|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
At least, that's the argument being presented more often than not.
Except no one is making that argument? As been pointed out we just had a slavery themed adventure.
My addendum to your argument merely is that these things are not okay now, but it was considered okay in previous times, where there were no such sentient constructs as morality, simply because it hasn't come to fruition.
I disagree absolutely and completely with this notion.
That these things happen does not make them okay, even if some people believe them so, nor does it mean morals are simply a recent after-the-fact fabrication.
From what I've noticed, "PC" people are too busy trying to banish and expunge media as an excuse for the apparently bad RL behavior of other people who aren't "PC".IMO railing against "PC" is a bad way to start a post and poisons the well against your arguments.
... it's bad to publish slavery-themed adventures as every "PC" person is claiming,No one is claiming this.
...how can we have evil things in the world, which create conflict, which cause good people to rise up and quell the conflict?We can and do, no one is saying there should be no evil in the game. We're just saying evil is a choice for every intelligent being to make and no one on this plane is born into it.
We still need a platform to compare ourselves to, to view what progress we made and to compare further and better finetune what we can maximize of our potential; destroying that platform makes us worse off with nothing to compare ourselves to, not better.That platform is the past. It is not being destroyed, it's being left behind.
If I can't engage in a dialogue that debates the value and genuine intent of a thought process, then quite frankly what you're telling me is to not debate it at all, which defeats one of the many purposes of engaging in a dialogue to begin with.
Agree to disagree, as what I'm arguing in this case is merely a small facet that is meant to blanket a much larger surface due to the similar consequences that are posed. If we extended this to other things like torture, war, etc., the argument the other side makes is the same: "War/Torture/etc. is bad, we don't want it in our games because it's insensitive to those affected and goes against our values of anti-war/toture/etc." Conversely, because the argument of those different subjects are the same, the counter-argument of those different subjects likewise should become the same as well, since they are identical in structure.
And there are people who are just as sensible as you who will disagree with your argument and, if they are a reasonable individual, will present their case as to why they disagree. (Which I don't on this front, just to be clear.)
On this front I will disagree, though. There are numerous changes being made on today's media, whose existence is platformed from past media, by those who want it destroyed and completely changed because the past media is considered barbaric, insensitive, and unethical, when the media is both fictional and is what built us to be who we are today. If we don't have a past to build from, then how do we know what we are doing in today's time will bring us a better future? It's not unlike the saying "If you don't have any bad, then you won't know what's good."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's a criticism of does the villain need to use deadnames and slurs to be the villain? What does it add?It really gets my hackles up that when a complaint is along the lines of "I don't want to see the language used to harass me, belittle me, and mark me as other and less than sprinkled into the games I play and treated as acceptable behavior for good people." gets construed as "'they' are trying to take all the bad stuff out of the game."
No, we're just trying to get all the bad stuff accurately labeled.
The Naughty Dog criticism shows that it can be the former.
Imagine if someone is called a villain for being a torturing war-hungry tyrant. But you never actually see said "villain" torture, go to war, or act like a tyrant. Are they really a villain, then? How do you know that is what they really are, because an arbitrary someone or something (like the narrative) simply says so?
In short, it adds to the realism of how they are a villain if they are actually shown doing those things, even if you disagree with them doing it.
It could be worse, where someone is "framed" to be a villain, but you later learn they actually aren't, and the person you were rooting for is actually the villain the whole time. Which has happened before as a good plot twist to make for very good storytelling.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a common example, in this day and age, slavery is practically universally viewed as bad. So, if slavery is bad, and it's bad to publish slavery-themed adventures as every "PC" person is claiming, (such as the good guys going to free the slaves from a slaver who is either evil or corrupted by greed) because it contains themes and content that people will almost always dislike or view it as being non-"PC", then what's the point of now making a freedom fighter character when slavery will never be encountered in the game world, because publishing slavery is considered insensitive and against the concept of being "PC"?
This is flat out wrong to the point of being a strawman. The common idea has never been to purge all media of a concept and pretend history doesn't exist, but rather to push back against media (& other sources) glorifying bad concepts and portraying something horrible as if it was good/acceptable. (And for interactive/group media like a TPRG, allowing room for player feedback on topics they don't want explore due to being personal/sensitive to them.) Note that we still make movies, campaigns, etc. with the primary theme of slavery.
To put it in TRPG terms, it would be like creating an adventure/setting where slavers were LG by default and slaves were portrayed as being better and happier because of enslavement - while portraying anyone fighting against such as being misinformed and actually harming more people in the process. Not only is it unrealistic, but it represents an abhorrent idea idealized & repackaged as being something that should be accepted. Slavery-themed campaigns can still exist without having to do so, and it has been mentioned that paizo has indeed done this recently.
The point is that we used the old/outdated media to grow from to be the things we are today, and they are just as important as the media we currently consume. Star Wars is a prime example of doing this very thing. Besmirching them and destroying them because they no longer fit the idealisms of something completely separate from it does not help us grow and better ourselves.
I don't know if you noticed, but LoTR kinda had an incredibly successful resurgence in the early 2000's with a series of movies, and things like H.P. Lovecraft are still enormously popular and influential today even with most fans admitting the author was incredibly racist to the point he made some of his contemporary racists uncomfortable. I would hardly consider either to be "destroyed" even when the community admits that the authors had faults which influenced their works, or later works of the same genre try to lessen/remove problematic aspects while focusing on the other themes.
Anyone who questions whether I am a "real" gamer or just some bored person with an axe to grind is definitely invited to investigate my credentials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My addendum to your argument merely is that these things are not okay now, but it was considered okay in previous times, where there were no such sentient constructs as morality, simply because it hasn't come to fruition.I disagree absolutely and completely with this notion.
That these things happen does not make them okay, even if some people believe them so, nor does it mean morals are simply a recent after-the-fact fabrication.
I didn't say that morals were recent fabrications, rather that the negative concepts have existed well before morals existed, and as such the concept of it being not okay is a timeline identical to when sentience came to be, meaning those things happened well before they came to be and actually helped form the morals we have today simply by existing and us drawing conclusions from those events.
If we decide to just destroy their existence and eradicate the past, then we may as well have no reason to keep on our path and we may very well regress into what we originally despised so long ago. It's no different than history repeating itself because people don't think to remember the consequences from history. And if we destroy that history...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, it's a criticism of does the villain need to use deadnames and slurs to be the villain? What does it add?It really gets my hackles up that when a complaint is along the lines of "I don't want to see the language used to harass me, belittle me, and mark me as other and less than sprinkled into the games I play and treated as acceptable behavior for good people." gets construed as "'they' are trying to take all the bad stuff out of the game."
No, we're just trying to get all the bad stuff accurately labeled.
The Naughty Dog criticism shows that it can be the former.
Imagine if someone is called a villain for being a torturing war-hungry tyrant. But you never actually see said "villain" torture, go to war, or act like a tyrant. Are they really a villain, then? How do you know that is what they really are, because an arbitrary someone or something (like the narrative) simply says so?
In short, it adds to the realism of how they are a villain if they are actually shown doing those things, even if you disagree with them doing it.
It could be worse, where someone is "framed" to be a villain, but you later learn they actually aren't, and the person you were rooting for is actually the villain the whole time. Which has happened before as a good plot twist to make for very good storytelling.
”Realism” is subjective, as its need. Or its use.
If you have a rapist as the villain what do you gain by showing rape other than traumatization and/or titillation?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is a fictional world. Everything in it was put there by a modern author based on their own modern morals.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, saying "different species/ethnic/regional groups being actually different is bad" is silly. In a high fantasy game like PF2, where one of the big selling points is that character creation is deep and meaningful, if choosing to be a goblin didn't actually mean anything mechanically, the game is failing to fulfill its promise.
Golarion is full of racism in different areas for different reasons. Just like it would happen in a real world. People who dont think so have not read enough lore. People who dont want it are too sensitive.
Its weird, but its because injustice exists in the game, that we the players can play as heroes.
and
I like, for the most part, how Paizo has set it up, but please, PLEASE, stop trying to inject real-world issues into our escapist fantasy imagination time. Or at least do us a courtesy and ask first.When I first started to hear about "privilege", I struggled to understand what it meant. Now I understand; it meant this.
See, for you it is "inserting" real world issues into your "escapist fantasy". For the people who suffer everyday with the b!#~+++& of racism, misogyny, rape culture, homophobia, transphobia, or all of the above, it is about removing real those issues so they can get in on the escapism too.
And so they are not accidentally perpetuated through the game, thereby compromising efforts to fight them in the the real world, of course.
_
glass.
Sometimes racism is a major point of the roleplaying story.
The chief antagonist of the Ironfang Invasion adventure path is hobgoblin general Azaersi. A survivor of the Goblinblood Wars, she hates humans. She formed a bandit legion in the Shrikewood Forest, and impressed the army sent to clear out the bandits sufficiently that the human nation of Molthune recruited her and her soldier bandits as a "monster regiment" serving in Molthune's army. The name "monster" shows the Molthunes' attitude toward hobgoblins. Azaersi betrayed the Molthunes and is trying to carve her own hobgoblin nation out of Molthune's less militant neighbor Nirmathis. Tragically, in doing so, she is enslaving the non-hobgoblin peoples of Nirmathis.
By the way, Azaersi is mentioned in the Lost Omens World Guide, page 44, long after Ironfang Invasion. The guide, written from an American point of view rather than a Molthune point of view, calls Azaersi's Molthune company a "non-human mercenary company" rather than a "monster regiment." It does mention "monstrous mercenaries" refering to bugbears, minotaurs, medusas, etc. And, of course, it refers to the player characters as "a group of heroes" rather than by name.
I am adapting Ironfang Invasion to PF2, so my players selected PF2 core races: elf, gnome, goblin, and halfling. The ancestries in the starting village Phaendar are 305 humans, 32 half-orcs, 21 dwarves, 17 half-elves, and 28 other. I mentioned to a fifth player that the entire party fit into the "28 other," so he continued the trend by creating a lizardfolk character. That player and the goblin's player had to drop out in the middle of the invasion of Phaendar by General Azaersi's Ironfang Legion, but another player joined with a gnome character.
The 1st module is called Trail of the Hunted because the intent is for the party to help refugees escape from the invasion and hide in the forest. The villagers of Phaendar viewed the player characters as outsiders who ought not die defending Phaendar, even though the elf and halfing lived in Phaendar, because of their exotic ancestries. Hence, the villagers asked them to evacuate the helpless from the village: the children, the mothers tending babies, and the infirm. (This differs from the module's story, where all the villagers were helpless in surprise and the party members heroically stepped up to take charge in the confusion.)
Later, another player joined the party with a tailed goblin, also known as a monkey goblin. The party is still all exotic. The key opposition to human-hating General Azaersi does not contain a single human, and I hope to make that relevant to the story later. My players are well studied in racial tension issues, so these will get played out in our games.
No, it's a criticism of does the villain need to use deadnames and slurs to be the villain? What does it add?It really gets my hackles up that when a complaint is along the lines of "I don't want to see the language used to harass me, belittle me, and mark me as other and less than sprinkled into the games I play and treated as acceptable behavior for good people." gets construed as "'they' are trying to take all the bad stuff out of the game."
No, we're just trying to get all the bad stuff accurately labeled.
The Naughty Dog criticism shows that it can be the former.
Imagine if someone is called a villain for being a torturing war-hungry tyrant. But you never actually see said "villain" torture, go to war, or act like a tyrant. Are they really a villain, then? How do you know that is what they really are, because an arbitrary someone or something (like the narrative) simply says so?
In short, it adds to the realism of how they are a villain if they are actually shown doing those things, even if you disagree with them doing it.
It could be worse, where someone is "framed" to be a villain, but you later learn they actually aren't, and the person you were rooting for is actually the villain the whole time. Which has happened before as a good plot twist to make for very good storytelling.
”Realism” is subjective, as its need. Or its use.
If you have a rapist as the villain what do you gain by showing rape other than traumatization and/or titillation?
That's a fair point from a storytelling perspective, as I imagine people don't usually read through what someone will eat for breakfast for about an hour before they progress to the next important part of the intended story. Though I can assure you that there are several games and stories that revolve around the grittiness and realism they provide. Such as survival horror stories actually keeping count of how many bullets or rations they have, or mystery stories elaborating on something that changed in the character because their usual routine being depicted is different somehow, demonstrating a positive or negative change to the character based on other events happening either actually or subconsciously.
It might create a sense of righteousness and vindication in the viewer, so that when the big bad finally bites the dust, you'll feel relieved about what happened to them. Or, as you said, it might create trauma to certain people who have been victims, or it might create titillation to those who thrive on such things. It really depends on how it's protrayed and what the focus of the scene is.
Recent, relatively speaking.
To build on, I reject the notion that morals came after. That they’re societal constructs lacking any innateness.
As far as humans, it's possible. It's a quandary, to be certain. Is sentience something that is purely instinctual, or can it be modified genetically, or socially through outside sources, molded from viewpoints of other organisms?
Regardless, I wasn't referring to just humans in this case, or perhaps more accurately, our species of human. It's not like humans are the only creatures capable of these horrible acts. Other creatures that are less intelligent and do not possess sentience do most every other unspeakable act that "evil" humans have done, and in short, sentience is something that, generally, only humans possess. Most other organisms do not have the level of intelligence that humans do, even other human species, no less. Granted, these organisms don't always resort to these tactics, but if a creature is desperate enough, things like laws or morality won't apply to them in their decision making.
In short, I'm equating what we consider socially acceptable to something that is a construct of sentience, which does not apply to other organisms whom aren't beholden to our moral viewpoints simply because they do not possess sentience, and for a lot of creatures in Golarion, the same concept can very well apply to them too. Or even if they do, their sentience hasn't been taught or trained to behave in a way that we deem socially acceptable.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is more PC than "people who complain about political correctness."
All this has ever been has been a push-pull on "what are the bounds on acceptable speech/conduct" a thing which has always shifted, and will always shift over time. It´s worth considering whether one is advocating for a model which respects people or one which does not.
|
Regardless, I wasn't referring to just humans in this case, or perhaps more accurately, our species of human. It's not like humans are the only creatures capable of these horrible acts. Other creatures that are less intelligent and do not possess sentience do most every other unspeakable act that "evil" humans have done, and in short, sentience is something that, generally, only humans possess. Most other organisms do not have the level of intelligence that humans do, even other human species, no less.
I don't think you're using "sentience" correctly here. Maybe retry explaining things more clearly.
|
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as someone pointed out Paizo has quite a few homosexual game designers who want to see homosexual representation,....I do not support forced conformity or attempts by companies to push their worldview on people at the behest of the mob.
So "The Mob" is forcing the homosexual designers at Paizo to making the game more inclusive to LGBT players, against the homosexual designer's will?
Right, then.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's this bizarre phenomenon in modern popular culture where people profess to respect an artist's freedom to create what they want, but conspicuously do not respect an artist's freedom to listen to criticism offered in good faith and at times agree with it and make changes.
If artists are free to make what they want to make, they should be free to own up to their mistakes and make amends if they so choose.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deriven, I'm not saying that you meant for it to be the case but your posts read like you are saying that seeing LGBT representation in the game and seeing hetero representation in the game are an either-or, rather than both at the same time, kind of proposition.
Especially when you seem to be equating people wanting to see their own representations in the game material - which requires, or required in the past, a change to what is or isn't represented by the game material - with "the mob to try to force conformity."
You seem, quite literally in fact, to be calling it "the behest of the mob" for any game to match what the audience at large wants from it.
Nah, he just wants Paizo to put out a blank world so that he will be able to include only the elements that match the players at the table.
For example, humans will be present only if by chance any of his players are humans.
Wait.
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'd have an enormously difficult time proving I'm not supportive of inclusivity if you sat at my gaming tables over the years.
but also:
I generally remove all the LGBT content they have been putting in the game.
Well, if you’re writing gay relationships out of the game, then isn’t fair to say you have a problem with that sort of thing?
I also don’t understand all this talk about Paizo catering to “the mob”. They’re not going to remove LGBT characters out of the stories they write, the way you do, in no small part because so many of them are LGBT.The cynical answer, that Paizo is only virtue-signaling, is wrong here. The evidence suggests that they genuinely care about what they say they care about.
Well most of the comments in this thread are delving too far into philosophy. I really can't say that I agree with much of it. But that is not the point. Actually it is. People are never going to agree. Expecially over what is acceptable, or right or wrong. We may may find a moderate portion of common group for most of us but we aren't all going to agree.
I appreciate Paizo taking the time to clean up the game and default setting and keep it relatively modern and inoffensive. I value free speech but it is highly preferable to have a system with as few social preconceptions and bias as possible, so the game is pleasant and accessible to everyone.
However roleplaying has always been a bit about acting and getting into characters that have motivations significantly different to yours. It is about exploring something different. A bit of escapism, a bit comedy, a bit historical, and even a bit of philosphy about some of the stupid corners of behavior you can find your character in.
There has always been much conflict, violence and death in it. So in a lot of modules the characters are on pretty shaky ground morally anyway. Some people are careful to do the right thing, some deliberately go out of their way to be different. Very often the game is a farce that the players are in on. So I'm not really seeing the point in getting too moral about what goes on.
Everyone needs to find a group that is comfortable for them.
I rarely play in a default campaign world.
I'm happy to play black and white morality (wow - doesn't that seem to be a loaded term today) But I'm also very happy with everything being shades of grey. I don't mind modern sensitivites but sometimes I want to play in a backward medieval world with its genuinely awful attitudes to women, heathens and anyone who is different. Post apocalyptic worlds, fantasy worlds should be really different. Often other species are very very different to humans - I normally like to overact the differences - but often they are just the same.
I suppose what I'm saying is: I don't mind. Know your group.
Just know that some groups are going to be playing games which are deeply offensive to other groups. I happy for that too.
Cheers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I'm playing Pathfinder, I want to have fun. And arguing about the possible racist reasons why only humans can have magical tattoos, comparing the game world and the real one about the frequency of homosexual relationships, or trying to find what real-life situations the story author may have been thinking about when giving that goblin NPC a low intelligence modifier, are things that I really don't enjoy. When I play, I avoid politics like the plague.
That said, I hope that whoever writes the adventure paths is indeed free to put into them whatever they prefer. If I was an author myself, I really wouldn't like if I was pushed away from writing the story I want because it's only about dwarves, or because it has got no characters (or some characters) of a particular sexual orientation.
Having a variety of stories means that the customer will buy the ones they like the most themselves. Because yeah, customers can have their personal preferences: they too shouldn't be forced to consume something they don't like.
If I can't stand stories about slavery, I won't buy an adventure that contains that. Hopefully there will be many other modules with different themes, but it's easy to understand that this is a thing that impacts the freedom of the authors somehow, because they produce things that are meant to be sold as much as possible. Still, I really don't think that Paizo is imposing these kind of things on their authors (they surely have some guidelines for the adventures they publish with their name on them, but that's a bit different), and even less that some external entity is doing the same to Paizo.
(Incidentally, I find difficult to understand why some things like rape are taboo, but killing is widespread and totally acceptable to have in basically every story!)
Anyway, nothing stops me from buying an adventure and modifying it to fit my group's tastes better. And the same goes with playing: surely I wouldn't like having to play a gnome if I don't like them, and being called a racist if I don't; or being compelled to make an homosexual PC once every five characters, or in general any more (or less) than I would want to. Having fun is the point of the game, and freedom is essential to it.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I had a homosexual player, I'd include more relationships catered to their sensibilities
How the heck would you know? I've got one group that I've been GMing for about 3 years now. I haven't a clue what the sexual orientations of most of the players are. Why would I possibly care enough to ask? Why would they volunteer information that is both personal and irrelevent? I also don't know most of their religions, I'm only guessing at their race by physical appearance, etc. It's just never come up.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Incidentally, I find difficult to understand why some things like rape are taboo, but killing is widespread and totally acceptable to have in basically every story!)
Probably because people tend to not survive to be traumatized after they’ve been killed.
Some people do react that way when violence is graphically described. They tend not to play D20, or let their GM know that less is more when describing combat.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I play, I avoid politics like the plague.
Racism and politics are not the same. If you want to avoid sensitive topics, sure, that makes sense. That's also exactly why the push for inclusivity is there. It fosters and creates a space in which people feel comfortable exploring those areas of storytelling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone mentioned above that there have been changes to orcs in Pathfinder 2e. Have there? I'm just dipping my toes into the new system and I see there have been changes to how half-orcs are handled (and implications that the stereotypes of them are unjustified), but it's rather undercut by the fact that orcs themselves seem to obey the same s@~! "collection of things white supremacists say about 'savages'" pattern they always have, for example: https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=324.
This is particularly weird with Goblins now getting to be actual people in 2e.
(Incidentally, I find difficult to understand why some things like rape are taboo, but killing is widespread and totally acceptable to have in basically every story!)Probably because people tend to not survive to be traumatized after they’ve been killed.
Some people do react that way when violence is graphically described. They tend not to play D20, or let their GM know that less is more when describing combat.
Plus everyone's baggage is different, my PTSD has very particular triggers that would realistically be fine at someone else's table, but I would need to curb at my own-- but then my game definitely includes some things that would not be fine at every table, and that isn't a euphemism for anything really out there either.
I've had a dispute when trying to play my enchantment wizard in 5e for using magic to try and get a somewhat scared village kid we saved to trust us long enough for us to demonstrate we weren't actually a threat and find out what was really going on.
For me, enchantment magic is far better than mass killings as a resolution, but for some people its unambiguously creepy even if nothing actually 'rapey' is being done with it. Better to burn people to death in large groups than mess with their heads with magic.
What's most interesting is when I know its not even someone's own traumas (My friends are prone to aggressive oversharing), they just have a mental list of topics to police that's cultural/reputation based in nature. Sometimes we have the humorous moment where someone HAS first hand experience with something, but doesn't have a problem with it appearing in the game, but someone else was super prepared to police it.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no way to avoid politics in anything. There's just "politics you don't notice" or "politics that don't bother you."
Even something like "the king has put a bounty on the local bandit lord" is political since it assumes:
- Kings can just arbitrarily do this sort of thing.
- Sending adventurers to murder someone is a reasonable form of justice.
- The people of the kingdom just go along with that sort of thing.
- Paying mercenaries to kill people is an appropriate use of limited government funds.
If these things just never come up in your game in which the king puts a bounty on the bandit lord, then you are tacitly endorsing them as normal or unexceptional.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I remember correctly the Orc Ancestry in the Advanced Players Guide will provide a more positive portrayal of Orc's. As well as some of the lore aspects they already revealed in 2e and 1e. The Orc of Belzken are now seen as tentative allies in the fight against the Whispering tyrant. And prior to 2e the Orcs of the Mwangi expanse and other regions have are represented in a more positive and nuanced manner. As well as individual orcs in pathfinder products ( if I remember correctly irabeths father was an orc and was viewed as a positive individual.
IF you like at the core role book and the bestiary the way they talk about goblins in both books are also pretty different and I assume once the advanced class guide comes out comparing the write up there and the write up in the bestiary would be different. That will be my guest.
As for the greater situation on Ancestry, I don't agree with OP but I respect where they are coming from. The difference for me, is that these are simply options that are thematic but not innate and I think it works better than the pathfinder system where the base assumption was that all dwarves were trained in dwarven weaponry.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
To add on to the trans issue mentioned upthread, I would like to add another perspective. Full disclosure, I'm a cis guy, but I like to pay attention so I think this is accurate.
When it comes to Trans people and slurs/deadnaming, sometimes maybe Trans people want to have a story where they just are? A lot of minority people even beyond gender minorities are sick of seeing every story including them being ABOUT their minority status. So many movies with black leads are about racism. Some many movies about gay people are ABOUT their struggles being gay.
By adding slurs/bigotry/whatever to these stories, you aren't letting them exist as simply who they are. It others them and makes a distinction from a perceived norm.
Maybe a trans character should be called a "Weak Fool!" like everyone else.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someone mentioned above that there have been changes to orcs in Pathfinder 2e. Have there? I'm just dipping my toes into the new system and I see there have been changes to how half-orcs are handled (and implications that the stereotypes of them are unjustified), but it's rather undercut by the fact that orcs themselves seem to obey the same s&@! "collection of things white supremacists say about 'savages'" pattern they always have, for example: https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=324.
This is particularly weird with Goblins now getting to be actual people in 2e.
There are two things about this:
#1: The description you reference is basically true of the Orcs of the Hold of Belkzen, the main Orc stronghold in Avistan. They're culturally Rovagug worshipers, misogynists, and really pretty unpleasant in various ways.
The Orcs of the Mwangi Expanse, however, never got much attention in PF1, but receive a lot more in the PF2 Lost Omens World Guide, and are generally fairly pleasant people who fight demons and get along with their neighbors. So the behavior is question is pretty specific to the militant and unpleasant group in Belkzen rather than standard Orc behavior.
And the Bestiaries tend to be focused a bit on those of the group in question that are likely to become adversaries. In fact, going to your goblins comparison, the goblin description in the Bestiary is actually pretty similar, because many goblins are still very unpleasant culturally.
#2: In terms of stats, in PF1 Orcs received +4 Str, -2 Int, -2 Wis, -2 Cha. In PF2 (as has been revealed online), they will get +2 Str, one floating +2, and no other stat mods. So...that's a pretty big deal in terms of Orcs not being stupid and unpleasant by nature.
Now, you can argue whether these are enough, but they're both pretty big changes in emphasis between the two editions.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has the OP responded to anything? I hate hit and run thread starting.Yes they have, and frequently too.
They've posted five times in the thread since they started it, no post being more than two lines long.
This certainly isn't 'hit and run' and they might easily just be busy with something else, but given the nature of the original post, I wouldn't describe this as 'frequently' (though maybe that's a definitional thing).
Which isn't intended as a criticism, just an attempt to be specific, and perhaps a hope for a longer response. I know my own post in this thread has received no response at all, despite addressing the original point very directly, and I'm not alone in that.
I posted sincerely hoping for a discussion on the original topic (which I disagree with the OP on, but think is an entirely reasonable thing to discuss), not this weird descent into 'morality is artificial' and 'it is totally okay to leave gay people out of games' which I think are both really off topic in different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking: I quite agree that the game has made some strides in not reinforcing certain stereotypes *mechanically* for certain "ancestries" (although I also agree with the OP that some approaches to, say, Human Backgrounds undercut that achievement in a way that suggests Paizo as a whole isn't on the same page about what a "game for everyone" really means). That description of the approach to the Orcs seems promising.
That said, *opens Bestiary*:
And the Bestiaries tend to be focused a bit on those of the group in question that are likely to become adversaries. In fact, going to your goblins comparison, the goblin description in the Bestiary is actually pretty similar, because many goblins are still very unpleasant culturally.
*Most,* in fact, according to the Bestiary entry. Which sort of raises other questions, e.g. why the Bestiary continues to assume goblins and orcs as likely enemies and doesn't assume anything similar for most other playable races. And even setting that aside, why the Bestiary actually can manage nuanced, non-derogatory descriptions of, say, Catfolk adversaries but won't do the same for certain others, despite their getting more sympathetic treatment in other supplements that demonstrates Paizo is capable of hiring writers who don't basically rely on adjusted Eighties Monster Manual copy.
This... yeah. Feels like trying to have it both ways, basically. Goblins are *mostly* evil but you can play as one of the "good ones." Orcs are *mostly* subhuman sword-fodder filth and you have to buy the right supplements to get a different picture of them (the Bestiary includes *no* qualifying language about this or that group of orcs, for example, a courtesy it at least manages to extend --albeit in incredibly dubious "there are a few exceptions" fashion -- to the goblins).
If you've recognized that "monster races" as-received actually tend to reflect and reinforce at-the-table racism (which factually, they do, and of which the baby-steps toward playable "monster races" that aren't stereotypes are a tacit recognition) that would also have to involve recognizing that these kinds of "exceptions" are already native to racist discourse. Basically they provide scope for your PCs to say "hey, my best friend is a [goblin or orc or whatever]" but still indulge most of the standard laundry-list of stereotypes and D&D cliches.
Committing to diversity is going to have to mean committing fully to diversity at some point, hopefully soon. They've already got the basic track on how to do this: you can have people in the game have stereotypes, false beliefs and/or genuine grievances with and about each other without having the game world simply side in both fluff and mechanics with one group or the other. You can still tell rich stories about cultural conflict without having your game declare the racist interpretation to be the correct one; in fact, the game is generally enriched by avoiding that. PF2e still seems to want to dance on either side of the fence, which should've stopped being a thing a long time ago.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a long thread, and it's hard to follow everything, but did Darksol ever say how his "PC culture means you can't have slavery in your stories anymore" argument reconciles with "The very first AP of 2e has slavers and explicit depictions of slavery in three out of six books"?
I feel like that never got addressed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It did, but if you ignore evidence to the contrary it makes it easier to post.
This is a long thread, and it's hard to follow everything, but did Darksol ever say how his "PC culture means you can't have slavery in your stories anymore" argument reconciles with "The very first AP of 2e has slavers and explicit depictions of slavery in three out of six books"?
I feel like that never got addressed.
I know which AP you're talking about. We're playing it now. In my opinion, it's not really an explicit depiction compared to, say, a certain area in a certain Rise of the Runelords adventure path. I've seen some very graphic details and imagery, and it's by no means Rated G, but since a lot of the horrible acts aren't shown on-screen to the players, it most likely has details to the GM omitted from the players, and compared to some things that I have seen, it's cruel but diminished by its presentation, largely because a lot of the knowledge about the scenes are meta, something the players won't know about until they save the day, and by then, the focus is "You're safe now. No more harm will befall you."
But let's say that I'm wrong and that it is indeed explicit. You can't sit there and say "Slavery is bad, you can't have graphic depictions because it makes people who were affected by it uncomfortable," and then proceed to publish an adventure that does just that, even if it is meant to show it in a bad light, as people can still be triggered by simply being exposed to what can be viewed as traumatic. It's essentially the same thing they call us out on not having an interest in homosexual relationships in the game because we don't have a personal interest in homosexual relationships. We may even perhaps find them uncomfortable because it brings up negative feelings and emotions that may be connotated to it, even if it's depicted in a good light.
Granted, I'm more of a "give the person the benefit of the doubt" when it comes to mature participation of a fictitious game, but despite what other people on this board may think of people like myself, we too have themes we don't want crossed because it too can make us uncomfortable playing at a table that goes into those themes in-depth. And those themes don't necessarily have to be adult-oriented or extremely graphic, either. In fact, I generally have more gripes about non-adult-oriented or non-graphic themes than those framed to an adult audience.
I can already tell that this thread will be closed by the moderators sooner than later. So, I will add my two cents now.
I enjoy the inclusiveness of diversity in Pathfinder. I also welcome the changes of Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs.
Beware: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Mitflits have replaced Kobolds as a disposable, weak adversaries for low-level players.
As someone from Paizo explained, these are necessary evils for a rpg; otherwise, beginning characters are in a fight to the death with two rats...and the rats might win!
My view is different. Instead of Kobold or Mitflit, why not an evil Halfling or Gnome? (The GM can apply a weakened template to any of them.) Would killing the vile Gnome or Halfling would bother the players?
Why could this uncomfortable? Perhaps because all Halflings and Gnomes were not labeled 'Something Evil' and stated to all worship some evil entity...and, therefore, are not designated as unworthy to live.
I understand Mitflits are fey and I'm not asking for their redemption. I am saying racism can take many forms.
I too like that Kobolds, Goblins and Orcs are ancestry options, but I don't think that this means they won't also serve as antagonists. The Bestiary has entries for all of them, and one official Paizo Adventure has orcs as disposable mooks.
Just because they have an ancestry option doesn't mean they can't also simply be adversaries.
I don't think I suggested otherwise.
Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Halflings and Humans have ancestry options...and they can also simply be adversaries.
And they have been?
I feel like bad humans are fairly standard and common enemies, even.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking: I quite agree that the game has made some strides in not reinforcing certain stereotypes *mechanically* for certain "ancestries" (although I also agree with the OP that some approaches to, say, Human Backgrounds undercut that achievement in a way that suggests Paizo as a whole isn't on the same page about what a "game for everyone" really means). That description of the approach to the Orcs seems promising.
I'm personally a big fan of the new direction, yeah.
That said, *opens Bestiary*:
*Most,* in fact, according to the Bestiary entry. Which sort of raises other questions, e.g. why the Bestiary continues to assume goblins and orcs as likely enemies and doesn't assume anything similar for most other playable races. And even setting that aside, why the Bestiary actually can manage nuanced, non-derogatory descriptions of, say, Catfolk adversaries but won't do the same for certain others, despite their getting more sympathetic treatment in other supplements that demonstrates Paizo is capable of hiring writers who don't basically rely on adjusted Eighties Monster Manual copy.
This... yeah. Feels like trying to have it both ways, basically. Goblins are *mostly* evil but you can play as one of the "good ones." Orcs are *mostly* subhuman sword-fodder filth and you have to buy the right supplements to get a different picture of them (the Bestiary includes *no* qualifying language about this or that group of orcs, for example, a courtesy it at least manages to extend --albeit in incredibly dubious "there are a few exceptions" fashion -- to the goblins).
I feel like when every single book takes the more nuanced approach except one, the one in question is the exception rather than the rule, even if that one is the Bestiary.
Which is to say, I think the descriptions of such groups in the Bestiary are very unfortunate, but it's just one book, and in many ways just one description (the Orc description is much worse in this regard than those for kobolds, hobgoblins, or even gnolls, for example), which, as it is so isolated, seems like an error rather than indicative of trying to have it both ways.
If you've recognized that "monster races" as-received actually tend to reflect and reinforce at-the-table racism (which factually, they do, and of which the baby-steps toward playable "monster races" that aren't stereotypes are a tacit recognition) that would also have to involve recognizing that these kinds of "exceptions" are already native to racist discourse. Basically they provide scope for your PCs to say "hey, my best friend is a [goblin or orc or whatever]" but still indulge most of the standard laundry-list of stereotypes and D&D cliches.
To some degree, they're trapped. Pathfinder is set very specifically in the world of Golarion which has a specific history with the creatures in question. They can certainly go for a more nuanced portrayal (and, indeed, in every setting book are doing precisely that), and have cultures evolve (which, again, is happening), but they mostly try and avoid setting retcons and reboots...and the setting thus still has some baggage from when it was first designed...which was done 13 years ago, and mistakes were certainly made in the doing.
That doesn't excuse the Bestiary entry by any means, but on the other hand they can't suddenly make the Orcs of Belkzen nice but misunderstood, that violates verisimilitude profoundly and has some pretty bad real life parallels of its own in terms of historical revisionism. Excising atrocities from history can and should leave a bad taste in one's mouth even when said history is fictional.
Committing to diversity is going to have to mean committing fully to diversity at some point, hopefully soon. They've already got the basic track on how to do this: you can have people in the game have stereotypes, false beliefs and/or genuine grievances with and about each other without having the game world simply side in both fluff and mechanics with one group or the other. You can still tell rich stories about cultural conflict without having your game declare the racist interpretation to be the correct one; in fact, the game is generally enriched by avoiding that. PF2e still seems to want to dance on either side of the fence, which should've stopped being a thing a long time ago.
Again, I think you're reading way too much into a single page of a single book here. Almost literally everything else outside the Bestiary, and even many Bestiary entries, is doing what you seem to want (and what I want, for that matter). It's just that Orc description that's a problem. And one that will pretty much certainly be contradicted in the player-facing APG, which will thus, in the end, get a lot more people reading its Orc description than will read the Bestiary one.