Inclusion of any other politics stuff in paizo products intended / planned?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Finally reading through wrath of the righteous 1 and 2 and reading some somewhat intense threads, it seems paizo decided to indirectly take a stance regarding some politics stuff via background stories.

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

What i would like to know, is first, can it be expected to continue (so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

And if there is any intent or idea about taking a stance about other political issues or is this just one special issue, somehow an exception?


27 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see it as a political issue. To call it that would imply that it's something over which there is a clear ambiguity over what is right and what is wrong, and that both sides of the argument have a case to be heard.

It's more a case of deciding to take the right stance over an issue that has a clear right and wrong side. Anyone who feels that's a matter of opinion is quite frankly someone that isn't a welcome member of civilized society.

Whether or not guns should be available to the public is an example of a political issue. Whether it's okay to shoot an innocent person in cold blood with one certainly isn't, and the same is true of bigotry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well said.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

Liberty's Edge

carn wrote:

Finally reading through wrath of the righteous 1 and 2 and reading some somewhat intense threads, it seems paizo decided to indirectly take a stance regarding some politics stuff via background stories.

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

What i would like to know, is first, can it be expected to continue (so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

And if there is any intent or idea about taking a stance about other political issues or is this just one special issue, somehow an exception?

Please be specific as to what you consider the political issue to be.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

I agree with what Matt Thomason said above.

If you disagree with what he said, here's another way to think of it.

Excluding LGBT NPCs sends a message too. It says that LGBT people aren't welcome, that they shouldn't imagine themselves carrying out heroic exploits, having adventures, etc.

Regardless of which way Paizo had gone on this (and has been widely noted in these discussion, this is a decision reached and implemented at the very start of their Golarion material, so this is nothing new), both the inclusion and the exclusion of LGBT characters could thus be seen as a political act. Because of, yes, realism. Homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, these are a natural part of our real world. (Note that this includes the people who actually make the game we're talking about.)

Deliberate exclusion of LGBT people sends as much of a message as their deliberate inclusion.

From that perspective, one could say that the people at Paizo took the approach they felt was right and appropriate in this matter. Nothing more or less. Personally, I'm very glad they did.

carn wrote:
(so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

If you read some of the threads on the topic, you'll see that demographic arguments such as that one have received criticism. In short, 1) the demographic distribution of LGBT people is not homogenous. We are not evenly distributed. If I, as a trans person, step into a room with less than 500 people, other trans people who may be in the room are not obligated to step out.

And 2) Adventurers can be seen as exceptional people. They're already different than the general population on some level. Why should they exactly mirror that general population in LGBT percentages when they don't in so many other ways? (And for trans characters, there's a motivation to become an adventurer - getting together enough gold to pay for one's transition.)

But basically, Matt Thomason nailed it:

Matt Thomason wrote:
To call it that would imply that it's something over which there is a clear ambiguity over what is right and what is wrong, and that both sides of the argument have a case to be heard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:


carn wrote:
(so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

If you read some of the threads on the topic, you'll see that demographic arguments such as that one have received criticism. In short, 1) the demographic distribution of LGBT people is not homogenous. We are not evenly distributed. If I, as a trans person, step into a room with less than 500 people, other trans people who may be in the room are not obligated to step out.

And 2) Adventurers can be seen as exceptional people. They're already different than the general population on some level. Why should they exactly mirror that general population in LGBT percentages when they don't in so many other ways? (And for trans characters, there's a motivation to become an adventurer - getting together enough gold to pay for one's transition.)

I'd like to add 3) Narrative character concepts come from creative minds, and not from where the dice happen to fall on a chart. Paizo adventures tend to be built around the story and as such the background specifics of any character will be dictated by the author's take on that story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:

I don't see it as a political issue.

I am quite confident that i could find a few so called western democracies, in which currently some of the major political parties (meaning >20% of votes) are in favor of allowing gay marriage and some are against allowing gay marriage and in which laws regarding the issue have been passed in recent years or were at least proposed in parliament and failed, in both cases with considerable political discussion happening. I do not see why "political issue" is a wrong term. Its obviously a matter currently fought over in politics.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Anyone who feels that's a matter of opinion is quite frankly someone that isn't a welcome member of civilized society.

Ok, so Poland is not a civilized country.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Whether or not guns should be available to the public is an example of a political issue. Whether it's okay to shoot an innocent person in cold blood with one certainly isn't, and the same is true of bigotry.

There are people who see guns also as an issue with clear right and wrong. That does not change it into a non-political issue. And there are people who discuss it as a political issue when its ok to administer to an innocent and not consenting person a shoot of deadly muscle relaxant. So you view about what is non-political issue due to clear right and wrong differs from that of other people.

But whatever it is called, is not the thread question.

Questions are whether this "non-political" issue will continue to have its place in paizo publishing and whether other "non-political" issues might also get their place.

Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:


Please be specific as to what you consider the political issue to be.

Whether or not a society treats legally all possible consenting sexual relations exactly equally or not. And whether a society is absolutely neutral regarding all potential consenting wishes/desires in that respect or indirectly or directly prefers some via law/customs.

KSF wrote:


Deliberate exclusion of LGBT people sends as much of a message as their deliberate inclusion.

Exclusion would not need to be deliberate and therefore does not necessarily send message.

For example, in Jade Regent having a male PC relation to Ameiko was clearly an option authors had in mind. Yet they did not spend any thought on whether or not Ameiko would use contraception in the thrill of romance, how she would react to being pregnant, how one can access safe and legal abortion while crossing the crown of the world, whether giving the new born to some nice couple along the way is an option because it would be to endangered when going into the lions den or how Ameikos ascent to the Jade Throne is impacted by having a child with an outsider without any hint of imperial blood or impacted by their rivals through scrying finding oout that she had sex before marriage and killed the human being in hew womb who would have been next in line for the throne (depending on however these people handle such issues). By leaving this info out Paizo for example did not sent any message that people should not care about contraception and the risk of pregnancy or about abortion.

But if Paizo had included such stuff, it would have sent a message (the exact message depending upon what they would have decided upon).

So inclusion of something does certainly send a message, exclusion does not necessarily send one.

KSF wrote:


If you read some of the threads on the topic, you'll see that demographic arguments such as that one have received criticism.

Whatever method is used to decide, i do not care, its just whether this would be something kept in mind while deciding upon future NPCs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:

I do not see why "political issue" is a wrong term. Its obviously a matter currently fought over in politics.

If that's the term of reference, that's fine. Just be aware it's also one of the terms that tends to be used when someone is attempting to push the idea that it's somehow wrong for Paizo to support LGBT people, or that people with an anti-LGBT viewpoint have a valid case, which makes it a bad idea to use it on here ;)

carn wrote:


Ok, so Poland is not a civilized country.

I'm not as current with world affairs as I should be, nowadays :) However, equality is certainly a right all human beings, worldwide, should have, and any country that takes a stance against that is one risking being ostracized in worldwide society. However, I wouldn't want to label an entire country just because of the position certain people within it hold - just the individuals in question.

carn wrote:


There are people who see guns also as an issue with clear right and wrong. That does not change it into a non-political issue. And there are people who discuss it as a political issue when its ok to administer to an innocent and not consenting person a shoot of deadly muscle relaxant. So you view about what is non-political issue due to clear right and wrong differs from that of other people.

I see your point here. However, the argument isn't that "there are some people who see it differently". It's that bigotry is plainly wrong, while the right to bear arms does have valid, moral arguments on either side (both have their points about protecting life, for example, and there's no clear "evil" or "wrong" when the argument is looked at from a neutral standpoint.) However, there's no possible valid, moral case that can be made to support bigotry, was the point I was making.

carn wrote:


Questions are whether this "non-political" issue will continue to have its place in paizo publishing and whether other "non-political" issues might also get their place.

Paizo have made it very clear on a number of occasions that this particular issue is very important to them, and will continue for the forseeable future. Paraphrasing their stance here - they want to ensure their products show that LGBT people exist in Golarion, too, and are generally treated equally to any other member of society. There are good LGBT people, and evil LGBT people (as seen in older APs), just as with any other part of society.

For the record, Paizo have a number of LGBT employees.

I don't believe there have been any statements about whether anyone in the fictional Golarion setting is specifically anti-LGBT. I believe its mostly recognized that such individuals or societies may exist, but if so that they're very much the exception and haven't been mentioned specifically at this point.

Hopefully, someone from Paizo will chime in with the official stance as I'd hate to think I'm misrepresenting their position for the sake of answering the thread :)


Matt Thomason wrote:


However, I wouldn't want to label an entire country just because of the position certain people within it hold - just the individuals in question.

Its not position of certain people, its the law or absence of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

If a nation has on law that homosexuals are to be executed or has it on law that marriage is only between man and woman, then the state can be labelled according to its stance, just like individual people.

Matt Thomason wrote:


Paizo have made it very clear on a number of occasions that this particular issue is very important to them, and will continue for the forseeable future. Paraphrasing their stance here - they want to ensure their products show that LGBT people exist in Golarion, too, and are generally treated equally to any other member of society. There are good LGBT people, and evil LGBT people (as seen in older APs), just as with any other part of society.

Thanks for the info. Any other ......... issue relevant enough for paizo to care about?

Matt Thomason wrote:


I don't believe there have been any statements about whether anyone in the fictional Golarion setting is specifically anti-LGBT. I believe its mostly recognized that such individuals or societies may exist, but if so that they're very much the exception and haven't been mentioned specifically at this point.

If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

For a lawful evil nation, it could make a lot of sense. After all, one needs a constant supply of cannon fodder for any world conquest activities/human sacrifices for pleasing evil gods and at least L, G and T activities do tend to result in less offspring aka cannon fodder compared to straight. Just take the couple from wrath of the righteous 1, seeling a useful sword so the partner changes in a way that reduces the likelihood of offspring, is something which an evil overlord could have reasons to frwon upon. Treating it equal makes little sense for evil overlords.


carn wrote:


For example, in Jade Regent having a male PC relation to Ameiko was clearly an option authors had in mind. Yet they did not spend any thought on whether or not Ameiko would use contraception in the thrill of romance, how she would react to being pregnant, how one can access safe and legal abortion while crossing the crown of the world, whether giving the new born to some nice couple along the way is an option because it would be to endangered when going into the lions den or how Ameikos ascent to the Jade Throne is impacted by having a child with an outsider without any hint of imperial blood or impacted by their rivals through scrying finding oout that she had sex before marriage and killed the human being in hew womb who would have been next in line for the throne (depending on however these people handle such issues). By leaving this info out Paizo for example did not sent any message that people should not care about contraception and the risk of pregnancy or about abortion.

I believe I see where you're coming from, now.

I'm not aware of any plans for Paizo to use their product as a political platform, or to push any specific agendas. The LGBT issue is one of equality, and so doesn't really fit the same category as disagreements between portions of society. It fits alongside such issues as racial equality, rather than beliefs with two not so cut-and-dry sides to the argument. The abortion issue, for example, can be read as "whose life is more important?" with both sides having somewhat valid points. The question of gun control can be read as "would gun control reduce violent crime, or will it just mean the only people with them will be the criminals?". I can't really imagine any similar argument over equality. On one side there's equality, on the other you have people treating others as being somehow less than human, so it's a very different thing.

While I would imagine there's no split at Paizo over the issue of equality, I would likewise imagine that it is far more likely such splits exist over other issues, such as that of abortion, or sex outside of marriage. As such, I would assume it unlikely such issues would receive quite the same treatment in their products.

Again, though, please take my reply with a pinch of salt. I can only take my best guess, and don't know for sure how Paizo as a company stands on such things :) Also, please note that I have to assume that you posted on the forum rather than emailing them directly in order to get replies and input from the entire forum population, rather than specifically from Paizo themselves, so please don't read this as me attempting to answer for them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi there, OP. I'm Polish and while unfortunately I'm hetero, my gay friends asked me to tell you thar you're absolutely fabulous. In fact, one of them wants your number. PM me, please! :****


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:


Its not position of certain people, its the law or absence of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

If a nation has on law that homosexuals are to be executed or has it on law that marriage is only between man and woman, then the state can be labelled according to its stance, just like individual people.

To clarify - what I meant is that I wouldn't want to label every citizen of that country, based upon a decision made by its lawmakers, or by (I assume) the majority of the people that put those lawmakers into power. I'll quite happily label the government that made that decision, of course.

carn wrote:


Thanks for the info. Any other ......... issue relevant enough for paizo to care about?

That much I'd have to leave to them to answer, I'm afraid.

carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

The guidelines that many would agree to here is "does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"


Matt Thomason wrote:


carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

That would many of today nations are lawful evil or neutral, as marriage only for man and woman is already anti-LGBT law (though whetherits enough for evil, is probably a matter of taste). And most gods of this world would also be neutral or evil, especially the monotheistic ones.

Matt Thomason wrote:


The guidelines that many would agree to here is "does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"

That guideline would shake up much of "classical" good and evil in fantasy. For example, most of the time becoming a vampire is done by being bitten by one, which on itself does not cause harm to third persons. So wanting to become a vampire could not be objected by good gods (One would have to settle a deal with the biting vampire about being set free at once in Pathfinder, but that should be possible with some third party keeping the payment till the biter does so). Even the evil alignment part could be dealt with, with some extra cash.

Also, raising dead bodies as zombies and skels does not harm third parties outright. Especially, people could agree in their testament to this use (just like today people can donate their bodies to research) and the family could receive compensation (if it is not anyway done for the family, so grandpa is with them a little longer). Again, no reason for good to object.

Same for becoming a lich, if it doesnt include some sacrifice stuff or so (although if the sacrificed are willing, it would be ok again, as willing be killed does not involve harm to third parties, and if people are anyway done with life, collecting some extra money for relatives from some powerful wizard trying to achieve lichdom, is also ok).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Upps,
"does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"
does even call hereditary monarchy into question.

In hereditary monarchy its very important that either the ruler or at least some relatives have offspring and its crucial whom they have offspring with. A princess having a child with the stable boy is very different from having a child with the prince of the neighbouring kingdom, the latter could upset the entire political structure, as that child might have one day claim to both thrones. Same for the prince of course.

So royal children would be strongly encouraged to supress once in a while their personal desires and for the greater good of the nation have sex with someone politically fitting. Gender change would of course be discouraged, if the neighboring kingdoms dont have a fitting counterpart. And pure L and G would be a no-go (unless one has some complex magic involved). And at least upper classes would take the royal house as orientation.

Or in other words a hereditary kingdom has automatically "anti-LGBT law/customs" built in and any nation "that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good"".

-> No "Good" hereditary kingdoms?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm very sorry that you see this as playing politics. It's just an expression of belief from the people who create this game.


carn wrote:


Or in other words a hereditary kingdom has automatically "anti-LGBT law/customs" built in and any nation "that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good"".

-> No "Good" hereditary kingdoms?

If the hereditary kingdom specifically prohibited LGBT relationships in order to propagate their ruling class, then yeah that'd certainly be a big warning light.

Bear in mind though, you can usually rely on someone elsewhere in the line of succession to create the necessary offspring. It doesn't have to be the first child of the current ruler, in fact they don't have to have any children at all. You just follow the family tree back up and find the nearest branch that does create an heir.

I can certainly imagine the current ruler's parents being disappointed in (or even angry at) their child if they don't give them any grandchildren, and that instead the line of succession has had to pass to a cousin. That's talking about the individual though. It's somewhat of a leap from that to saying the kingdom can't be good-aligned :)

It's also worth bearing in mind that there may be some magical solutions available to make it a non-issue.


carn wrote:


Or in other words a hereditary kingdom has automatically "anti-LGBT law/customs" built in and any nation "that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good"".

-> No "Good" hereditary kingdoms?

That wouldn't follow. There could easily be additional laws/customs for the ruling family that wouldn't necessarily be the same laws/customs adherred to by the regular populace.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

To quote part of the OP:

Quote:
Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message.

You pretty much answer your own question here. By your own argument they pretty much have to make political points, don't they?


Steve Geddes wrote:

To quote part of the OP:

Quote:
Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message.
You pretty much answer your own question here. By your own argument they pretty much have to make political points, don't they?

Was it bit short, excluding something does not necessarily send a message (depending upon with what pattern it is excluded), but nonetheless messages are formed that way. And the explanation realism has little or nothing to do with what is included and what not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I meant was that defining "political message" as broadly as you do means that any written product is necessarily going to include a political message.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
carn wrote:

Finally reading through wrath of the righteous 1 and 2 and reading some somewhat intense threads, it seems paizo decided to indirectly take a stance regarding some politics stuff via background stories.

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

What i would like to know, is first, can it be expected to continue (so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

And if there is any intent or idea about taking a stance about other political issues or is this just one special issue, somehow an exception?

Please be specific as to what you consider the political issue to be.

Umm, I'm in the dark about this. Can someone summarize or point me to the relevant thread(s). What is the stance/issue?


Steve Geddes wrote:
What I meant was that defining "political message" as broadly as you do means that any written product is necessarily going to include a political message.

At least if it has as much content as usual fantasy world, yes, it often includes messages. But usually it is not as direct and obvious and intentionally as in this case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:


The guidelines that many would agree to here is "does taking this viewpoint cause harm to any individuals?"

That guideline would shake up much of "classical" good and evil in fantasy. For example, most of the time becoming a vampire is done by being bitten by one, which on itself does not cause harm to third persons. So wanting to become a vampire could not be objected by good gods (One would have to settle a deal with the biting vampire about being set free at once in Pathfinder, but that should be possible with some third party keeping the payment till the biter does so). Even the evil alignment part could be dealt with, with some extra cash.

Also, raising dead bodies as zombies and skels does not harm third parties outright. Especially, people could agree in their testament to this use (just like today people can donate their bodies to research) and the family could receive compensation (if it is not anyway done for the family, so grandpa is with them a little longer). Again, no reason for good to object.

Same for becoming a lich, if it doesnt include some sacrifice stuff or so (although if the sacrificed are willing, it would be ok again, as willing be killed does not involve harm to third parties, and if people are anyway done with life, collecting some extra money for relatives from some powerful wizard trying to achieve lichdom, is also ok).

Carn, are you trying to say that LGBT rights and/or providing LGBT representation create some sort of tertiary harm to individuals?


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:


Umm, I'm in the dark about this. Can someone summarize or point me to the relevant thread(s). What is the stance/issue?

AP 73 Irabeth and Anevia Tirablade married couple with Anevia born as a man and gulping a sex change potion prior marrying Irabeth, with Irabeth being LG Paladin indicating strongly that all marriage is one man and one woman are probably not LG.

AP 74 for good measure a gay couple added.

http://paizo.com/products/btpy90q9/discuss&page=10?Pathfinder-Adventure -Path-73-The-Worldwound-Incursion#tabs

James Jacobs wrote:
Kittyburger wrote:

I would like to see Paizo's internal notes on how LGBTQ+ characters fit into Golarion, sometime and somehow... not that I ever expect to see them published in a formal book anywhere (a girl can dream, though...), but we've seen enticing hints here and there.

I've written up a for-personal-use list of the deities of Golarion I think would be particularly trans friendly and I sometimes wonder how it matches up to Paizo's.

(If Anevia's devotions are any indicator, though, I bet there's a fairly close confluence between my list and Paizo's)

Those notes are basically as follows:

GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least. There's a gay couple in the next adventure, in fact, so the inclusiveness isn't stopping with Anevia and Irabeth in this AP.

Furthermore, I'm gonna keep doing this in our APs until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing to discuss whether any one NPC is a sorcerer or wizard. And at that point I'll keep doing it.

Anyway... keep on topic. And since there are LBGT characters in the adventure, that part of the discussion IS on topic... but keep it civil, please!

That sounds like quite deliberately taking a position and even with a certain goal "until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing".

Therefore the question, whether repeating is likely (which probably is in light of this quote), and whether other stuff is also such that paizo might include it repeatedly until whatever.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'm very sorry that you see this as playing politics. It's just an expression of belief from the people who create this game.

That statement i do not understand.

If paizo were a bunch of catholics and had written in some product that laws punishing homosexual acts exists in LG nations, because homosexual acts are sinful and demons/devils (one of that ilk at least) increase in number due to human sin (*), then you would certainly not say "just an expression of belief" although catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as sinful and so they would just express their belief.

(* Pathfinder demons/devil get new demons/devils from human who sinned a lot, thats already in bestiary. So if this is known in Golarion, good nations would consider laws vs sinful behavior because any sinful behavior would count as assisting evil. Hence, if the actholic belief homosexual activity = sinful would make it into Golarion, anti gay laws would be the logical consequence.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:
AP 73 Irabeth and Anevia Tirablade married couple with Anevia born as a man and gulping a sex change potion prior marrying Irabeth, with Irabeth being LG Paladin indicating strongly that all marriage is one man and one woman are probably not LG.

Carn, could you clarify what you're saying here? I don't understand this statement.

Are you saying that Irabeth and Anevia's story "inidicates strongly" that the idea that "all marriage must be, and can only be, between one man and one woman" is probably not LG?

Or are you saying that Irabeth and Anevia's story "indicates strongly" that any marriage between one man and one woman is probably not LG?

I don't think you meant the latter, but if you did, that's kind of ridiculous.

If you meant the former, then... maybe. Probably. Personally, I find the idea that same-sex marriages are not allowed (as in so-called "defense of marriage" legislation) to be a bad one, and a harmful one. It is not good. I suspect that Paizo feels the same.

carn wrote:

That sounds like quite deliberately taking a position and even with a certain goal "until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing".

Therefore the question, whether repeating is likely (which probably is in light of this quote), and whether other stuff is also such that paizo might include it repeatedly until whatever.

Two others: Representation of minorities, and representation of women.

Paizo has made it clear in the past that they are concerned about how people of color and women are represented within their products. They have made it clear they plan to include them "repeatedly until whatever," to use your phrase.

Here's a quote from James Jacobs:

James Jacobs wrote:
Keeping a balance between genders and ethnicities in our characters has actually been a goal for us from the start. In fact, making sure that three of the first four iconics were women was a very conscious decision on my part to turn the standard "Three guys and a gal" makeup of most classic groups on its ear. And including various ethnicities was also a goal from the start as well; even in the adventures themselves we try to mix it up as often as possible so that not every NPC is a white guy. The world we live in isn't so bland and boring, after all, so why should the worlds we create be bland and boring?

I think Jacobs has said elsewhere that making Seelah, a black woman, the first iconic to be revealed, was also deliberate.

(Edit to add: Note that the last line is, essentially, an appeal to realism, that is, to the real world experiences of the creators. Their approach to LGBT characters could be seen to fit under the same realism.)

Carn, how do you feel about Paizo's deliberate inclusion of people of color and women in their products? Do you find it a cause for concern the same way you find the inclusion of LGBT people a cause for concern? Do you find it to be equally and objectionably "political"?

Speaking for myself again, I find no difference between what Paizo does for LGBT people and what they do for people of color and women. It improves rather than detracts from the game.

Another question for you. Some of Paizo's people are LGBT. They work on the game. They produce the product which you yourself presumably enjoy. Are they not allowed to include themselves in the product they are creating? Are the non-LGBT employees not allowed to create a product that reflects their own experience of the world, an experience which includes LGBT people?

Last question. Do you feel that LGBT characters should not be included in the game?


carn wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
I'm very sorry that you see this as playing politics. It's just an expression of belief from the people who create this game.

That statement i do not understand.

If paizo were a bunch of catholics and had written in some product that laws punishing homosexual acts exists in LG nations, because homosexual acts are sinful and demons/devils (one of that ilk at least) increase in number due to human sin (*), then you would certainly not say "just an expression of belief" although catholic doctrine defines homosexual acts as sinful and so they would just express their belief.

That too could be seen as an expression of belief. If that was a belief that Paizo expressed in their products, I would stop buying their products. I suspect that many others would do the same.

I'd also point out that not all Catholics find homosexual acts to be sinful. I don't know what country you're in, but that's the case in the U.S. It's certainly the case with every single Catholic I know. Even the current Pope seems to be finally easing up on that stance.

Edit to add: Carn, why do you find what Paizo is doing to be an issue? What is your issue with it?

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
carn wrote:

Finally reading through wrath of the righteous 1 and 2 and reading some somewhat intense threads, it seems paizo decided to indirectly take a stance regarding some politics stuff via background stories.

Nope, its not about realism, no fantasy world is realistic, every author or author group decides which parts of real world are to be included and which aren't. By deciding what to include and what to exclude one sends a message. (For example in any fantasy world of mine, there would be some eco nuts, who through lies, deception, fact denial and crazy believes cause some thousands of people to die.)

So paizo took a stance regarding an political issue, about which in many countries large political parties have differing opinions.

What i would like to know, is first, can it be expected to continue (so paizo authors as hardcore gamers do at every NPC creation a d100 and check against the latest studies about LGBT prevalence or at least have those stats in mind while populating the campaigns)?

And if there is any intent or idea about taking a stance about other political issues or is this just one special issue, somehow an exception?

A famous author created a world in which all of he "good" elf races were pale skinnned whereas their evil opposites were as black as night. Did you thing that Gary Gygax was making a political statement when he put Drow into the game?

If not, then why do you see the inclusion of characters that are not all straight heterosexuals as making a political statement as opposed to reflecting reality? Gay characters have been a part of literature since the plays of Euripides. Kabuki theatre has a centuries old tradition that all parts must be played by men, including female ones.

The inclusion of LGBT characters isn't about adding something surreal to the game world. It's about ripping the blinders off.


carn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
What I meant was that defining "political message" as broadly as you do means that any written product is necessarily going to include a political message.

At least if it has as much content as usual fantasy world, yes, it often includes messages. But usually it is not as direct and obvious and intentionally as in this case.

I have a feeling this issue bothers you, so you notice it. I doubt it's any more prevalent than the other political messages they've included - cheliax/slavery/bad vs andoren/freedom/good is a pretty obvious one, for example. No debate about it because who's going to dispute the moral judgement implicit in that? Many nations in golarion use espionage or assassination - is that a blatant political point? Some countries have religious elements to their political structures - political? Kyonin's isolationism based on race, obvious political statement or not?

The answer is "yes there will be more such moral judgements*" and your OP gives the reason - it's necessary, since any such product (with concepts of good and lawful) must make such moral judgements/political statements. I think fighting discrimination-through-cultural-invisibility is as desirable as fighting slavery, so it doesn't stand out to me as being "direct and obvious and intentionally".

*:
I think this is really the point, isn't it? Not that the issue is political but that the issue is one of morality?


Steve Geddes wrote:


I have a feeling this issue bothers you, so you notice it. I doubt it's any more obvious than the other political messages they've included (cheliax/slavery/bad vs andoren/freedom/good is a pretty obvious one, for example. No debate about it because who's going to dispute the moral judgement implicit in that?)

Ok, its as obvious, but the difference is, that for the main paizo markets there is no political dissens about slavery. It is not a political issue in paizo markets.

On the other hand for example US supreme court a few months ago decided against a law that received direct majority support from Californians and the court majority effictively said that people who are against gay marriage - meaning a majority of cals and besides vast majorities of the 96 senate and representative members - are bigoted a*@#&@%s. So this is a political issue in paizo markets and actually one in which neither side is acting nicely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I have a feeling this issue bothers you, so you notice it. I doubt it's any more obvious than the other political messages they've included (cheliax/slavery/bad vs andoren/freedom/good is a pretty obvious one, for example. No debate about it because who's going to dispute the moral judgement implicit in that?)

Ok, its as obvious, but the difference is, that for the main paizo markets there is no political dissens about slavery. It is not a political issue in paizo markets.

On the other hand for example US supreme court a few months ago decided against a law that received direct majority support from Californians and the court majority effictively said that people who are against gay marriage - meaning a majority of cals and besides vast majorities of the 96 senate and representative members - are bigoted a%+$$$+s. So this is a political issue in paizo markets and actually one in which neither side is acting nicely.

If paizo think the answer to this question of morality is obvious, why does the fact it's controversial matter? What's right trumps what's commercially desirable, in my view.

If paizo decided to exclude non-heterosexual people any product they wrote would, by virtue of exclusion of such people, be making an equally blatant political point. Just not one you'd notice.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

My brother is gay and I love him as I do his husband who is about as fine a human being as I'd ever care to know. The three of us often discuss these subjects and there are some points that I think need to be made.

The first is that there are, statistically speaking, probably more people in this country who believe engaging in homosexual acts is immoral than there are actual homosexuals. I think we'll all agree that the sheer number of them and the certainty of their beliefs does not in and of itself make them right, but that doesn't change the fact that they feel that way. I mention this because we need to be careful about speaking in absolute terms when assigning our morality to others - we may believe that there is nothing wrong with homosexual behaviour and have a great many very obvious (to us) reasons why. I have seen first hand that the other side of the issue believes differently with just as much legitimate (to them) justifications. The passion or certainty with which we believe something doesn't make it universal truth. Despite the dismissal of the topic earlier, abortion is another good example of this - each side believes themselves to be right with such a certainty that the only way they can comprehend the other side's position is to assume that they are hateful ideologues or fanataics. And to pretend the debate is over the life of the mother being in danger is deliberately misleading - one side very openly wants abortion on demand without so much as counseling or parental notification while the other side believes that the life of a child is not a thing to be treated so callously. As with homosexuality, the disconnect is not inherently drawn along religious lines, though that is where the two sides tend to fall.

In my mind, a person has every right to engage in homosexual behaviour with other consenting adults, and a person has every right to wish they wouldn't. Education and self-awareness (or lack thereof) may enter into it, but good and evil don't.

Comparatively, I believe that Paizo has absolutely every right to promote a pro-LBGT message. One's company is their work, the sweat of their brow, their time away from their families, the expending of the only true currency we have - our time on this earth. It is a product of their innovation and industry and as such they should be allowed to determine its course. If they choose for business reasons or for personal reasons to risk alienating the religious right in order to create an environment of inclusion for those of the LBGT persuasion, it is absolutely their right and I encourage them to do so...just as if the owners of Hobby Lobby choose not to offer specific kinds of health insurance or not to open on Sundays because doing so would violate their personal beliefs, I would encourage that as their right as well. Paizo isn't making the choice out of hatred for the religious among us anymore than Hobby Lobby is making the choice out of hatred for their female employees or for people who prefer to do their shopping on the weekend.

However, it is only reasonable to expect a degree of backlsh from these choices and if the majority of that backlash takes the form of honest discourse on a shared message board, then I suspect Paizo's efforts have already born fruit. We simply cannot demand the freedom to think and feel and act as we choose and then burn in effigy those who do the same thing - its exactly that kind of thinking that the LGBT community is fighting against, and it would be a tragedy if they succumbed to the same mindset that they abhor simply because they believe themselves to be correct.

Personally, I don't like my fantasy replete with social messages or political agendas - but I also don't like my fantasy with firearms either and I can't count how many times I've lost that particular argument. As long as I get to see Seoni perpetually on the verge of bursting out of what little clothing she does wear, my demographic corner of the fantasy universe has been catered to and the rest of Golarion can keep on spinning as it chooses.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
carn wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


I have a feeling this issue bothers you, so you notice it. I doubt it's any more obvious than the other political messages they've included (cheliax/slavery/bad vs andoren/freedom/good is a pretty obvious one, for example. No debate about it because who's going to dispute the moral judgement implicit in that?)

Ok, its as obvious, but the difference is, that for the main paizo markets there is no political dissens about slavery. It is not a political issue in paizo markets.

On the other hand for example US supreme court a few months ago decided against a law that received direct majority support from Californians and the court majority effictively said that people who are against gay marriage - meaning a majority of cals and besides vast majorities of the 96 senate and representative members - are bigoted a~##~$@s. So this is a political issue in paizo markets and actually one in which neither side is acting nicely.

OK, so you're basically trying to build a lot of elaborate pseudo-scientific padding around the "get those LGBT out of my existence" argument. Message received, most of us over here can tell apart serious scientific discourse from political splurge.

Sure, that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. But Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet. About politics. From safe behind the anonymity of the 'web.


Starfinder Superscriber

Thanks Gorbacz! Perfect saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet. About politics. From safe behind the anonymity of the 'web.

Thsi is exactly the opposite of the kind of discourse we need. That statement is far more presumptive and bigoted than anything we've seen in this thread so far. Don't be what you despise in others.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet. About politics. From safe behind the anonymity of the 'web.
Thsi is exactly the opposite of the kind of discourse we need. That statement is far more presumptive and bigoted than anything we've seen in this thread so far. Don't be what you despise in others.

"You are tolerant of X, so you also must be tolerant of people who hate X" is a fallacy.


Gorbacz wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet. About politics. From safe behind the anonymity of the 'web.
Thsi is exactly the opposite of the kind of discourse we need. That statement is far more presumptive and bigoted than anything we've seen in this thread so far. Don't be what you despise in others.
"You are tolerant of X, so you also must be tolerant of people who hate X" is a fallacy.

From the dialogue above, I don't see hate from anyone... at least, not anyone else. I see honest disagreement and you resorting to gross presumption and personal attacks. To an objective observer, that would suggest your position is the weaker one - I'm simply suggesting that you don't let hypocracy drown out your message.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet. About politics. From safe behind the anonymity of the 'web.
Thsi is exactly the opposite of the kind of discourse we need. That statement is far more presumptive and bigoted than anything we've seen in this thread so far. Don't be what you despise in others.
"You are tolerant of X, so you also must be tolerant of people who hate X" is a fallacy.
From the dialogue above, I don't see hate from anyone... at least, not anyone else. I see honest disagreement and you resorting to gross presumption and personal attacks. To an objective observer, that would suggest your position is the weaker one - I'm simply suggesting that you don't let hypocracy drown out your message.

Thanks, but I can handle myself on the Internet. I can also handle lawsuits and angry Americans with shotguns at my door, too!* :)

* - fun fact, I've got threatened with both by people from the "Homosexuality in Golarion" thread.


Steve Geddes wrote:


If paizo decided to exclude non-heterosexual people any product they wrote would, by virtue of exclusion of such people, be making an equally blatant political point. Just not one you'd notice.

Who say excluding?

Its one thing to have non-heterosexuals in story and another to have "its evil to treat some consenting adult relationsships in any way different from others" as a uncompromising tenet of lawful good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KSF wrote:

Carn, how do you feel about Paizo's deliberate inclusion of people of color and women in their products? Do you find it a cause for concern the same way you find the inclusion of LGBT people a cause for concern? Do you find it to be equally and objectionably "political"?

Besides there being no two sides about racism and male chauvinism, its not even impolite for racists and chauvinists, by doing what paizo does in this respect, it does not suggest racist and chauvinist are evil (Reason is that both chauvinists and racists effitively believe in differering "stats"; but "stats" are a matter of world design so a racists/chauvinist just notices that in Golarion there are no stat differences between white/non-white or male/female).

On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil. I do not mind people claiming that i am evil, i mind paying people to do so.

KSF wrote:


Some of Paizo's people are LGBT. They work on the game. They produce the product which you yourself presumably enjoy. Are they not allowed to include themselves in the product they are creating? Are the non-LGBT employees not allowed to create a product that reflects their own experience of the world, an experience which includes LGBT people?

In general i dislike transferring own experience of the real world directly to imaginary worlds with total different laws. It often does not fit.

For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)

KSF wrote:


Last question. Do you feel that LGBT characters should not be included in the game?

I would prefer it in a less insulting way for natural marriage propenents. But probably thats not an option.


Gorbacz wrote:


OK, so you're basically trying to build a lot of elaborate pseudo-scientific padding around the "get those LGBT out of my existence" argument. Message received, most of us over here can tell apart serious scientific discourse from political splurge.

Apparently you can't, the remaining issue of this thread is from my point of view only, if there are other issues where paizo might take such an "until" approach.

Gorbacz wrote:


But Paizo isn't going to change their product line just because somebody wraps himself in the Rebel flag and clutches his long, hard, double-barreled shotgun while posting angry things on Internet.

I am just interested in what to expect from the product line, cause i pay for it. They can offer what they like. But as i buy with subscription without checking in advance what they offer, i ask about whether i have to expect more of stuff i would not like to pay for.

If your answer would representative of paizo, i guess i would have all answers i need.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

This.

It's not politics.

And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.


James Jacobs wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

This.

It's not politics.

And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.

Is there any other issue thats not politics and treated similar?


carn wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Thirded. It's not politics, it's treating people like people.

This.

It's not politics.

And it's not anything new either. We've had LGBT characters in the world since Pathfinder #1. And LGBT characters at Paizo much longer than that.

Is there any other issue thats not politics and treated similar?

Race and Gender.


carn wrote:
Besides there being no two sides about racism and male chauvinism, its not even impolite for racists and chauvinists, by doing what paizo does in this respect, it does not suggest racist and chauvinist are evil (Reason is that both chauvinists and racists effitively believe in differering "stats"; but "stats" are a matter of world design so a racists/chauvinist just notices that in Golarion there are no stat differences between white/non-white or male/female).

Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

carn wrote:
On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil.

Where did they do that?

carn wrote:
In general i dislike transferring own experience of the real world directly to imaginary worlds with total different laws. It often does not fit.

How does that apply to LGBT people? What are the totally different laws present in Golarion, not present in the real world, that would mean that LGBT people should be excluded?

carn wrote:
For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

carn wrote:
I would prefer it in a less insulting way for natural marriage propenents. But probably thats not an option.

What's the insulting part again? I'm not seeing one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
carn wrote:
For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)

Um what the heck are you talking about here? People have always had casual sex well before the invention of the pill. There's a reason that the world has midwives who practiced certain herbalism skills.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DJEternalDarkness wrote:
carn wrote:
For example, unless someone invented the pill in Golarion, it would be stupid to transfer today man-woman "courting" and "relationship" habits into Golarion. Without reliable contraception women just behave differently in respect to male advances. (I remember totally shocking once a male PC who tried to hook up with some NPC woman, that the women in question was actually thinking he was courting her for marrying - but in her experience there was no casual sex due to risk of pregnancy so she misunderstood what he wanted)
Um what the heck are you talking about here? People have always had casual sex well before the invention of the pill. There's a reason that the world has midwives who practiced certain herbalism skills.

Not only that, contraceptiive practises aren't a modern invention either.


KSF wrote:


Personally, I don't think are two sides in this matter. It's no different than the other two. Sorry that you're not able to see that.

Two sides in the sense that major opposing political factions exist. Some 50%+ voted 2008 or so in california against gay marriage. Decision in favor of segregation would probably generate below 10% support.

KSF wrote:


carn wrote:
On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil.

Where did they do that?

What's the insulting part again? I'm not seeing one.

Thats at least what me and another user concluded:

Matt Thomason wrote:


carn wrote:


If being anti-LGBT is clearly bigoted and has no moral argument on its side, shouldn't lawful evil places tend to have anti-LGBT laws/customs?

No, because they could just have other evil laws in place, such as "one percent of the population will be chosen at random to be executed each year". However - a nation with anti-LGBT law/customs could certainly be labelled as lawful evil. From memory (you'd have to search recent threads to find the references), Paizo have clarified that a god that didn't support equality would be hard to justify as "Good", and one with a decidedly anti-equality stance would be hitting the "Evil" end of the scale.

In last election i voted for a party in favor of anti-LGBT laws in so far, as L and G cannot marry as marriage is man and woman. Hence, i am supporting a party that would suggest - or more precisely keep the current - laws that are according to paizo evil, which is as calling me evil. And that is somewhat insulting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
carn wrote:


On the other hand, paizo clearly suggest that natural marriage proponents are evil. I do not mind people claiming that i am evil, i mind paying people to do so.

I'm not sure where you're getting that impression. Being pro-natural marriage isn't the same as discriminating against LGBT marriage (unless I'm misreading the idea of the stance EDIT: Apparently I did. My apologies, everyone). A "live and let live" policy works.

"I really enjoy seeing opposite-sex marriages" isn't evil, unless you go on to also say that LGBT people shouldn't also have that same right.

That much was evidenced in a recent thread on the Dwarven goddess of marriage here, where unfortunate wording made it appear (erroneously, it seems to have turned out) that she only supported opposite-sex marriage. The fact she is a deity also means she has to be held to a much higher standard in alignment matters.

At no point would that equate directly to "anyone that encourages marriage between their opposite-sex acquaintances is an evil person"

Plus, outside of deities, a single belief doesn't tend to make someone evil-aligned. Well, unless that single belief is "everyone needs to die, muahahahahaha!" It tends to be the scale of action taken because of those beliefs that does that.

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Inclusion of any other politics stuff in paizo products intended / planned? All Messageboards