|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue is that the number of acceptable violent (not to mention fatal!) combat encounters for Good-aligned police officers should, ideally be, much lower than that of the "adventurer" in almost any other AP.I want to know how they're going to make the mechanics of their tactical combat RPG reward peaceful solutionsOh I don’t know, perhaps how they’ve been doing so this whole f!@@ing time?
Does every encounter published have non-violent/diplomatic alternative solutions to them? No. But to act as if they’ve never done so is false and arguing in bad faith.
Speaking of faith, do I have faith they’re going to handle this perfectly? No.
But I’m also not handling them or players with kid gloves and outright declaring it impossible.
I agree.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, that's just a scheme off the top of my head and with numbers chosen completely arbitrarily. Consulting the people involved instead of looking at them as either collateral damage or undifferentiated from the monsters who prey on them, and incorporating their ideas would (if they were real), likely yield a superior plan. I am also not an urban planning expert, but I'm reluctant to recommend their advice since the actual slum clearance plans that have come down the pike over the last 50 years have been quite a lot crueler and more developer-friendly than this.
Leaving aside the question of whether a corporation or the government should be involved in this (mostly, I think which doesn't matter much, either can be good or bad depending on circumstances), who says they didn't do the rest of this?
I mean, the blurb says nothing about how the Precipice Quarter was reopened or what happened to people already there. It says nothing about this because it's a one paragraph blurb designed to explain the adventure itself, not the detailed backstory of the area. But what you describe in terms of the treatment of those already living there is possible (at least, it is for crimes short of murder...I'm skeptical they'd offer amnesty on murder), so why are you assuming it didn't happen?
Frankly, the fact that you're assuming something like that says more about your own biases than it does about the adventure or setting themselves.
Now, I don't know if that's what happened to the Precipice Quarter (indeed, I don't think it's clear there were any people who survived there more than a week or so, and one week hardly makes you a resident), but you're going on a big condemnatory spiel here based on an entirely unsupported assumption that, assuming there were residents, the residents were forced out with no compensation or input, and I thought that needed to be pointed out.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're carrying an awful lot of water for this concept Rysky - the themes at play here are what they are and echo real life issues.
I don't pretend to have the answers for gentrification or policing but I do know that Pathfinders conflict resolution mechanisms make this particular story one that doesn't feel good or fun.
It feels gross to be put in that role.
|
|
I mean, the blurb says nothing about how the Precipice Quarter was reopened or what happened to people already there. It says nothing about this because it's a one paragraph blurb designed to explain the adventure itself, not the detailed backstory of the area. But what you describe in terms of the treatment of those already living there is possible (at least, it is for crimes short of murder...I'm skeptical they'd offer amnesty on murder), so why are you assuming it didn't happen?Frankly, the fact that you're assuming something like that says more about your own biases than it does about the adventure or setting themselves.
Ok fair enough. Let's put it this way - do you really see it as a large unreasonable jump from "only criminals and vagabonds live here" to "now that it's re opened you have to police the criminals and vagabonds" that the so called criminals and vagabonds would be the same people?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't pretend to have the answers for gentrification or policing but I do know that Pathfinders conflict resolution mechanisms make this particular story one that doesn't feel good or fun.
This makes really big assumptions about 'Pathfinder conflict resolution methods'. I definitely agree that those used in many APs would be bad, and have commented on the fact, but I don't think that's a real limitation of the game system.
Combat needs to be a fair portion of the game, it's true, but it doesn't need to be the only one and it doesn't need to be lethal combat for the most part.
In short, I think that an AP like this will need to focus on very different conflict resolution methods than most do, but don't think that's impossible by any means.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, I mean things like "it's okay to kill that criminal, he is literally a vampire and thus inherently a danger" gets into some really problematic territory. Cops get away with murder all the time by declaring how intimidated they were by the hulking muscles of like a 12 year old black kid.
It's okay for regular adventurers to just kill the neighborhood vampire, but not really okay for cop-adventurers.
Wait, what? How does a vampire and a 12 year old black kid have anything in common at all?? Are you thinking about black children when reading/watching Bram Stoker's Dracula? What is this I don't even
Also, Discworld had its own take on the undead, designed to subvert the tropes; Golarion's take is that undead explicitly have no humanity left, with few exceptions like ghosts spelled out. AND THAT IS FINE AS A CREATIVE DECISION AND HAS NO BEARING ON REAL-LIFE HUMANS BECAUSE UNDEAD DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok fair enough. Let's put it this way - do you really see it as a large unreasonable jump from "only criminals and vagabonds live here" to "now that it's re opened you have to police the criminals and vagabonds" that the so called criminals and vagabonds would be the same people?
That's not what it says, though. It says
"...long a ruined haven of monsters and criminals."
and then:
"Soon after taking on the new beat, the detectives learn that the fair has attracted not only cutpurses and vandals, but also poisoners, ransomers, and even a sadistic serial murderer"
That second list is not 'criminals' in general, it's several specific varieties of criminals, most of whom can't survive in a district with almost no people (as the nature of their crimes is such that they require victims with money and somewhere to spend such money), and, indeed, specifically says they are 'attracted' by the fair...heavily implying they weren't there before.
Which is not to say it couldn't be as you say, but it's a rather large assumption to say it 100% is that way.
The issue is that the number of acceptable violent (not to mention fatal!) combat encounters for Good-aligned police officers should, ideally be, much lower than that of the "adventurer" in almost any other AP.
I mostly agree with that, with a caveat that the kind of threats Absalom police sees is very different from the real world. E.g. it's totally fine to have lethal combat with bound outsiders to then capture their summoner alive. Outsiders do not actually exist and are not described as people with free will.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what? How does a vampire and a 12 year old black kid have anything in common at all?? Are you thinking about black children when reading/watching Bram Stoker's Dracula? What is this I don't even
Oh, they absolutely do have something in common. Both are considered 'acceptable targets'. The point of similarity is not in their behavior or appearance, but in how they are often viewed and treated by those who deal with them (in real life and fiction, respectively). Drawing parallels regarding 'shoot on sight' attitudes is thus entirely appropriate.
Also, Discworld had its own take on the undead, designed to subvert the tropes; Golarion's take is that undead explicitly have no humanity left, with few exceptions like ghosts spelled out. AND THAT IS FINE AS A CREATIVE DECISION AND HAS NO BEARING ON REAL-LIFE HUMANS BECAUSE UNDEAD DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
Actually, this is false for Golarion. Any intelligent undead have free will and can easily be non-Evil. We have canonical non-Evil Vampires, Mummies, and various other stuff as well as ghosts. Such undead are certainly rare, but nothing in the setting or rules prevents them.
Which means that, even as non-cop characters, killing intelligent undead on sight is really messed up and morally dubious. Of course, actual APs basically don't ever need to worry about this, as most of the Evil creatures in them do Evil stuff or attack you, easily justifying the use of force to stop them regardless of their species, and those that you don't see doing such things there's usually a diplomatic solution to.
But for cop characters, this is even more fraught with issues if you aren't very careful in how you handle it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have actual examples from Golarion sources for non-evil undead that are not ghosts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A vampire is not considered an acceptable target because he is one or looks like one. He is considered an acceptable target because he literally bleeds people dry and makes them into spawn. A vampire is not a race or identity, you can't tell a vampire by its looks. You tell them because of the trail of (un)dead victims.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have actual examples for non-evil undead that are not ghosts?
Me? Yes. There's a LN Vampire in the Kaer Maga book (he gets informed consent from those he feeds on...he has a harem of paid companions, specifically, who get a generous severance package when they leave), a LN Mummy in Dragon's Demand (worshiper of Irori, sits around being chill and guarding stuff), and a few other non-Evil undead in Undead Unleashed.
They're rare, but hardly nonexistent.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A vampire is not considered an acceptable target because he is one or looks like one. He is considered an acceptable target because he literally bleeds people dry and makes them into spawn. A vampire is not a race or identity, you can't tell a vampire by its looks. You tell them because of the trail of (un)dead victims.
Sure. But there are two things about that:
#1. Some people in the real world say similar things about black men. Not in detail, but stuff like 'they're all criminals'. Yes, the vampire thing is true in some universes...but that runs into 'unfortunate implications' territory real quick, as you could make the thing about black people true in a fictional universe as well.
Just having an 'always evil' group it's acceptable to kill on sight can get really problematic real quick, and the closer they are to human looking the worse it tends to be.
#2. Vampires in Golarion are not actually inevitably like this. Most are, but it isn't universal. It's thus much better to focus on the parts of the vampire's behavior that cause PCs to come after them than the whole 'it's a vampire' thing.
I mean, if they're killing people and creating more killers, that's super bad and you should stop them, but that would be just as true of a human necromancer doing the same things. In both cases, it's the behavior that's a reason to stop them, not their creature type.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhat more fraught, since even as cops killing people that are actively trying to kill you and/or others isn't really a problem. Even in real life.
Totally true.
It's when that threat is imagined and used as a justification for killing those who weren't a threat that it's a problem. On top of the routine harassment and unjustified force below the level of murder. That's in the PCs hands here though and while I wouldn't expect them to be entirely non-violent, I also wouldn't expect them to be murdering the cutpurses and vandals. The ransomers (read as kidnappers), perhaps, if they fight back, though that's a good opportunity for diplomacy to get the victims released safely. The sadistic serial murderer, most likely.
I mean, the cops should try and bring people in for trial whenever possible as they can always be mistaken. In real life, it isn't always possible, but in a game with the kind of abilities PCs possess it's much more doable even with 'hard targets'.
Which is to say, they should only kill anyone if they have no choice, and as PCs they will very often (if not quite always) have other options.
But if you find them by their trail of (un)dead victims, it's probably okay to stop them. And that's exactly the kind of vampire story I'd expect in a police AP.
Oh, totally. I was just noting that it's the trail of bodies, not the 'being a vampire' that justifies doing so.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok fair enough. Let's put it this way - do you really see it as a large unreasonable jump from "only criminals and vagabonds live here" to "now that it's re opened you have to police the criminals and vagabonds" that the so called criminals and vagabonds would be the same people?That's not what it says, though. It says
"...long a ruined haven of monsters and criminals."
and then:
"Soon after taking on the new beat, the detectives learn that the fair has attracted not only cutpurses and vandals, but also poisoners, ransomers, and even a sadistic serial murderer"
That second list is not 'criminals' in general, it's several specific varieties of criminals, most of whom can't survive in a district with almost no people (as the nature of their crimes is such that they require victims with money and somewhere to spend such money), and, indeed, specifically says they are 'attracted' by the fair...heavily implying they weren't there before.
Which is not to say it couldn't be as you say, but it's a rather large assumption to say it 100% is that way.
You're really bending over backwards here though to defend this and it's truly fascinating to me.
I also think that "no you see despite this adhering really well to real life themes and real life urban issues its ACTUALLY different and benign" is a pretty weak rebuttal.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're really bending over backwards here though to defend this and it's truly fascinating to me.
No, I'm not. I'm reading the words as written without making assumptions about what they mean.
In fact, I've said repeatedly that it could be exactly as problematic as you're claiming, and it could. My objection is to the assumption that it is, when that's really not confirmed at all.
I also think that "no you see despite this adhering really well to real life themes and real life urban issues its ACTUALLY different and benign" is a pretty weak rebuttal.
I honestly don't think taking what has been established as a truly empty and wrecked space where anyone who goes there has a 90% chance of death (an entirely reasonable interpretation of the Precipice Quarter based on what's actually written about it, though not the only one), and comparing that to eminent domain seizures of the disadvantaged or other unpleasant gentrification efforts in real life is entirely reasonable.
We've really had very little information on the Precipice Quarter thus far, and absolutely none on how 'reclaiming' it worked and thus making any assumptions of what it has been like or what form its restoration takes is deeply premature.
It could be problematic...or not. We don't know, and assuming either way based on a brief product blurb is really weird to me.
On top of it being brief, product blurbs in general are designed to sell products to people unfamiliar with the lore of the game, and are thus often very misleading in terms of details. Hell, one blurb refers to Aroden as 'the God of Prophecy' which is just straight up false. Basing your assumptions about major plot arc stuff on such a blurb makes no sense to me at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, what? How does a vampire and a 12 year old black kid have anything in common at all?? Are you thinking about black children when reading/watching Bram Stoker's Dracula? What is this I don't even
The point is when you enable the state to straight up murder people because "they are a danger" then you're opening up a can of worms because the state will find whatever excuse to call whomever "dangerous" in order to kill whomever they want to.
And the thing about "well, you can kill the vampire because they're evil" - being evil should not be a death sentence! There are tons of evil people living in Absalom, should they be rooted out and murdered?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but that runs into 'unfortunate implications' territory real quick, as you could make the thing about black people true in a fictional universe as well.
Well, yes, one who creates a fictional universe can create a universe where black people are all evil. I think drow would have been a much better example here than vampires, though. But until one does, why is it a problem when they actually haven't? (I know drow exist in Golarion but they were recolored purple specifically because purple people don't exist.)
Vampires in Golarion are not actually inevitably like this. Most are, but it isn't universal. It's thus much better to focus on the parts of the vampire's behavior that cause PCs to come after them than the whole 'it's a vampire' thing.
Okay let's go about it this way. Golarion is a kitchen sink made of various tropes. Kaer Maga is all about being libertarian and being haven for creatures unique for their type. I am not entirely sure classifying waged blood slavery as LN was a good choice - fine while there is supply, but what if said vampire runs out of money or willing donors? The whole thing about vampires is that they are not in any way able to resist their hunger so he would have to revert to the old-fashioned way eventually. Saying that the vampire can just willingly choose to starve or hibernate rather than prey on humans simply runs counter to all established vampire lore. Okay maybe there is one unique vampire like that in the world, but the conclusion shouldn't be "let's give all vampires everywhere in Golarion presumption of innocence until they are tried in court despite the fact that there are no means to bring an unwilling vampire to court" when being a vampire is not something you can be born with or just give up. Rather it should be "This one went to great trouble to convince Kaer Magans that he poses no threat so they will advise any overzealous adventurers as such and if they do kill this individual despite no evidence of violence then it will not be a good or lawful act and may be anathema to some of the good or lawful deities"
Obviously vampires are a metaphor for a real-world addiction, but this is addiction driven to the extreme and consuming the soul entirely because a person has to literally die before becoming a vampire. They're already dead to begin with. I absolutely don't see how they can be equated to any real people.
I mean, if they're killing people and creating more killers, that's super bad and you should stop them, but that would be just as true of a human necromancer doing the same things. In both cases, it's the behavior that's a reason to stop them, not their creature type.
There is one key difference: a necromancer chose to do this and can theoretically be made to reconsider and choose to do something else. A vampire did not choose this and cannot be made to stop by any means. In other words, a vampire does not have a free-willed soul in Golarion context of these words.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is when you enable the state to straight up murder people because "they are a danger" then you're opening up a can of worms because the state will find whatever excuse to call whomever "dangerous" in order to kill whomever they want to.And the thing about "well, you can kill the vampire because they're evil" - being evil should not be a death sentence! There are tons of evil people living in Absalom, should they be rooted out and murdered?
So many overstretchings here!
1) Vampires are not people and cannot be murdered, they must have died first in order to become vampires.EDIT: okay I see your point in that black slaves were not always considered "people" too. But a difference here is that one cannot be born a vampire. If you used dhampir or drow it would have been a much stronger argument.
2) They are not simply "a danger", they are a kind of danger that kills people and creates more killers, as DMW succinctly put it. If you want to compare them to someone real, they could be compared with heavy drug dealers, with a key difference that by their fictional nature it's a part of their undeath essence rather than chosen means of generating income.
3) There is no case that Absalom has a law enabling to murder anyone suspected of vampirism on sight.
4) Vampires have supernatural powers that enable them to resist conventional means of arrest effortlessly.
5) Tons of evil people living in Absalom absolutely should be rooted out! But it does not in any way imply they should be murdered.
6) The whole concept of objective, immanent evil that exists independently of committed actions and is an innate predisposition that is easy to detect but very hard to change is fictional and has little to no equivalence in the real world.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can agree that vampires are a terrible example to use here. They're parasites, and cannot exist without preying upon other species (whether or not their prey are monetarily compensated is irrelevant, and probably a singular case).
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're carrying an awful lot of water for this concept Rysky - the themes at play here are what they are and echo real life issues.
I don't pretend to have the answers for gentrification or policing but I do know that Pathfinders conflict resolution mechanisms make this particular story one that doesn't feel good or fun.
It feels gross to be put in that role.
With what little we know of the Area and the Adventure, written by James Sutter, why are you so sure this is a “burn down the shantytown to clear the ‘riffraff’” scenario?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, this is an aspect of the conversation that I look forward to having after having played through the first book, or if I can't find a table, picking it up and reading it myself. As many have pointed out, there are a lot of things that could have gone wrong in it's set up, but that is true in almost every AP.
What would really suck is if Paizo decided to always avoid APs where the players had a reason to forge deep connections with the community that the adventure will be happening in, because human beings in positions of authority in the real world almost always mess that up. Adventurers in PF2 end up in positions of unchecked power and authority within the world as a direct consequence of gaining power levels rapidly and outgrowing the capacity for oversight within days/weeks or at most months of adventuring. There are a whole lot of problematic ways in which most RPGs have handled the unbridled power fantasy of the hobby and I don't really see how positioning the PCs as representatives of a "legally established" authority at the start of the campaign, is any more problematic.
Is it not a good thing for it to be possible for the party start out in a position where they learn to question the role that they are playing within the power structure that they are trying to serve? Or are we just assuming that this level of critical analysis is impossible for players and that the developers should deliberately avoid giving players the opportunity to explore these complex issues?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason vampires came up at all was that we knew there were undead in the area before the renovations and vampires were a convenient example of intelligent undead.
Okay, sure. I got a bit hung up on the vampire example because I've been reading up a lot on Curse of Strahd lately and immersing myself into the vampire lore, so saying that they could somehow be innocent victims really struck my nerve.
But the argument stands whether it's a vampire or a lich or a wraith. Intelligent undead does not mean it has free will to make good unlife choices. By Golarion lore, they all have souls irreversibly corrupt by the negative energy.So any example in which an intelligent undead is peacefully going about their business until their unlife is tragically ended by prejudiced paladin brutality is going to be incredibly contrived. Also, in my opinion, going for a "monster lives matter" angle is doing a disservice to the real victims of the real issues by comparing them to monsters. Let's keep to the necromancers and vagabonds and other non-intrinsically aligned creatures that can be actually representing real people.
Going back to the marketing blurb, I read it in such a way that cutpurses and vagabonds would be the expected routine threats at the festival that wouldn't actually require any PC adventuring-type actions, but because there are actually poisoners, ransomers, and a serial murderer involved, only that's where the increased risk requires the authorities to get the PCs involved in a kind of a special task force.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes, one who creates a fictional universe can create a universe where black people are all evil. I think drow would have been a much better example here than vampires, though. But until one does, why is it a problem when they actually haven't? (I know drow exist in Golarion but they were recolored purple specifically because purple people don't exist.)
My point was that having any group be 'always Evil, we can kill them because of how they look' runs into very serious unfortunate implications, regardless of the in-universe source of that 'always Evil' tag. It's easier to not worry about with fiends and undead due to their mystical nature...but that doesn't make them completely unproblematic.
Okay let's go about it this way. Golarion is a kitchen sink made of various tropes. Kaer Maga is all about being libertarian and being haven for creatures unique for their type.
Sure, but it's also a setting with consistent world rules.
I am not entirely sure classifying waged blood slavery as LN was a good choice
Categorizing a freely chosen money making activity as 'slavery' is pretty inappropriate, IMO. Being paid to do something and able to leave whenever you like, with a generous severance package, is not slavery.
- fine while there is supply, but what if said vampire runs out of money or willing donors?
He'd be in serious trouble and have to make hard moral choices. Of course, a person without money who cannot buy food also has hard moral choices to make. The vampire's are harder, but blaming anyone for choices he might make in the future if circumstances change radically is monstrous.
The whole thing about vampires is that they are not in any way able to resist their hunger so he would have to revert to the old-fashioned way eventually. Saying that the vampire can just willingly choose to starve or hibernate rather than prey on humans simply runs counter to all established vampire lore.
A vampire's choices in Golarion are pretty clearly suicide or feeding regularly. It is unsurprising that few choose suicide, but an easy choice to make if they decide to do so...I mean, they just choose to meet the sunrise.
Okay maybe there is one unique vampire like that in the world, but the conclusion shouldn't be "let's give all vampires everywhere in Golarion presumption of innocence until they are tried in court despite the fact that there are no means to bring an unwilling vampire to court" when being a vampire is not something you can be born with or just give up.
By the police? Yes it should. This is particularly true since you have no way to know for sure someone is a vampire prior to stabbing them. You can guess it, and even have evidence to support it, but prove it? Not so much. Golarion has enough different critters that even if this is true of vampires it can't be proved that they are vampires.
Rather it should be "This one went to great trouble to convince Kaer Magans that he poses no threat so they will advise any overzealous adventurers as such and if they do kill this individual despite no evidence of violence then it will not be a good or lawful act and may be anathema to some of the good or lawful deities"
Actually, sapient undead are super illegal in Kaer Maga and if he was found out as a vampire he'd be killed. Kaer Maga is a weird place in several ways...
Obviously vampires are a metaphor for a real-world addiction, but this is addiction driven to the extreme and consuming the soul entirely because a person has to literally die before becoming a vampire. They're already dead to begin with. I absolutely don't see how they can be equated to any real people.
Vampires are a metaphor for a lot of things, including addiction, sex, STDs, and a host of other things, attempting to reduce them to one is futile. And they think and feel and speak and even love...how can they not be compared to people? They are people. Not real people, but then neither are any RPG characters.
There is one key difference: a necromancer chose to do this and can theoretically be made to reconsider and choose to do something else. A vampire did not choose this and cannot be made to stop by any means. In other words, a vampire does not have a free-willed soul in Golarion context of these words.
Except that, as my LN vampire example indicates, this is explicitly and canonically false in Golarion. Hell, this is even canonically false for demons who we've seen are able to seek redemption in Golarion, and it's a lot closer to true for them than it is for vampires.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are a whole lot of problematic ways in which most RPGs have handled the unbridled power fantasy of the hobby and I don't really see how positioning the PCs as representatives of a "legally established" authority at the start of the campaign, is any more problematic.Is it not a good thing for it to be possible for the party start out in a position where they learn to question the role that they are playing within the power structure that they are trying to serve? Or are we just assuming that this level of critical analysis is impossible for players and that the developers should deliberately avoid giving players the opportunity to explore these complex issues?
The issues at play here are going to resonate differently for different people. Maybe you're right and this is actually a very thoughtful handling of concepts of authority and gentrification. But given that the pitch here - and indeed most everything about Pathfinder 2 thus far - had a more sunny and comedic tenor to it, it seems likely that instead this is just going to ring as tone deaf to people for whom issues of policing and gentrification are actual flesh and blood issues.
Just speaking frankly, Pathfinder 2 is not the rpg in which complex social issues are explored. It's not a diceless social politics forward system. Heck it's not even anything approaching that at all, unlike say Blue Rose RPG. It's a game primarily about being big damn heroes that kill the bad guys.
Which is great except when you're a cop the bad guys are usually the poor and disadvantaged. Or in this case maybe vampire serial killers or something. Might some groups and GMs find ways to add depth and make this work? Sure. But it sure seems like this is just gonna be played straight/for hijinks
For many people playing as the authorities keeping people in check is not a fantasy at all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Declaring a sentient being an "unperson" and thus fine for the state to summarily execute is super gross, FWIW. This is certainly not the call for a PC to make in this situation either (though it could be a call from higher up to ignore.)
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issues at play here are going to resonate differently for different people. Maybe you're right and this is actually a very thoughtful handling of concepts of authority and gentrification.
I certainly hope that this issue is dealt with in some appropriate manner, yes. But I expect it will, I mean I wouldn't be surprised at all if one of the Backgrounds for the AP involved having spent time in the Precipice District during its bad times, for example, and could briefly discuss what happened to such people there.
But given that the pitch here - and indeed most everything about Pathfinder 2 thus far - had a more sunny and comedic tenor to it, it seems likely that instead this is just going to ring as tone deaf to people for whom issues of policing and gentrification are actual flesh and blood issues.
The tone reads as optimistic, but not comedic to me. Indeed, very little of PF2 reads as especially comedic. Even Extinction Curse, where you play circus performers after all, is home to some seriously dark s#*$, and I have no idea how you can pair the phrase 'sadistic serial killer' with 'comedic' and have that make sense.
And optimism is very much the mood I'd want to go with for a 'doing the police right' kind of game.
Just speaking frankly, Pathfinder 2 is not the rpg in which complex social issues are explored. It's not a diceless social politics forward system. Heck it's not even anything approaching that at all, unlike say Blue Rose RPG. It's a game primarily about being big damn heroes that kill the bad guys.
Yes, it is. And the PCs steps to combat injustice will probably primarily be investigative and combative, but that doesn't mean the background of what's happened to the Precipice District can't be just already rather than something you need to make just.
Which is great except when you're a cop the bad guys are usually the poor and disadvantaged. Or in this case maybe vampire serial killers or something. Might some groups and GMs find ways to add depth and make this work? Sure. But it sure seems like this is just gonna be played straight/for hijinks
Uh...per the stuff on this AP we have already, the eventual main villains are a bunch of corrupt, rich, politicians within the Absalom city government (plus the implication of other, corrupt, guards). So the bad guys are certainly not exclusively the disadvantaged. Some might be, of course, but it very much doesn't seem like a majority from what we can see already.
For many people playing as the authorities keeping people in check is not a fantasy at all.
This very much does not seem to be what the PCs are doing for the most part. We'll have to see whether the parts that do have this possible implication are well handled.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even in the first issue, we all generally agree serial killers need to be stopped and they're not usually poor even in the real world
Serial killers are rarely all that well off, actually. They are almost universally people who feel like they have no power or control in their day to day life, and that's a category that doesn't usually overlap much with 'well off financially'. It sometimes does, but it's not really the norm.
But yes, I think we all agree that serial killers need to be stopped regardless of their social class or financial situation.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a game primarily about being big damn heroes that kill the bad guys.
Which is great except when you're a cop the bad guys are usually the poor and disadvantaged.
Maybe in this AP they are not. Which is pretty simple to do IMO. After all I do not remember any non-Evil AP doing this. And I do not see Paizo going out of their way to do this in this particular AP. In fact, given their usual policy and convictions, I find it very likely that they steered far from it.
For many people playing as the authorities keeping people in check is not a fantasy at all.
And I see nothing saying this is what players will be supposed to do. Ransomers, serial killers, corrupt officials later on. Those seems like adequate targets for Good PCs IMO.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a game primarily about being big damn heroes that kill the bad guys.
Which is great except when you're a cop the bad guys are usually the poor and disadvantaged.
Maybe in this AP they are not. Which is pretty simple to do IMO. After all I do not remember any non-Evil AP doing this. And I do not see Paizo going out of their way to do this in this particular AP. In fact, given their usual policy and convictions, I find it very likely that they steered far from it.
And you can't see how this sort of "Cops are Good, actually" message is resoundingly inappropriate right now?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with this argument is that none of it is actually known except the "playing as police" part.Now you're getting it.
I'm not sure that part is even known.
There are a lot of connotations to "police" as a term that likely might not be reflected here. The description is largely vague as to the players' responsibilities beyond being detectives. People are applying modern policing and expectations to what Edgewatch will look like, and it's entirely plausible that a lot of the murky extras won't be included.
I too am concerned how this will land. But a lot of folks applying a purely modern understanding of what a city watch would look like doesn't mean you're gonna roll as gas-happy riot police, domestic battery responders, wandering beat cops shaking down passersby, etc. Just wait and see for me.
It does raise questions of moral gray being built into APs. Extinction Curse has a pretty rough dilemma between two people groups that Aroden put into motion. I just don't know that shying away from tough topics is always the best option--I just hope that Paizo in general aren't presenting one side as too "right" or "justified" especially when that side is tied to who is currently in power.
|
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you can't see how this sort of "Cops are Good, actually" message is resoundingly inappropriate right now?
Given that some of your enemies are corrupt cops, or have such cops in their pocket, this is not the message the AP is sending. They're saying you, the PCs, are good cops, not that all cops are good.
Those are very different messages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we know that the PCs won't end up challenging the foundational structure of what it means to be an "Agent of Edgewatch" by the end of the campaign?
It just seems premature to say, "the PCs start of as cops, so the cops must be the heroes" means that position is going to remain unchallenged through 6 books of an AP.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we know that the PCs won't end up challenging the foundational structure of what it means to be an "Agent of Edgewatch" by the end of the campaign?
It just seems premature to say, "the PCs start of as cops, so the cops must be the heroes" means that position is going to remain unchallenged through 6 books of an AP.
I mean, we know the PCs literally break an innocent guy out of prison and go after major government officials (albeit ones involved in an Evil, and illegal, conspiracy) by the end, so...
I mean, we know the PCs literally break an innocent guy out of prison and go after major government officials (albeit ones involved in an Evil, and illegal, conspiracy) by the end, so...
I guess if we're going to do this, what is the point of event starting the PCs off as officers of the law? They can just be independent contractors, or their could resign their commission immediately and still fight injustice.
If the whole reason the PCs stay employed as agents is "the access it brings" that's pretty cynical.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess if we're going to do this, what is the point of event starting the PCs off as officers of the law? They can just be independent contractors, or their could resign their commission immediately and still fight injustice.
If the whole reason the PCs stay employed as agents is "the access it brings" that's pretty cynical.
I mean, this is in Books 5 and 6, mostly. After they've been unjustly stripped of their badges. So...it's very much a 'clear your name' kinda plotline, which fits well with the police procedural genre and similar things.
And the point of being agents of the law is, well, to be agents of the law (and do it right). This is like saying of Extinction Curse 'well, if you're going to fight things, why even have a circus?' On one level, sure, on another level the circus is rather the point in many ways, and likewise being investigators working for the government is the point of Agents of Edgewatch in many ways.
It probably works fine with you as independent contractors...but that's not what everyone wants to play.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Earlier there was discussion about whether or not the "grand reopening" of the Precipice Quarter was in fact gentrification. Other commenters noted relatively little has been written about the area since 2008., but that it may have been covered by PFS material
I've compiled some quotes about the Precipice Quarter that have been published in as Pathfinder Society scenarios over the decades.
Beldrin’s Bluff is a rotting ghost town at the edge of a hungry sea. Throughout the derelict landscape, seagulls perched on splintered timbers reflect your passage in their glassy black eyes. Overhead, dark clouds move ashore with the promise of a storm.
Getting to the Precipice Quarter is easy enough, but this abandoned section of Absalom is not a safe place for travelers during the night. If the PCs take the main road that leads into the district during the afternoon or evening, they’ll be warned by members of Eastgate’s Post Guard that nobody is allowed out of the Precipice Quarter between dusk and dawn, so if they go in now they’ll likely have to wait until morning to get back in.
10+ The Precipice Quarter was once a wealthy neighborhood called Beldrin’s Bluff, until an earthquake in 4698 ar broke several blocks of the district into the sea and killed hundreds.
15+ After the earthquake, the people of Beldrin’s Bluff moved away. Many people in Absalom believe the district is cursed, and restless undead and vermin roam the streets at night. The most prominent locations in Beldrin’s Bluff were the Tri-Tower’s Yard, an academy for the children of Absalom’s wealthy and powerful, and the Arboretum Arcanis, which displayed rare plants from all over the Inner Sea.
The PCs should be able to quickly travel to the Precipice Quarter and arrive at the address provided by Ambrus. On the way, members of Absalom’s Post Guard warn the party that the entrance gates to the Precipice Quarter remain closed between dusk and dawn, no matter who asks to be let past.
If you have questions about what these scenarios say about the Precipice Quarter, don't hesitate to ask. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m awful curious to hear what non-lethal weapons people are so insistent these cops will use. You’re gonna tell your Fighter they can’t have a sword? A Ranger with no bow?