| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Raise Dead is a "healing" spell, and "healing" has a positive connotation -- it strongly implies "fixing" a "problem".
But what about necrophiliacs? Might they be offended by Paizo's inclusion of this spell in the Pathfinder game, and their use of the "healing" descriptor? The clear implication is that there is something "wrong" with being dead, which implies that there is something wrong with loving the dead as well.
When someone insists that there is something "wrong" with one's love, because of something that individual has no control over, isn't that offensive?
Should Paizo have been more sensitive?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well bless your heart.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remove curse is obviously offensive to Gypsies as well. Natural spell and wild words offend horse whisperers. Paizo is looking at huge lawsuits man.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say it is offensive to those who identify as "undead" and "trans-undead".
Why, last Monday morning I woke up feeling like undead, and I thought to myself "I must be born in a living body by mistake". I went to work and someone said "Hey, you look like the walking dead." and someone asked me if I'd seen that t.v. show and I went and found an undead support group (I still hadn't had my coffee) and THEY told me I had every right to be offended by the living if I felt undead. I'm marching in a parade next week for NECROPRIDE.
So...Thank you Werebat for reminding me to be offended. I feel so much more righteous now. Nevermind the fact that I'm not actually undead, or that there's no such thing. My feelings (so I'm told) take precedence over reality.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While we're at it, how dare Paizo include humans in their game! Humans have killed so many people throughout history. It's clearly offensive and insensitive to all the relatives and descendants of those poor victims to include such horrific creatures, and as a PC race at that!
Or animals for that matter! Think of all those people who've died to animal attacks! It's terrible, and I simply won't abide it! I suppose it's slightly better since they aren't PCs, but your player characters are expected to ride and associate with them, with whole class features being based around having one as some sort of 'companion' that you actually care about! At least humans are easily removed, but you can't even use the entire Cavalier class without including these horrors.
I find offense at the fact that offending is offensive.
Raise Dead is a "healing" spell, and "healing" has a positive connotation -- it strongly implies "fixing" a "problem".
But what about necrophiliacs? Might they be offended by Paizo's inclusion of this spell in the Pathfinder game, and their use of the "healing" descriptor? The clear implication is that there is something "wrong" with being dead, which implies that there is something wrong with loving the dead as well.
When someone insists that there is something "wrong" with one's love, because of something that individual has no control over, isn't that offensive?
Should Paizo have been more sensitive?
What pray tell brought this on? Not that I don't see this as a thinly veiled sarcastic satire, but what discussion spurred it?
On a side note, Paizo makes every effort to include some love for necrophiliacs. For one, necrophilia isn't evil in Pathfinder, and there has been at least one published NPC who was indeed a necrophiliac. However, I hope that Paizo will break out of the trope of presenting necrophiliacs only as villains.
Hey, this satire thing is kinda fun. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Making fun of PC is itself a crime... to the tumbrels with you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gravediggers, undertakers, coffin makers, embalmers, priests of Anubis, all find Raise dead very offensive.
Takes money out of their pockets, food from their children, and pharaoh's servants in the afterlife away.
So just say no to Raise Dead..let the natural selection continue.
I still want to know what spurred this satire, because honestly it was probably a really interesting conversation. :\
Ashiel, I'm really not sure. Apparently someone thought that it was offensive that I asked three related questions in three separate threads instead of including them all in the same thread? That's what I gathered in the thread that got locked. That and that a lot of posters here seem to think that certain groups of people should have privilege over certain other groups, and are uncomfortable with that belief. It's as if they consider it impolite to have discussions that might result in their having to question how accepting of others they really are. Weird.
I still want to know what spurred this satire, because honestly it was probably a really interesting conversation. :\
He is trolling. Asking what spurred the satire (I've no idea myself) is only going to further it.