|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
This reminds me of the twitter outrage thing about Paizocon a few weeks ago where people were calling for an official response from Paizo, to the point where the victim felt she needed to make a public address and say that Paizo did right by her and she had wanted to keep it a personal matter.
-Skeld
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big book on evil contains things that are evil...
...Surprise!!!
I find Folca distasteful, I will not be using it any game I GM and would give some serious thought about staying in a game exploring those themes.
That does not mean that Paizo shouldn't have published it, nor that they wrong to do so.
I understand people have experiences that make some things uncomfortable or upsetting, I really don't think that when they come across these things that they should seek to remove those things from the general public. Respecting the things that have happened to an individual does not and should not include vetting everything to accommodate that individuals experiences.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine anyone actually a) making a character of Folca, or b) being allowed to have a worshipper of Folca.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So...don't play a follower of Folca, or allow them at your table?
I don't see the issue here.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
See this book with content for evil deities? It has rules for evil creatures to gain evil powers by doing evil things, because they're just that evil.
This looks like a nothingburger to me. At most, all Paizo should do is add a line in the obedience feats, something like "performing the obedience of a deity is considered an act of that deity's alignment", so that clods get the idea.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
See this book with content for evil deities? It has rules for evil creatures to gain evil powers by doing evil things, because they're just that evil.
This looks like a nothingburger to me. At most, all Paizo should do is add a line in the obedience feats, something like "performing the obedience of a deity is considered an act of that deity's alignment", so that clods get the idea.
Honestly, even that isn't really needed. It's been stated before that evil deeds are still Evil. If you are some kind of Neutral follower of an Evil god... you are some kind of heretic. You are not following the god the way the god wants you to follow... but are latching on to some kind of schism faction that you focus entirely on. However, if your evil god wants you to do evil things and you do those evil things... you're evil. Hurting kids while claiming to be neutral is still evil.
The entire purpose of this type of character is to be evil. Heroes find out about this kind of evil... and then stab it in the face with their Holy Sword.
As a boogeyman/Freddy Krueger type of horror character... I love things like that. The more horrible I personally find it, the more I want to protect and avenge and stab the monsters in the face. Some people don't feel that way and shouldn't let these aspects in their game...
However, I'm really surprised this all coming out now... Unnatural lust has been a spell since Ultimate Magic in 2011. Witches have been using child scent and Cook People just as long. Zon-Kuthon has always been a thing... and what about Asmodeus' obedience? Cut symbols in the flesh of another sentient, preferably one you own?? Totally evil.
1) I highly recommend not ever playing evil characters or letting people play evil characters... regardless of 'maturity level', I've never seen or heard a story where that DOESN"T cause problems. Making this absolutely a DM only book.
2) make sure the DM knows what kind of games you do NOT find fun. Everyone has different lines, make sure the games don't go where you don't want to play.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Folca entry in Book of the Damned, in my opinion, crosses a line of good taste. I'm very torn on the subject: on the one hand, I feel like child abuse and worship of child abuse gods wasn't something that should've been given mechanics at all. In my opinion, this goes for most extreme crimes. Pathfinder, to me, is a game of adventure and heroics, and this, I feel, crosses the line. Of course, this is going to be very different from person to person, table to table.
On the other hand, I do recognize that, however flawed it may have been in execution, the intent wasn't there to incentivize players to create worshippers to Folca. This is a book, I understand, meant primarily to provide mechanics to be used for villains, with Folca being essentially a small corner addition in the sense of "Well, we acknowledged Folca's existence back then so I guess in the interest of being complete we gotta stat him out too...". Personally I would've been very happy if he were conveniently forgotten, but yeah.
Long story short, I consider Folca's inclusion a definite mistake and something that shouldn't have happened. However, the mention of several key individuals expressing regret, even though not speaking on behalf of Paizo itself, as well as its track record up until now not springing to mind any other controversies of this level, inclines me to give Paizo the benefit of the doubt for the things that have been discussed these past few months. But if this sort of thing continues as a pattern, I have no qualms with finding another way to spend my money, painful as it may be to abandon my favorite setting.
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that a large chunk of the problem comes from people who arrive here expecting Pathfinder to be D&D. You know, the friendly neighbourhood D&D, where Bad Things don't happen, because Bad Things happen in real life while this is our Friday night in Dustin's basement. Here, we escape.
And suddenly there's outrage, because Dustin's basement has now demonic sexual abuse and there's Deliverance but our bard lost the banjo battle and oh crap, what is that ogre doing with that hook again?
Some of the outragees have indicated that they would be perfectly fine with all that in WoD or Kult or Unknown Armies or Lamentations of the Flame Princess but for Pete's sake this is my childhood game why are you making it Darker and Edgier and infecting the Happy Land with Bad Things?
Welp, Paizo telegraphed in HMM that ogres will use their hooks in more creative ways than they did in G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. They've shown, on many occassions, that descriptions of evil and vile won't be limited to opaque "aaaand the Lich does not nice things to the villagers" but will hit you with Pan's Labirynth (but not Martyrs) level of shock every now and then. That's the paradigm. I don't think that Paizo should sanitise themselves just to make sure that the game is PG and that Dustin won't freak out. Even more so now, when the super-tame 5e is around.
The only time ever that I thought "eww, this is bad taste" about Paizo material is page 321 of Advanced Player's Guide. Ewwww, my stomach still hurts.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we not lump members of the LGBT and issues like torture and rape together like that, or imply that LGBT can't be PG aka kid friendly, please?Sure we can, I've edited my post. Although you of all people should know what is my stance on the matter.
Oh I do, and thank you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that a large chunk of the problem comes from people who arrive here expecting Pathfinder to be D&D. You know, the friendly neighbourhood D&D, where Bad Things don't happen, because Bad Things happen in real life while this is our Friday night in Dustin's basement. Here, we escape.
And suddenly there's outrage, because Dustin's basement has now demonic sexual abuse and there's Deliverance but our bard lost the banjo battle and oh crap, what is that ogre doing with that hook again?
Some of the outragees have indicated that they would be perfectly fine with all that in WoD or Kult or Unknown Armies or Lamentations of the Flame Princess but for Pete's sake this is my childhood game why are you making it Darker and Edgier and infecting the Happy Land with Bad Things?
Welp, Paizo telegraphed in HMM that ogres will use their hooks in more creative ways than they did in G1 Steading of the Hill Giant Chief. They've shown, on many occassions, that descriptions of evil and vile won't be limited to opaque "aaaand the Lich does not nice things to the villagers" but will hit you with Pan's Labirynth (but not Martyrs) level of shock every now and then. That's the paradigm. I don't think that Paizo should sanitise themselves just to make sure that the game is PG and that Dustin won't freak out. Even more so now, when the super-tame 5e is around.
I have a complicated position on the issue, but I think one thing counter to this narrative is that James and Erik have both publically said that the inclusion of this material was beyond what they consider desirable. This specific material is beyond “Paizo edginess”, I think.
Obviously where the line actually lies is a subjective thing. Nonetheless, when people of that stature within the company call it out as “too much”, I think it’s reasonable to take the charge seriously.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That wouldn't be the first time I've disagreed with Paizo. I'm still dark and edgy about them ignoring the existence of Celsius and metric measurements or ditching Arnold Tsang and long elf ears (although the latest Ruins of Azlant artwork has some long ear love).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I don’t think you’re forced to agree with it. my point was that I don’t think Erik and James are saying “hey, this isn’t the sanitised game I’m used to”.
I think the charge of “too much” should be given serious consideration. Not dismissed as a matter of aesthetic preference.
|
Honestly to sound like a broken record I still think its more a case of going for It style monster homage and not realising it could be taken as something else (Especially since it's A daemonic harbinger who if memory serves are more about various form of death rather than what Folca is being accused of being)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly to sound like a broken record I still think its more a case of going for It style monster homage and not realising it could be taken as something else (Especially since it's A daemonic harbinger who if memory serves are more about various form of death rather than what Folca is being accused of being)
I can see what you mean, but the specific inclusion of Unnatural Lust as a Folca worship boon is a strong implication of physical intimacy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly to sound like a broken record I still think its more a case of going for It style monster homage and not realising it could be taken as something else (Especially since it's A daemonic harbinger who if memory serves are more about various form of death rather than what Folca is being accused of being)I can see what you mean, but the specific inclusion of Unnatural Lust as a Folca worship boon is a strong implication of physical intimacy.
True (And honestly probably the most problematic part of the write up) however at the same time reading the spell it specifies person or Object I assume in this case it was supposed to be more the object part (Much like how Pennywise uses things like balloons and otherthings in the book/film)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to start by saying that I have supported many of my loved ones with the ongoing trauma they suffered due to abuse.
I personally believe that a book that details the most despicable beings in existence SHOULD make you sick to your stomach.
When I read the op I felt ill. I felt betrayed.
But then I read about the context of the book. And it all made sense. To me that is the desired outcome of the content. It is supposed to make you angry and passionate. It is supposed to want to make you last out. It gives an avenue to deal with the darkest areas of the human psyche in a way that the game could not do before.
I am glad Folca is here. I want to play in a game that delves I to the depths of depravity with our heroes spilling blood all the way down.
Folca is EVIL. He should feel evil. His followers should make our stomachs turn.
In achieving that I commend Paizo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True (And honestly probably the most problematic part of the write up) however at the same time reading the spell it specifies person or Object I assume in this case it was supposed to be more the object part (Much like how Pennywise uses things like balloons and otherthings in the book/film)
I can see what you mean, but the specific inclusion of Unnatural Lust as a Folca worship boon is a strong implication of physical intimacy.
Unnatural Lust, as a spell, has problematic connotations beyond the Folca issue. I think it would have been better published as Unnatural Desire, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's most definitely making light of child abuse. "Tee hee, not only does this thing RAPE them it makes them LOVE it. That's so bad but kinda fun in a twisted way, right? Right?" So edgy. It's like someone copy/pasted an edgy 4chan green text because they were trying to find grimdark content but only had enough self-awareness to not want to be the umpteenth edgelordy Slenderman ripoff.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely nothing Paizo has published does or imply that. The unnatural lust spell lasts all of 1 round (6 seconds) and doesn't change a creature's mindset in that way.
Also I didn't see it making light of or a joke out of child abuse. Folca as a complete monster is played completely serious.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I could see that as an interpretation from “Change the details of an event the subject actually experienced“ but from the added caveat of “A modified memory does not necessarily affect the subject's actions, particularly if it contradicts the creature's natural inclinations” always led me to believe that you can alter an event that happened but not actually what you were feeling/thinking.
Of course i could be wrong, I usually am.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit that until the outcry, my reaction to reading the Folca passage was, "Huh. That's pretty dark," and moving on.
Compared to other dark and edgy things in Pathfinder, I thought this was a bit closer to the edge of bad taste than most, but was still in the general ballpark of Pathfinder's dark side. (c.f. Carnival of Tears for lurid descriptions of the murder of children; the magic item demon mother's mask that seems to encourage bestiality.)
The Folca write-up made me think of Freddie Kruger, Krampus, the Child Catcher from Chitty-Chittty Bang-Bang, the witch from Hansel & Gretel, the 1989 TV episode "The Playhouse" from Friday the 13th: The Series, and urban legends about that creepy dude with a white van that parks near the woods.
It's pretty clear to me that the game mechanics for all of the boons granted by evil entities presented in Book of the Damned are horrific. They're clearly for the bad guys. That said, I do understand why others might have reacted more strongly than I did.
As a GM, I do not allow PCs to be followers of any evil deity. If an Evangelist of Folca ever showed up in one of my games, he would only ever be a villain to be defeated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If management has admitted an error, then they should also take steps to rectify the error. It doesn't matter if it's a small job or a big job.
While they're at it, they could maybe fix the art for Nocticula. To something a little less Male-Gazey?
If you're going to make a book with mature themes you have to be incredibly careful about what lines are being crossed, and how you're representing the game.
I understand that books are complex, but unless direct action is taken to rectify mistakes, then this is another bit of lost faith in Paizo as a company and Pathfinder as a game.
Nocticula is demon lord of lust. She has a charisma of 40. One of her abilities is actually called "Seductive Presence" for Shelyn's sake! It is one thing for random women to be drawn in a sexual way, but this the queen of all succubi, if anything, it would be weird for her not to be drawn in that way. Dear lord, what's next? Being afraid people will be offended at religious themes in the game and getting rid of the celestials and fiends? I rather not go back to the 1980's level on censorship if it's all the same to you. Mature themes can happen is this game. If you don't like it, don't use it at your table, but don't try and force everyone else to play like you because something that offends you.
Malefactor, out.
So is demon lord of gluttony depicted as a sentient pile of donuts, fried chicken, and waffles or is it depicted as an obese demon? Is the lord of pride a big trophy with an all A's report card? Greed a pile of gold? Wrath a bruised and broken body?
Why is the personification of lust portrayed as the object of lust when other sin demoms are portrayed as the subjects aka creatures that commit the sin?
Is the "sin" of lust being the target of it or is the sin being lustful?
Lust seems to be included as a sin for pedantic reasons: it's not really evil but Six Deadly...
Well, if we are going back to what "4th century monks" thought were sins, as you put it, then Nocticula does fit the classical definition. You see, traditionally speaking, it was not considered to be so much of a sin to merely feel lust, as that sort of thing is necessary for offspring and nobody wanted the church to die off because nobody had children, but it was to inspire it in others, as it could lead others away from the monogamous in wedlock relationships church officials required (hence the requirement of modest dress found in some denominations, and why sex is seen as fine in wedlock) and as such, by your own qualifications, Nocticula is prime example of such of thing, as she has absolutely no shame in flaunting what she has in order to tempt the righteous off the proverbial straight and narrow. As such, it is no more out of tune for an embodiment of lust to be extremely revealing and provocative than it is for wrath demons to be muscular and violent, pride demons to have an overly inflated sense of their own appearance, or sloth demons to appear indolent and overweight. Just because you don't like how a sin is personified doesn't mean it isn't a valid personification of the concept.
Malefactor out.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 21 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was away at PAX Unplugged this weekend and into the first part of this week, so let me start off with an apology for not responding to this thread earlier.
As noted in the OP, I am already on the record as admitting that Folca's inclusion was in bad taste, that it was a mistake to publish it, and that I and everyone else at Paizo regret the text that made it into the final book. Please allow me to repeat that sentiment, originally offered on Twitter, here directly: It was a mistake to include these themes in one of our products. We should not have done it the first time in the original Book of the Damned Volume 3, and we should have used the opportunity of the compiled hardcover to adjust elements of the character to be something less divisive and dumb, or to cut it altogether.
We didn't do that, and frankly we deserve the criticism we've received on the issue.
We certainly don't intend to focus on Folca in the future, and will not be including him in future Pathfinder products. From this point forward, Folca is officially done in the world of Pathfinder, and he heads into the memory hole with other mistakes we've made.
We cannot change the printed books in which he already appears. In the event that we reprint the book, we will very likely cut him from the book entirely. Changing the files without changing the book itself is a significant departure from our normal errata policy, and brings with it a number of logistical challenges. We’re not interested in creating an allure for pirated copies of the uncensored version, and thus we will address Folca’s presence (or lack thereof) as part of our reprint strategy for the book.
We're also taking some internal editorial steps to make sure that material suggesting sexual violence against children gets nixed before we publish it. Yes, it is a very real "evil" in the world, but Pathfinder doesn't need to include every single reprehensible thing in the universe, and it doesn't need to include predatory sexual violence against children, especially with rules attached.
Many of you are probably thinking, "what's the problem? I can handle this in my game." Or maybe even "bad guys are supposed to be evil," and to you folks this statement probably seems like some kind of betrayal or act of cowardice. The fact of the matter is that this issue specifically crosses a line with a HUGE number of gamers, and we knew better than to cross it this time. After the recent furor, we know even better not to cross it in the future.
You're cool to do whatever you want in your games, but the public is right to hold us to a higher standard. Just because you think you can be responsible with this type of content does not mean that every GM can. Much more importantly, the primary concern here is less the GM and more the player who randomly encounters these themes unwittingly, and finds him or herself reliving terrible memories of trauma during what is supposed to be a game people play for fun.
Every so often, in an effort to fill in every blank, or provide rules for every eventuality, we can cross into a line of making a rule for something that probably shouldn't be in the game in the first place.
Folca is an example of just such an element, and he (and his kind) will not be welcome in Pathfinder products in the future.
--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Inc.
PS: Due to the potential volatility of this topic, we’ll be temporarily closing this topic at 5:00 Pacific time today to allow our moderators to take their four-day Thanksgiving holiday in relative peace. We’ll open things again when we return to the office next week.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for speaking on this, Erik.
I was one of the people that spoke against changing it, and no, your statement doesn't come across as an act of cowardice or a betrayal. My only concern is that this opens the door for calls to edit out other material from past or future books.
While Paizo isn't "adult" or "mature" in the same sense that some other RPGs try to market themselves, it does often deal with topics that can provoke strong responses in some members of our community. Do you and the staff have plans to discuss where the hard line is with the community here via poll or forum, or otherwise delineate what you find comfortable putting out in the books/adventures versus what you'll be avoiding in the future?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make this brief:
Not removing Folca from the PDF isn't a great choice. Pathfinder is already widely pirated and extremely easily accessible in pirated formats (including brand new releases that have only gone out to subscribers). Removing Folca won't incentivize that any more than it already is. That makes "we don't want to make it a rare, pirated item" sort of a cop-out of responsibility.
Because what do you think will happen if Folca is removed from reprints? Either you care more about a non-issue that doesn't help fighting piracy, or you care about not profiting off of child abuse.
Yes, it takes a lot of resources to do layout again. Maybe if you hadn't put incentivized child abuse in the book in the first place, or if it had been caught in the several steps of development/editing/copyfitting you wouldn't have to make this choice.
The consequence of screwing up is fixing the mistake. Not just apologizing and continuing to draw in revenue off of a book that features incentivized abuse of children.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
...or you care about not profiting off of child abuse.
It's statements like this that do a disservice to everyone and lead to general antagonism on the internet. It's important to remember that no child is actually abused by the inclusion of folca in this book. Paizo is not profiting off the abuse of any child anymore than they're profiting off of murder when they include a murdering antagonist.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only concern is that this opens the door for calls to edit out other material from past or future books.
My concern as well. Is Paizo gonna go back and edit the Bogeyman (B3) now? If it starts here, where does it end?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
...or you care about not profiting off of child abuse.It's statements like this that do a disservice to everyone and lead to general antagonism on the internet. It's important to remember that no child is actually abused by the inclusion of floca in this book. Paizo is not profiting off the abuse of any child anymore than they're profiting off of murder when they include a murdering antagonist.
Yeah, I was looking for a way to express this thought. To the best of my knowledge, no one is buying this book nor is it being marketed off "oh boy, child abuse!" any more than they are mentioning any of the other sins/crimes/actions in the book.
Yes, the book might -- I stress might -- trigger some individuals who manage to see the few lines on Folca. Someone else may be triggered by something else in the book, which was the whole reason for the disclaimer that exists in the book. There is a lot in the book that is pertinent to survivors of all sorts of events, and I say this as someone who has survived a number of them.
As far as Paizo "fixing" the problem, which Erik indicated they would look at if the book gets another printing (which is not guaranteed), are we looking at passing that cost onto the consumer for the work hours involved? Will we need to put off new products in order to make this fix a reality?
They have apologized and are looking at the situation and how to improve in the future. Should they go back over all their material and remove things that might be problematic so they aren't profiting off of X?
Yeah, it is a bit hyperbolic, but that is what this line of accusation feels like when I read it.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to make this brief:
Not removing Folca from the PDF isn't a great choice. Pathfinder is already widely pirated and extremely easily accessible in pirated formats (including brand new releases that have only gone out to subscribers). Removing Folca won't incentivize that any more than it already is. That makes "we don't want to make it a rare, pirated item" sort of a cop-out of responsibility.
It's more than just that. We very likely WILL change the PDF, we're just not changing the PDF _right now_. For starters, I'm going to read the entire book again and make sure that there is nothing else that unintentionally toes the line of sexual violence against children (I don't _think_ there is, but I want to be certain). If we're going to change the file, I want to do it once, not several times after someone notices something else along these lines that should be cut at the same time.
Should have been more clear on that in my response. This is more a process issue than a concerns about piracy issue.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to be clear, the LINE here is sexual violence against children. I'm not tremendously concerned about rekindling unpleasant memories of the time their kid was burned on an altar to Moloch, but I am very concerned about making someone relive unpleasant memories of rape, especially with children.
There are LOTs of things I'd like to be able to "do over" as far as the last decade of Pathfinder is concerned, from the way some of our women characters are depicted (frankly even as recently as this book) to other sort of edgelord-style stuff, particularly early in the development of the brand.
Some of that stuff we "fix" organically, as we go. Sometimes it requires more aggressive action. Sexual violence against children fits into that latter category. Pretty much everything else, at least for me, fits into the former.
|
|
If I may, perhaps releasing a 2nd PDF for all those who own the original would solve both sides problems.
Have the original be renamed to be "OUTDATED", but otherwise untouched. And the 2nd PDF be the rightful corrected version.
Any future purchases would only give the 2nd PDF.
This allows people who bought the book already to retain what they have and have the proper version. Without the need for editting.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the recent furor, we know even better not to cross it in the future.
'Furor' here being a single thread with a few people complaining and just as many saying the complaining is unjustified.
Many of you are probably thinking, "what's the problem? I can handle this in my game."... Just because you think you can be responsible with this type of content does not mean that every GM can.
Can't this be said with the entire Book of the Damned?
Much more importantly, the primary concern here is less the GM and more the player who randomly encounters these themes unwittingly, and finds him or herself reliving terrible memories of trauma during what is supposed to be a game people play for fun.
Can't this be said of the content in Horror Adventures? That's why you guys put the consent section in, right?
So are you going to remove all of this kind of content from your other published works? You going to go back and edit the Bogeyman from Bestiary 3? Are you gonna remove Unnatural Lust from Ultimate Magic? If this is where it starts, where does it end?
|
|
That'd be unprecedented. They don't do that with other errata'd books.If I may, perhaps releasing a 2nd PDF for all those who own the original would solve both sides problems.
Have the original be renamed to be "OUTDATED", but otherwise untouched. And the 2nd PDF be the rightful corrected version.
Any future purchases would only give the 2nd PDF.
This allows people who bought the book already to retain what they have and have the proper version. Without the need for editting.
My apologies. I only buy the physical books, so I am unaware of how they handle erratas.
Do they retroactively change the PDFs when they have an error?