|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you just been antsily sitting and holding that back thinking you have the perfect gatcha?
I was pointing out racist things. If you were doing those you were running on a racism. And if you do that or defend that then yes you will get called on racism.
Also you were the one asking *shrugs* Not my fault you didn't like the answers.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people talk about being canceled, they sound like they want a fight. Not a real dialogue.
Especially when they're shrieking about the other side and not actually bothering to defend any of their own points.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let's talk about another pretty big societal problem. Something pretty horrid, evil, and despicable that you still see quite a lot these days. That's right, I'm talking about rape.
If Paizo had said "actually, we don't want to do stories about rapists and the consequences of rape anymore", for some reason I suspect people wouldn't go screaming into the streets about how this destroys the chance to write stories that show how bad rape is.
Why should slavery be any different?
I've been tempted in these threads to go there, but dared not, yet it seems perhaps necessary to drive the point home. IMO one could equate slavery w/ "rape industry", at least to help clarify its impact on some of our fellow gamers.* Yes, that'd be an evil worth slaying, no doubt we all might feel some catharsis. Yet that evil (even before factoring in potential triggering of trauma) wouldn't be one worth highlighting, not w/ Pathfinder's tones that is. That's the position slavery's in.
And in terms of tone & maturity level, Paizo clarified a decade or so ago they were shooting for PG-13 content; not grimdark, and not R-rated+ as most of real history has been. To tackle slavery at PG-13 is to skim over its severity, which one shouldn't do (at least in the opinions of many here). Such an evil shouldn't be set dressing, something Paizo's now realized, yet neither does Paizo want to emphasize it. So it's no longer part of the narratives that Paizo wishes to tell; it's not palpable blurry nor in sharp focus. Their decision doesn't make it disappear, not anymore than many other hideous deeds not contained in Paizo's narratives. Their choice merely displays recognition that the family friendly PG-13 atmosphere needed some cleansing.
And I'd be all for specifically grimmer PF content as a distinct endeavor outside of canon, but Paizo doesn't branch like that.
*Paizo's spellcheck doesn't recognize "gamers" as a word? :-O
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo could have used this opportunity to write stories that show just how freaking bad and inhumane and dehumanizing slavery can be; instead, nope we are just gonna recon it all away. Totally missed the opportunity.
Hobgoblins, Orcs, Goblins and other ancestries are now all playing nice. What's next? Whispering Tyrant reconciliation and vampire appreciation week?
It seems like you might be a bit confused about what's happeneing, let's help!
Paizo has written many, many stories about slavery and its evils, some have been okay, a lot have been... not great. If you want to run them, use them to help educate, etc then they still all exist, they're right there for you to use and they're not going anywhere! Nothing's even being retcon'd, awesome eh!
So, now that's been cleared up... hobgoblins, orcs, goblins, and so on 'playing nice'? If you mean 'some of the nations and groups of creatures who have existed for many years in states of constant war or conflict have decided that maybe it's worth not buying into that concept anymore and trying a different path' then... sure, you're correct, isn't a growing, living campaign world really cool!
As to the Whispering Tyrant and vampires, it seems like you might be trying to use a reduction to the absurd argument, accidentally I'm sure! That's when you take an example to a ridiculous extreme that everyone recognises is such, and then try to tie it back to the actual point you're trying to debate, which it of course has no relevance to! Now you know, so you can avoid it in the future, it will make your debates much more open to others when you stick to facts, even if that may mean that you might not be able to argue as strong a point as you'd like, facts can be tricky like that!
Have a great day!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is let's go kill the evil dragon any better than let's go kill the evil orc? Dragons are sapient beings able to have their own motives and alignment. Is it because they have a non Humanoid body shape?
The humanoid thing and the racial coding that goes along with it (in appearance [skin tone, facial features - notice that the evil races rarely look like white people?], in dress [often drawing on the garb of indigenous people or generic 'tribal' wear], in culture) is the crux of the issue, yes. When they're shaped like humans, do everything humans do, but are uniformly evil deserving of righteous violence? That's the bad stuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I always recommend these blog posts from a few years back, when there was a big moment of public discourse around the racist coding of orcs.
I hadn't actually seen these before, thanks for that!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing I resent most about the arguments that one-note, planet of the hats style ancestries are somehow more interesting than ones with variety and nuance, is that it forces me into choosing between two insulting viewpoints towards the person making it, and there is no rational way to respond that the person isn't going to be offended by.
Either they are arguing in good faith, and are just really that bad at reasoning, or they are arguing in bad faith, and are using it as a flimsy argument to defend racism because they can't think of a better one.
I will repeat this however, for like the hundredth time - if we can tell the difference between human bandits and human townspeople, we can tell the difference between goblins who are just minding their own business and ones who are... well, bandits.
We have gotten through pretty much the whole of human history, where we could usually figure out that the people raiding our villages or waving axes and banners we don't recognize where the enemy without the benefit of them being a different species to us.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Some of you really don't know much about the history of many of these things. You're forcing your viewpoint on them as usual.
Drow were not kill on sight. The entire idea of a dark elf was born out of dark fairies that predated any modern idea of racism or racial structures. These myths existed long before people were even thinking of each other like this. Drow were beautiful, highly intelligent, and extremely capable. They were considered superior to humanity and believed themselves so.
Orcs and goblins? Other groups pulled from mythology and modified for RPG fantasy that predates modern ideas of race that some people are superimposing modern values on them likely because they read some article that did so. Not because they actually researched if it was true.
Like it's impossible for mythology or fiction to have existed before modern ideas of race.
And this is why corporations responding to people who are purely clueless about where the idea for something comes from superimposing their beliefs onto a game system absent any historical context for their existence makes these discussion super tiresome.
The idea of monsters and monstrous races/beings is a long standing fantasy trope predating any conception of modern race.
And as far as this whole "such and such people are kill on sight" is a terrible idea. It was literally a two way street. The orcs viewed humans as a source of food and wanted to dominate them. The humans were afraid of them because of it.
And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight. Players tend to look for things to kill. They don't care if it's a drow or a human or a dragon or a pixie. If you're in the adventure, they want to kill you.\
The entire game is built for players to "kill on sight" just about everything so they can use all their nifty little combat abilities.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "modern lenses" defense got you and others laughed at the first time and it's going to keep getting you laughed at.
Drow were, from their inception, elves that turned evil and thus their skin turned black to match. Whatever folklore incorporated into that doesn't matter.
"And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight."
This is false.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is let's go kill the evil dragon any better than let's go kill the evil orc? Dragons are sapient beings able to have their own motives and alignment. Is it because they have a non Humanoid body shape?The humanoid thing and the racial coding that goes along with it (in appearance [skin tone, facial features - notice that the evil races rarely look like white people?], in dress [often drawing on the garb of indigenous people or generic 'tribal' wear], in culture) is the crux of the issue, yes. When they're shaped like humans, do everything humans do, but are uniformly evil deserving of righteous violence? That's the bad stuff.
Many of these races don't look like any human group. None of them. You're putting this on them yourself. It's your viewpoint.
They're not kill on sight. You are confusing that they kill you on sight with they are kill on sight.
These are all monsters created to be enemies to the PCs. Everything in the game is a kill on sight situation the majority of the time with a challenge rating, combat stats, and experience points.
Game designers spend countless hours designing various enemies to the point where we have books of them with all sorts of different appearances that want to kill the PCs on sight and force a fight.
There have been plenty of enemies that are based on "lighter skin races" as you put it. Kharzoug in Runelords? The Chelaxians? Many of the enemies in Carrion Crown. Ghouls? Banites in the Forgotten Realms? Mind Flayers have pale white skin, don't they? And vampire are often lighter-skinned?
There has been all kinds of variation in these games. Always has been, always will be.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight. Players tend to look for things to kill. They don't care if it's a drow or a human or a dragon or a pixie. If you're in the adventure, they want to kill you.\
The entire game is built for players to "kill on sight" just about everything so they can use all their nifty little combat abilities.
Playtest adventure, Doomsday Dawn, Mirrored Moon. If you were there for the retrospective Mark did on it at the time, you'd know that's also not remotely true of Pathfinder players.
"Even when presented with a fairly adversarial type of monster that's usually seen as an enemy giant, in all of the encounters where there was an option except the rocs, close to 80% of groups used the diplomatic route. Even in the fight that was a forced fight, 50% of groups spared the giant mercenary and recruited him."
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Some of you really don't know much about the history of many of these things. You're forcing your viewpoint on them as usual."Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thy own eye?"
Doesn't really apply does it? I'm not trying to take someone else's creation, ignore what they said inspired it, and then force my viewpoint on it because I want to fit everything into how I see it.
I'm actually taking Gary Gygax, the creator of the drow, at his word as to what inspired him to create them, his source material, and respecting what he stated. Not superimposing my own belief system onto another's work.
You think that is ok do you? If you write something, you want them to be able to infer beliefs and ideas that you never intended in that work? You think that's ok? That that is acceptable behavior and treatment of someone's work?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight. Players tend to look for things to kill. They don't care if it's a drow or a human or a dragon or a pixie. If you're in the adventure, they want to kill you.\
The entire game is built for players to "kill on sight" just about everything so they can use all their nifty little combat abilities.
Playtest adventure, Doomsday Dawn, Mirrored Moon. If you were there for the retrospective Mark did on it at the time, you'd know that's also not remotely true of Pathfinder players.
"Even when presented with a fairly adversarial type of monster that's usually seen as an enemy giant, in all of the encounters where there was an option except the rocs, close to 80% of groups used the diplomatic route. Even in the fight that was a forced fight, 50% of groups spared the giant mercenary and recruited him."
One example does not make something "not remotely true." You are often interfering with some enemy's goals. So they attack you to prevent you from interfering with their goal. I would rather see what percentage of PF/D&D interactions are resolved through combat. That would be more of an interesting bit of data. I mean those that can be resolved through combat.
I could say the same thing of drow. When the drow were first encountered, no one was killing them on sight. They didn't know what they were. They tried to converse with them. But the drow when they first came out had other plans.
Then in Forgotten Realms the drow were made into a playable race because people wanted to play them because they liked them. They thought they were cool. They adapted a character with a goodly or neutral nature without being prompted to do so.
If there was this huge negative view of the drow, why did people want to play them? Why were they so interested in learning about them that they became the most explored elven race in D&D history?
Does that seem to you like some "kill on sight" group that people did not like? Or viewed in a negative light?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually taking Gary Gygax, the creator of the drow, at his word as to what inspired him to create them, his source material, and respecting what he stated. Not superimposing my own belief system onto another's work.
You think that is ok do you? If you write something, you want them to be able to infer beliefs and ideas that you never intended in that work? You think that's ok? That that is acceptable behavior and treatment of someone's work?
I see you're clearly also wholly of the belief that JK Rowling's goblins aren't anti-Semitic caricatures.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "modern lenses" defense got you and others laughed at the first time and it's going to keep getting you laughed at.
Drow were, from their inception, elves that turned evil and thus their skin turned black to match. Whatever folklore incorporated into that doesn't matter.
"And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight."
This is false.
Yes. It does matter what folklore was used for it. It very much does.
If you are going to imply a negative inspiration for the creation of a particular idea, then you had better be able to prove it so because you are very much taking a person's work and implying a very negative trait inspired it even if the source material predates the trait you are claiming.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see you're clearly also wholly of the belief that JK Rowling's goblins aren't anti-Semitic caricatures.I'm actually taking Gary Gygax, the creator of the drow, at his word as to what inspired him to create them, his source material, and respecting what he stated. Not superimposing my own belief system onto another's work.
You think that is ok do you? If you write something, you want them to be able to infer beliefs and ideas that you never intended in that work? You think that's ok? That that is acceptable behavior and treatment of someone's work?
I have not read a sufficient amount on J.K. Rowlings goblins to speak on them, so I will not.
I only know that in general goblins, orcs, and the dark faeries that inspired the drow are based on mythology that has nothing to do with the inferences being pressed on them in this thread.
That I know. There is a lot of folklore and mythology from various parts of Europe and the world in general that predates any of the ideas being superimposed on the material now. Long before humans had contact with each other built the social structures being imposed upon them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see you're clearly also wholly of the belief that JK Rowling's goblins aren't anti-Semitic caricatures.I'm actually taking Gary Gygax, the creator of the drow, at his word as to what inspired him to create them, his source material, and respecting what he stated. Not superimposing my own belief system onto another's work.
You think that is ok do you? If you write something, you want them to be able to infer beliefs and ideas that you never intended in that work? You think that's ok? That that is acceptable behavior and treatment of someone's work?
I have not read a sufficient amount on J.K. Rowlings goblins to speak on them, so I will not.
I only know that in general goblins, orcs, and the dark faeries that inspired the drow are based on mythology that has nothing to do with the inferences being pressed on them in this thread.
That I know. There is a lot of folklore and mythology from various parts of Europe and the world in general that predates any of the ideas being superimposed on the material now. Long before humans had contact with each other built the social structures being imposed upon them.
When I am speaking, I refer to their place specifically in the tabletop hobby - you know, the topic of these forums? I'm not critiquing ancient mythology, and none of my posts have even gestured at doing so.
Also, orcs aren't mythological critters.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have not read a sufficient amount on J.K. Rowlings goblins to speak on them, so I will not.
I only know that in general goblins, orcs, and the dark faeries that inspired the drow are based on mythology that has nothing to do with the inferences being pressed on them in this thread.
That I know. There is a lot of folklore and mythology from various parts of Europe and the world in general that predates any of the ideas being superimposed on the material now. Long before humans had contact with each other built the social structures being imposed upon them.
Oh, good, then you'll know that Tolkien's setting (which D&D then took from) was based on racist ideals.
"The Orcs are definitely stated to be corruptions of the 'human' form seen in Elves and Men. They are (or were) squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types." - Tolkien's Letter #210
Hobbits were “a reflection of the English soldier,” made small of stature to emphasize “the amazing and unexpected heroism of ordinary men ‘at a pinch.’” - Interview with Tolkien
(Rowling's goblins, similarly, are a race of gnarled, hook-nosed misers obsessed with gold, who believe they own everything they’ve ever produced and wizards who purchase things only ‘rent’ from them. They appear to run the entire wizarding economy, and trust no one but their own kind. It’s suggested that secret cabals of goblins work to undermine the wizard government.)
Now, does that mean that Tolkien himself was racist? No, in actual fact there's a decent amount of evidence to suggest otherwise. However, it's really difficult to suggest that the base design of orcs, for instance, wasn't based in scientific racism theories.
And it's fair game to criticize that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "modern lenses" defense got you and others laughed at the first time and it's going to keep getting you laughed at.
Drow were, from their inception, elves that turned evil and thus their skin turned black to match. Whatever folklore incorporated into that doesn't matter.
"And in D&D/PF everything is kill on sight."
This is false.
Yes. It does matter what folklore was used for it. It very much does.
If you are going to imply a negative inspiration for the creation of a particular idea, then you had better be able to prove it so because you are very much taking a person's work and implying a very negative trait inspired it even if the source material predates the trait you are claiming.
For me, the creation itself might just be ignorance and short-sightedness.
But fighting to keep it when it has been demonstrated that it hurts innocent people is bad.
Errare humanum est.
Sed perseverare diabolicum.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think its bit hard to argue that orcs aren't inspired by racistic ideas since their core origin is pretty much demonetization of Mongol Empires and various successor khanates of it.
Anyway as someone who has recently read some of the original D&D modules uh... Well it depends on module, but lot of them are like this in nature:
Chief's room says that chief starts hostile but if players can speak draconic, they can extort chief for treasure in exchange for ransoming the hatchlings.
....Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. And in another module you straight up can fight giant babies :P Old D&D modules have kind of nihilistic attitude where they absolutely make no moral comment in any other way than "how players can get loot out of this" and "whether they get exp from it". Its umm incredibly dehumanizing to read. (the example I was describing is from The Forge of Fury iirc)
I'm just saying, sure kids playing D&D in 80s likely didn't realize how messed up the modules read, but that doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with how they were handled in first place :p I remember seeing home invasion jokes about D&D over ten years ago
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo decided to care about this real suffering of real people.
I, for one, respect this deeply.
Sorry just dont buy that reasoning when Paizo are the ones that put said suffering in there books to begin with (Including the entire buy a person as an option in organised play.
Frankly I dont see why they should be getting any praise for fixing (and lets be clear it's not really fixing.) the problem they put in the setting in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Yes. It does matter what folklore was used for it. It very much does.”
It doesn’t matter in the slightest, you’re fixating on something no one is talking about or cares about.
They could be inspired by Black Forest Ham and eggnog for all I care. Means nothing.
The point of contention, that you are repeatedly ignoring is that you have pale white elves be Good and then when they turn Evil their skin turns black. That’s the issue.
No one cares about the mythological or Gygaxian origin for them in setting terms so you’re just talking to a wall when you keep bringing that up. The skin turning black to show how evil they are, that’s the issue. The creator’s intent is meaningless.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What you mean the one paizo basically kept in the game with the dark fate (Think thats what the thing where evil elves can potenally transform into Drow is called.)
What about the "you're evil so your skin turns black" Drow one?
Ayup.
Still don’t like it, even if they’re lavender or blueberry now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit
You’re missing the issue that A) it was that you turned black for being evil and B) the whole entirety of society of “being evil turns you black” underground elves were evil with no chance for good because they were that scared of having any Drizzt in the setting.
As for human ethnicities, don’t forget the Bekyar “ethnicity” from the Mwangi, which were all apparently innately evil and slavers in P1, oof.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to check, did they actually put buying person as option in organized play?
Like I was under impression that what they did was allowing hiring hirelings, but they initially didn't explicitly disallow people fluffing their hirelings as slaves <_<
I think they explicitly banned it in 2016 (before the author of the open letter thinks they did), but I don't know if they ever explicitly allowed it. I doubt there's a blog post excitedly announcing slaverey as a new player option in Organized Play.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of those Ethnicities you mentioned are not innately evil so not really relevant. Taldan, Jadwiga, and Nidalan can be any alignment. Bekyar we’re disturbingly written as an innately evil human ethnicity.
“ Also, the whole elf vs drow has nothing to do with racism”
A white person who becomes evil turns black. Pretty racist. That they’re humans with pointy ears or humans from another planet doesn’t change that.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
“Stop trying to attach human standards to non-human races”
That is such a pathetic cop-out it’s not even funny.
“They’re not human so racism doesn’t even apply in any form” despite being written by humans to interact with humans via storytelling and also ya know. Looking human.
“I’m othering then so I get a pass” just makes you look ridiculous.
Chelaxians are not innately evil. Bekyar were.
“despite the evidence to the contrary.”
What evidence?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
inb4 mods lock this like the past 5 threads about issues like this.
I can't even tell where this thread is going after Luis Loza answered OP's question, other than down towards insanity, but if I may:
I think people freaking out over the "removal" (since we now know it's staying, just off camera) are doing so because announcing you weren't gonna keep doing a thing you already sorta stopped doing seems like a weird marketing move, and most are curious as to that point. I think this whole "racism!" aside is strictly destructive and Golarian is a weird world that has more racism lingering around than The Witcher and Dragon Age worlds, and that it's being dealt with in a tactful, good intentions and honest way. It's not brushed aside, nor is it glorified or violently vilified. Yes, some races/culture want to murder hobo you because you took tasty or are annoying. Yes, some just want to chill in the corner and you bothering them makes them lash out. Yes, some are peaceful and want to trade with you and just look creepy because biology (Anadi sure are cute, but human experience says giant spider = ded). This back and forth on orcs/goblins/drow is old hat and I'm surprised it's still contentious considering the legwork Paizo has but in to lay that specific set of issues to rest. If it has an intelligence score that's > -5 it probably has it's own will and can choose to not be [insert topic here]. Unless it's an Aboleth, thanks Cthulhu & friends!