| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say, this whole discussion makes me want Lost Omens: The Golden Road even more. The region has been pretty steeped in slavery as part of its whole Orientalism-influenced pastiche, so with that out of the spotlight, I’d love to see it shine.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
https://mcpl.info/sites/default/files/images/consent-in-gaming-form-f illabl e-checklist-2019-09-13.pdf
Go to Gaming Consent Form.
By the way, that consent form is from a PDF called Consent in Gaming, written by me and Shanna Germain. It's free to download at the MCG Shop and DriveThruRPG. It gives a lot of advice about dealing with sensitive topics at the game table and/or making sure certain topics aren't included in the game.
By the way, that consent form is from a PDF called Consent in Gaming, written by me and Shanna Germain. It's free to download at the MCG Shop and DriveThruRPG. It gives a lot of advice about dealing with sensitive topics at the game table and/or making sure certain topics aren't included in the game.https://mcpl.info/sites/default/files/images/consent-in-gaming-form-f illabl e-checklist-2019-09-13.pdf
Go to Gaming Consent Form.
Ooh, can I ask a question? Is "Explicit Romance" referring to, like, on-screen romantic scenes, or sexual scenes?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever before checked a thread and said to myself, "Oh, thank god, they're talking about alignment."
This is nice. I vote we focus this thread more on talking about consent in RPGs and respecting boundaries, and less on debating what's already a done deal. I think we've sort of settled our lines in the sand on the inclusion-of-slavery issue at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happened with the silver ravens?
Aren't they still trying to overthrow Cheliax? I didn't finish Hell's Rebels because I don't care much about Chelaxian lore.
So what is going to happen to the Firebrands? They are, after all, a major organization in PF2 whose sole purpose is the abolition of slavery.
Is that it? I thought their purpose was rebellion against tyranny and oppressive rule - and looking good doing it.
I’ve never liked them, personally. They’ve always felt underbaked, from the pretty flat name on down.
Indeed, they are a bit...boring.
|
A) the letter... doesnt do that? It mentions them and that they did a pitiful job of it. But fiercely condemn? Not reallyPlus, countless adventuring parties have been fighting slavers in multiple adventure paths for multiple years. Perhaps that's enough dominoes toppled that we've finally seen some results!Erik Mona specifically said this change wasn't the result of anything player characters had done or will do. In fact, the author of the open letter fiercely criticized Paizo for writing adventures in which setting changes happen, like PFS 9-00.
This change is happening because Erik Mona, and presumably others at Paizo, took to heart a criticism of how LO handles slavery. It's not to involve players.
Hey, you can read the open letter yourself if you don't believe me. Their words, not mine.
The official response? If players wanted slavery banned in Organized Play, then there had to be an in-game event that justified the abolition of slavery.
What a f@*%ing hoop to jump through, right?
But it happened. Pathfinder Society Scenario #9-00: Assault on Absalom. An in-game event, requested by players, that led to the abolition of slavery. In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and then giving freedom to the survivors. Way to trip forward over a very low bar.
I call that a fierce criticsm.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Googles*
*Reads*
Huh. So it's, like... Antifa? In that there's no real "membership" but there's a general common goal of fighting injustice, members debate extensively about whether someone is a real Tier Four Firebrand or just a poser who hasn't even read Kropotkin, etc.
Yeah, that's less an organization and more an ideology. I'm not saying it's bad writing at all, I just can't think of a lot of gameplay ideas just from browsing it. Probably not a huge loss if they lose the implied abolitionist angle in canon supplements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and you have tons of content about slavery already out. Give the other atrocities a turn, bud.
(Also, it... kind of wasn't? Golarion is way less focused on colonialism than real-world history, and always has been. Cheliax only has one or two successful colonies in nonwhite continents, and none that are really functioning anymore as white-dominated colonies. I don't know why you expect to see chattel slavery in Fantasy Europe when there hasn't been a Fantasy Age of "Discovery".)
Just as an historical note, chattel slavery was common in Europe in the Middle Ages.
A) the letter... doesnt do that? It mentions them and that they did a pitiful job of it. But fiercely condemn? Not reallyPlus, countless adventuring parties have been fighting slavers in multiple adventure paths for multiple years. Perhaps that's enough dominoes toppled that we've finally seen some results!Erik Mona specifically said this change wasn't the result of anything player characters had done or will do. In fact, the author of the open letter fiercely criticized Paizo for writing adventures in which setting changes happen, like PFS 9-00.
This change is happening because Erik Mona, and presumably others at Paizo, took to heart a criticism of how LO handles slavery. It's not to involve players.
Hey, you can read the open letter yourself if you don't believe me. Their words, not mine.
The official response? If players wanted slavery banned in Organized Play, then there had to be an in-game event that justified the abolition of slavery.
What a f**%ing hoop to jump through, right?
But it happened. Pathfinder Society Scenario #9-00: Assault on Absalom. An in-game event, requested by players, that led to the abolition of slavery. In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and then giving freedom to the survivors. Way to trip forward over a very low bar.
I call that a fierce criticsm.
I would call it a fierce criticism, but I don't know if your framing is quite right.
First, they aren't criticizing the fact that the adventure exists. They're criticizing the fact that Paizo refused to ban slavery in Organized Play without first organizing an in-game event. They specifically mention the event being held, not the adventure existing, so I think that's important.
They then go on to fiercely criticize the content of the adventure. "In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and then giving freedom to the survivors."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh, can I ask a question? Is "Explicit Romance" referring to, like, on-screen romantic scenes, or sexual scenes?
I'd consider "explicit romance" to be on-screen expressions of love and romantic interest between two characters, whether that's reading love poems, kissing, expressing undying affection, and so on.
"Sex" is a separate category from "Romance."
(Some people aren't comfortable being in the presence of romantic expression, even if it doesn't involve their character.)
Just as an historical note, chattel slavery was common in Europe in the Middle Ages.Yeah, and you have tons of content about slavery already out. Give the other atrocities a turn, bud.
(Also, it... kind of wasn't? Golarion is way less focused on colonialism than real-world history, and always has been. Cheliax only has one or two successful colonies in nonwhite continents, and none that are really functioning anymore as white-dominated colonies. I don't know why you expect to see chattel slavery in Fantasy Europe when there hasn't been a Fantasy Age of "Discovery".)
I'm not sure that's really the era I'd say Cheliax is in, nor would I compare Chelaxian slavery to the chattel slavery of the Middle Ages. I can't find any record of slave auctions taking place then, for instance. It's pretty obvious that Chelaxian slavery is largely written in the language of American slavery, even if it may or may not have been intended to mirror slavery from another time or place. That's the problem with writing about slavery in a culture steeped in its legacy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, that consent form is from a PDF called Consent in Gaming, written by me and Shanna Germain. It's free to download at the MCG Shop and DriveThruRPG. It gives a lot of advice about dealing with sensitive topics at the game table and/or making sure certain topics aren't included in the game.Ooh, can I ask a question? Is "Explicit Romance" referring to, like, on-screen romantic scenes, or sexual scenes?I'd consider "explicit romance" to be on-screen expressions of love and romantic interest between two characters, whether that's reading love poems, kissing, expressing undying affection, and so on.
"Sex" is a separate category from "Romance."
(Some people aren't comfortable being in the presence of romantic expression, even if it doesn't involve their character.)
Thank you! That's what I figured. Hey, for bambi lesbians, "reading a love poem" is basically third base. ;P
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happened with the silver ravens?
I found them to be more interesting that the Firebrands.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did anyone ever play the Slave Lords series back in 1E?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am still very confused. Slavery isn't being retconned out but its being "removed" going forward? Hows that going to work? If we get a darklands book or something happening in cheliax they just wont mention it? Will the possible revolution in cheliax just not bring up halfling slaves?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The official response? If players wanted slavery banned in Organized Play, then there had to be an in-game event that justified the abolition of slavery.
What a f**%ing hoop to jump through, right?
But it happened. Pathfinder Society Scenario #9-00: Assault on Absalom. An in-game event, requested by players, that led to the abolition of slavery. In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and then giving freedom to the survivors. Way to trip forward over a very low bar.
I call that a fierce criticsm.
I would call it a fierce criticism, but I don't know if your framing is quite right.
First, they aren't criticizing the fact that the adventure exists. They're criticizing the fact that Paizo refused to ban slavery in Organized Play without first organizing an in-game event. They specifically mention the event being held, not the adventure existing, so I think that's important.
They then go on to fiercely criticize the content of the adventure. "In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and...
No, if Organized Play wants to ban something, then that thing gets banned, no special event required. As a 1E PFS player, I guarantee to you there was a list a mile long of forbidden player options. For example, vampire bloodline sorceror weren't allowed to drink blood, witches weren't allowed to cook people, etc.
The purpose of the Liberty's Edge event, which lead to the Grand Manumission, was not to justify changing PFS rules. It was to change the setting, specifically of the status of slavery in Absalom and the Inner Sea at large.
I don't remember profession (slaver) or anything being officially banned immediately upon completion of 9-00. That change had likely come before, although I never had the terrible luck of playing with anyone who insisted on roleplaying a human trafficker, so YMMV.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, if Organized Play wants to ban something, then that thing gets banned, no special event required.
Yes, and that's the criticism here--that unusually, an event was implemented, rather than simply banning the option without fanfare.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I think you should cite your sources, since you're directly contradicting the word of the freelancer on this.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is knock-off Earth and they just copypasted slavery into their corollaries and treated it as something the setting handles with indifference.
This seems like a solid, succinct summary of what (people seem to be arguing) is wrong at the core with how some setting materials have handled slavery.
I should also point out those making a "morals were different back then" argument that it only holds up if, like the oppressors of the past, you don't count the opinions of the enslaved. If you consider the victims actual humans with valid opinions of their own, there is no "morals of the past" argument because everyone who has been oppressed knows it sucks.
We should count the opinions of the enslaved, but the "morals were different back then" argument wouldn't hold up that well even if we didn't. As made in real history it frequently had more than a whiff of insincerity about it.
The whole argument that slavery didn't suck - as made in real history - was not exactly normal across the long, long history of slavery; it was widely and fiercely propounded only in the places and the short periods in which slavery was under threatening attack and those with a stake in its preservation felt the need for moral arguments to defend it.
Sources from times and places where stakeholders in slavery didn't feel the system to be threatened often are quite open about admitting that slavery was evil and sucked, even sources from the very distant past who participated in it and lived lives surrounded by it.
Haec est sola malorum omnium postrema, quae liberis omni supplicio gravior est; nam ubi libertas periit, una ibi perierunt et omnia, as Saint Isidore wrote about slavery more than a thousand years before there was any such thing as abolitionism. This thing [enslavement] alone is the worst of all evils, which for free persons is the gravest of all tortures, for where freedom has perished, everything there is has perished with it.
This from a man who was anything but antislavery, but who had no ulterior motive to dissemble about how much it sucked to be enslaved because there was no social movement trying to end slavery and therefore no audience of fence-sitting potential abolitionists who had to be lied to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A) the letter... doesnt do that? It mentions them and that they did a pitiful job of it. But fiercely condemn? Not reallyPlus, countless adventuring parties have been fighting slavers in multiple adventure paths for multiple years. Perhaps that's enough dominoes toppled that we've finally seen some results!Erik Mona specifically said this change wasn't the result of anything player characters had done or will do. In fact, the author of the open letter fiercely criticized Paizo for writing adventures in which setting changes happen, like PFS 9-00.
This change is happening because Erik Mona, and presumably others at Paizo, took to heart a criticism of how LO handles slavery. It's not to involve players.
Hey, you can read the open letter yourself if you don't believe me. Their words, not mine.
The official response? If players wanted slavery banned in Organized Play, then there had to be an in-game event that justified the abolition of slavery.
What a f**%ing hoop to jump through, right?
But it happened. Pathfinder Society Scenario #9-00: Assault on Absalom. An in-game event, requested by players, that led to the abolition of slavery. In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and then giving freedom to the survivors. Way to trip forward over a very low bar.
I call that a fierce criticsm.
I would call it a fierce criticism, but I don't know if your framing is quite right.
First, they aren't criticizing the fact that the adventure exists. They're criticizing the fact that Paizo refused to ban slavery in Organized Play without first organizing an in-game event. They specifically mention the event being held, not the adventure existing, so I think that's important.
They then go on to fiercely criticize the content of the adventure. "In one city. By conscripting the enslaved people to fight in a war and...
@ Necrogiant: Basically what Kobold said here. I interpreted it as them criticizing Paizo making it be hoops to jump through, and then saying that it tripped over the a low bar, which I read as more frustration than fierce criticism, but to each their own. Regardless, my original point still stands, which is that if you need to have a narrative reason for this to happen, plenty of things within the lore could be used as a justification for the ending of the majority of slavery in the scope of the pathfinder setting.
Also, does anyone have Mona's actual statement? I've looked around but havent been able to find it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, if Organized Play wants to ban something, then that thing gets banned, no special event required.Yes, and that's the criticism here--that unusually, an event was implemented, rather than simply banning the option without fanfare.
I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I think you should cite your sources, since you're directly contradicting the word of the freelancer on this.
The Additional Resources page has the following:
Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: … slaves are not legal for play.
So owning slaves in society was banned sometime between July 2011 and April 2019, and a less recent AR file would pull that second date forward.
An AR from before PFS 9-00 that stated slaves were not legal from play would prove the freelancer wrong about the scenario. Unfortunately, those AR are no longer on Paizo website. I could purchase 9-00 to see if language banning slaves from society play is present, but I'm not spending money or any more time on this just to win internet points.
I've also drifted from my point, that the purpose of this don't-call-it-a-retcon is to correct authorial mistakes, not as a accomplishment of players or the characters.
Creative Director
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
What happened with the silver ravens?I found them to be more interesting that the Firebrands.
The Silver Ravens are still around. They're a part of the Firebrands, which is a new faction that we invented in 2nd edition to make up for the fact that we really didn't have much appealing for chaotic good players to look to join, traditionally.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
does anyone have Mona's actual statement? I've looked around but havent been able to find it.
The text of the open letter that Owen posted can be found HERE
Erik's response is in the comments if you scroll to the bottom.Owen,
Thank you for posting this letter on behalf of the freelancer who sent it to you. I appreciate the message contained within it, and I am sorry in this instance to have fallen so short of this author’s expectations of me and of Paizo.
Having a continuity that spans two decades means that our understanding of the community’s wants and needs can sometimes accelerate faster than our ability to reflect that in our work, and in this case, with this issue, it’s clear we need to move further.
Fights against slavers had been a staple of the fantasy genre for decades when we originally conceived the Pathfinder setting, so those elements were added to the setting to allow for that type of adventuring. In retrospect, that was a bad idea—a sort of “original sin” that continues to taint the setting for a lot of people.
A few years ago, our Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign, fueled by similar concerns, launched a big interactive event to free all of the slaves in Absalom and initiate a new era for the city. A great deal of the references in the Absalom book are to this manumission, and the resulting positive changes to the city. Some of them refer to a handful of villains still trying to engage in the practice illegally, which in retrospect was not a good idea.
We will be adding a content warning to Absalom: City of Lost Omens, so that people have a chance to anticipate this content.
Going forward, we plan to remove slavery from our game and setting completely. We will not be writing adventures to tell the story of how this happened. We will not be introducing an in-world event to facilitate this change.
We’re just going to move on from it, period.
Given some items currently in the pipeline, it will take several months and a few more releases in each line before we can fully implement this new policy. But it’s clear that it’s a step that we need to take, and I personally should have realized that sooner.
Again, I apologize to this freelancer and to anyone else disappointed by this issue. We hear you, and we resolve to do better.
Sincerely,
Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Inc.
He then went on to say more, HERE
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, my original point still stands, which is that if you need to have a narrative reason for this to happen, plenty of things within the lore could be used as a justification for the ending of the majority of slavery in the scope of the pathfinder setting.
Before this all happened, what you describe was actually true in-setting. The role of slavery was moving away from slavery as portrayed in the Bible (among other sources) and more towards the human trafficking of today. It was titled "The Fight for Abolition" on p. 124 of Lost Omens Legends, and it was an interesting ongoing storyline within the setting. It was also driven by players' actions in offical APs, which is good for an interactive medium.
Then they rushed to pulled the plug completely in response to criticism of how the issue was handled in a previous edition and how many "foil slavers" plot hooks were written in City of Lost Omens. So there's now one fewer story and many dangling plot threads. This was a clumsy overreaction to criticism.
Also, does anyone have Mona's actual statement? I've looked around but havent been able to find it.
Go to Here's a link to the open letter. Below it is Mona's promise, written on the same day as the open letter, to completely "to remove slavery from our game and setting completely."
Since that comment was rushed, Mona partially walked it back here.
|
|
I am still very confused. Slavery isn't being retconned out but its being "removed" going forward? Hows that going to work? If we get a darklands book or something happening in cheliax they just wont mention it? Will the possible revolution in cheliax just not bring up halfling slaves?
There are several possiblities. They could just avoid certain topics altogether (Cheliax, duergar, Eagle Knights, Bellflower Network). They might retcon those topics so that they don't involve slavery. Or they might walk on eggshells when sensitive topics come up.
Wait and see, your guess is as good as mine, etc.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope we can at least get an explicit mention somewhere of slavery’s outlaw in Qadira and elsewhere along the Golden Road. Katapesh has already been mentioned as noticing the increasing unpopularity, and may well bend to it out of market pressures.
I’d prefer at least some mention of the practice ending, having been so firmly entrenched in the lore prior.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope we can at least get an explicit mention somewhere of slavery’s outlaw in Qadira and elsewhere along the Golden Road. Katapesh has already been mentioned as noticing the increasing unpopularity, and may well bend to it out of market pressures.
I’d prefer at least some mention of the practice ending, having been so firmly entrenched in the lore prior.
I think my ideal scenario coming out of this is an "opt-in" solo mega-adventure featuring the Firebrands that deals with this group shutting down the Inner Sea's largest slaver networks between Okeno and Cheliax, resulting in wide rebellions which compel the likes of her infernal majestrix and the Pactmasters to sever ties with this merchant sector in a fury and conclude that business is more trouble than it's worth. Something like this, at least. All this assuming Paizo's creative team and freelancers want to do it, of course.
I'm just hoping the transition between these two different Golarions won't be as jarring as this all currently sounds. And it'd be nice to give the Bellflowers their day, after ten years of setup, and all the awesome suspense buildup in Legends.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do hope we can at least get an explicit mention somewhere of slavery’s outlaw in Qadira and elsewhere along the Golden Road. Katapesh has already been mentioned as noticing the increasing unpopularity, and may well bend to it out of market pressures.
I’d prefer at least some mention of the practice ending, having been so firmly entrenched in the lore prior.
I think my ideal scenario coming out of this is an "opt-in" solo mega-adventure featuring the Firebrands that deals with this group shutting down the Inner Sea's largest slaver networks between Okeno and Cheliax, resulting in wide rebellions which compel the likes of her infernal majestrix and the Pactmasters to sever ties with this merchant sector in a fury and conclude that business is more trouble than it's worth. Something like this, at least. All this assuming Paizo's creative team and freelancers want to do it, of course.
I'm just hoping the transition between these two different Golarions won't be as jarring as this all currently sounds. And it'd be nice to give the Bellflowers their day, after ten years of setup, and all the awesome suspense buildup in Legends.
It seems pretty definitive that this won't be a story we playthrough; between this current controversy and me asking JJ flat-out about an abolitionist AP a while back (I believe he said that the Scarlet Triad in AoA took up the "slavers as antagonists" theme for the AP line for a long while), and I think I'm okay with that. Vidrian's revolution occurred "off-screen," but still felt satisfying and organic.
Smashing Okeno would be fun, though. It would make a great Night of the Grey Death-style metaplot Adventure.
EDIT: I really want that gnoll abolitionist NPC lady to show up in something!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alternatively, it would be cool to see the Bellflowers get to transition to a different mission statement post-abolition. They were and are a neat organization with a cool name.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Liberators and Bellflowers and Firebrands still have plenty of oppression to oppose. Whether it is overthrowing tyrannical dictators or freeing a bunch of kidnapped villagers from the ogres that want to cook and eat them, there are still plenty of plots where you get to liberate people and fight for freedom.
The idea that slavery is the only oppression or form of imprisonment that you can fight against is a bit silly.
edit: and, you know, just because paizo isn't going to write about slavery anymore, it doesn't mean that you can't have adventures where you fight to free slaves in your own time. Not every adventure type or plot gets covered in APs anyway, so it is no different to PF2 not currently having a pirate adventure path or maybe never getting an alien abduction adventure path.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think pretty much everyone realizes that Paizo not covering the topic doesn't meant that you can't cover it in your own game.
I'd like to assume at least that people upset about it are more upset about the "we won't see abolition being completed in universe through several books" aspect?
I think pretty much everyone realizes that Paizo not covering the topic doesn't meant that you can't cover it in your own game.
I'd like to assume at least that people upset about it are more upset about the "we won't see abolition being completed in universe through several books" aspect?
I'm hoping we get a book about it simply to follow through on the narrative threads Pathfinder's woven for the better part of the last decade. I'm hoping for a recounting of an event happening in-universe just so that this historical progression makes sense to me, when I represent it as a GM. Both of these concerns aren't important next to the issues surrounding this controversy IRL. I'm not convinced Erik's resolution necessarily reflects what the creative and freelance teams wanted in the first place (although members like Hmm coming in and expressing support for it is reassuring me) — but I can dig a Golarion where slavery is just no longer a thing (or talked about, at any rate, little fuzzy on this point). For admittedly selfish reasons, I'd just prefer to have a satisfying conclusion to stories I was invested in, or at least have a definitive explanation for how this change came about from the people who've been building these plot threads all this time.
Regardless, I have confidence in Paizo's creatives, and am eager as I've ever been to read what they've got cooking next. Golarion's future is bright.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Liberators and Bellflowers and Firebrands still have plenty of oppression to oppose. Whether it is overthrowing tyrannical dictators or freeing a bunch of kidnapped villagers from the ogres that want to cook and eat them, there are still plenty of plots where you get to liberate people and fight for freedom.
The idea that slavery is the only oppression or form of imprisonment that you can fight against is a bit silly.
edit: and, you know, just because paizo isn't going to write about slavery anymore, it doesn't mean that you can't have adventures where you fight to free slaves in your own time. Not every adventure type or plot gets covered in APs anyway, so it is no different to PF2 not currently having a pirate adventure path or maybe never getting an alien abduction adventure path.
But no more writing on slavery make those groups redundant. They specifically came up because of the need to free slaves. That's what separated them from any old adventuring group out to save village x from threat y, at least to me. And I understand I can do what I please on my own time but this feels like a cop out after all the events taking place in game
One wonders what Katapesh looks like now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If removing slavery also means we can get rid of andoran and the eagle knights in one go that is a double win. Please get the andoran exceptionalism out of the fantasy setting…… talk about crappy inspiration.
|
|
earliest AR I can access right now (might have an older one somewhere) is July 16, and it has the same textThe Additional Resources page has the following:
So owning slaves in society was banned sometime between July 2011 and April 2019, and a less recent AR file would pull that second date forward.Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: … slaves are not legal for play.
Do you mean July 2016? That predates the 9-00, the scenario the freelances took issue with.
Do you mean July 2016? That predates the 9-00, the scenario the freelances took issue with.earliest AR I can access right now (might have an older one somewhere) is July 16, and it has the same textThe Additional Resources page has the following:
So owning slaves in society was banned sometime between July 2011 and April 2019, and a less recent AR file would pull that second date forward.Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: … slaves are not legal for play.
I thought the same initially but then realized that the timing would be exact. Your confusing the public release date with the able to be played release date which are different.
Contributor
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hello Everyone.
I'm going to make a suggestion here. If you want to have a large event or a series of adventures where you ease slavery out of the world, or write up a transition arc for the Bellflower Network to begin finding new causes, why not write it yourself as an adventure for Pathfinder Infinite? It sounds like a subject that would be popular with a certain crowd, so it would probably do very well there.
Omar and Zahra were a pair of performing Shelynites with Zahra's tiger companion, Pumpkin. We had joined the Pathfinder Society with the idea that we would finally raise the money to purchase our own tiger farm and train tigers full time.
But it seemed like everytime we got to adventure in our home country, we had to interact with slavers and the elemental slave trade. The home and backstory that we built for ourselves was slowly poisoned by the idea that our entire nation was host to the biggest slave market in Golarian. Eventually it got so that Zahra and Omar were reluctant to adventure in our home country. I would love to have more adventures written in a Katapesh where slavery isn't the featured story seed. It's a really interesting and diverse location, full of so many other potential storylines. I am hoping that with slavery gone, maybe we'll finally see the kind of adventures in Katapesh that I always hoped for.
★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★
I guess what I am saying is that by taking slavery out of the official Paizo storylines, it means that slavery lore has become something that your group can opt into while the rest of us opt out. It also creates an opportunity for future infinite products that you could create, knowing that Paizo won't compete with you on this storyline. So... if this what your party wants in their stories, no one is stopping you from homebrewing or even writing your own content.
Hmm
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the same initially but then realized that the timing would be exact. Your confusing the public release date with the able to be played release date which are different.Do you mean July 2016? That predates the 9-00, the scenario the freelances took issue with.earliest AR I can access right now (might have an older one somewhere) is July 16, and it has the same textThe Additional Resources page has the following:
So owning slaves in society was banned sometime between July 2011 and April 2019, and a less recent AR file would pull that second date forward.Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: … slaves are not legal for play.I did. And I've now been back through stuff on my PC (rather than tablet), and the June 2016 AR is where the text was added, as follows
As of June 10, 2016, slaves are no longer available for purchase.
No, the-able-to-be-played release date of the scenario in question was Gencon 2017, a year after slavery in PFS was already banned. It was released publically in 2018.
The author of the open letter claimed the slavery wasn't banned in Organized Play until there was an official adventure making it so. Now we know that isn't true.