she's asked to do a creative writing assignment.Possibly mildly offensive confession:
** spoiler omitted **Not that parents should be teaching their kids every slur in the book. Still, would have been good to know...
See that's the thing I've always objected to. Especially in the case of the innocent.
"Queer" for example. I mean seriously, the 'adult's who made a messed up assumption about a report from a kid like that are not acting like adults.
Because, if you meant unusual, you were using the word correctly.
There are so many various words for homosexual and I don't even know why.
When I was growing up, there were no black people, ( I don't mean anywhere they just weren't in my section of isolation) somehow, I had gotten a hold of one of the slur words that was used for them back in the 1890s-1920s (not the popular one today) , I thought it was a neat way of saying "jerk".
I probably used it on and off through out grade school.
When I went to High School, bam, there they were, black people, it was like seeing something you had only seen on TV.
Truthfully, I didn't really act any different, at first. I didn't think anything of it.
Somewhere along the lines, my freshman year I used that word. Wow, Ok I found out what it meant.
I was 15 years old before I got the meaning of a word (and I don't think there IS a 'normal' meaning of the word, like in the case of queer) that I probably started using when i was 8 or 9.
I think it's much better to tell people (children or adults) what the meaning of a word is, rather than try to cover it up, or smooth it over, or worse just ignore it.
Queer is a good word for things like aliens, dinosaurs, and maybe a bunch on insects, because they are all very unusual. It should be able to be used.
In fact it's been forever since I hear that used as a slur.
My Uncle used to use this word in Italian (no one in the family speaks italian) that he picked up somewhere, that apparently means something similar to the "F" word. But, much worse/more offensive.
He was using it as a crutch to stop using the normal F word (this one started with an F too, but sounded like some kind of noodle)
He used it for years. One day in a restaurant (which happened to be authentic italian) he was with my mother and her best friend (who was not only italian but very religious) Bam out comes his "word" and the lady nearly fainted.
See the word it's self and it's intended meaning are never the same. But for whatever reason, the innocent (could be your 40 year old uncle or your 4 year old) who do not know the meaning of the word, will run off and use it at the worst times.
It's unfortunate perfectly good words like queer (and all the other slurs for homosexuals) got twisted and warped and turned into bad words, for no good reason....
When I first read that post, I thought it said "Queen" dinosaurs.... Lol I was like what fuss were they making about that??

Bill Dunn |

Nothing is wrong with violence. It is in the hypocrisy of accepting violence with a shrug and damning the idea of a nipple from a soap box.
I really can't see it as hypocrisy since they're two different things that should be expected to have different effects on the viewer/children/society at large. I agree that getting all bent out of shape over nipples, other forms of nudity, and sex is silly, however.

Cartigan |

Cartigan wrote:I really can't see it as hypocrisy since they're two different things that should be expected to have different effects on the viewer/children/society at large. I agree that getting all bent out of shape over nipples, other forms of nudity, and sex is silly, however.
Nothing is wrong with violence. It is in the hypocrisy of accepting violence with a shrug and damning the idea of a nipple from a soap box.
Two different things on the surface, but not really. Violence is worse really. Is beating people to death an accepted part of society? Is that something that should be encouraged? No. But it makes a fun game so it's a-ok. Is nudity accepted? Not in America, but that opinion is different elsewhere where sexuality isn't repressed. But I mean really. "Oh no, a mythical creature has nipples. Whatever will we tell the children!" That they have nipples. Everyone has nipples.

![]() |

Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
So, why does the Lamia wear a bra?

Pendagast |

Cartigan wrote:I really can't see it as hypocrisy since they're two different things that should be expected to have different effects on the viewer/children/society at large. I agree that getting all bent out of shape over nipples, other forms of nudity, and sex is silly, however.
Nothing is wrong with violence. It is in the hypocrisy of accepting violence with a shrug and damning the idea of a nipple from a soap box.
Well, in general, violence = offense against humanity and pornography = offense against humanity.
In theory, naked people lose dignity and become seen as an object of lust and desire. Violence perpetrated against same person degrades them to the point of being seen as an object, a target.
Repeated exposure to violence and pornography (in theory) are seen as lowering ones level of respect and care for fellow humans as objects of desire or outlets for anger and resentment, as so therefor by extension, the more you see it/partake in it, the more it is excusable and 'no big deal' (in theory)
So that's how it's said that advocating one, and condemning the other is hypocritical.
However, I don't see how you can label the "United States" as doing this.
What because we have the most powerful military in the word, we advocate violence?
I'd advocate England's military is just as capable, just smaller. But their country is a lot smaller too.
Or is that a referal to hollywood? Plenty of violence in LOTR, not made in America or have anything to do with Americans.
So movie making does not = America.
So where is the Idea that Americans are more violent than other countries?
Certainly there are other places that are more OK with pornography than america, but as The US is one of the youngest countries in existence, at least among those being compared, and it was largely populated be peoples trying to get away from things like rampant ludity in Europe at the time, I'd say that sentiment hasn't entire worn off in the last 400 years or so. Which explains the differences in acceptance of nudity and other related subjects.

![]() |

Wicht wrote:So, why does the Lamia wear a bra?Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
Support? :/

![]() |

Gorbacz wrote:Support? :/Wicht wrote:So, why does the Lamia wear a bra?Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
Try harder. :)

![]() |

Matthew Morris wrote:If this means monsters wear bras, small price to pay.My God! Fantastical half-man made up beasts have breasts! Inconceivable!
Hopefully you won't run into any intelligent children who wonder outloud why mystical creatures are wearing bras in the first place.
-This kind of stuff is why we are a conservative backwater who revels in violence but flies off the handle at the idea that nipples exist - anywhere.
Wow, somewhere there is a point, crying out how it's abused and lonely.
My point was, by keeping the core rules (mostly) PG, but dealing with the more mature topics in the campaign setting, Paizo is (intentionally or not) allowing the consumer* to tailor what they present to their children. There's no chance of running across talk of ritual dismemberment or necrophilia in the Bestiary. But there is in the Princes of the Damned series. Making it easier to enjoy a game while controling the maturity level is a benefit, not a defect.
Taking one line from my post, and not using the context "While I'm more 'liberal' in my own home, I am a social conservative, and understand his worries about how to explain things to the kids. When I was making a 'Pathfinder sales pitch' I told the guy I was speaking with that the APs do handle mature themes, and it's something to consider when running pregenerated stuff for youths." is looking to argue for the sake of the argument.
I may as well quote
My... Intelligent Children... revels in violence
It would be as accurate as your attempts to quote me.
*

![]() |

Wicht wrote:Try harder. :)Gorbacz wrote:Support? :/Wicht wrote:So, why does the Lamia wear a bra?Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
So she doesn't trip?

Cartigan |

I may as well quoteCartigan wrote:My... Intelligent Children... revels in violenceIt would be as accurate as your attempts to quote me.
*** spoiler omitted **
No, it wouldn't.
You boiled your point down to "Monsters should wear bras." The implication is the very idea that monsters have nipples is on par with ritual dismemberment and necrophilia.
I don't think you disproved my point.

Drejk |

So, why does the Lamia wear a bra?
Splendid comment, Gorbacz, splendid.
Seksmisja contained female character named Lamia Reno and she certainly wasn't wearing bra.
Poland was the only country in Eastern Block where partial or complete nudity was shown in movies without much fuss which may explain Gorbacz's attitude about "us Euros" ;)

![]() |

Matthew Morris wrote:
I may as well quoteCartigan wrote:My... Intelligent Children... revels in violenceIt would be as accurate as your attempts to quote me.
*** spoiler omitted **
No, it wouldn't.
You boiled your point down to "Monsters should wear bras." The implication is the very idea that monsters have nipples is on par with ritual dismemberment and necrophilia.
I don't think you disproved my point.
If there was a point, I'd spend effort disproving it. Since you don't have one, I think I'm fine.
Since you're arguing against me, I assume you're against my point of giving parents the flexibility to moderate their children's exposure to different aspects of society and human nature.
Answer me this. What do nipples have to do with a role playing game?
Edit: There you go again, saying I said something I didn't. Is it possible to actually adress what I wrote?

Bill Dunn |

Two different things on the surface, but not really. Violence is worse really. Is beating people to death an accepted part of society? Is that something that should be encouraged? No. But it makes a fun game so it's a-ok. Is nudity accepted? Not in America, but that opinion is different elsewhere where sexuality isn't repressed. But I mean really. "Oh no, a mythical creature has nipples. Whatever will we tell the children!" That they have nipples. Everyone has nipples.
I reject the idea that they're different only on the surface. The main commonality between the two is how much someone wants to see of it in society, but that makes both topics virtually indistinguishable from thousands of other possibilities. Plus, if you see suppressing sex and freeing violence as being hypocritical, wouldn't suppressing violence and freeing sex be hypocritical as well if they're not really different (except on the surface)?
I think the fact that you call out violence as worse indicates that you probably don't think they're only different on the surface. For what it's worth, I agree with you there as well.
![]() |

Dark_Mistress wrote:Not uptight? This is the country where Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction launched an emergency session of Congress. And that was the restrained reaction. This is a country of bloody prudes.
most American's are not uptight about sex or sexuality
No a very vocal minority launched a campaign. Most I know didn't care one way or the other, some thought it was in poor taste if done on purpose. The only people I know that was remotely "outraged" by it was my two step sisters and one of their husbands. They are born again christians and ultra conservative. Though to be far to them they are just as outraged by graphic violence as well.

![]() |

LazarX wrote:No a very vocal minority launched a campaign. No one I personally know was outraged about it. Most I know didn't care one way or the other, some thought it was in poor taste if done on purpose.Dark_Mistress wrote:Not uptight? This is the country where Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction launched an emergency session of Congress. And that was the restrained reaction. This is a country of bloody prudes.
most American's are not uptight about sex or sexuality
From my admittedly imperfect memory
The 'fuss' that was raised stemmed from perceived violation of FCC guidelines. Whether you agree with the law or not, if it was broken then penalties need to be enforced. If you don't like the law, then change it. (I feel the same way about smoking bans. I disagree with them and oppose them when I have the oportunity.)
Personally, I find Superbowl halftime shows annoying and overrated. I watch the Super Bowl for football, (and comercials) not for a half time production. I'll watch the Puppy Bowl until they're done.

Bill Dunn |

Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
When it comes to kids being exposed to violence, sex, recreational use of mind-altering substances, selfishness, charity, political viewpoints, humor, art, sport - it all comes down to what you want your kids to be sensitive or desensitized too, what sort of society you want them to make as they either perpetuate the norms of the past or form new ones for the future. Frankly, I'm not too keen on my kids being desensitized to violence. I'd much rather they be desensitized to the horror of a flash of nipple or the shame of nudity. After all, everybody's got nipples, everybody comes into this world nude, but not everybody is target of nor commits violence.

![]() |

Matthew Morris wrote:You wrote "If this means monsters wear bras, small price to pay."
Edit: There you go again, saying I said something I didn't. Is it possible to actually adress what I wrote?
it's ok Cartigan,
When you're reduced to arguing points that you make up from what I wrote,
the very idea that monsters have nipples is on par with ritual dismemberment and necrophilia.
There's no shame in admitting that you can't argue what I actually said.

![]() |

Wicht wrote:Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence.
I do not see hypocrisy in thinking that nipples have less to do with football than violence. Likewise nipples are appropriate when breastfeeding, but violence is not. Everything in its place.
When it comes to kids being exposed to violence, sex, recreational use of mind-altering substances, selfishness, charity, political viewpoints, humor, art, sport - it all comes down to what you want your kids to be sensitive or desensitized too, what sort of society you want them to make as they either perpetuate the norms of the past or form new ones for the future. Frankly, I'm not too keen on my kids being desensitized to violence. I'd much rather they be desensitized to the horror of a flash of nipple or the shame of nudity. After all, everybody's got nipples, everybody comes into this world nude, but not everybody is target of nor commits violence.
Thank you Bill, you seem to have said what I was trying to say, better than I did.
If a parent doesn't want their kids exposed to violence, they're better off teaching their kids monopoly (or maybe Gloom) than Pathfinder or most RPGs. Once that decision is made, then the ability to go from there and filter content is the parent's decision.

Pendagast |

Somewhere between the death penalty, right to bear arms and "Trespassers will be shot at" signs lies the difference between US and EU in regard to violence.
Curious, Europe, home of Iron maiden and the Rack...
There is actually nothing violent about the death penalty, as the deaths are quite non violent. No one uses the electric chair or the firing squad or hanging anymore.
Most states don't have the death penalty, that's very few.
And the idea of housing, paying for, feeding and taking care of murderous violent, unrepentant criminals to the point of making their lives better inside than outside prison seems like a good idea to Europe?
Right to bear arms? Wow not having them has really helped crime rates in Europe hasn't it?
Right to bear does not = violence. And that was written in after England tried to violently force colonials into submission. The purpose and intent of that law is, because any government, even our own domestic one, could become tyrannical and need to be resisted. How does one resist an armed government without arms?
What Government in history has ever said "do this" and when the people say no, has not responded with troops ad just shrugged their shoulders and said "well ok"?
That doesn't make the populace of the country violent.
As far as hunting with those arms goes, there is no difference between procuring your own meat, and buying it at the store, meat is meat, the product of a once living thing, and the act of slaughtering animals at a facility or shooting one in the forest is not different.
So I fail to see how the right to own a gun (and by far most Americans never fire one) equates to violence or a violent nature, any more than europeans have pocket knives.

![]() |

Wicht wrote:Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence....
What.Not being a vampire, I find I don't have to hurt people to survive
Violence towards people is scarcely the sole sort of violence. Without violence, most of us omnivores are not going to eat. The ability to kill your food is a pretty important ability in every species. :)

Cartigan |

Gorbacz wrote:Somewhere between the death penalty, right to bear arms and "Trespassers will be shot at" signs lies the difference between US and EU in regard to violence.Curious, Europe, home of Iron maiden and the Rack...
There is actually nothing violent about the death penalty, as the deaths are quite non violent. No one uses the electric chair or the firing squad or hanging anymore.
Most states don't have the death penalty, that's very few.
And the idea of housing, paying for, feeding and taking care of murderous violent, unrepentant criminals to the point of making their lives better inside than outside prison seems like a good idea to Europe?
Right to bear arms? Wow not having them has really helped crime rates in Europe hasn't it?
Right to bear does not = violence. And that was written in after England tried to violently force colonials into submission. The purpose and intent of that law is, because any government, even our own domestic one, could become tyrannical and need to be resisted. How does one resist an armed government without arms?
What Government in history has ever said "do this" and when the people say no, has not responded with troops ad just shrugged their shoulders and said "well ok"?
That doesn't make the populace of the country violent.
As far as hunting with those arms goes, there is no difference between procuring your own meat, and buying it at the store, meat is meat, the product of a once living thing, and the act of slaughtering animals at a facility or shooting one in the forest is not different.So I fail to see how the right to own a gun (and by far most Americans never fire one) equates to violence or a violent nature, any more than europeans have pocket knives.
lolusualignorantpoliticaldrivel

Cartigan |

Cartigan wrote:Violence towards people is scarcely the sole sort of violence. Without violence, most of us omnivores are not going to eat. The ability to kill your food is a pretty important ability in every species. :)Wicht wrote:Why is violence worse than sex? You can survive a lot longer without sex than you can without violence....
What.Not being a vampire, I find I don't have to hurt people to survive
Which is really a whole different category of violence. Violence for sustenance and as killing as quickly as possible as opposed to violence to injure, maim, or kill to kill.

Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |

I'd like to suggest that people who really want to debate American vs. European vs. Global attitudes on sex and violence or the relative morality thereof please go make another thread in the Off Topic section. The same goes for "kids these days".
The original thread topic is a good discussion and one we'd like to hear feedback from our fans about. I don't want to have to lock this thread because it devolved into a political debate or semantic flamewar.

Cartigan |

I'd like to suggest that people who really want to debate American vs. European vs. Global attitudes on sex and violence or the relative morality thereof please go make another thread in the Off Topic section. The same goes for "kids these days".
The original thread topic is a good discussion and one we'd like to hear feedback from our fans about. I don't want to have to lock this thread because it devolved into a political debate or semantic flamewar.
Nothing was really expressed in the OP - "The fluff is good but some of it is too icky."
If you need a forum thread to figure out what kind of stuff is going to make people's skin crawl, you've been doing too much of it.
And you don't need a forum thread to figure out that stuff about incestuous, hill billy trolls that enslave and eat people, or necrophiliac ogres, or humans committing ritual dismemberment is is going to make people's skin crawl.

Bill Dunn |

Quote:Which is really a whole different category of violence. Violence for sustenance and as killing as quickly as possible as opposed to violence to injure, maim, or kill to kill.
Violence towards people is scarcely the sole sort of violence. Without violence, most of us omnivores are not going to eat. The ability to kill your food is a pretty important ability in every species. :)
Or to entertain, which I'll use to bring us back on topic.
I'm OK with certain amounts of violence in my entertainment media and allowing my kids to watch/participate. Violence on the game board is pretty abstract compared to in a more graphic semi-realistic videogame. So I'm more comfortable with my kids playing imaginary games (like Pathfinder) with violence than, say, my copy of Call of Duty. I'm more comfortable with cartoony violence than graphic so I'm more comfortable with them playing Lego Harry Potter than Call of Duty again.
I'm also more comfortable with them watching movies in which the violence is heroic and a tool of resort for the protagonists rather than a oppressive and preferred means to an advantage. So I'll break out Fellowship of the Ring before I show the kids Natural Born Killers (but that may be a matter of good taste as well).
When it comes to other adult themes like sex, basic nudity isn't much of an issue, particularly in art. Sexual activities, like the ogres and necrophilia, are dealt with in a non-graphic and simple manner. If asked, I'd say, "Ogres are depraved and have sex even with dead creatures which really disgusts most other people."

The Shaman |

Violence towards people is scarcely the sole sort of violence. Without violence, most of us omnivores are not going to eat. The ability to kill your food is a pretty important ability in every species. :)
Well, we would be herbivores, then - and without sex, we wouldn't exist. Now, I am an avid meat-lover, but if I had to choose... Anyway, I also find it strange that sex is so much more controversial than violence, but I think it is mostly for political reasons. Meh.
BTW, I'm afb right now, but I'm not sure Paizo puts something like a "Parental Advisory" note somewhere on the cover of the books. Perhaps that would help gamers who want to be sure the products they get avoid such topics?

Bill Dunn |

Pfft, Call of Duty.
That's nothing compared to the entire stealth genre where kills are up close and personal.
The banzai charges are nothing to sneeze at as far as being close up and personal and flamethrower attacks have a certain disturbing quality to them. It's all enough that I'm not playing it in front of the 6 year old.

ProfessorCirno |

The actual thing with violence vs sex has nothing to do with Puritanical values and everything to do with views and values of masculinity vs femininity. Now, if certain political systems or parties puts a greater emphasis on hypermasculinity, violence vs sex would go hand in hand with it, but violence vs sex is not the root cause.

Pendagast |

I'd like to suggest that people who really want to debate American vs. European vs. Global attitudes on sex and violence or the relative morality thereof please go make another thread in the Off Topic section. The same goes for "kids these days".
The original thread topic is a good discussion and one we'd like to hear feedback from our fans about. I don't want to have to lock this thread because it devolved into a political debate or semantic flamewar.
I've had several good points that you already deleted because someone else didn't like them.
The OP's opinion or point of view is the actual entry under ogre was/is 'over the top'.
According to some people, depending on background and belief, that may be true.
And I could find any nipple on page 321 of the APG, it's the iconic inquisitor killing an undead in messy fashion.
The actual point is, depending on who you are, and where your're from (Europe or Zimbabwe) is going to dictate what material you find offensive or questionable.
So there really is no answer to the topic.
Compare it to Harry Potter, for example, I know a grown woman who found HP 1 'too scary' because the troll in the bathroom frightened her. My kids have seen all the Potter films. (im getting to the point in a minute) But even I jumped out of my seat when the locket exploded into a big dark evil mist (I hadn't read the book so I didn't know that was going to happen).
Both my wife and I felt the harry/hermione "love scene" in the mist was unnecessary for the purposes of the film.
My kids never got any nightmares from watching any of the harry potters.
But when we watched sucker punch, there was a preview about vampires ( I believe the movie was "Priest") that gave one of our kids a few nightmares, I guess the vampires and there being that many of them was scary.
I do not think there is anything in the Pathfinder books that is any different than the various Harry Potter books or movies. There is a wide range (earlier HP books/movies are less dark)
Over the years I have encountered several players who in certain circumstances have brought up the "raiding dungeons and killing the things that live there and taking there stuff" is wrong, arguement.
What have they done? They are living here minding their own business.
No matter how much you say "they are Chaotic Evil" it will break down into "evil is a point of view" exercise. There for I do not feel the description of what makes ogres, vile and evil and not simply "misunderstood gentle giants", is out of place.
It's shaking a stick, "hey look, evil, bad, no no!"
In alot of cases, something 'bad' is happening in town, that makes the adventurers go find out whats going on.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" type of stuff, good backstory, get there, find evil cult, eradicate, become heroes.
Usually if there is enough backstory, a debate like above doesn't arise.
DnD originally got a bad rep for being seeing as promoting devil worship and black magic. Most of that was derived from random people catching a glimpse of the cover or a few interiors of the various monster books and the DMG.
Visuals are always more powerful than words.
the strength and longevity of a game like this (even through different iterations) is partially (arguably more) due to the fact that kids, have grown up with it, still play it, and other generations have gotten into it.
I was not much older than 10 when I started playing this game regularly.
there are no more nipples in any of the art work now, than there was on a Farrah Faucett poster back then.
Although my wife did describe the iconic witch as "porno" but did not object to the way Seoni was depicted....
That just goes to show you, one persons opinions are going to be different than the next, and often undecipherable.
Just the other day, my kid told an adult in school, that she was "scared", people at school took that to mean she was being abused at home.
When questioned by the councilor, she elaborated that she was scared mom would forget to pick her up at school.
this same kid (8) plays Pathfinder with us regularly, it wasn't the make believe ogres or the bad things they do, that was "scaring" her.

Cartigan |

Cartigan wrote:The banzai charges are nothing to sneeze at as far as being close up and personal and flamethrower attacks have a certain disturbing quality to them. It's all enough that I'm not playing it in front of the 6 year old.Pfft, Call of Duty.
That's nothing compared to the entire stealth genre where kills are up close and personal.
Pfft, flamethrower.
In Syphon Filter, you could use a taser to set people on fire.
Cartigan |

Gorbacz wrote:Somewhere between the death penalty, right to bear arms and "Trespassers will be shot at" signs lies the difference between US and EU in regard to violence.We care more about protecting our selves than hoping big daddy government gets there in time? and want evil gone for good.
If this were an argument about holier-than-thouism and vigilantism, you'd totally be winning.

ProfessorCirno |

Gorbacz wrote:Somewhere between the death penalty, right to bear arms and "Trespassers will be shot at" signs lies the difference between US and EU in regard to violence.We care more about protecting our selves than hoping big daddy government gets there in time? and want evil gone for good.
That you see potential trespassers as "Evil that needs to be murdered on sight" speaks volumns, I think.