Bluenose: It cycles. Comics were at one point dark and edgy: batman used to use guns for example. Then parents complained and before mccarthy could haul them in as bunch of commies and start regulating them they formed their own comics code and stuck to it for a while. After a few anti drug stories couldn't be told under the code they published without it.. and that opened the flood gates to get rid of it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What amazes me about the historical accuracy issue goes beyond the failure to grasp that the game takes place in a fantasy world --
It's that even if you accept the premise that the game must be "historically accurate", the specific transgressions cited are almost always wrong. For example:
1) Inaccurate black powder weapons (the default in Pathfinder) are a LOT older in earth history than most people account for when citing historical accuracy. If you claim that the game is "high medieval" by default, then there are actually PRIMITIVE ROCKET LAUNCHERS in use in Asia at that time. They may claim the euro-centric defense, but there's virtually no standing that the default Pathfinder scenario is European.
2) Arguments toward limited race in even European history are even more inaccurate. People seem to forget that the theatre of ancient european history (specifically the mediterranean) certainly accounted for people of color, sometimes dominant.
You also hear these things about fantasy novels, TV shows etc. It shows a huge lack of imagination, and reveals a lot of biases belonging to the claimant.
The OP has it right, this argument is almost always one proffered by individuals trying to support their own aesthetic biases which are bolstered by their privileged status in society.
The funny thing is, if the person is informed enough to make their aesthetic case without recourse to the fallacy, then there's little fault to be found in that. If you want to tell a story about Viking culture, and you know a good bit about vikings and you don't want to include an Arab in the setting -- not because it couldn't happen but because the 13th Warrior and a clash of cultures is NOT the story you want to tell -- well, that is a lot more respectable in my opinion.
I suppose that's my advice to people: if you're ever tempted to resort to "historical accuracy" for any argument involving fiction, don't. Find another way around.
That said, my usual problem with the gun argument from a historical perspective is that those old guns aren't really much like Pathfinder's, whether they're called flintlocks or whatever. By the time guns were nearly as effective as in Golarion, they were widespread and the primary weapon of war. There was never a time or place when they would have been a primary weapon for people like adventurers, but not soldiers.
Which is why I think the approach taken in the game rules is the right one: the GM is given broad powers to decide how prevalent the guns are.
There are certain regions and themes (pirates, jungle exploration) for which guns feel quite natural. No, it doesn't fit uniformly across the entire setting... but it's Golarion. If you've seen the setting at all, even given baseline fantasy assumptions, "thematic consistency" is not a word that can be responsibly applied here. And I think that's to the setting's great advantage!
A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."Gate. Inevitables.Oh, so you want to play an inevitable? That's different from an android.
Mad wizards prototype.Mad wizard hasn't been born yet.
Visitor from an alternate prime.Changing the setting. Actually, that's what all of these boil down to. You just refuse to accept a setting where androids don't exist.Your setting has Gate. Other planes exist. And Androids make perfect sense to be created by Inevitables. Your setting has magic, a mad wizard's prototype makes perfect sense.
I'm not changing the setting at all. There's no reason those explanations don't work, other then "I don't want them to".
"I don't want them" is not a good reason, or even an acceptable one for a DM. Remember the goal is for the players to have fun. The PC is the player's creation and should be what they want to play. If the DM can't enjoy a campaign because one of the player's is a clone character or a race or class the DM doesn't like, the problem lies with the DM. Again this is as long as you are playing Pathfinder. If you are playing some other system, then that's a different story.
My DM policy is simple and true to the above. I always make sure that I am the kind of DM I would want to play under. And the kind of DM I want to play under lets me play the character I want to play regardless of what they think of it.
stuff"I don't want them" is not a good reason, or even an acceptable one for a DM. Remember the goal is for the players to have fun. The PC is the player's creation and should be what they want to play. If the DM can't enjoy a campaign because one of the player's is a clone character or a race or class the DM doesn't like, the problem lies with the DM. Again this is as long as you are playing Pathfinder. If you are playing some other system, then that's a different story.
My DM policy is simple and true to the above. I always make sure that I am the kind of DM I would want to play under. And the kind of DM I want to play under lets me play the character I want to play regardless of what they think of it.
so, when you set the creation rules as level 4, and i want to play a CR12 dragon(or something along those lines), what happens?
so, when you set the creation rules as level 4, and i want to play a CR12 dragon(or something along those lines), what happens?stuff"I don't want them" is not a good reason, or even an acceptable one for a DM. Remember the goal is for the players to have fun. The PC is the player's creation and should be what they want to play. If the DM can't enjoy a campaign because one of the player's is a clone character or a race or class the DM doesn't like, the problem lies with the DM. Again this is as long as you are playing Pathfinder. If you are playing some other system, then that's a different story.
My DM policy is simple and true to the above. I always make sure that I am the kind of DM I would want to play under. And the kind of DM I want to play under lets me play the character I want to play regardless of what they think of it.
You read my previous post on that matter:
There is a line, but is has nothing to do with the character itself.The character's story should be appropriate for the "rating" of the table. Don't bring a character with R rated themes to a PG-13 campaign. Thus while "Winged Pony with a bowtie" is always ok, "Winged Pony Hitler with a bowtie" might not be. Not because it's a Winged Pony with a bowtie, but because it's Hitler. And you know whose not cool? Hitler.
Don't be a jerk. But that's a player issue not a character issue. I don't care if Winged Pony with a Bowtie wants to make puns or end every sentence with ...zam (I have done this it was glorious) that's great. If Winged Pony with a Bowtie wants to steal from the party or abandon the party, then that's a player issue that needs dealt with. Again, not a Winged Pony with a bowtie issue.
Finally, play the character you wants means "within the rules". You don't get to a play a level 20 Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist, when the starting level is 1. You also don't get to be a Winged Pony with a bowtie Alchemist who has selected two incompatible archetypes, etc.
Other then that it really is black and white. And none of the shading actually involves the character itself.
There is a line. But it doesn't have anything to do with the raw mechanics of the character. Goblin Vivisectionist Alchemist is always ok. Serial Killer Goblin Vivisectionist Alchemist isn't.
Edit:
You play a CR 4 wyrmling [with negative CR templates if necessary] and level up as a Normal PC Class. At any time you reach sufficient CR to go up an Age Category, you can undergo a ritual to trade your levels in order to accelerate your aging.so, when you set the creation rules as level 4, and i want to play a CR12 dragon(or something along those lines), what happens?stuff"I don't want them" is not a good reason, or even an acceptable one for a DM. Remember the goal is for the players to have fun. The PC is the player's creation and should be what they want to play. If the DM can't enjoy a campaign because one of the player's is a clone character or a race or class the DM doesn't like, the problem lies with the DM. Again this is as long as you are playing Pathfinder. If you are playing some other system, then that's a different story.
My DM policy is simple and true to the above. I always make sure that I am the kind of DM I would want to play under. And the kind of DM I want to play under lets me play the character I want to play regardless of what they think of it.
This is a cool solution also.
stuff
.
.But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
edit:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People have tried to pull historical accuracy in games I've played, usually on my wife. By the time my head has slowly rotated to the person in question they've usually changed there mind, since I'm, y'know, an archaeologist.
stuff.
.But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
But we, being poor, have only our dreams;
We have spread our dreams under your feet;
Tread softly DM because you tread on our dreams.
Edit:
In some kinds of games "mechahitler" would be a no. The mechanics you use to play your take on "mechahitler" should always be allowed though. It's not a "what your character is" issue its a "who your character is" issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."
In my experience the person with that attitude is more accurately an ex-DM, because the players bail for a game with someone who actually respects them as friends/fellow humans, and is willing to run the sort of game they want to play.
People have tried to pull historical accuracy in games I've played, usually on my wife. By the time my head has slowly rotated to the person in question they've usually changed there mind, since I'm, y'know, an archaeologist.
I assume you keep your standard issue archaeologist whip handy for these situations. (I kid. I kid.)
A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."In my experience the person with that attitude is more accurately an ex-DM, because the players bail for a game with someone who actually respects them as friends/fellow humans, and is willing to run the sort of game they want to play.
This has been my experience to. (Level 99 Boatman, never forget.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Canonical example: If you're playing Skull & Shackles, bring a character who wants to be a pirate. Your desert specialized paladin can wait for another game. (Note that S&S can be adapted to work for characters who don't want to be pirates, but if the rest of the groups wants to play pirates, then don't bring someone who doesn't fit.)
Wait -- what's wrong with the desert paladin? He spends a lot of time cautioning the others to mercy and so on, but they're not actually evil, and his lawful outlook means he needs to be a team player, not go all lone wolf. He stays with them as long as they're privateering from other pirates, as a net good. And when they end up marooned on a desert isle, everyone is REALLY glad he's there to help them find food and water and so on.
I'd say he could fit very well in that game.
And before we get the usual ad nauseum repeats of the stale and absurd old argument that "it's always only exactly one player who is actively trying to be disruptive by playing something as inappropriate as possible, that's also blatantly against all the rules of the game, and everyone else at the table hates them for it," well, just kick that guy out. He's being a dick, and that has very little to do with what's "appropriate" for your precious setting, and more to do with him just being a dick.
But most of us don't really play with people like that. So when Bob shows up to the Skull & Shackles game with his desert specialist paladin, the best option is not to immediately rip up his character sheet and yell at him. A better option might be to see how he plays it -- if he's at all sincere about the game, it will more likely play out as I outlined above, and will likely make for a better party and a better game overall than just having four yes-men trying to out-pirate each other.
A DM doesn't need any other reason than "I don't want them to."In my experience the person with that attitude is more accurately an ex-DM, because the players bail for a game with someone who actually respects them as friends/fellow humans, and is willing to run the sort of game they want to play.
GMs want to play too you know, and usually disruptive characters are most disruptive to the GM, they have a right to not have to deal with some things.
had a player would wanted to play an unintelligent burrowing creature that was a scavenger and thus ate dead things. I really didn't want to deal with that.
Another player had made a character with a 3PP class that I didn't think was balanced, so they ended up leaving, only to return later under the prevision that he doesn't start making characters (and thus getting attached to them) until after I accept the mechanics of the character.
True, but even the 1950s wonder woman was still at least "swimsuit" (as you say), compared to the 90s version of sexualized T&A.
The only difference I can see is that she got a facelift and some huge fake-looking implants sometime during the interim.
GMs want to play too you know, and usually disruptive characters are most disruptive to the GM, they have a right to not have to deal with some things.
You don't think that it's maybe better to talk these things out, rather than just start making dictatorial proclamations? Maybe, you know, see what the other players think, too?
Although I will have to say I was absolutely shocked at how well my Taldan Fop's sorcerer peasant managing skills translated into a successfully career on the high seas
GMs want to play too you know, and usually disruptive characters are most disruptive to the GM, they have a right to not have to deal with some things.You don't think that it's maybe better to talk these things out, rather than just start making dictatorial proclamations? Maybe, you know, see what the other players think, too?
generally when people say something that i outright say no to, they aren't willing to give ground.
and honestly, as I just said, I don't care what the other players think of this 1 player's character, if i won't enjoy GMing for it or it makes it harder for me to GM(such as a character who flirts with women a lot, I don't want to RP that), he should play something else.
If a class is OP i don't want to make house rules to weaken it, If a concept is too strange to handle there likely isn't a middle ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And before we get the usual ad nauseum repeats of the stale and absurd old argument that "it's always only exactly one player who is actively trying to be disruptive by playing something as inappropriate as possible, that's also blatantly against all the rules of the game, and everyone else at the table hates them for it," well, just kick that guy out. He's being a dick, and that has very little to do with what's "appropriate" for your precious setting, and more to do with him just being a dick.
But most of us don't really play with people like that. So when Bob shows up to the Skull & Shackles game with his desert specialist paladin, the best option is not to immediately rip up his character sheet and yell at him. A better option might be to see how he plays it -- if he's at all sincere about the game, it will more likely play out as I outlined above, and will likely make for a better party and a better game overall than just having four yes-men trying to out-pirate each other.
Or the pirates kill the paladin off because they're pirates.
And we really only go to the absurd limits when someone is claiming the opposite extremity - that the GM has to accept anything a player suggests. I only bring up the extreme examples in the hope Anzyr would actually agree at some point. Apparently that's not happening.
Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.
If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.
Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
then call them privateers. :P
edit: ninja'd
I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
no you can't, privateering is legalized piracy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
So, in order to let one player have his paladin, everyone else has to play that particular type of pirate.
Isn't that just pushing the restriction in the other direction?
No they can play Pirates. I have no problems with a Paladin hanging out with Pirates. Like I said before I actually treat Paladin players nicely and am not out to make them fall. The code is pretty lax really.
no you can't, privateering is legalized piracy.
And you can be both a Privateer and a Pirate. Do some reading on the subject and you'll see that some people did both.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excluding situations involving small children, I'm not entirely sure why character concepts which offend people's sense of social justice or perhaps are simply too racy or cruel should certainly be excluded but those which offend people's "sense of seriousness" or "sense of theme" certainly shouldn't be. Obviously there's a matter of degrees there, but to claim one type of preference is completely sacrosanct while others are to be summarily dismissed seems a little inconsiderate to me.
I think that the most important factor in determining what sorts of PCs and equipment are appropriate is the preferences of the group you're playing with. Since the DM is generally making a significant investment of effort and possibly money to run the game his or her preferences should be very important too. The individual player's preference matters, but I don't feel that it should trump other concerns, especially at the expense of making other players unhappy or uncomfortable. If you want to play a purple space bunny named Sir Humpsalot that might be fun for some groups and too silly for others. A few might say it would be fine if you rename him to Sir Hopsalot. If the renamed PC starts going up to female NPCs and saying, "Hey baby, wanna hop?" some players might find it funny while some might find it exasperating or perhaps even offensive (I've never met such easily offended folks, but maybe you're playing with little kids or somebody very sensitive)
Meanwhile some other groups would have no problem with an animated object sex toy as a PC's familiar but might not like it if another PC is a Witch who wants to torture and eat children (though that's not at all inconsistent with the rules material for the class). I can understand how violently homophobic PCs might not be fun to have around for most groups, but whether or not a Viking calling a male spellcaster "girly man" (like Hanz and Franz) is over the top offensive might be a matter of taste (and the fact that the PC in question is portrayed as being kind of an idiot may or may not be a sufficient mitigating factor)
Stuff like this can extend to the DM's side of the table as well. Certainly there were rapists in history, and presumably there are rapists in Golarion, but some tables might be uncomfortable with rape. If you're playing with a traumatized recent rape victim then having an NPC try to rape his or her PC probably wouldn't be a great move. At another table a male PC getting raped to death by monkeys (actually bar i'gura) is a treasured comedic memory though.
and honestly, as I just said, I don't care what the other players think
There's no common ground here, then. I DO care what my friends think. If we're all going out to dinner, I don't declare myself the "Restaurant Master" (RM) and unilaterally declare where we're all going to eat, and then reserve the right to veto other peoples' orders -- even if I'm the designated driver (to continue the analogy).
It's the exact same thing if we're playing a game together.
So, in order to let one player have his paladin, everyone else has to play that particular type of pirate.
What if this one jerk doesn't want an eyepatch? We should ban his character for that, too? How about if he's a wizard and doesn't pick a parrot as a familiar? Is he not being pirate-y enough? Is the player required to say "arrrr" after every action or he loses a turn?
To be fair, deciding to play Sir Humpsalot might be in bad taste doesn't prevent the other players from deciding to play Gimli-Clone, Legolas-Clone, Buck Rogers, and Half-Orc Musashi the way that deciding to go take everybody to Old Country Buffet for a sit down dinner might be considered in bad taste but also prevents them from getting Indian food. Claims that the group can't enjoy take out Indian food because you picked up a burrito from Chipotle instead would be considered fallacious, but if beans make you fart a lot that might ruin people's meal anyhow even though farting is "perfectly natural".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Excluding situations involving small children, I'm not entirely sure why character concepts which offend people's sense of social justice or perhaps are simply too racy or cruel should certainly be excluded but those which offend people's "sense of seriousness" or "sense of theme" certainly shouldn't be. Obviously there's a matter of degrees there, but to claim one type of preference is completely sacrosanct while others are to be summarily dismissed seems a little inconsiderate to me.
I think that the most important factor in determining what sorts of PCs and equipment are appropriate is the preferences of the group you're playing with. Since the DM is generally making a significant investment of effort and possibly money to run the game his or her preferences should be very important too. The individual player's preference matters, but I don't feel that it should trump other concerns, especially at the expense of making other players unhappy or uncomfortable. If you want to play a purple space bunny named Sir Humpsalot that might be fun for some groups and too silly for others. A few might say it would be fine if you rename him to Sir Hopsalot. If the renamed PC starts going up to female NPCs and saying, "Hey baby, wanna hop?" some players might find it funny while some might find it exasperating or perhaps even offensive (I've never met such easily offended folks, but maybe you're playing with little kids or somebody very sensitive)
Silliness is not the same as the rest of those. Finding something silly and finding something offensive are very very different things. If someone can't handle silliness, they are the problem. If someone can't handle offensive material, the offensive material is the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No they can play Pirates. I have no problems with a Paladin hanging out with Pirates. Like I said before I actually treat Paladin players nicely and am not out to make them fall. The code is pretty lax really.I meant pirates. Of course, even if you are a privateer you can still also be a pirate.If the pirate has a license then they're a privateer.Your definition of "Pirate" is to narrow. I can totally see a Paladin getting along with some definitions of Pirates.
So, in order to let one player have his paladin, everyone else has to play that particular type of pirate.
Isn't that just pushing the restriction in the other direction?
So now it's any pirates. That is a pretty lax version.
Are paladins cool with land bound robbers as well?
I said they could play Pirates. I didn't say they could play any kind of Pirates.
That depends on the land bound robbers. Most Paladins I know get along great with Robin Hood, even if they disagree with his methods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are paladins cool with land bound robbers as well?
The question for me is whether they're only robbers because the DM tells them they have to be, or they're not allowed to play. Back to the one jerk, vs. the whole table, again.
Anzyr feels each player can override all the others. I disagree.
Most people feel the DM should override all the players at will, and in fact is "cooler" if he does so as arrogantly and as unyieldingly as possible, because you "have to teach them a lesson." I obviously disagree very strongly.
I feel that everyone should be on the same page as the majority, regardless of claimed "status."
and honestly, as I just said, I don't care what the other players thinkThere's no common ground here, then. I DO care what my friends think. If we're all going out to dinner, I don't declare myself the "Restaurant Master" (RM) and unilaterally declare where we're all going to eat, and then reserve the right to veto other peoples' orders -- even if I'm the designated driver (to continue the analogy).
It's the exact same thing if we're playing a game together.
it's more like if we chose Mexican food went to a Mexican restaurant and someone straight faced ordered some eastern European dish.
the choices at the beginning carry over later, I don't just declare that "i'm the GM and you are my players".
it's more like if we chose Mexican food went to a Mexican restaurant and someone straight faced ordered some eastern European dish.
Didn't you just tell me that YOU (the DM) chose Mexican food, and you don't give a damn what anyone else in the group wants? Did they agree to dinner, not knowing that you would eat Mexican only, and were not open to alternatives?
I keep saying, over and over and over and over, that if the whole group agrees and one player wants to be disruptive, then that player is a jerk. You keeping bringing up the one person being a jerk scenario and ignoring the DM being a dictator scenario, which is what I'm trying to address.