| 1 person 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 [I]some[/I[] people like dark stuff doesn't make it all okay or permission to use it everywhere and anywhere.
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.
And...where exactly did I say you shouldn't get consent for this kind of stuff? Or use it all the time? Oh wait, I know: nowhere.
My issue was mostly at you saying this:
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".
Because:
a) You don't get to declare what is and isn't fun for anyone, except yourself.
and
b) As I already said, it absolutely has to do with you and your player's sensitivities.
Because RPGs are all group activities, you should always speak to the group when it comes to...well, everything mostly, but especially stuff like this.
And if the whole group is ok with it and wants to partake, that's excellent. And if some people do and some don't, you either reach a compromise of some kind, or one of the sides leaves.
And everyone gets on with their lives.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And...where exactly did I say you shouldn't get consent for this kind of stuff? Or use it all the time? Oh wait, I know: nowhere.You did leave it out as you got in your "well some people do like that" retort.
My issue was mostly at you saying this:
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".
Because:
a) You don't get to declare what is and isn't fun for anyone, except yourself.
and
b) As I already said, it absolutely has to do with you and your player's sensitivities.
Because RPGs are all group activities, you should always speak to the group when it comes to...well, everything mostly, but especially stuff like this.
And if the whole group is ok with it and wants to partake, that's excellent. And if some people do and some don't, you either reach a compromise of some kind, or one of the sides leaves.
And everyone gets on with their lives.
You missed where that was in response to the post repeating over and over "it's a just a game" as a defense. Which I admit was based on a misunderstanding from my end of things, but that defense does get tossed around frequently for bad practices.
Interjecting a #notallgamers isn't really helping.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess all these discussions are related, from the existence of mind-control that can be used for horrifying things all the way to players acting as law enforcement in a potentially brutal and dark way. The question that seems to sit beneath it all, though, is what is Paizo's role in governing their customers' choices?
The CRB, if I recall correctly, talks about the potential evils of mind control (and locks off a number of the more dangerous spells behind rarity). But that doesn't mean players and GMs who don't care can't still use all that for grotesque purposes at their tables. Would it be the same with Edgewatch? No matter the way these things are written, no matter how sensitively Paizo addresses it in the player's guide and the AP itself... I just don't see how they are possibly not going to find customers who paint them in a nasty light.
It's obvious already that they are trying to build content that limits some of the creepier shades that this hobby has gotten flak for over the decades. They seem to be, in some ways, well ahead of their competition on their front. How far should they go, though? In a game built around tension, danger, evil, and conflict, I struggle to see a way they can craft a noncorruptible game source. Should they need to build safeguards into all their adventures to keep players from committing evil acts, or should that be a conversation at each table? With the hope of creating a wide, popular RPG that can reach many different kinds of players and GMs, is it too large of a space that can incidentally include those who would use their system to creep the hell out of their friends or poke at weird fantasies despite no one else at the table being quite that into piss?
I obviously have no answer to that, and I think it's a valid question to come back to frequently (and I have no doubt Paizo consider it all the time).
And...where exactly did I say you shouldn't get consent for this kind of stuff? Or use it all the time? Oh wait, I know: nowhere.You did leave it out as you got in your "well some people do like that" retort.My issue was mostly at you saying this:
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".
Because:
a) You don't get to declare what is and isn't fun for anyone, except yourself.
and
b) As I already said, it absolutely has to do with you and your player's sensitivities.
Because RPGs are all group activities, you should always speak to the group when it comes to...well, everything mostly, but especially stuff like this.
And if the whole group is ok with it and wants to partake, that's excellent. And if some people do and some don't, you either reach a compromise of some kind, or one of the sides leaves.
And everyone gets on with their lives.
You missed where that was in response to the post repeating over and over "it's a just a game" as a defense. Which I admit was based on a misunderstanding from my end of things, but that defense does get tossed around frequently for bad practices.
Interjecting a #notallgamers isn't really helping.
I left it out, as you say, because I like to think people already know that's how it works. On account of basically every single product coming out nowadays stating it very plainly. Especially Paizo products. And, when possible, I give people the benefit of the doubt.
Nor did I miss the fact you were responding to such a post. I just found your response worthy of a response of it's own, so I made one.
I mean, much like you, it is possible I misunderstood your intent, but your response to Sunderstone does read like you're saying "Using Charm to do horrible things is never fun, regardless of what I or my players may think".
If that wasn't your intent I do apologise for misinterpreting.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically as I see it, that's only fun if you're playing a kink game, it doesn't matter if you're playing a dark or gritty game or whatever phrase you want to put on how your game is for mature audiences, it's not something you just spring on people.
The problem with leaving it out is your post just came across as trying to get in a snippy #notallgamers, which is not a good look, rather than being genuine at pointing out different tables have different tolerances and interests.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it isn't so much that Paizo shouldn't let players do bad things as the city watch or as special investigators, it is that it should not let the world expect players acting as city watch or special investigators act with impunity and reward the decision to play that way. I think that is really what is at the root of a lot of people's concerns about this AP, that the expected modes of handling encounters, conflict and problem solving are going to be ways that glorify law enforcement doing things that are causing massive amounts of real world trauma.
When I express optimism about this AP, it is because I believe that will not be the case, that Paizo expects players to violently approach every investigation and potential suspect, and provide real in game consequences for doing so. If they have not done as good a job with that as I hope, I will be critical of the specific encounters and perhaps the overall AP design, but it will hopefully be a constructive criticism that shows how it could have been done better and help other players have the kind of experience with it that I am hoping to have, which is more of a thoughtful and immersive in world roleplaying experience than a hack and slash character power building exercise.
Magic and its usage is one of those things that is going to require even more discussion at the table, probably in session 0, to help create shared expectations and considerations.
Encounters are another one of those things because I think this is an AP that would be really nasty to see turned into a live stream if the point of the live stream was to crack jokes and have light hearted silly fun. It might be fun for some players to make it so, but that is exactly what I think has so many people vocalizing concerns about this AP. Media that looks for uncritical, light fun out of police beating people and bending the law to justify whatever they want to do, and then expect to be treated like heroes for doing so, is the exact opposite of the what I want to see being created. I don't think Agents of Edgewatch will inherently be that, but it might be the case that Paizo has to put a little more effort into making sure that is the case.
A lot of people were suggesting this might mean that the AP had to be canceled, but I think free supplemental material might show an even more commitment to doing better. Which goes to the suggestions I was making earlier.
A lot of this comes down to how much you want Absolam justice and law to follow modern American ideals (not practice, but theory).
The right to refuse to testify is a fairly modern idea. Is it something that fits in this fantasy world?
Putting magical means off the table during interrogation and trial doesn't really seem like the best approach to justice. Such things could be abused, but they could also be the best guards against abuse: Having all testimony under a Zone of Truth, for example. There might be practical problems, like high level people making their saves and thus being believed when they lie, for example, but theoretically, I don't see anything wrong with it.
This would of course apply to officers testifying, as well as witnesses and defendants.
I do agree with this. I mean if your society has access to them, why wouldn't you use spells like zone of truth or discern lies when interrogating suspects or witnesses. You basically eliminate most of the human element, ensuring perpetrators and victims are more easily. They shouldn't be your only tools, because they aren't infallible (particularly in 2E, which neutered spells something fierce), and they're not always available (because they're not exactly cantrips)*.
Stuff like using charm person to convince someone to confess to a crime (whether they committed it or not) would be terrible, but not just if you're the people with authority (be it city watch, or some other body). But as you said, it'd also heavily depend on how "modern" you want to make your City Watch act.
*And it should be pointed out spells, as always, require a spellcaster , which is another point of failure here. Although, theoretically, you could make a zone of truth trap, but that's going into a whole other rabbit hole...lets just say it's an incredibly nuanced issue, and I'm interested to see how Paizo handles it.
On the subject of magic and law, there is an AP where this has come up before. In Trial of the Beast, book 2 of the Carrion Crown Adventure Path, there is a trial scene that has a sidebar that mentions magical effects. In this example magic is mentioned as not being used except under "exceptional circumstances." And priests of Abadar and/or Pharasma are present continually using Detect Magic to ensure nobody else is using magic and lays out consequences for being caught using magic. The only noted exception to this is the ability to petition the court to cast Speak with Dead, and requires passing a Diplomacy check to get permission.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discern Lies is a Divination spell, which I'd assume are mostly allowed. Zone of Truth is Enchantment, but I'd expect to be an exception to any Enchantment bans.
Actual mind control (and even mind reading, to a lesser degree) are a whole different kettle of fish than those.
To allow or not allow is only part of the problem. There's a whole host of other considerations here before you can even think of using these spells in a court of law, like:
1) How much do we trust these spells?
2) How much do we trust the spellcaster?
3) Do we have anyone or anything that can cast them?
4) Can we afford it?
Point 1 and 2 are very important. Even in PF 1, zone of truth can be circumvented (for one, you can't even tell whether the person made the save); and while you can with discern lies, it can still be circumvented by either silence or because the spell can't "necessarily reveal diversions". In 2E it's an even bigger problem because discern lies is just a bonus to a Perception check and thus infinitely less useful.
2) is a problem in any setting. You can try what one of my players liked to call the "daisy chain of truth" by casting the spell on the person casting the spell, ad nauseam, but that just increases cost and decreases availability and etc.
It's a whole barrel of monkeys, for sure.
I'm not even sure that using charm person (or similar effects) to get someone to confess would be a bad thing, assuming there were other checks to ensure that the confession was true.
It’d be inadmissible, and the entire investigation, let alone trial would be tarnished with “they used magic to mess with my head and make me confess”.
This goes back to "How does Law in Absalom actually work?" Is it like our current, modern system, or like ye olde times? Somewhere in between?
If I cast charm person on someone inside a zone of truth and they answer with a confession, what do we do? How much do we trust the spell (either of them) here?
The truth of the matter is it'll be up to the adventure writers to set the guidelines.
The only other example we have, from Trial of the Beast, has this to say:
form of spells or magic items. Most courts (including this
one) retain a cleric of Abadar or Pharasma to ensure the
sanctity of the court with repeated castings of detect magic.
While magic such as discern lies, zone of truth, and charm
person is available to the court, these spells are not normally
used in court except under exceptional circumstances.
Lepidstadt, and the Palatinate of Vieland as a whole, prides
itself on its egalitarianism and feels such means of coercion
and divination have no place in a fair trial.
So there's precedent for them being allowed/disallowed depending on circumstances (though it should be pointed out the adventure assumes 1E spells, which are much more powerful and reliable than their 2E counterparts, and it may have been a way for the writers to forestall the use of such magic to make 80% of the adventure pointless).
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of magic and law, there is an AP where this has come up before. In Trial of the Beast, book 2 of the Carrion Crown Adventure Path, there is a trial scene that has a sidebar that mentions magical effects. In this example magic is mentioned as not being used except under "exceptional circumstances." And priests of Abadar and/or Pharasma are present continually using Detect Magic to ensure nobody else is using magic and lays out consequences for being caught using magic. The only noted exception to this is the ability to petition the court to cast Speak with Dead, and requires passing a Diplomacy check to get permission.
All that is specific to a specific court in Ustalav, rather than Absalom where AoE occurs, but it's a good indication that Paizo is aware of the issues and likely to present some guidelines.
I'm not even sure that using charm person (or similar effects) to get someone to confess would be a bad thing, assuming there were other checks to ensure that the confession was true.
Letting police and courts use magic to get confessions, then more magic to determine those confessions are true sets a really bad and dictatorial precedent. It effectively allows any court magician to dictate outcomes with no meaningful ability of others to effect said outcome.
That's fine if they're perfectly incorruptible, but the aren't. Nobody is.
This is a bit of a risk even with Zone of Truth alone, but that has the advantage that, like being under oath in real life, you can probably just refuse to testify in the first place.
It’d be inadmissible, and the entire investigation, let alone trial would be tarnished with “they used magic to mess with my head and make me confess”.
Only if that's how the law reads, which we have little evidence of one way or the other.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To allow or not allow is only part of the problem. There's a whole host of other considerations here before you can even think of using these spells in a court of law, like:
1) How much do we trust these spells?
2) How much do we trust the spellcaster?
3) Do we have anyone or anything that can cast them?
4) Can we afford it?Point 1 and 2 are very important. Even in PF 1, zone of truth can be circumvented (for one, you can't even tell whether the person made the save); and while you can with discern lies, it can still be circumvented by either silence or because the spell can't "necessarily reveal diversions". In 2E it's an even bigger problem because discern lies is just a bonus to a Perception check and thus infinitely less useful.
2) is a problem in any setting. You can try what one of my players liked to call the "daisy chain of truth" by casting the spell on the person casting the spell, ad nauseam, but that just increases cost and decreases availability and etc.
It's a whole barrel of monkeys, for sure.
My own thought is that, as of PF2, Discern Lies is just a buff spell, and thus totally fine to use, but likewise not evidence for anything any more than anyone who's good at spotting lies thinking that person is lying.
Zone of Truth is more like being under oath in court, likely used in the same circumstances, and given that people can, in fact, resist it, probably taken only slightly more seriously.
For #3 and #4, many places won't have them, but AoE takes place in Absalom, one of the largest cities in the world. They definitely both have them, and can afford to use them at need (though likely only in important cases).
To allow or not allow is only part of the problem. There's a whole host of other considerations here before you can even think of using these spells in a court of law, like:
1) How much do we trust these spells?
2) How much do we trust the spellcaster?
3) Do we have anyone or anything that can cast them?
4) Can we afford it?Point 1 and 2 are very important. Even in PF 1, zone of truth can be circumvented (for one, you can't even tell whether the person made the save); and while you can with discern lies, it can still be circumvented by either silence or because the spell can't "necessarily reveal diversions". In 2E it's an even bigger problem because discern lies is just a bonus to a Perception check and thus infinitely less useful.
2) is a problem in any setting. You can try what one of my players liked to call the "daisy chain of truth" by casting the spell on the person casting the spell, ad nauseam, but that just increases cost and decreases availability and etc.
It's a whole barrel of monkeys, for sure.
My own thought is that, as of PF2, Discern Lies is just a buff spell, and thus totally fine to use, but likewise not evidence for anything any more than anyone who's good at spotting lies thinking that person is lying.
Zone of Truth is more like being under oath in court, likely used in the same circumstances, and given that people can, in fact, resist it, probably taken only slightly more seriously.
For #3 and #4, many places won't have them, but AoE takes place in Absalom, one of the largest cities in the world. They definitely both have them, and can afford to use them at need (though likely only in important cases).
Indeed. But with zone of truth you run into the issue of: what do you do if the person refuses to answer? Do we take it as an admission of guilt? Do we just take it as pleading the 5th?
I just find fascinating, and while I could read a whole book on "How Magic Work With Law for Dum Dums" (because I doubt I could parse anything remotely close to an actual legal document), I don't think we'll get that.
But I'd be pleasantly surprised if they do go a bit more in-depth than "they have them but they won't use them" (which is fine to keep the adventure moving but doesn't scratch my itch).
|
|
I think truth serum and lie detectors are not allowed RL. I think it is similar.
Really, much of what can be done through magic can be assessed through comparison with RL practices.
Charm to get me to stand down? Expect me to be angry afterwards, though I will likely prefer that to the bruises of being beaten into submission. Or not.
I mean having the PCs come to rely on means of magical evidence gathering and having that method be exploited to protect someone in a position of authority could be an interesting plot point, but there have probably been powerful casters in positions of legal authority before and this is probably what Aroden envisioned Law should be, so it’s not like the PCs will be the first in world to think of any of this stuff. Absolom legal codes have been around for a while and seen some things.
I hope the AP reflects that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think truth serum and lie detectors are not allowed RL. I think it is similar.
The big difference here is that neither of these actually work in real life. Zone of Truth doesn't always work, but is legitimately better than nothing...polygraphs and 'truth drugs' really aren't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that is specific to a specific court in Ustalav, rather than Absalom where AoE occurs, but it's a good indication that Paizo is aware of the issues and likely to present some guidelines.
In Absalom, you have the kludge available of "Aroden left some artifact around in the hall of justice that prevents any magical malfeasance" in a way you don't really have anywhere else.
Aroden was not good, but he was Lawful with a capital Lawful so it's consistent he might have taken steps to make sure things are above board.
|
Aroden was not good, but he was Lawful with a capital Lawful so it's consistent he might have taken steps to make sure things are above board.
"Lawful with a capital L" can imply an inquisitorial machine for generating convictions as much as or more than it implies a system that is designed to protect suspects' or defendants' rights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aroden was not good, but he was Lawful with a capital Lawful so it's consistent he might have taken steps to make sure things are above board."Lawful with a capital L" can imply an inquisitorial machine for generating convictions as much as or more than it implies a system that is designed to protect suspects' or defendants' rights.
Indeed, but we've seen a whole host of "things Aroden messed up pretty badly" of late so it would be appropriate for the authors of the setting to declare he did something right for once.
He's supposed to be a mixed bag, not a complete villain.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I thought this thread would largely go quiet until we hear Paizo's statement tomorrow, but I guess rampant speculation and theory-crafting is the "soupe du jour." Rather than a series of response posts, I'll just combine these into one. Forgive me for quoting multiple people in a single post—I know some people consider that bad forum etiquette.
In game if a character uses mind control to rape another character it's not a fun game.
IMO, the bold is the key to this item. If a character (ie player) is raping in the game, whether they use mind-control magic or other is irrelevant, then it is certainly a player issue and not a game issue. OTOH, if an NPC does it, then it is a game issue and falls squarely on the shoulders of the author and Paizo for allowing it through development.
There is also the possibility that the players actually want that sort of gritty "realism" in their game. Personally, I would not play in or run such a game, but I am not going to judge another player's interests. I mean Grand Theft Auto has had some pretty horrendous action, yet its one of the best selling games of all-time.
I would like to think there are going to be some pretty clear rules on magic and law enforcement
Do you really need that? Oh, I expect there will be some guidelines on how Paizo thinks you should address these potentially insensitive issues, but even they generally agree that its your game and you run it however you want. If you don't want to allow certain things, then don't. You don't really need Paizo to tell you how to run your game. OTOH, if the group wants to deal with issues like charm being used to force a confession, then it really doesn't matter what Paizo writes in their guide, the GM/players are gonna do it anyway.
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.
I think the main thing you (or some others) are missing is that we (at least I think the general "we") are not talking about it being mandatory that all groups accept these "insensitivities" rather that some groups will want to pursue them and we do not have the authority to tell them they can't. Just like they don't have the authority to say we have to accept them as part of our games.
I also think that most of us agree that Paizo should not encourage these themes, though they also shouldn't go to far to suggest you cannot use them either. One of the greatest things about RPGs is that we can do whatever we want within the scope of our games.
Consent is paramount
I think most would agree. Ignoring PFS for moment since its a "special" case campaign, in a home game you generally know your players and vice versa. You probably have a fairly good idea of what everyone tolerates and what they don't. While playing with strangers is possible, it is certainly the exception. If someone is an arachnophobia, you probably know it and wouldn't use those in your game. If someone has a PTSD-related issue, you would likely be sensitive to it. The alternative of course is the play/s would leave your group.
It’d be inadmissible, and the entire investigation, let alone trial would be tarnished with “they used magic to mess with my head and make me confess”.
That might be true in today's Western-European "enlightened" reality, but that does not mean it is universally true in the game. Hell, in real life police often use coercive tactics that elicit false confessions and in some countries the accused does not have the protections of the law and are unjustly punished all the time. So, while in an ideal situation charm magic would not be admissible, in a fantasy game, that falls to the GM's judgement.
Generally, I find way too much attempt to create an equivalence between 21st century morality and a <enter period here> fantasy world. If you want that type of game, fine, just stop making it sound like another group is BadWrongFun if they incorporate things you don't like in their game. The only point that matters is what Paizo has written into the AP and what aspects they encourage. Would it be "bad" for them to have corrupt law enforcement using charm to elicit false confessions or violence? Some would say yes, but if they are presented as the antagonists opposing the PCs, then its really no different than a dragon indiscriminately killing townsfolk that the PCs need to hunt down.
I think we all agree that it would be bad if the point of the AP was to encourage PCs to be corrupt police, but do we really think that is going to be what they publish? Given their history, I seriously doubt it. However, it is certainly possible that some corrupt components of the law enforcement the PCs are associated with might encourage them to participate in such activities or at least cover for those that do. Sounds like an ideal antagonist—something all adventures need.
I just think we need to relax a little and wait to see what Paizo has to say about this AP. Its only one day away and could dispel most, if not all the "sky is falling" speculation. Even those of us who currently have little to no interest in running this AP might be surprised by their commentary and inspired to run it...or maybe we'll be discouraged and run, not walk, away from it. YMMV
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s a lot there so I’m just gonna focus on this bit,
Generally, I find way too much attempt to create an equivalence between 21st century morality and a <enter period here> fantasy world.
Golarion isn’t a period setting, it’s not the dark ages, it’s not the medieval, it’s its own thing, and I’d argue not backwards in relation to real life earth, the opposite even (and that’s without getting in to what people think they know about Medieval and the Dark Ages is wrong and is just a shoddy attempt to justify their choices).
If you want that type of game, fine, just stop making it sound like another group is BadWrongFun if they incorporate things you don't like in their game.
Again that depends on the why and how, are you including racism and rape in a fantasy setting to be more “realistic” (whatever the f&@+ that means in relation to a fantasy setting not connected to Earth)? Then yeah you are doing a badwrongfun. If your whole group agrees with it, good for you. I don’t want anything to do with any of you.
If you add it in such a way to highlight certain evil aspects of characters to paint a picture of a villain and don’t distress your players in doing so then that’s a different story.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. The concept that this is the "cop AP" pretty much originated in this thread. I think it is maybe a bit of disingenuous framing.Is there also not a bit of a false equivalency going on in this discussion as well?
Medieval/Early Modern City Watch ≠ Modern Day United States Police Force
Sure it is a close parallel and there is a lot of similar terms being used
I feel compelled to point out that Agents of Edgewatch was described as "a "cops and robbers" story set in urban Absalom" in the GenCon 2019 blog post that recapped the various announcements of upcoming products, including this AP.
Saying it has only been described as a cop AP for less than a month seems like a stretch, although it is fair to say the description of CSI Absolom was more prevalent early on. That exact phrase was used by Lisa Stevens at least once, though she was not alone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Golarion should be significantly more socially advanced than earth in a lot of ways.
Remember that Azlant and Thassilon were basically "science fiction future" civilizations that were destroyed in an apocalypse, which happened like 10,000 years before the present.
10,000 years ago on Earth agriculture was just getting established, but Golarion has some accurate records (and at least one contiguous culture) that date back that far. Golarion is medieval in a lot of ways, but you can say that technological progress was held back by "magic exists" in a way that wouldn't necessarily impede societal progress.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
yeah you are doing a badwrongfun
Those are still just YOUR perception of THEIR game. I am not judging what is right vs wrong or the GoodRightFun vs BadWrongFun of someone else’s game. We make a presumption that all the players in a campaign are consenting participants. If the story goes to an uncomfortable place, you express your feelings, and if they are ignored, you leave the game. Simple. If OTOH you continue to participate, well then you really don’t have that strong a feeling against it. Just because you explore “gritty” topics in your fantasy game does not mean you are going to go out and perform similar activities in your life.
The only important issue is how Paizo presents the publication. As the framers of the story, if they encourage those topics then they would be suggesting everyone’s game should be played that way and That would be bad.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion isn’t a period setting, it’s not the dark ages, it’s not the medieval, it’s its own thing...
Like it or not, the setting is whatever the players decide it is. You can easily play up certain themes over others such that it plays more like a classical medieval game, or dark ages, or renaissance, whatever. Though I admit most of the perceptions are actually based in sword and sorcery fantasy as projected in film and on TV. So someone’s perception of what a period is may be based more on that than actually historical reference. Though it doesn’t really matter because the beauty of fantasy games is you can do whatever you want regardless of what other people say about it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, much of the world is still feudal or imperial or at least some vague form of monarchism. Democracy or any real self-governance is rare. I'm not quite sure how to describe Absalom's form of government, but it doesn't seem particularly representative of the people.
Absalom's government is explicitly not representative of the people. Membership in the upper house is dependent upon a property qualification, albeit that property qualification is possession of a specific magical artifact rather than the more familiar form of either land acreage or tax paid annually. The lower house consists of delegates from the districts, subject towns, and the countryside, but can be packed by the upper house with an unlimited number of additional members (whom the wiki notes are traditionally picked from "prominent families") to drown them out. The upper and lower house deliberate together, except that the upper house can reserve a decision to itself alone. High offices of state are reserved to members of the upper house while less-respected positions are doled out to clients in the lower house; however, all ministers are responsible to the primarch and not to the council.
This is technically a republican form of government, but because the council is so unrepresentative and the primarch is so powerful, the republicanism is highly exclusive and heavily favors the rich (small wonder this society was susceptible to the post-Age of Enthronement wave of reaction that saw a surge in slaveholding all around the Inner Sea and didn't give up the practice until after the most recent revolutionary wave). I'd compare it to a renaissance Italian commune like Florence or Venice, in intent if not in structure. It should really be more unitary than it is. The federal division of the city into semi-autonomous boroughs is simply not warranted by its population, given the technology/magic available. But that's a problem with the whole setting. Most cities on Golarion could stand to have their populations increased by an order of magnitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cornucopias were retconned, they no longer exist, as I understand it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Including bigotry in fictional setting doesn't make author to be bigot, but insisting that setting HAS to be bigoted or that including it somehow makes setting inherently better is very suspicious :p
Like let's face it, decision to include bigotry (whether its systematic or individual) in story comes down to one of two things: Either its there because story is about discrimination or its there to make setting a nasty place to live in. Any claims about "darkness", "grittiness" or "realism" is just them trying to justify why setting being horrible place is good thing even though they treat bigotry as window dressing story doesn't focus on :P Its kinda same thing lot similar settings do with slavery(regardless of whether its debt, bigotry, conquest, caste or criminal punishment based), they treat it as window dressing while not focusing on lives of slaves at all or how horrible practice it is.
I really hate it when people try to claim that bigotry is needed for setting to be "gritty" :p You can have setting be gritty without making player hate every npc in your campaign or trying to play casual racism as "okay".
(...Am I only one who kinda finds it weird how much fantasy fans love dwarves and elves hating each other and playing it up in games? :p Like I get it that fantasy creatures hating each other is far from real life, but it kinda feels like they are treating racism as part of the fun or like its a character quirk. I can only really understand as part of "crosses the line multiple times" humor, but lot of people don't seem to register it as even offensive.)
Anyhoo, why DID they retcon that cornucopias had lost their power anyway? Like why did writers suddenly decide that was stupid?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cornucopias were retconned, they no longer exist, as I understand it.
They haven't. They were just Aroden-powered (at least they were recently), and after his death their magic has run out.
So they exist, they just don't work any more. Whether that changes their legal/ceremonial uses waits to be seen.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether that changes their legal/ceremonial uses waits to be seen.I don't see why it should. Even when they retained their magic, they only did anything magically during sieges and remained inert at all other times.
Sure, but I'd imagine that their owners used the 'we feed you during sieges' as part of the justification for their political power. They likely didn't buy that entirely themselves, but it was good propaganda at the time. The consequence of justifying their political power that way is that when the magical power of the cornucopias fails, to some degree so does acceptance of their rule.
Now, they could have compensated for that in some way, and even if they hadn't the common people being dissatisfied does not necessarily result in changes of governance, but it's one possible factor leading in that direction.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but I'd imagine that their owners used the 'we feed you during sieges' as part of the justification for their political power.They didn't. The cornucopias' function was a closely-guarded secret.
So, I just did some research, and no it wasn't. It was (and presumably is) technically illegal to talk about, but is specifically noted as an 'open secret' in the Guide to Absalom. It being even something of a secret does make public knowledge of their failure less likely, but calling it 'closely-guarded' is quite a stretch.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We should try and remember that Golarion doesn't have to be any more than what we make it. Paizo gave us their take on it, we tailor it to our groups tastes, etc.
too much "Kentucky fried" nonsense about what Armchair designers think Golarion should be.
As for 'gritty", I like lower to mid level magic in my setting with a world somewhere between Conan the Barbarian and classic Greyhawk or Goodman Games Aerith. Definitely not Forgotten Realms with their superhero NPCs.
I like the adult visceral violence of such a world without torture p0rn. Hook Mountain is as far as I go on some subjects and even there I'd probably leave out some of the Graul family dynamic in my game.
Furthermore, my descendants were victims of Nazi Germany, I still might play up Cheliax in a similar way, with gestapo running around arresting people, public executions for worshipping chaotic deities, etc. I think it's fun to move about Cheliax with heroes undermining a Diabolical government and creating a resistance, etc. If Cheliax is forever changed, so be it. It's my version of Golarion.
I don't have to go into specific graphic detail about these things but the point is that it's fantasy, it doesn't have to be your fantasy, it's just a role-playing game.
Every table is different. Hope I make sense with my point as I'm currently pressed for time.
Bottom line... Paizo should do this or that or be more sensitive, etc? No. Buy what you want, tweak what you want, kinda simple.
There are too many people offended by too many things or subjects. It's impossible to please everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but I'd imagine that their owners used the 'we feed you during sieges' as part of the justification for their political power.They didn't. The cornucopias' function was a closely-guarded secret.
No, it wasn't. A Guide to Absalom is very clear on this matter:
"The 12 cornucopias of Absalom are open secrets. Discussion
of their appearance, location, or function is banned by
law, but hundreds of people have to be aware of exactly
those things to enforce the laws." - A Guide to Absalom, page 60 (emphasis mine).
Many people know what they are and what they do, it's just not openly talked about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but I'd imagine that their owners used the 'we feed you during sieges' as part of the justification for their political power.They didn't. The cornucopias' function was a closely-guarded secret.No, it wasn't. A Guide to Absalom is very clear on this matter:
"The 12 cornucopias of Absalom are open secrets. Discussion
of their appearance, location, or function is banned by
law, but hundreds of people have to be aware of exactly
those things to enforce the laws." - A Guide to Absalom, page 60 (emphasis mine).Many people know what they are and what they do, it's just not openly talked about.
"Hundreds" of people in a city of more than 300,000 isn't that many. It's less than a third of a percent.