This. A human can fit any role an elf, dwarf, or half-orc can.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.
They sure can. I've got into arguments with players before, about introduced races. One guy wanted to play a four armed Sahuaghin. Now he didn't really have a character, a backstory, he wanted bonuses and lots of them. My point was that humans can fit any role, be any character, and allow for a good level of depth if you want that. Monsters made into characters, sometimes it is hard for them to be real characters, and it is mostly done for the bonuses.
If we are going to base this off of a single piece of artwork then I suggest we start looking at the Iconics, then several of the other creatures' pictures in the bestiary. Many are much more risque than the catfolk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point exactly.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.
I don't dispute it. You can fit any role with a human, but that doesn't mean they should be the only racial choice. It just means you don't need a race for every role.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Well you play D&D so that must mean that you are a fat white male between 30 - 40, who lives in his parents' basement, and doesn't know how to even deal with women. It is that simple.
Hey, steroetypes are fun! You'd think that, as a community, we wouldn't paint others with broad strokes since we all enjoy a hobby that is a constant target for such things already.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the Pathfinder Chick tract right now:
"Devil's game......YIFF YOU TO HELL!!!"
| 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.
Dude, it's the Internet. Anyone can find porn related to anything at anytime.
If you don't like "furry" stuff in your RPG, that's fine. But catfolk are in the Bestiary 3 and the Dragon Empires Gazetteer. By canon, they are in Garund. It's a done deal. Nobody is making you play your version of Pathfinder/Golarion with catfolk or ratfolk or half-orcs or elves or dragons or whatever.
If you are the only one seeing Pathfinder/Golarion catfolk as yiff-material, then the problem isn't with the rest of us...
If this does run in your game, post results.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are going to base this off of a single piece of artwork then I suggest we start looking at the Iconics, then several of the other creatures' pictures in the bestiary. Many are much more risque than the catfolk.
Pretty sure a large portion of the views stated here (particularly the "against catfolk" views) are using pinholes as spyglasses, they are blind to the things around them, and have latched onto one concept.
That said: we should ban humans, there is so much porn of humans out there, that one can hardly take a step without tripping over it. Way more porn of them than anything else, so let's just stick our ultra-conservative heads into the ground, and ban humans.
| 2 people 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.Dude, it's the Internet. Anyone can find porn related to anything at anytime.
If you don't like "furry" stuff in your RPG, that's fine. But catfolk are in the Bestiary 3 and the Dragon Empires Gazetteer. By canon, they are in Garund. It's a done deal. Nobody is making you play your version of Pathfinder/Golarion with catfolk or ratfolk or half-orcs or elves or dragons or whatever.
If you are the only one seeing Pathfinder/Golarion catfolk as yiff-material, then the problem isn't with the rest of us...
I kinda thought she was hot, but then I saw the yellow eyes and thought "hepatitis!!!"
|
Rakshashas are good examples, and go way back, but rakshashas aren't exactly catfolk. There is the reverse paws, the robes, attire or armour and they are also presented far less sexually than catfolk and other general furry material. Rakshasha: more nobles, proud wizards, villains. Catfolk: more sex objects that present themselves.
So why do we need more of this in Golarion again? Is it for the giant dex boost? We have the raks, they have long been in dnd, why add the fetish weirdness? Why put in this new race and try to spread them around?
Rakshasa aren't catfolk... but they are typical "general" furry material.
Why put in a new race? Why not?
Why add the fetish weirdness? Recheck your assumptions. You don't have to add fetish weirdness to your game-- but the 'fetish weirdness' you perceive in catfolk is all in your mind, not in the race as presented in Bestiary 3.
|
|
| 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.So they had furry-fetishes in ancient Egypt?
Lets see.. shape-shifting god battles, posthumous fertilization with a severed member, Gods getting into drinking contests, incest .. they probably added the furries for a bit of normalcy.
Nice post!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are going to base this off of a single piece of artwork then I suggest we start looking at the Iconics, then several of the other creatures' pictures in the bestiary. Many are much more risque than the catfolk.
I.E: dryads, avatars of lamashtu, the intro pic of nidal, certain calistria pics in elves of golarion, etc. Don't get me started on the Lust subdomain. and damn the fanbase of Seoni.
If we are going to base this off of a single piece of artwork then I suggest we start looking at the Iconics, then several of the other creatures' pictures in the bestiary. Many are much more risque than the catfolk.I.E: dryads, avatars of lamashtu, the intro pic of nidal, certain calistria pics in elves of golarion, etc. Don't get me started on the Lust subdomain. and damn the fanbase of Seoni.
Why? We're allready punished enough by the fact that she's not real.
I kinda thought she was hot, but then I saw the yellow eyes and thought "hepatitis!!!"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.Dude, it's the Internet. Anyone can find porn related to anything at anytime.
If you don't like "furry" stuff in your RPG, that's fine. But catfolk are in the Bestiary 3 and the Dragon Empires Gazetteer. By canon, they are in Garund. It's a done deal. Nobody is making you play your version of Pathfinder/Golarion with catfolk or ratfolk or half-orcs or elves or dragons or whatever.
If you are the only one seeing Pathfinder/Golarion catfolk as yiff-material, then the problem isn't with the rest of us...
Good call. I laughed for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are people still posting here? Seems like the topic isn't really going anywhere anymore...
|
|
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.
Excellent point from Gnomezrule. Thank you for the post-- I agree with your view on how much sexualized content seems to be scattered through the game.
Most of the games I play in are "PG"-- usually for fairly realistic explicit violence and addressing complicated/difficult moral issues. Sex? Yes, there have been a few games I've been in that have mentioned it... but no games that have involved the fetishes, detailed sexualization, or any of the other 'furry' fears that seem to be cropping up all over this post on the part of those who hate catfolk. Quite a few games I've been in have involved romances and dating between characters (PCs and NPCs, and PCs with other PCs)-- if sex happens between characters, sex happens off-stage in those games, because the players are generally mature, polite, and don't rub fetishes or sexuality in each others faces.
I'm a Furry fan. And I don't fit the stereotypes. I'm typical in that regard among all the Furries I know, some of whom are also in some of the groups I game with. The fetish stuff ain't coming from the Furry fans.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.
G+%$~&mit, I'm gonna start a Cayden webcomic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
And yet he still won't sponsor my paladin. I even got the blinked out mount, and a whole harlem of harlots that I take care of!
Rakshashas are good examples, and go way back, but rakshashas aren't exactly catfolk. There is the reverse paws, the robes, attire or armour and they are also presented far less sexually than catfolk and other general furry material. Rakshasha: more nobles, proud wizards, villains. Catfolk: more sex objects that present themselves.
So why do we need more of this in Golarion again? Is it for the giant dex boost? We have the raks, they have long been in dnd, why add the fetish weirdness? Why put in this new race and try to spread them around?
Rakshasa aren't catfolk... but they are typical "general" furry material.
Why put in a new race? Why not?
Why add the fetish weirdness? Recheck your assumptions. You don't have to add fetish weirdness to your game-- but the 'fetish weirdness' you perceive in catfolk is all in your mind, not in the race as presented in Bestiary 3.
All in my mind? My mind is not the internet. It's a shame we can't agree more. I liked some of your previous posts. You keep defending them, backing what it isn't anyway sort of argument. Defend and protect.
| 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 Joe McCarthy.
Is it bad that I imagined that in the voice of a cranky octogenarian squirrel, and laughed?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All in my mind? My mind is not the internet. It's a shame we can't agree more. I liked some of your previous posts. You keep defending them, backing what it isn't anyway sort of argument. Defend and protect.
I think the people he's defending and the people you think he's defending are not the same people...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet he still won't sponsor my paladin. I even got the blinked out mount, and a whole harlem of harlots that I take care of!Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
That's because those aren't questionable, you have to make it questionable before he will approve.
Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
and alcoholic liver disease.
I think the people he's defending and the people you think he's defending are not the same people...
All in my mind? My mind is not the internet. It's a shame we can't agree more. I liked some of your previous posts. You keep defending them, backing what it isn't anyway sort of argument. Defend and protect.
You are probably quite right, but he is also trying to say some of the people he is defending, don't really exist. Don't look for them! Keep moving, don't look at these people over here, no, its only the non-fetishists, and we were here first, and the majority. Never check!
INVISIBLE FURRIES, INVISIBLE FURRY CONSPIRACY, KILL ALL THE COMMUNISTS.
Ahem, sorry, my deity McCarthy came through there. Invisible conspiracies, furries under the bed. Something you read once is always relevant for forum use to label someone. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Furry R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You do realize that I'm a Furry, right?
So this means that, I'm a liar, because I claim not to have the sick perversions that you accuse me of by association. And I'm blind/stupid/imperceptive, because I've been active in Furry Fandom for around 20 years and I know by personal experience, observation, and familiarity with a large enough portion of the fandom to be able to legitimately draw such generalizations, that most of us in Furry Fandom are not the people you keep describing.
The one point you might have here, although it does not support your other arguments, is that everyone fetishizes something. It's not always sexual. It doesn't always lead to sexual portrayals. In fact, in furry fandom it usually doesn't.
It is about as simple as presuming that everyone who likes Vampire stories must be an emo goth-weenie 'Twilight' obsessed teen or pre-teen girl-- because that's what you can find on the internet. That's not even an accurate picture of the 'Twilight' fans, let alone vampire fans in general (disclaimer: I think. I'm not a 'Twilight' fan, so I can't be sure the way I can be for a fandom I'm part of and have been involved in for a long time).
Get over your ignorance and prejudice and release the hate. And quit insulting everyone who belongs to a fandom you clearly have no interest in, but also clearly do not understand.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had some guy not let me play a shifter one time.
I just wanted to make kindof a medieval Wolverine; didn't necessarily want claws......I was just gonna use paired handaxes.....and call people "bub."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because those aren't questionable, you have to make it questionable before he will approve.And yet he still won't sponsor my paladin. I even got the blinked out mount, and a whole harlem of harlots that I take care of!Cayden approves of a lot of things that are questionable in nature, for cryin' out loud he's the god of adventurers.Also catfolk=furries. Furries=porn. Porn=Lust. Cayden Cailean is a chaotic GOOD deity with Lust domain.
Therefore...
Sexy catfolk are good and Cayden approves. He's also Desna's and Iomadae's good friend, so they're cool with it too. I also believe he's Shelyn's friend.
Can't I just get a waiver from Iomedae? She and hers certainly keeps giving me trouble about my 'questionable ways"!
Looks like we have Rules 14, 48, and 71 in play here.
Who's going to invoke Rule 248? Get your IBTL prepped.
|
|
You are probably quite right, but he is also trying to say some of the people he is defending, don't really exist. Don't look for them! Keep moving, don't look at these people over here, no, its only the non-fetishists, and we were here first, and the majority. Never check!
Lemme point out something I believe I actually mentioned in an early post. Yes, some pretty freaky people, who do have strange fetishes, exist within Furry Fandom. They are a pretty small minority. Your posts are coming across as attacking either everyone in furry fandom, or at least, accusing most of us in the fandom of being sexually-deviant fetishists.
Now, main point: Every part of fandom, including players of RPGs, including players of Pathfinder, has their small minority of people that the rest of us regard as having rather twisted, deviant (undeniable in the sociological rather than derogatory sense), sexual fantasies and fetishes. Attacking 'Furry' based on that stereotype is uncalled for, and I find it generally unacceptable, because, well-- you are not attacking every fandom in the known universe-- because they all have that minority portion that you are trying to figuratively crucify 'Furries' en mass over.
Minor point: Safe, sane, consensual. If someone does have some sort of fetish that you don't like.... so? Not your business, and unless you like intruding on others' rights, not something you should be trying to oppress and limit others over. You don't have to include it in your game. Most people don't want really weird sexual weirdness in their game (including me), so we're not going to include it, and I haven't seen it crop up in the official PF rules so far (catfolk aren't inherently fetishist).
BTW-- Book of Vile Darkness. Hmmm... some really deviant fetishes were expressly spelled out and included in your beloved 3.5 rules. Does that make 3.5 bad?
Wow, they must really put out a lot of pics then.
It would be hilarious, and win me the ultimate troll badge, if I was a furry. Lol. I can dream.
I liked the book of vile darkness. Hells yeah. Less pc all round!
|
|
I try to get over my ignorance, I really do. Usually through research.
You know, you just called me a liar, directly, albeit using vaguely polite language.
Goodbye. I may try to point to others problems that they haven't seen yet in your post, but you and I are done communicating-- there is no point when someone takes it to personal attacks and insults in that fashion, and with a clear total breach of ability to trust one another.
|
|
Well the good news is, if golarion continues to contain more catfolk, and the dm follows the setting changes, and the players dislike this, then they can just head around and exterminate all the catfolk they find!
Something 3.5L probably wouldn't appreciate, but maybe others here will--
I have seen the evidence, and leftover damage, of attempted genocides in the 'real world' (Kosovo, and Iraq-- re, what Saddam tried to do to the Kurds). It's not something I want to include in my game, except as something going on in the world that maybe the heroes want to try to stop.
I generally don't play RPGs so that I can have my characters play at being Gestapo or Cossacks, and I usually don't like playing with groups where the idea is make a thoroughly evil bunch that is out to exterminate an entire group simply for existing. Maybe that's your cup of tea for some of you, but not mine.
Gestapo whodunnit. It could be done.
Cossacks could be a great heavy combat game, same with Magyar and Mongols. Sorry, but many cultures have been involved in what we would call genocide. Knights, Samurai, Clerics (oh yes), Paladins, Fighters, Rangers, no class is safe!
It's all fun and games until someone gets genocided.
Looks like we have Rules 14, 48, and 71 in play here.
Who's going to invoke Rule 248? Get your IBTL prepped.
Just so you know I've got 42 covered and invoke rule 6.
Just so you know I've got 42 covered and invoke rule 6.Looks like we have Rules 14, 48, and 71 in play here.
Who's going to invoke Rule 248? Get your IBTL prepped.
Explanation?
