Is now a good time for Agents of Edgewatch? Is ever?

[Deadmanwalking]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

There's no reason the AP couldn't have allowed for either of those roles explicitly.

Does it not? (Serious question. I haven't read the player's guide, and probably never will since I don't plan to play any 2E games.)

It's not out yet. We have no idea.

[Kasoh]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one thing that I keep coming back to on AoE is that if the inspiration for the adventure is "let's let our players be a fantasy version of Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Sam Spade, Agatha Christie, Philip Marlowe, Thomas Magnum, Veronica Mars, Shawn Spencer, etc. etc. et al why was "the PCs are law enforcement officers" baked into the story since all of the above were private investigators, and not cops.

The "private detective" genre has a much richer vein of stories to mine from than the "police procedural" genre anyway.

Most likely, as the idea was developed, the initial premise was changed. These things happen in the creative process.

[Steve Geddes]

TwilightKnight wrote:

I really wish the AP would come out if for no other reason than to stop the wild speculation about what it might say and we can get down to the business of arguing where (not if) it might have some problematic text.

I think that's missing the point of Paizo's apology.

They didn't apologise for problematic text (in fact, Erik expressed confidence that the Editing and creative teams handled the material with care). His apology was for the premise of PCs-as-cops. I realise some people don't think that an apology was necessary, but irrespective - Erik's view is that is was and it's wrong to think that the apology somehow reflects on the specific content of the AP. It was the overall theme, not the specific way it was handled.

Paizo's view is that this was an inappropriate topic for an AP and it was wrong to have gone in this direction - it doesn't matter what's in it (according to them) they shouldn't have approved it and worse, they should have known not to approve it but didn't take the warnings they received sufficiently seriously.

[CorvusMask]

keftiu wrote:

Gotta say; “we dismissed peoples’ concerns” and then locking the comments on the post is a little bit of mixed messaging.

I dunno if offending post was posted while I was sleeping, but there was at least one super long post where poster ranted about really unemphatic inappropriate stuff

[Ixal]

Thebazilly wrote:

Pathfinder is generally a game about killing things and taking their stuff. This isn't a bad thing, usually. In fact, everyone here enjoys Pathfinder. But I'd guess that 75% of the system is built around combat and loot. That will necessarily shape the way you can interact with things in the system.

Playing an evil character may be uncomfortable for some people, but there is not a real-world rash of devil worshipers committing crimes against the populace. If there was, I probably wouldn't want to play that AP, either.

There's an extra level of distaste specifically because cops are involved that wouldn't be there otherwise. The real-world problems with policing are the same things that Pathfinder is built around, and that makes me deeply uncomfortable. Even if we discount the police violence that's happened recently (of which there are too many examples), we get into asset forfeiture, protecting the guys on your "side" no matter what, and the long legacy of policing issues being ignored by the majority.

It's not the concept of doing bad things, it's the concept of doing bad things while you're supposed to be protecting the people you're harming. It's that stacked on top of these issues existing right now and for far too long in our society. It's that playing a good cop is feeding into the copaganda problem.

The idea of swapping out the player characters' role to private investigators makes the AP a lot less distasteful to me.

Pirates exist in the real world too and are involved in murders and kidnappings. But still neither is playing as a pirate seen as problematic, its actually glorified in my eyes in many cases because of the still lingering pirate hype thanks to Pirates of the Caribbean.

The usual role of PCs in Pathfinder are the one of PMCs which, a couple of years in the past, was also considered a bad profession. But the media attention has moved on and so it is ok again apparently.

So why is the PCs being guards now a problem when them being things that are, or were once considered, much worse is ok?

That you feel that it would be better if the PC are private investigators even when they do the same things the guard PCs would do, which would make them vigilantes with even less authority to enforce anything, in the real world among other things called lynch mobs, and your use of the word "copaganda" makes me wonder how objective you are when talking about the police.

Lord Shark wrote:

If the PCs are members of the city guard in this AP, presumably they can hand prisoners over to NPC guards to haul off to prison. ("Book 'em, Danno.")

If killing enemies rather than letting them surrender is easier and more profitable, many players will choose that route. The only way to change that is to make surrender a more attractive option.

In my games, if the players accept an intelligent enemy's surrender, the enemy gives up their weapons, may pay a ransom and/or provide information, and then just vanishes from the story. I don't worry about where they go, or whether they'll come back looking for revenge -- you beat them, they leave, they're gone.

Yeah, this is unrealistic, but it also incentivizes the PCs to accept surrender, knowing that they won't have to drag prisoners through the rest of the dungeon.

In this AP yes, but I understood it as a general question so eventually you would get prisoners when you are in the middle of the wilderness and just started to go through a dungeon.

Having them just vanish is in my eye very unsatisfying because of how unrealistic it is as it pushes the game even more towards a video game setting where defeated enemies fade away and loot appears around them.

[Kasoh]

Ixal wrote:

your use of the word "copaganda" makes me wonder how objective you are when talking about the police.

The uptick in the usage of the word is interesting. In media, police used to be agents of derision and sources of comedy. Famously, the Keystone Cops showed bumbling and ineffectual officers who showed up in the last few minutes of a program to bumble their way around. The phrase has stuck around even if the behavior has not.

Hollywood started to use police as protagonists as a means of appeasing local police units who they needed the cooperation of to run security or gain access to equipment or whatever. So, somewhere along the lines, I think Dragnet is credited with a lot of it, cops depicted in television and film started to become about heroic cops, doing good and protecting and serving.

And its evolved since then.

So, calling it propaganda isn't wrong. Any depiction of cops as heroes makes them look good and helps them ignore the systemic problems inherent in the system due to the public perception of them perpetuated by the media. Its also true that sometimes you have a really good idea for a story that is uniquely suited for a police officer protagonist.

On the nature of propaganda, I feel you have the same issue when you decide to make media about any organization. But depictions of police in media are incredibly pervasive and leave lasting impressions on members of a population. When people think of an ideal police officer, they're most likely to think of a figure in media.

I, as a person, can understand that. Police in media might end up going the way of Western or Swashbuckler where you should realize that the depiction on screen is more fantasy than reality--but as long as police are a real force in people's lives is any depiction going to be harmful to fighting the systemic problems in policing?

Probably? I don't know. I'm just some guy on the internet who can't sleep. I enjoy stories about cops. Sometimes unironically. And I probably won't stop enjoying them. Or consuming them. And it can be difficult to square with realizing that you enjoy something that can be hurtful and harmful to other people. But that's something that people have to do and figure out how to handle at their level. Don't take life advice from strangers on an internet RPG message board.

[Ixal]

Kasoh wrote:

The uptick in the usage of the word is interesting. In media, police used to be agents of derision and sources of comedy. Famously, the Keystone Cops showed bumbling and ineffectual officers who showed up in the last few minutes of a program to bumble their way around. The phrase has stuck around even if the behavior has not.

Hollywood started to use police as protagonists as a means of appeasing local police units who they needed the cooperation of to run security or gain access to equipment or whatever. So, somewhere along the lines, I think Dragnet is credited with a lot of it, cops depicted in television and film started to become about heroic cops, doing good and protecting and serving.

And its evolved since then.

So, calling it propaganda isn't wrong. Any depiction of cops as heroes makes them look good and helps them ignore the systemic problems inherent in the system due to the public perception of them perpetuated by the media. Its also true that sometimes you have a really good idea for a story that is uniquely suited for a police officer protagonist.

On the nature of propaganda, I feel you have the same issue when you decide to make media about any organization. But depictions of police in media are incredibly pervasive and leave lasting impressions on members of a population. When people think of an ideal police officer, they're most likely to think of a figure in media.

I, as a person, can understand that. Police in media might end up going the way of Western or Swashbuckler where you should realize that the depiction on screen is more fantasy than reality--but as long as police are a real force in people's lives is any depiction going to be harmful to fighting the systemic problems in policing?

Probably? I don't know. I'm just some guy on the internet who can't sleep. I enjoy stories about cops. Sometimes unironically. And I probably won't stop...

And yet there are also enough depictions of corrupt and brutal cops in media. Strangely though I have the feeling a lot of people seem to believe them to be true even through they are as much extreme and distorted as the heroic cop.

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.
A side effect of all the heroic cop shows is also that people expect cops to be heroic by default and both not value it if they are or are already upset when a cop is not heroic but just normal.

Yet currently even mentioning this simple truth seems to cause a violent reaction by some people, even if its just in rhetoric. Which is probably also why Paizo published this excuse when none was needed. To appease those people who would otherwise accuse and attack Paizo to stand against them. I can understand why a business would do that, but still believe that appeasing such people by is wrong.

[Grankless]

The story of Adrian Schoolcraft is often brought up in the discussion of why there are "no good cops" in real life policing - the good cops get driven out or brutalized for daring to upend the power structure.

[Fumarole]

And Christopher Dorner.

[Steve Geddes]

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

[Ixal]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

[Steve Geddes]

Ixal wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

How representative do you think your personal experience is?

The last interaction I had with a cop was lovely. He pulled me over for speeding and was terribly apologetic that the statute in our state takes away his discretion and that he had to write me a ticket even though he’d rather let me off with a warning. We chatted about local life, he admired my car and he wished me safe travels. He didn’t say “Nice car...is it yours?” I had no fear for my safety when he pulled me over. He didn’t search it, run my registration, examine my license or check it was mechanically sound. In short, it was exactly the kind of interaction everyone should have (and it was exactly what I expected).

Sadly, that’s not the standard experience for many black people. Maybe they’re just unlucky, I’m the statistical norm and as you assert “most cops are just doing their job”. There is an alternative explanation though. You don’t want to question your assumptions? (How much “comparing of statistics” have you actually done? The stats I’ve seen don’t look rosy).

[Tallow]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

How representative do you think your personal experience is?

The last interaction I had with a cop was lovely. He pulled me over for speeding and was terribly apologetic that the statute in our state takes away his discretion and that he had to write me a ticket even though he’d rather let me off with a warning. We chatted about local life, he admired my car and he wished me safe travels. He didn’t say “Nice car...is it yours?” I had no fear for my safety when he pulled me over. He didn’t search it, run my registration, examine my license or check it was mechanically sound. In short, it was exactly the kind of interaction everyone should have (and it was exactly what I expected).

Sadly, that’s not the standard experience for many black people. Maybe they’re just unlucky, I’m the statistical norm and as you assert “most cops are just doing their job”. There is an alternative explanation though. You don’t want to question your assumptions? (How much “comparing of statistics” have you actually done? The stats I’ve seen don’t look rosy).

Let us also consider that guilt by association is a valid thing in the eye of perception. It might not get you landed behind bars, or legally be wrong (unless its directly assisting a crime), unless of course your association is with a demographic that is systemically policed against.

In this case, there is a solidarity among most police officers, that they remain silent. Its a culture of "no snitching". So if you see an associate doing something wrong, or even dangerous, and you don't speak up or stop it, aren't you complicit in that action? In this case, the idea that there are only a few bad cops and the majority are good... If the "good" cops aren't ousting the bad cops from their ranks (or at least doing their best to rehabilitate), then aren't they tacitly approving of the poor actions? And if they are tacitly approving of the bad cops, doesn't that in turn make them bad cops?

To bring us back to the conversation about why this seems to be such a hot-button topic:

Anything that through our common modern media has been romanticized, tends not to be a hot button topic. Pirates, medieval, sword & sorcery, etc. has been romanticized in literature and film for far longer than the Pirates of the Caribbean have been a thing. Its why those movies have been able to be popular. Sure, pirates were, by-and-large, horrible people. And medieval times were pretty awful to live in as far as quality of life (at least as far as we consider what is comfortable living.)

The reason why a police-centric theme is a hot-button topic, and a hard one to swallow, is because of how demonized police are in our society right now. Because its happening RIGHT NOW. Its also a situation in which our society hasn't figured out how exactly to deal with it yet. We are all kinda on this edge of a precipice wondering what our police force is going to look like in 10 years and whether its going to get cleaned up in how it treats BIPOC. And its affecting everyone, so its not something we can easily ignore and stick to the romanticized buddy cop and cop drama tropes we are all so familiar with from film and TV shows.

If we were in a world where piracy was a primary concern, playing a pirate centered game might not be real appealing.

So yes, a large reason why this particular AP's theme is unappealing to many, is because its a right now social issue with man, many nuanced variables that most of us are not equipped to parse, let alone do justice to portray positively without in some way being offensive.

[Deadmanwalking]

Kasoh wrote:

So, calling it propaganda isn't wrong. Any depiction of cops as heroes makes them look good and helps them ignore the systemic problems inherent in the system due to the public perception of them perpetuated by the media.

I agree with most of the rest of your post but have to disagree here. It's very possible to have one, or more, cop protagonists while acknowledging the systemic corruption and other unpleasantness in the police force as a whole. I don't think that's a story that helps the police cover up systemic problems, it also might not help reveal them, but it doesn't help cover them up.

Many police stories don't do this, portraying the police as overwhelmingly good, but it's entirely possible to do so.

[thejeff]

Ixal wrote:

Ruzza wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Steve Geddes wrote:

Ixal wrote:

Some cops really are like on the screen, both good and bad, most are just doing their job.

What makes you think that?

Personal experience not influenced by twitter and other social media which try to push public opinion in one direction or the other + common sense when comparing the statistics of incidents during police contacts with the total amount of police contacts each day.

Ah, anecdotal evidence. The best evidence.

What do you think the evidence that most/all cops are bad is?

This is generally the wrong way to think about it. While there are certainly bad cops and good cops and cops just doing their job, that's not really the point. The point is that the system in which they're doing their job is warped. From training and police force culture, to police unions, up through D.A.s and prosecutors, and the (private) prisons, the whole system is built to control and profit from minority populations. To replace more openly legal discrimination back in the segregation days.

Now, the impression you might get from social media is that cops are as likely to kill a black person on contact as not, which is obviously not true. Though it does happen on occasion, for no apparent reason. Mostly it's just more suspicion, more harassment, more likely to use more force and a whole array of well-honed tactics to justify it after the fact.

[Gorbacz]

I guess this essay by one of few black people in the gaming industry, Mike Pondsmith from R Talsorian game, the author of worryingly current Cyberpunk RPG, could open a white eyelid or two.

[Tallow]

Gorbacz wrote:

I guess this essay by one of few black people in the gaming industry, Mike Pondsmith from R Talsorian game, the author of worryingly current Cyberpunk RPG, could open a white eyelid or two.

I've been reading a lot of accounts like this from BIPOC people, some of whom I know personally and are friends of mine. Maybe an account like this from a well-respected gamer community icon will enlighten gamers who are still clinging to the "old way." I've also read the account he linked to before; the one from the ex-corrupt cop.

[Diego Valdez]

Removed a post and the reply. Don't make personal attacks.

[ThreeEyedSloth]

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

I don't think Paizo's internal management and communication policies are something they are under obligation to make public, nor that it is appropriate for us to inquire after that information; given a commitment to do better, I favour waiting to see that manifesting over pushing into precise details which might easily get sensitive on levels of individual privacy.

[ThreeEyedSloth]

Of course they aren't obligated. I never said that.

But if you're going to tell your customer service that you're "going to do better," it's not a weird question to ask how that will actually look. Because, again, it's not the first time.

[keftiu]

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

Seconding all of this, as hard as I can.

[Tallow]

Obligation? No. But when you admit to a particular, problematic style of mistake that leads to problematic content decisions, then it obviously leads to the question.

How are you planning to deal with that concern in the future?

They don't need to lay out an entire itinerary and such. But at least some sort of reaction or response ensuring they are working on steps to help would be nice.

[CorvusMask]

I honestly think that they can't know what they will do for sure yet.

Like, if couple of people in team says "Umm, I think this idea might have problems", if majority of people in team don't see the problem, its way too easy to be like "Yeah yeah, its alright". Even if they say "We will listen to the few people who bring up problems" its... Well let's face it, in team projects someone WILL always bring up problems with idea. So its really easy to blind side how big a problem is until its too late.

(this paragraph isn't even about offensiveness purely, thats just how group projects work in my experience ;p When in video game project only one person is like "Umm hey, this might really affect player experience negatively" if they aren't able to convince majority then the majority don't realize the problem until players complain about it and that one person is like "But I told you so year ago!")

They could say that they ask extra many sensitivity readers, focus groups or research more on the subject, but that still brings question of "How are you going to do this?" because I'm pretty sure they already do those things.

[Bill Dunn]

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

You might want to consider your own bias here. You've taken Erik's statement that some members of the staff raised concerns that didn't dissuade him at the time and made that into "not taken seriously or ignored". In other words, it looks to me like you've already rendered judgment when it may be that their objections didn't outweigh support from other staff members when making the decision to go forward a year ago.

[ThreeEyedSloth]

Bill Dunn wrote:

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is extremely important to me, and I can't continue to support Paizo-published adventures until this is addressed. Because I know this is not an isolated issue - I have spoken to other people that have worked for or contracted with Paizo over the last decade, and this issue has come up before.

So, what is going to change moving forward?

You might want to consider your own bias here. You've taken Erik's statement that some members of the staff raised concerns that didn't dissuade him at the time and made that into "not taken seriously or ignored". In other words, it looks to me like you've already rendered judgment when it may be that their objections didn't outweigh support from other staff members when making the decision to go forward a year ago.

I mean... what you're describing is not taking someone's concerns seriously. So yes, if a group of people outweighed someone's legitimate concerns, that means that everyone involved in that decision is complicit.

This is exactly what just happened at Cards Against Humanity. They created a toxic culture where legitimate concerns from Black employees were ignored by a majority, and they felt like they had no voice. And now the company is rightfully being raked over the coals over their horrible treatment of Black employees and women.

And while I'd say the corporate culture is different between somewhere like Paizo and CAH, it's still the same fundamental issue - if a minority feels that there are representation issues in the company's product and their concerns are not taken seriously, then something needs to seriously change.

[Windjammer]

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I understand why the blog post was locked, but I'm extremely disappointed that it was before Erik could reply to the question that I and several others raised.

If staff had raised concerns about potentially problematic material, but it was not taken seriously or ignored, then what steps are Paizo leadership doing to keep it from happening again in the future?

This is an eminently reasonable ask, and I do agree that it comes from a position of concern rather than entitlement. While it's fair to ask for additional clarification, I'd also hope we can extend good faith to the company based on what's already in the blog post. Concretely, Eric Mona's blog post helped to put two things in perspective.

1. Staff objections to the AP were not over the material as such--presumably because little, if any, had been written yet. Rather, objections seemed to have been over the "theme" of the AP as such. Those objections could have been very broad and principled, and it's entirely reasonable for a publisher to say "We hear you and we'll work with those reservations in mind--we just don't see fit to the kill the AP out of the gate." I'd be more worried if it turns out the reservations were pinpointed, articulate, and the execution of the actual AP runs entirely counter to them. But we actually don't know, so we don't know how much was ignored at the time. Personally, I'd give Paizo the benefit of doubt on this one.

2. The blog post mentions several steps that Paizo have already implemented, such as working with "sensitivity readers." Last I checked, it was a complaint on this board that this doesn't happen, or not happen nearly enough. He also indicated that changes were made to the directions given at, and actions taken by, AP line editors. Thirdly, the whole notion of a revised Player's Guide and potential other additional material speaks clearly to changes that are being made.

Where you're right is to say: what changes are made to help such issues proactively, as opposed to fix them under an umbrella of damage control? That's a fair question. Given the huge resonance the AP's theme had this month even before, and certainly after, the blog post went live, I'm quite confident that Paizo will do all they can to never have to go through this again. Staff had just come out of PaizoCon being online--a huge endeavor that likely consumed tons of staff hours--, customer service is behind several hundreds of emails, and the company is totally under weather from multiple pressure points (not to mention the larger economic situation with Covid). Because it takes so much more effort to repair a situation retroactively--eating further into unscheduled staff time etc.--,, I'm 100% confident Paizo will implement a huge range of measures going forward. Given all the factors I've just mentioned, I'd support them to do this slowly and carefully, and not pressurize them into announcing ad-hoc measures asap. We're better off in the long run if they do this carefully.

My larger worry is to hear that Lisa Stevens is phasing out as CEO. I obviously trust her appointment of a successor, but I regret that her personal degree of involvement, oversight, and moral leadership is waning at a time when the company has faced an unexpected turning point.

[zimmerwald1915]

ThreeEyedSloth wrote:

I mean... what you're describing is not taking someone's concerns seriously.

Not quite. One can take concerns seriously and not be swayed from one's present course, for instance because you think other considerations are more important. Taking a concern seriously only means that you spend real mental energy considering it, weighing pros and cons, and so on, rather than dismissing it out of hand or addressing it only pretextually. Changing course only because a concern is raised goes beyond taking it seriously. It becomes deference. Don't get me wrong: deference would be good to see. But it has its own proper name. It's also a clearer standard than "taking seriously," because it doesn't require examining mental state. You either go along, or you don't.

[PossibleCabbage]

Joana wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one thing that I keep coming back to on AoE is that if the inspiration for the adventure is "let's let our players be a fantasy version of Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, Sam Spade, Agatha Christie, Philip Marlowe, Thomas Magnum, Veronica Mars, Shawn Spencer, etc. etc. et al why was "the PCs are law enforcement officers" baked into the story since all of the above were private investigators, and not cops.

My guess is because PIs in stories tend to work alone (or sometimes with one clearly subordinate sidekick -- looking at you, Dr. Watson) whereas police procedurals do make room for a small group of people with distinct but complementary roles like the typical adventuring party.

One thing I'm curious about is whether you could radically reimagine AoE as "a group of concerned citizens with talents related to investigating malfeasance come together to form a community facing organization to promote the common good by maintaining order and promoting justice."

It seems like players might have greater interest in "how should this work in a post-police world" than "let's be cops" particularly since the enormous bulk of potential inspiration for these kinds of characters is in characters who are not actually police officers.

The best kind of lawful hero stories, after all, are the ones where you build something that works well and helps people.

[Fumarole]

"a group of concerned citizens with talents related to investigating malfeasance come together to form a community facing organization to promote the common good by maintaining order and promoting justice."

We call them Hellknights.

[Deadmanwalking]

Vigilante organizations, while certainly necessary in some circumstances, do not exactly have a better reputation than police forces in terms of abuses of their powers.

It's a less charged option right at the moment, but not a morally superior choice in any inherent way.

[zimmerwald1915]

Fumarole wrote:

"a group of concerned citizens with talents related to investigating malfeasance come together to form a community facing organization to promote the common good by maintaining order and promoting justice."

We call them Hellknights.

Or, depending on our mood, Children of Westcrown.

Which, to my view, illustrates that this is one of those foundational, constitutional issues with Pathfinder that stems from its design: it centers small groups of adventurers and in doing so makes it easy to engage in substitutionism of small groups for broad movements, to the point of erasing the latter. So even slogans that sound radically democratic turn out to mean something very different in practice. This is how we get revolutions that are actually restorations in Korvosa, Kasai, and Kintargo, and how we get parliamentarianism implemented by decree on a whim instead of in response to an effective demand in War for the Crown.

[PossibleCabbage]

If we did the frame of -

This district of Absalom was previously unsuitable for human (etc.) life, but now it's better so people are starting to move in. Government by Absalom is done district by district, so if a district wasn't previously significantly occupied it basically has no government, so let's build a good one from scratch.

Is there some reason that couldn't work? Like Kingmaker has some themes in common with this one and that AP was pretty popular.

[thejeff]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

Fumarole wrote:

"a group of concerned citizens with talents related to investigating malfeasance come together to form a community facing organization to promote the common good by maintaining order and promoting justice."

We call them Hellknights.

Or, depending on our mood, Children of Westcrown.

Which, to my view, illustrates that this is one of those foundational, constitutional issues with Pathfinder that stems from its design: it centers small groups of adventurers and in doing so makes it easy to engage in substitutionism of small groups for broad movements, to the point of erasing the latter. So even slogans that sound radically democratic turn out to mean something very different in practice. This is how we get revolutions that are actually restorations in Korvosa, Kasai, and Kintargo, and how we get parliamentarianism implemented by decree on a whim instead of in response to an effective demand in War for the Crown.

Which is basically inherent in the basic concept of roleplaying games: They center small groups of adventurers because they are played by small groups of players

[thejeff]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

If we did the frame of -

This district of Absalom was previously unsuitable for human (etc.) life, but now it's better so people are starting to move in. Government by Absalom is done district by district, so if a district wasn't previously significantly occupied it basically has no government, so let's build a good one from scratch.

Is there some reason that couldn't work? Like Kingmaker has some themes in common with this one and that AP was pretty popular.

It would be a very different AP though. More political and less policing.

[The Raven Black]

AoE undoubtedly uses the chain of command. There are higher ups the PCs answer to.

These could theoretically be a community or its representatives. But really in the world of Pathfinder, PCs become so powerful that they will become the de facto leaders answering to no one, or maybe answering to whoever they see fit. I am not sure which would be worse.

If they are part of an existing hierarchy, it likely has means to counter even high-level rogue agents.

[zimmerwald1915]

thejeff wrote:

Which is basically inherent in the basic concept of roleplaying games: They center small groups of adventurers because they are played by small groups of players

I don't think this is a given, but stems from the complete freedom afforded to Pathfinder players and their complete control over their PCs. One could imagine a game where the PC was a delegate accountable to an organization or constituency, and faced in-character ramifications for acting exactly as she pleased. This is exactly the opposite of games like Kingmaker, Hell's Rebels, or Ironfang Invasion, where the PCs are presumed to be in charge of their respective organizations, cannot be replaced except if they voluntarily retire, and are accountable to no one but themselves.

[thejeff]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Which is basically inherent in the basic concept of roleplaying games: They center small groups of adventurers because they are played by small groups of players

I don't think this is a given, but stems from the complete freedom afforded to Pathfinder players and their complete control over their PCs. One could imagine a game where the PC was a delegate accountable to an organization or constituency, and faced in-character ramifications for acting exactly as she pleased. This is exactly the opposite of games like Kingmaker, Hell's Rebels, or Ironfang Invasion, where the PCs are presumed to be in charge of their respective organizations, cannot be replaced except if they voluntarily retire, and are accountable to no one but themselves.

One could imagine that, but I'm not sure how good a game it would be: PCs need to have a lot of freedom of action because players in the game want to be making the decisions.

[Shisumo]

thejeff wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Which is basically inherent in the basic concept of roleplaying games: They center small groups of adventurers because they are played by small groups of players

I don't think this is a given, but stems from the complete freedom afforded to Pathfinder players and their complete control over their PCs. One could imagine a game where the PC was a delegate accountable to an organization or constituency, and faced in-character ramifications for acting exactly as she pleased. This is exactly the opposite of games like Kingmaker, Hell's Rebels, or Ironfang Invasion, where the PCs are presumed to be in charge of their respective organizations, cannot be replaced except if they voluntarily retire, and are accountable to no one but themselves.

One could imagine that, but I'm not sure how good a game it would be: PCs need to have a lot of freedom of action because players in the game want to be making the decisions.

Escapism needs to actually differ from reality in some sense in order to work, y'know?

[TwilightKnight]

Steve Geddes wrote:

TwilightKnight wrote:

I really wish the AP would come out if for no other reason than to stop the wild speculation about what it might say and we can get down to the business of arguing where (not if) it might have some problematic text.

I think that's missing the point of Paizo's apology

You are assuming that my comment had any relation to their statement. It didn’t. It was with respect to this ongoing thread and all the speculation about what the AP’s content will be, how police will be portrayed, and how PCs fit into it.

[zimmerwald1915]

Shisumo wrote:

thejeff wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Which is basically inherent in the basic concept of roleplaying games: They center small groups of adventurers because they are played by small groups of players

I don't think this is a given, but stems from the complete freedom afforded to Pathfinder players and their complete control over their PCs. One could imagine a game where the PC was a delegate accountable to an organization or constituency, and faced in-character ramifications for acting exactly as she pleased. This is exactly the opposite of games like Kingmaker, Hell's Rebels, or Ironfang Invasion, where the PCs are presumed to be in charge of their respective organizations, cannot be replaced except if they voluntarily retire, and are accountable to no one but themselves.

One could imagine that, but I'm not sure how good a game it would be: PCs need to have a lot of freedom of action because players in the game want to be making the decisions.

Escapism needs to actually differ from reality in some sense in order to work, y'know?

Escapism can get in the sea. We need epic RPGs.

[Errant Mercenary]

Late to the party.

The concept of finding the truth, doing what is right, empathic and moral, should be paramount. Law detectives are supposed to be the embodiment of facilitating these concepts so that our justice can sort it out.

That it is dysfunctional in some countries to varying degrees is our world. Pathfinder is something else.

Pathfinder is what you, at your table, make it out to be. Do not let bigotry and hate seep in. If it does, confront it, it might be ignorance. Communication and understanding above all.

Also, context. If you are not allowed to even touch on certain subjects regarding of concepts you are creating taboos. Coming to understand WHY something can be harmful will not be achieved if it we just make the conversation disappear.

Sometimes we know who the bad guys are because they...you know...do the bad things. This is OK, we know it is bad and we dont idolatrise it, we make things right or we ridicule it (humour, history's greatest equaliser).

CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, IF YOU TABOO CONCEPTS PEOPLE WILL NOT LEARN and you'll just create a more divided populace but that goes into a different topic.

[CrystalSeas]

Errant Mercenary wrote:

If you are not allowed to even touch on certain subjects regarding of concepts you are creating taboos. Coming to understand WHY something can be harmful will not be achieved if it we just make the conversation disappear.

[snip]
CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, IF YOU TABOO CONCEPTS PEOPLE WILL NOT LEARN and you'll just create a more divided populace but that goes into a different topic.

Going to strongly disagree that making taboo concepts the core of your story is educational or makes the world a better place.

Writing an adventure about rape doesn't teach people not to be rapists. writing an adventure about racism doesn't teach people not to be racists. And writing an adventure about police brutality doesn't make any police force less brutal.

I would be profoundly uncomfortable GMing or playing an adventure that made any of those topics the main activity of the PCs.

In fact, I'm even in favor of gaming companies coming right out and saying "We're not going to publish stories on these topics. They are not acceptable in our products." I'm in favor of making story lines like those taboo.

People can learn about the horrors of rape, racism, and police brutality without playing characters who engage in those activities.

[thejeff]

CrystalSeas wrote:

Errant Mercenary wrote:

If you are not allowed to even touch on certain subjects regarding of concepts you are creating taboos. Coming to understand WHY something can be harmful will not be achieved if it we just make the conversation disappear.

[snip]
CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT, IF YOU TABOO CONCEPTS PEOPLE WILL NOT LEARN and you'll just create a more divided populace but that goes into a different topic.

Going to strongly disagree that making taboo concepts the core of your story is educational or makes the world a better place.

Writing an adventure about rape doesn't teach people not to be rapists. writing an adventure about racism doesn't teach people not to be racists. And writing an adventure about police brutality doesn't make any police force less brutal.

I would be profoundly uncomfortable GMing or playing an adventure that made any of those topics the main activity of the PCs.

In fact, I'm even in favor of gaming companies coming right out and saying "We're not going to publish stories on these topics. They are not acceptable in our products." I'm in favor of making story lines like those taboo.

People can learn about the horrors of rape, racism, and police brutality without playing characters who engage in those activities.

But there's a difference between doing an AP playing police and one playing out police brutality - at least in a fantasy world.

Much like the difference between real pirates and fantasy pirates.

[CrystalSeas]

thejeff wrote:

But there's a difference between doing an AP playing police and one playing out police brutality - at least in a fantasy world.

Much like the difference between real pirates and fantasy pirates.

And writing a story that differentiates between the two is what Paizo seems to be struggling with at the moment.

From their blog post, they appear to believe that they didn't get it right.

[Deadmanwalking]

CrystalSeas wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But there's a difference between doing an AP playing police and one playing out police brutality - at least in a fantasy world.

Much like the difference between real pirates and fantasy pirates.

And writing a story that differentiates between the two is what Paizo seems to be struggling with at the moment.

From their blog post, they appear to believe that they didn't get it right.

That's actually not what they said in their apology. They said that maybe doing anything with police at all was a bad idea given police behavior in the US, not that they think the way they handled it was bad. It was an apology for having a 'PCs are cops' AP at all, not for the content beyond that.

The only indication that the actual handling of the issue was bad was James Sutter not being happy with how the chapter he wrote might be read, and that's a completely separate point and discussion from the official apology post from Paizo.

[CrystalSeas]

Fair point. Here's what they said

Erik Mona wrote:

As publisher, I was confident that we could steer well clear of egregious parallels to modern police violence and handle the material responsibly.

But there’s more to it than that. What I hadn't realized—no doubt a result of my own privilege—is that the very concept of police, the idea of in fact taking on the role of police, makes some members of the Paizo community deeply uncomfortable, no matter how deftly we might try to pull off the execution.