| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna disagree on that last bit.
Same.
I'm used to Paizo adding rules subsytems to APs with different themes, like social combat and the like. Since the blurb for book 1 of AoE says they're adding "new rules designed to support the Agents of Edgewatch campaign!", those could very well be things involving investigations and non-violent conflict resolutions, trials, and things like that.
I'll wait until I see the book, I suppose.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I know you do.
We've been arguing about this for two years and we aren't gonna change each others minds.
I dont think the skill system is very good. I don't think the support is there to make a campaign that's mostly about talking fun on the basis of the rules. On the basis of me and my friends taking the piss out of things and having a bit of craic sure but not on the basis of anything the rules bring to the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the blurb for book 1 literally calls the players detectives...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, I really don’t care what Paizo does or what the AP says. I don’t plan on running it or even reading it much past a skim to see if I can steal some creative ideas for other campaigns. My commentary has been just as speculative as anyone else. I just find it odd that they jumped out right away with a very demonstrative statement about BLM, but it takes weeks (or longer since we haven’t seen it yet) to post any comments about the AP and how it’s content might related to recent real life events.
It really doesn’t matter what they publish, some people are going to complain about it. While some others are going to praise it. I don’t expect it to be any more or less well-received than anything else they release. In fact, I’m sure that regardless if you are a hard-core progressive or a white supremacist you will find things you like and things you don’t and can enjoy it in a way that supports your personal political bias.
The only thing I really have any interest in is Paizo’s response. The want to be viewed as an inclusive, progressive company so I’m waiting to see if they put their social image ahead of the business or vice versa. Another week has gone by with no statement by Paizo despite them saying “very soon.” That comment has almost become a caricature used for virtually everything they do whether it be errata, FAQ, OP issues, whatever. I’m not sure that they even know what ‘soon’ means given that some things have been ‘soon’ for more than two years.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, I really don’t care what Paizo does or what the AP says. I don’t plan on running it or even reading it much past a skim to see if I can steal some creative ideas for other campaigns. My commentary has been just as speculative as anyone else. I just find it odd that they jumped out right away with a very demonstrative statement about BLM, but it takes weeks (or longer since we haven’t seen it yet) to post any comments about the AP and how it’s content might related to recent real life events.
It really doesn’t matter what they publish, some people are going to complain about it. While some others are going to praise it. I don’t expect it to be any more or less well-received than anything else they release. In fact, I’m sure that regardless if you are a hard-core progressive or a white supremacist you will find things you like and things you don’t and can enjoy it in a way that supports your personal political bias.
The only thing I really have any interest in is Paizo’s response. The want to be viewed as an inclusive, progressive company so I’m waiting to see if they put their social image ahead of the business or vice versa. Another week has gone by with no statement by Paizo despite them saying “very soon.” That comment has almost become a caricature used for virtually everything they do whether it be errata, FAQ, OP issues, whatever. I’m not sure that they even know what ‘soon’ means given that some things have been ‘soon’ for more than two years.
You’re assuming the BLM statement was something they just posted off the top of their heads and not something they put time and thought into.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I really have any interest in is Paizo’s response. The want to be viewed as an inclusive, progressive company so I’m waiting to see if they put their social image ahead of the business or vice versa.
Pretty much this. The schadenfreude, as usual, comes from the contrast between the progressive branding exercise and the reactionary product which gives it the lie. This is a tension that has always existed in APs going back at least to Curse (possibly longer, I've not read Shackled City), is confirmed to continue to exist here, and will continue into the foreseeable future.
Please have no illusions that Paizo's actions (as a company - Mr. Sutter's actions as an independent freelancer are his own) will be guided by a priority other than profit. The calculation is, rather, short-term or long-term. Is securing short-term revenue necessary enough in this moment (when the economy's down in general and sales of physical books likely are too) to avoid long-term credibility damage to the brand and a contraction of the customer base?
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I really have any interest in is Paizo’s response. The want to be viewed as an inclusive, progressive company so I’m waiting to see if they put their social image ahead of the business or vice versa.Pretty much this. The schadenfreude, as usual, comes from the contrast between the progressive branding exercise and the reactionary product which gives it the lie. This is a tension that has always existed in APs going back at least to Curse (possibly longer, I've not read Shackled City), is confirmed to continue to exist here, and will continue into the foreseeable future.
Please have no illusions that Paizo's actions (as a company - Mr. Sutter's actions as an independent freelancer are his own) will be guided by a priority other than profit. The calculation is, rather, short-term or long-term. Is securing short-term revenue necessary enough in this moment (when the economy's down in general and sales of physical books likely are too) to avoid long-term credibility damage to the brand and a contraction of the customer base?
So you are expressing dissatisfaction with content going all the way back more than 10 years. So why are you actually here ? Honest question.
Do you actually buy and use any of paizo’s content ? You seem pretty anti any profit making private entity
Or is it a case of you like the rules but not the lore and adventures published alongside them?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please have no illusions that Paizo's actions will be guided by a priority other than profit.
To be fair, they are a for-profit business so if their practices routinely prioritize anything else ahead of profits they are not going to have long-term survival. However, it’s not a zero-sum equation. What we don’t know is how much of their plan focuses on the business (profit) vs their self-realized social responsibility. As a business, I don’t feel they have any obligation whatsoever to have a social presence. If they would not have made their BLM statement, it wouldn’t have changed my opinion of them one bit. OTOH, I’m glad to see their leadership expressed their support of the movement. I just don’t assume that statement represents all Paizo employees, just because the owner/CEO made a statement based on the personal beliefs.
I don’t think there is a right answer here. If they ignore profits in order to be socially responsible, it may be a bad business decision. If they decide to put profit before social responsibility, it may be a bad business decision. The best they can hope,for,is a mix of the two to maximize both. Good luck to them
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were me, and I know they aren’t, I wouldn’t have said I was going to comment. I would have just let the material speak for itself. Or I would have at least waited to comment when I actually had something meaningful to say. Taking the time to comment, but not actually say anything other than you will say something at some unknown future time is almost as bad as not saying anything at all. It’s not like saying you are going to say something will stop the rampant speculation-perhaps the opposite. It means there is something about the comment that you feel compelled to speak on. Perhaps like Mr Sutter the PtB at Paizo feel the content isn’t as “clean” as it could be and they need to supplement it with ways for players to avoid misunderstanding the intent.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree. I hope you can understand where the frustration that motivates that sentiment comes from, even if it isn't a helpful one.Sure, however the comment, "Can we gloat now?" Is extremely tone deaf from someone who stands on their soapbox quite often in regards these issues. Like they cared more about winning the argument, than the issues the argument was over. That's called performative allyship, and isn't a good look.from james l. sutter's twitter accountCan we gloat now?About what?
In the worst case scenario this is a very unfortunate story that delivers bad or mixed messages regarding the police. That's not something to celebrate.
There’s a degree of “everyone told us our concerns were hyperbole and now we have word from one of the writers that they were pretty much on the money.” Am I happy about it? Of course not. But a good chunk of this discussion has been people saying we were wrong to worry at all and there’s a bitter kind of vindication in seeing this.
If we say there’s a problem, and the writer says there’s a problem, then maybe everyone else can also admit there might be a problem...
Certainly I do. But if you are going to proselytize being better, then it becomes hollow sentiment if you don't practice what you preach.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are holding our statement for Monday as releasing something on a Friday isn't usually a good idea, especially on a topic that has had as much discussion as this one has had.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I really have any interest in is Paizo’s response. The want to be viewed as an inclusive, progressive company so I’m waiting to see if they put their social image ahead of the business or vice versa.Pretty much this. The schadenfreude, as usual, comes from the contrast between the progressive branding exercise and the reactionary product which gives it the lie. This is a tension that has always existed in APs going back at least to Curse (possibly longer, I've not read Shackled City), is confirmed to continue to exist here, and will continue into the foreseeable future.
I'd just like to note, for all the people reading this thread, that from what I can tell zimmerwald1915's definition of 'reactionary' is best described as extremely expansive. I think this statement is sincerely true from their point of view, but given the extremity of their political views and definition of what is reactionary I do not think most other people would agree with most of their specific examples of 'reactionary products'.
Please have no illusions that Paizo's actions (as a company - Mr. Sutter's actions as an independent freelancer are his own) will be guided by a priority other than profit. The calculation is, rather, short-term or long-term. Is securing short-term revenue necessary enough in this moment (when the economy's down in general and sales of physical books likely are too) to avoid long-term credibility damage to the brand and a contraction of the customer base?
I think this is, frankly, false. Companies aren't intelligent creatures and don't make decisions on their own, the decisions are made by people within the company. Always. And while those people are certainly motivated in large part by profit (I mean, Paizo is a business and how these people put food on the table), I doubt it's very often the only motivation, and sometimes I'm sure it's not even the primary one.
You shouldn't generally rely on companies, especially large corporations, to make decisions based on anything but profit, but even the largest ones do very rarely make a decision largely based on some sort of principle, and the smaller they get the more common such behavior is. Paizo is not a very large company, as these things go.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if staff are on a "fire watch" rota, with different people assigned to check the thread every few hours to make sure it doesn't burst into flames.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a couple of ideas today about ways in which Paizo could support this AP, even after the modules are published and I wanted to share them here. Maybe, hopefully, they both have already been considered and integrated into the game, but if not, I think that free supplemental online content to go a long way to building a positive conversation and faith between the development team and concerned fans.
1. Please, please, please, saturate this AP with backgrounds where the PCs start off deeply invested in the poorest neighborhoods that they will be operating in as investigators. Give us player facing information about lots of local characters that our characters should know well and have strong relationships with before they even got selected to be members of the watch. Not every player will choose them, but they desperately need to be there to help make it clear that the expectation is that the PCs are not just doing their jobs, but are deeply committed to protecting the people in their community.
2. Along those lines, make sure there is an excess of back content of feats and skill feats tied to being invested in the community. Make them rare, but accessible to PCs that are taking the downtime in play to build relations with the community instead of crafting newer and bigger fancy weapons. Make this an AP with awesome options and maybe even slightly overpowered options compared to other content so that players don't feel like they need to have their character come from some far off place to fill out a worthwhile build in this game. Make sure that players want to tie their character growth to investing deeper into the whole community.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3. Perhaps release a free online GM supplement as well for helping to bridge any characters that are thrown into modules as generic "thieves" or "gang members" to give them connections, or a deliberate lack of connection to the local neighborhoods to help GMs that are interested in a more in-depth campaign have more options than the typical "this enemy fights to the death."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...y'know, we've talked a lot about the violence, but it just dawned on me the really horrific potential for charm magic in this context.
I really hope they addressed that, or else things can get really ugly, really quick.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe there's a call out in the Core Rulebook concerning enchantments and mind control and the like (is there one for torture as well? Can't remember off the top of my head), but yeah hopefully there's a statement about not roofieing and controlling people.
I wonder what the legal status of charm magic is in Absalom?
...
I'd say the issue about companies putting profit above all else is mostly a function of them being publicly traded, and therefore subject to the demands of their shareholders. As far as I can tell this doesn't apply to Paizo, so I trust them (and similarly-situated companies) to make ethical decisions much more than I would the larger corporate beasts afflicted with the shareholder-demanded insatiable need to grow, grow, grow.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
...y'know, we've talked a lot about the violence, but it just dawned on me the really horrific potential for charm magic in this context.
I really hope they addressed that, or else things can get really ugly, really quick.
This has been a problem since the beginning of D&D. Charm spells have almost always been a “screw consent” mechanic, and get incredibly disgusting when you think about them for very long. I understand and appreciate how this campaign does have some specific issues with it so maybe adding something about a legal code that makes evidence revealed through magical coercion inadmissible and treated the same as obtaining it through physical coercion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been a problem since the beginning of D&D. Charm spells have almost always been a “screw consent” mechanic.
There's a serious difference between "screw consent", and using it in a "these are not the droids you're looking for" kind of way. We've had older classes based on mind control like the Beguiler with no issues. It's a game.... It's a game... It's a game. Lol.
If you see it as a "screw consent" mechanic only, then it's not the rule set at fault, it likely is the people at your table and their sensitivities.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been a problem since the beginning of D&D. Charm spells have almost always been a “screw consent” mechanic, and get incredibly disgusting when you think about them for very long. I understand and appreciate how this campaign does have some specific issues with it so maybe adding something about a legal code that makes evidence revealed through magical coercion inadmissible and treated the same as obtaining it through physical coercion....y'know, we've talked a lot about the violence, but it just dawned on me the really horrific potential for charm magic in this context.
I really hope they addressed that, or else things can get really ugly, really quick.
A lot of the time, in play, it's a choice between Charm or other mind control magic and stabbing somebody with a sword. I don't find Charm magic used under those circumstances particularly problematic, or no more problematic than the violence, anyway (ie: it's fine if used in self defense or to remove legitimate threats in a war, or other similar circumstances).
If used in a non-violent situation, it's a lot like drugging someone, morally speaking. Which is to say, it's very rarely at all appropriate, though I can see it being morally permissible for civilians in some urgent kinds of interrogation or keeping yourself alive in a deep cover or spy type situation.
I do agree that it's a bit more problematic for police in non-combat situations, and particularly agree that any information gotten via enchantment magic should be inadmissible in a court of law to curtail some of the abuses that even Good aligned PCs might be tempted by.
|
|
In 1E, at least, charming achieved the same effect as a successful Diplomacy check: an improved disposition on the part of the target to the caster. If anything, it was more ethical to charm than to use Diplomacy, since at least a charm spell allowed a save to resist. Diplomacy was a d20 roll with modifiers against a flat, and fairly low, DC; if you invested much at all into the skill, you could make just about anyone well-disposed toward you, and they could not resist.
And that's not even getting into the absolutist/determinist framing that says any situation in a social context of domination and oppression renders free choices and free bargaining impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The police manipulating witnesses to get evidence is a crime. I would absolutely not want to live in a world where the police could just approach you on the street, cast a charm spell on you (especially when they are likely much higher level than your average citizen) and then use everything you say under enchantment as evidence in a court of law.
I can potentially see the fun in exploring the moral complexity of needing specific information to save a life, and considering breaking the law to do so, but the minimum consequences for doing so should be that the criminal walks free at the end, if not the investigator responsible for collecting the evidence that way experiences censure and penalty.
A legal investigative AP is the place where the players should walk into the campaign knowing that the "bad guys" (and I mean really really bad, not just criminalized poverty and destitution) are going to get away, a lot. That you arrest people, they go to court, and unless everything was done perfectly, the villain is back out on the street and you have to build your entire case again. If the AP was written to encourage the investigators to "make sure the job gets done" regardless of whether the laws get broken or not, then we have an unmitigated disaster on our hands.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".
Rysky - you called me out on another thread for garish gymnastics in making a point
What you have done above is taken something that was not said and also ignored the point where the person you are replying to clearly says that the do not mean or say “screw consent”.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to think there are going to be some pretty clear rules on magic and law enforcement
For example I feel like a later Harry Potter book tried to explain why they couldn’t just use the truth potion that was unveiled in book 4 on every suspect...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".
You're not getting what I'm saying or I'm not clear enough.
if one of your Player's does that, than the fault is your Player's or his/her play style.As a GM, I probably wouldn't have such a player at my table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been a problem since the beginning of D&D. Charm spells have almost always been a “screw consent” mechanic.
There's a serious difference between "screw consent", and using it in a "these are not the droids you're looking for" kind of way. We've had older classes based on mind control like the Beguiler with no issues. It's a game.... It's a game... It's a game. Lol.
If you see it as a "screw consent" mechanic only, then it's not the rule set at fault, it likely is the people at your table and their sensitivities.
You can unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your preference) use Enchantment magic for both things.
But I do agree this is mostly on the GM and Players to deal with that.
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".
It has everything to do with you and your players sensitivities, or preferences, or however you wish to call them.
You don't speak for everyone, and some people may enjoy such dark plot points in their campaigns. They're not wrong for doing so, just as you're not wrong for disliking it.
EDIT: Guh, didn't see this.
I would like to think there are going to be some pretty clear rules on magic and law enforcement
For example I feel like a later Harry Potter book tried to explain why they couldn’t just use the truth potion that was unveiled in book 4 on every suspect...
Yes, or how Shadowrun explains why the police don't use mind-reading magic and such.
Plus I should point out zone of truth is an Enchantment spell. They're not all just "Muahahaa mind whammy".
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In 1E, at least, charming achieved the same effect as a successful Diplomacy check: an improved disposition on the part of the target to the caster. If anything, it was more ethical to charm than to use Diplomacy, since at least a charm spell allowed a save to resist. Diplomacy was a d20 roll with modifiers against a flat, and fairly low, DC; if you invested much at all into the skill, you could make just about anyone well-disposed toward you, and they could not resist.
This is factually false. Let's look at the text on both:
From Diplomacy:
Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future.
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.
So Diplomacy is not mind control. It auto-fails at a variety of things that would violate the person it is being used on's principles or intentions. No amount of Diplomacy ever overcomes these limitations. You can beat their DC by 50 and they still have things they simply will not do.
Now let's look what Charm Person does aside from make the target Helpful.
The spell does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton, but it perceives your words and actions in the most favorable way. You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do. (Retries are not allowed.) An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing.
So it does two very important things:
#1: It distorts their perceptions so that they are almost incapable of believing you are in the wrong. That's...actually really skeevy when examined if used in any but very extreme situations. It can easily become 'gaslighting, the spell' if used for that.
#2: The thing about giving orders with a Charisma check? It has no similar prohibition to the one on Diplomacy about them being able to refuse orders that violate their principles. It only forbids suicidal or directly harmful orders, which is a much narrower category. This is rife with potential for abuse and is not just the same as a Diplomacy check.
That's mind control, folks.
Now, let's look at PF2:
PF2 maintains the language in Diplomacy that some requests are impossible. It also significantly weakens Charm, so that all it does is make the target Friendly or Helpful, and incapable of taking offensive acts against you.
That's still potentially problematic, but actually a lot less so. Higher level mind control remains really easy to abuse of course, but I'm actually a bit less worried about Charm abuses than I would be in PF1.
And that's not even getting into the absolutist/determinist framing that says any situation in a social context of domination and oppression renders free choices and free bargaining impossible.
I don't think discussing this is super productive in this forum, so I'm not going to do so.
|
|
...I'd say the issue about companies putting profit above all else is mostly a function of them being publicly traded, and therefore subject to the demands of their shareholders. As far as I can tell this doesn't apply to Paizo, so I trust them (and similarly-situated companies) to make ethical decisions much more than I would the larger corporate beasts afflicted with the shareholder-demanded insatiable need to grow, grow, grow.
No company wants to lose money and disappear.
And from my experience as a consultant working for many companies, more important than just making money is the company's culture and true "values". These correspond to what the company believes needs to be done and what must be avoided at all costs to keep on making money and thus keep on existing.
And because companies are made of people, these corporate cultures can be quite irrational, as opposed to the simple make more money.
Size does not really matter there. What matters most is what the company's people believe to be fundamental for their company.
Paizo has shown consistently that inclusivity is VERY important for them.
|
|
Now, let's look at PF2:
PF2 maintains the language in Diplomacy that some requests are impossible. It also significantly weakens Charm, so that all it does is make the target Friendly or Helpful, and incapable of taking offensive acts against you.
That's still potentially problematic, but actually a lot less so. Higher level mind control remains really easy to abuse of course, but I'm actually a bit less worried about Charm abuses than I would be in PF1.
It sounds as if the designers of PF2 were nice people who cared deeply about known PF1 issues with the Charm spell and decided to make it better ;-)
I don't want to go too far out into the weeds here, but I know these kinds of questions are why I am interested in this AP, despite the potential pit falls of it.
How does an average citizen know what kind of magic is being cast on them?
I would think it would be illegal for city guards to use spells that target other people at all unless there was a serious mitigating factor. Would you trust that the police officer is really casting calm emotions on you and not domination if you were in a witness interrogation room?
The charm spell absolutely did have a lot of the Yuk taken off of it, but if I found out that I now like a police officer because they cast a spell on me, and not because they took the time to talk to me rationally and make an impression, I would be furious and I would be protesting to remove that officer from the streets for sure. I hope that the general tone of the AP is that using magic out of convenience instead of absolute, life or death necessity, while investigating is harshly looked down upon if not codified as wrong.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".
Rysky - you called me out on another thread for garish gymnastics in making a point
What you have done above is taken something that was not said and also ignored the point where the person you are replying to clearly says that the do not mean or say “screw consent”.
We've had older classes based on mind control like the Beguiler with no issues. It's a game.... It's a game... It's a game. Lol.
The "it's just a game" defense and "sensitivities" didn't give that statement the best light, especially going over what it was talking about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
It has nothing to do with my or my player's "sensitivities".
You're not getting what I'm saying or I'm not clear enough.
if one of your Player's does that, than the fault is your Player's or his/her play style.
As a GM, I probably wouldn't have such a player at my table.
Cool, glad I misunderstood.
But that speaks to Charm/mind control being very dangerous things to have, and very easy to abuse.
|
|
I don't want to go too far out into the weeds here, but I know these kinds of questions are why I am interested in this AP, despite the potential pit falls of it.
How does an average citizen know what kind of magic is being cast on them?
They generally don't. It's explicitly the 'Recognize A Spell' activity to do so, and most people lack the Skills for at least three, if not all four, kinds of magic.
Charm is sometimes an exception to this, with a critical success on the Save providing instant knowledge of what was attempted.
I would think it would be illegal for city guards to use spells that target other people at all unless there was a serious mitigating factor. Would you trust that the police officer is really casting calm emotions on you and not domination if you were in a witness interrogation room?
I think they probably need to be allowed to cast spells while arresting people. Not being allowed to do so in an interrogation sounds entirely reasonable, though.
The charm spell absolutely did have a lot of the Yuk taken off of it, but if I found out that I now like a police officer because they cast a spell on me, and not because they took the time to talk to me rationally and make an impression, I would be furious and I would be protesting to remove that officer from the streets for sure. I hope that the general tone of the AP is that using magic out of convenience instead of absolute, life or death necessity, while investigating is harshly looked down upon if not codified as wrong.
I think most Divination magic is probably fine (with the exception of Mind Reading), but I do agree that using Enchantment magic should be pretty restricted outside of combat situations.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does an average citizen know what kind of magic is being cast on them?
They don't. And neither do most adventurers, for that matter, since spell identification on the fly depends on the caster's tradition, and each requires a different skill (Arcana, Nature, Occult or Religion), and it requires the Recognize Spell Feat.
So your average citizen is essentially hosed. They'll know a spell is being cast on them, but not much else (and if people are crafty, they won't even know a spell is being cast on them in the first place).
I do hope they address all this, not just for this AP. PF has always been horrendously lacking when it comes to describing how magic (of any kind) has been integrated into the more mundane aspects of life. Eberron it is not.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It has everything to do with you and your players sensitivities, or preferences, or however you wish to call them.
You don't speak for everyone, and some people may enjoy such dark plot points in their campaigns. They're not wrong for doing so, just as you're not wrong for disliking it.
If you as the GM or a player at the table spring a mind control and/or rape scenario on another character with out everyone's buy in that is 100% on you.
Consent is paramount, and just carte-blanche declaring some people like dark stuff doesn't make it all okay or permission to use it everywhere and anywhere. You're also on a semi-public forum with a multitude of people, this isn't me coming to your actual table to call you out.
Yes some people do, are those some people all the people at the table? It's your kink doesn't make it everyone's kink, nor does it mean such a topic shouldn't be treated carefully and seriously.