I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets face it like or not very many things in rpgs long before PF and certainly in PF are over sexualized. To site only catfolk and then overlook countless sorceresses, witches and barbaians walking in scanty robes or low cut dresses. Appearently catfolk is the moral high ground you want to pick. Personally I am bothered by some of the over sexualized content and do not encourage it (espcially with teenage girls at my gaming table). But to act like catfolk by meremention are a perversion and could never be played in a non-sexualized way seems a bit of picking and chosing. Going through art work and picking out just the sexualized catfolk while ignoring other work that is just as much sexualized seems ridiculous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appearently catfolk is the moral high ground you want to pick.
I wouldn't call it a moral high ground, as it's not really moral, and it's not really a high-ground. It's kind of an evil "no fun allowed" unstable, and rather flat ground, to be standing on. The argument is weak at best, what with all the other examples readily available that predate the catfolk by numerous years.
Oh my Gozreh. Can we have lolcat and kawaii-desu nekomimi alternate racial traits for the catfolk in the Advanced Race Guide? CAN WE HAVE A PLAYTEST OF SAID TRAITS?
|
I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
I mentioned my disike of catfolk, but it had nothing to do with fetishization.
There is a difference between a critique and being a bully. You are being a bully, you're marginalizing a different playstyle because of your own distaste.
Oh my Gozreh. Can we have lolcat and kawaii-desu nekomimi alternate racial traits for the catfolk in the Advanced Race Guide? CAN WE HAVE A PLAYTEST OF SAID TRAITS?
I hope so, something to take advantage of their +2 cha.
Lets face it like or not very many things in rpgs long before PF and certainly in PF are over sexualized. To site only catfolk and then overlook countless sorceresses, witches and barbaians walking in scanty robes or low cut dresses. Appearently catfolk is the moral high ground you want to pick. Personally I am bothered by some of the over sexualized content and do not encourage it (espcially with teenage girls at my gaming table). But to act like catfolk by meremention are a perversion and could never be played in a non-sexualized way seems a bit of picking and chosing. Going through art work and picking out just the sexualized catfolk while ignoring other work that is just as much sexualized seems ridiculous.
.
.The Changeling in Carrion Crown part 1; The Haunting Of Harrowstone (in the Bestiary, page 84-85)? kinda looks like a Loli.
|
|
Fetish material for sure, even when not-nude. Yep, can't take paizo's catfolk decision seriously. Such a bad move.
Hmmm... because you don't like it, and you choose to join the group throwing around wrongful stereotypes, it's bad. Got your opinion, but I do not agree with you.
Seems inconsistent with the guy who was arguing that Paizo should be more inclusive rather than less over on one of the 'Cleric' threads.
Ahh, I see, a page back, and they were put in because of a mass request. It is funny when one group can be so loud. Makes me wonder if paizo even considered how many of the people that backed catfolk were into furry? Perhaps a situation of a vocal and active group on the internet, changing Golarion to their tastes?
Paizo does not only build the game for you, but they do build it for an active fetish group on the internet.
We will see where Golarion goes next, and if it sails as a setting without dms feeling an overwhelming need to chop so much off.
I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
I mentioned my disike of catfolk, but it had nothing to do with fetishization.
There is a difference between a critique and being a bully. You are being a bully, you're marginalizing a different playstyle because of your own distaste.
A dnd character race isn't worthy of being called a play style. If a DM takes out three races from their games, they have removed no play styles.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You think Paizo only listens to the people on the forum, and not the ones that attend PaizoCon and the other gaming cons they have a presence at?
Should they consider how many people who back half-orcs are into rape? No, because it's ridiculous to do so, just as it is ridiculous to do so with catfolk.
Ahh, I see, a page back, and they were put in because of a mass request. It is funny when one group can be so loud. Makes me wonder if paizo even considered how many of the people that backed catfolk were into furry? Perhaps a situation of a vocal and active group on the internet, changing Golarion to their tastes?
Paizo does not only build the game for you, but they do build it for an active fetish group on the internet.
We will see where Golarion goes next, and if it sails as a setting without dms feeling an overwhelming need to chop so much off.
I vote a Golarion-version Warforged. We must have a playable construct/half-construct race and somehow fit 10-15 race points in it. Either that or Electric Mousefolk. Pika pika~
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah; because they need to take everything out of the game that somebody somewhere made porn out of.Rule 34. :)
I haven't found any otyugh porn.
I haven't found any otyugh porn.Yeah; because they need to take everything out of the game that somebody somewhere made porn out of.Rule 34. :)
You haven't looked hard enough.
You haven't looked hard enough.I haven't found any otyugh porn.Yeah; because they need to take everything out of the game that somebody somewhere made porn out of.Rule 34. :)
If I actually found it that would be "trying too hard," not unlike.....
a certain troll hereabouts......|
|
Fetish material for sure, even when not-nude. Yep, can't take paizo's catfolk decision seriously. Such a bad move.Fortunately, you don't have to. Because, obviously, the catfolk were not created for you.
We put catfolk into the Bestiary for pretty much one reason—because they were far and above the MOST requested zero HD race on these boards. The fact that there are cat people in the Elder Scrolls, or cat people in various other incarnations of D&D, is nothing more than other companies reacting to the same simple fact that, whether or not any one person likes the idea of a cat humanoid race... it IS a very popular one.
If you don't like catfolk, they're easy enough to ignore in games you run.
Doesn't mean it was a bad idea to put them into the Bestiary, though.
Seems like everything in PF that wasn't in 3.5, and even a bunch of things that were in 3.5, aren't meant for the "Loyalist"'s vision of his campaign world.
I, however, am glad Paizo put Catfolk in Bestiary 3 and gave those who like them, officially released stats for the race.
I haven't found any otyugh porn.Yeah; because they need to take everything out of the game that somebody somewhere made porn out of.Rule 34. :)
It's out there. Eyebleach -- I has it. Took the blood on my shirt (from my eyes gouging themselves out to protect my brain) right out.
Also no one mention the iconic rule 34 or Goddesses of Golarion rule 34 to 3.5 loyalist.
|
|
A dnd character race isn't worthy of being called a play style. If a DM takes out three races from their games, they have removed no play styles.I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
I mentioned my disike of catfolk, but it had nothing to do with fetishization.
There is a difference between a critique and being a bully. You are being a bully, you're marginalizing a different playstyle because of your own distaste.
Sure they have:
Remove the half-Orc for misunderstood hero.
Remove dwarf for vaguely Scottish gold loving drunk.
Remove elf for haughty know-it-all who has lived 100s of years.
Every race in PF and D&D has good and bad baggage.
Catfolk appeal to a section of the community that isn't you.
How were those last few hours?
Seems like everything in PF that wasn't in 3.5, and even a bunch of things that were in 3.5, aren't meant for the "Loyalist"'s vision of his campaign world.I, however, am glad Paizo put Catfolk in Bestiary 3 and gave those who like them, officially released stats for the race.
I wonder how he took to the 3.5 races of wild catfolk (not that such was their first appearance in 3.5 anyways but still).
Fetish material for sure, even when not-nude. Yep, can't take paizo's catfolk decision seriously. Such a bad move.Hmmm... because you don't like it, and you choose to join the group throwing around wrongful stereotypes, it's bad. Got your opinion, but I do not agree with you.
Seems inconsistent with the guy who was arguing that Paizo should be more inclusive rather than less over on one of the 'Cleric' threads.
Fetishes and civilisations have different weights. To clarify:
They borrow from Asia, but refuse to allow religion and worshippers from Asia (polytheism/pantheism/conceptual worship). Clerics must be mono, even if that is rare in a lot of Asia--the source for Golarion.
They add a new race. It is largely and most well known from an internet porn genre. I certainly didn't ask for this, and they haven't borrowed from the tales of yiff to this extent before.
So the difference is borrowing and misrepresenting (Golarion's Asia has only mono clerics) and bringing in something known elsewhere, because people wanted it. I am not always for more races, reservations expressed earlier, but when a culture is borrowed, I don't want it pushed into absolute clerical monotheism if it wasn't such (Taoism, Hinduism, Shinto, Buddhism).
One does take something (clerical choice) and one does give something (a new race), but I am not always for giving more. I did make a joke about this with my letter to James though, that we should give more from the internet. Probably best to not cross the streams.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furniture was furniture first, before furniture porn. I don't buy zappo's theory, that drawn feline humanoids came before the furry-fetish at all.
The mention of halflings and orcs misses the point. They were in fantasy before they were in fetish-fantasies. For the catfolk, they were in fetish-fantasies long before paizo picked them up. Furry fandom is around, there is huge amounts on the net, and yet paizo brings them in? Hence my request above.
Others have already said it, but you totally miss BOTH points:
1. Furry fandom is mostly NOT fetishists (particularly in the derogatory sense that you apply to the term 'fetish')
2. Everything in existence (just about) has someone out there somewhere who's got a "deviant", probably "sexual", fetish for it.
Now your continued assumption that all 'Furries' are automatically 'fetishists', and everything to do with catfolk is just deviant sexual fetishes, is just ignorant and rude.
I wonder how he took to the 3.5 races of wild catfolk (not that such was their first appearance in 3.5 anyways but still).
Seems like everything in PF that wasn't in 3.5, and even a bunch of things that were in 3.5, aren't meant for the "Loyalist"'s vision of his campaign world.I, however, am glad Paizo put Catfolk in Bestiary 3 and gave those who like them, officially released stats for the race.
Yeah I've got the miniatures book, I know it was minorly added as a possible race in 3.5. Hardly core, hardly emphasised, an option.
What I want to know, is how far paizo is going to take pushing the catfolk forward? Because while yeah, some are vocal and love it, some of us don't like it, but we don't always talk to each other and vote for it to become more central.
Fetish material for sure, even when not-nude. Yep, can't take paizo's catfolk decision seriously. Such a bad move.Fortunately, you don't have to. Because, obviously, the catfolk were not created for you.
We put catfolk into the Bestiary for pretty much one reason—because they were far and above the MOST requested zero HD race on these boards. The fact that there are cat people in the Elder Scrolls, or cat people in various other incarnations of D&D, is nothing more than other companies reacting to the same simple fact that, whether or not any one person likes the idea of a cat humanoid race... it IS a very popular one.
If you don't like catfolk, they're easy enough to ignore in games you run.
Doesn't mean it was a bad idea to put them into the Bestiary, though.
Seems like everything in PF that wasn't in 3.5, and even a bunch of things that were in 3.5, aren't meant for the "Loyalist"'s vision of his campaign world.
I, however, am glad Paizo put Catfolk in Bestiary 3 and gave those who like them, officially released stats for the race.
This. I have a vicious, unabiding hatred of small sized PCs, but I don't think that Paizo should avoid small sized races. I'm glad that Paizo has such races available for those who want them. I just don't have them in my campaign setting. I wish people who go at Paizo for including Catfolk would have the same attitude.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been thinking, I and I think we need to ban Necromancy from the game.
First off, it's quite obviously simply a code word for Necrophillia. I mean really, the spells even have double entendres. Raise Dead? Please, it's obvious what that spell is really for. Sculpt Corpse? A way to make your corpse look exactly the way you want, for your sick fetishes.
Secondly, it's equally obvious who these necrophilliacs are in our midst. They always play necromancers, or wear black, or have skulls and crossbones on their clothes. Also, they prefer death themes in everything, even posting. For example, these sick fetishists often signal their desires to others of their kind by advertising their intentions, usually by using avatars with undead themes, especially grinning skulls. This symbolizes both their twisted desires, and that they are laughing at the rest of us normal people, whom they think have no idea of their sick perversions.
We need to remove the ability of these sick fetishests to infect our games with their twisted desires.
/tongue in cheek
|
|
Furniture was furniture first, before furniture porn. I don't buy zappo's theory, that drawn feline humanoids came before the furry-fetish at all.So they had furry-fetishes in ancient Egypt?
It was a human society, with a great deal of reverence for certain animal types (especially felines and crocodiles...), so, ummm... yeah, pretty sure that were a few people in Ancient Egypt who had cat fetishes....
Problem is that's a pre-internet version of the principle in 'Rule 34', not support for 3.5L's positions (since it also comes to back to 'feline fetishes' that did exist weren't the only fetishes around). Although, thanks for bringing Ancient Egypt up, TOZ.
|
|
Intolerance pre-judging isn't right in any form. I really don't care about what the DM in charge of his game does, but the way that people who are in a minority group that has to fight bad stereotypes do the same thing to another group of people shows a complete lack of self-awareness.
QTF
Excerpted several paragraphs for space, but the whole post was excellent-- wonderful way to express a core point of values.
Thank you, Chuck.
Furniture was furniture first, before furniture porn. I don't buy zappo's theory, that drawn feline humanoids came before the furry-fetish at all.
The mention of halflings and orcs misses the point. They were in fantasy before they were in fetish-fantasies. For the catfolk, they were in fetish-fantasies long before paizo picked them up. Furry fandom is around, there is huge amounts on the net, and yet paizo brings them in? Hence my request above.
Others have already said it, but you totally miss BOTH points:
1. Furry fandom is mostly NOT fetishists (particularly in the derogatory sense that you apply to the term 'fetish')
2. Everything in existence (just about) has someone out there somewhere who's got a "deviant", probably "sexual", fetish for it.
Now your continued assumption that all 'Furries' are automatically 'fetishists', and everything to do with catfolk is just deviant sexual fetishes, is just ignorant and rude.
And you are really going to buy that? You really think you can trust people to be honest as to their level of fetishism and what they fetishise? Bring out Freud, bring out House, people hide their lusts, people lie. The way they lie about themselves does not make it truth. anyone that thinks it is not a fetish and does not lead to sexual potrayals of part human, part animals, should check the material. Look at it, look at what is drawn, look at the purpose. It is that simple.
Bring out House?
Now I know he's joking.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it, look at what is drawn, look at the purpose. It is that simple.
You remind me of a young Joe McCarthy.
I have been thinking, I and I think we need to ban Necromancy from the game.
First off, it's quite obviously simply a code word for Necrophillia. I mean really, the spells even have double entendres. Raise Dead? Please, it's obvious what that spell is really for. Sculpt Corpse? A way to make your corpse look exactly the way you want, for your sick fetishes.
Secondly, it's equally obvious who these necrophilliacs are in our midst. They always play necromancers, or wear black, or have skulls and crossbones on their clothes. Also, they prefer death themes in everything, even posting. For example, these sick fetishists often signal their desires to others of their kind by advertising their intentions, usually by using avatars with undead themes, especially grinning skulls. This symbolizes both their twisted desires, and that they are laughing at the rest of us normal people, whom they think have no idea of their sick perversions.
We need to remove the ability of these sick fetishests to infect our games with their twisted desires.
/tongue in cheek
And the necromancer said, "we must get into those tombs, we must crack them open, we must raise the dead".
And the apprentice shuddered. He still had the itch from last time. For the master, his itch was only temporarily satisfied.
|
Well, the artwork surely does not help in selling the race to the average male guy. IMO, of course.Makes sense, since we want to appeal to more players than simply to average male guys.Hm, yeah. I meant of course the average gamer "that guy". ^^
Maybe I'm just missing how male catfolk look like. But if they look anything like the females, I'll take a pass on playing one, even if they make excellent Ninjas and Sorcerers.
Guess I am not seeing it. I don't know why I male looking like that only well male would be bad looking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it, look at what is drawn, look at the purpose. It is that simple.You remind me of a young Jenny McCarthy.
freaks!!!
I rather liked the art myself. :)Well, the artwork surely does not help in selling the race to the average male guy. IMO, of course.Makes sense, since we want to appeal to more players than simply to average male guys.
Hug!
|
A dnd character race isn't worthy of being called a play style. If a DM takes out three races from their games, they have removed no play styles.I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
I mentioned my disike of catfolk, but it had nothing to do with fetishization.
There is a difference between a critique and being a bully. You are being a bully, you're marginalizing a different playstyle because of your own distaste.
Sure they have:
Remove the half-Orc for misunderstood hero.
Remove dwarf for vaguely Scottish gold loving drunk.
Remove elf for haughty know-it-all who has lived 100s of years.
Every race in PF and D&D has good and bad baggage.
Catfolk appeal to a section of the community that isn't you.
If you need a race to play a character concept (the "misunderstood hero" and "drunk gold lover" hardly need a racial stereotype to work), I feel for you.
If you need a race to play a character concept (the "misunderstood hero" and "drunk gold lover" hardly need a racial stereotype to work), I feel for you.A dnd character race isn't worthy of being called a play style. If a DM takes out three races from their games, they have removed no play styles.I'll check back, early pages. Sounds like you don't like critics of the decisions and setting. We all have our alignments and allegiances.
It's okay man, really. It won't fall from one person criticising the new fetish race catfolk.
I mentioned my disike of catfolk, but it had nothing to do with fetishization.
There is a difference between a critique and being a bully. You are being a bully, you're marginalizing a different playstyle because of your own distaste.
Sure they have:
Remove the half-Orc for misunderstood hero.
Remove dwarf for vaguely Scottish gold loving drunk.
Remove elf for haughty know-it-all who has lived 100s of years.
Every race in PF and D&D has good and bad baggage.
Catfolk appeal to a section of the community that isn't you.
This. A human can fit any role an elf, dwarf, or half-orc can.
Look at it, look at what is drawn, look at the purpose. It is that simple.You remind me of a young Joe McCarthy.
Ahhh, that's funny. Because I am more influenced by French semiotics in this statement. Was McCarthy into semiotics too? Or am I like McCarthy because I disagree with you, and am pointing to what is very obvious and very common. Anyone can search furry, right now.
|
|
Just for 3.5 Loyalist: According to Google Catfolk, under that name even, appeared in Races of the Wild and the Miniatures Handbook.
I'd be surprised if there weren't feline humanoids in earlier versions as well, but I don't have any evidence. Other than the Rakshasa of course.
Rakasta, from Mystara (D&D Basic/Expert/Master sets progression).
They aren't needed but do reinforce those character types. Would Spock have worked as a human? Or Worf? Or Glimli? Or Legolas?
Yes, they would have. Not as well as non-human races, I admit, but they would have been believable.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhh, that's funny. Because I am more influenced by French semiotics in this statement. Was McCarthy into semiotics too? Or am I like McCarthy because I disagree with you, and am pointing to what is very obvious and very common. Anyone can search furry, right now.Look at it, look at what is drawn, look at the purpose. It is that simple.You remind me of a young Joe McCarthy.
Search dwarf instead. Oh hey, try turning "safe search: on", because otherwise I have a surprise for you.
You control your perceptions. Stop fetishizing catfolk, and they become just another race.