The Slavery Thing


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

20 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Oh boy am I worried this will become a mess.
Okay, some ground rules: Slavery is an abomination. This thread is not the place to disagree with that. I'm not interested in debating the ethics of slavery. Also, the fact that Society players could buy slaves was awful, and I'm not interested in debating that either. I have no love lost for players who want to play slavers.

With that said:

I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the character spaces for those who oppose slavery. It removes the raison d'etre for Liberators, the Bellflower Network, the Eagle Knights, etc. Several of my players have come to me about this news, concerned that characters they previously played just... Don't fit in the setting anymore, because their concept was fighting against an evil that no longer exists.

It is also hard for me to personally conceptualize a world in which awful horrible evil exists but slavery doesn't. How does Hell exist, and what do we call the tormented souls there if not slaves?

On a related note I feel like there are a lot of things in the setting that are effectively slavery, and will continue to exist, but just aren't going to be called that and somehow that's okay? Like for example vampire spawn.

Idk. I'm still processing all of this, and very interesting in hearing other people's opinions.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

So the thing from a player perspective is that your character is seldom going to have opportunities to oppose or harm a specific institutions. Whereas you likely will have the opportunity to get specific individuals out of a bad situation, sure, but you're not going to strait up end oppression.

So from the feet on the ground perspective, there's not a huge difference between "these people are forced to work for this criminals" and "these people are forced to work for the elite who wrote the laws to make this legal". Or "these people are paid less than poverty wages and are prevented from leaving" and "these people are literally enslaved". The differences exist, but they don't really matter for your character most of the time.

So there's going to be no shortage of oppression for freedom-minded folks to fight against, we're just moving the spotlight off of "the international slave trade" or "enslaving a specific kind of person."


6 people marked this as a favorite.

It doesn't have to make sense for the setting. The creators only need a desire to not include it. They don't wanna navigate the minefield anymore and they also have contributors/developers that don't want to handle some topics. That's the short and skinny of it. I don't want anyone making anything they don't wanna make, that's usually not a good recipe in creative media. If I want a BBEG to have slaves I can still do it. I don't need professionals to work with heinous stuff they're not comfortable with to accommodate me. Having a more welcoming game is a nice benefit too.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo has already clarified that they aren't removing slavery. They, personally, are no longer focusing on it as a story element, much like other topics they've decided are too extreme to be a major focus of their writing, but slavery and liberators and the bellflower network and all that still exist and still do what they do.


FowlJ wrote:
Paizo has already clarified that they aren't removing slavery. They, personally, are no longer focusing on it as a story element, much like other topics they've decided are too extreme to be a major focus of their writing, but slavery and liberators and the bellflower network and all that still exist and still do what they do.

Ah? Do you possibly have a link? Where would I go to see this?

Paizo Employee Developer

48 people marked this as a favorite.

As this matter has come up multiple times, I just want to pop in here and let everyone know our stance at the moment, since it seems there's some confusion on how this is exactly being handled.

Slavery will no longer be the focus of our stories, but that doesn't mean it's suddenly been retroactively removed from the setting as if it never existed. Places like Vidrian and Absalom are still defined by their relationship with slavery, even if the practice has been fully ended. We might still bring it up from time to time, such as when noting historic events and the like.

If you want to continue playing heroes that defeat slavers and liberate people, please go ahead. If you want to tell stories that include it to showcase the evil and cruelty of villains, please go ahead. What you should not expect is for us to tell those stories going forward. We won't be doing adventures like Broken Chains and others that keep slavery in the spotlight, even as an institution to dismantle. We understand that this matter, like many other sensitive matters, are not ones that players want to necessarily interface with without having bought in or agreed to it first. Rather than force someone to opt out of these stories, we prefer taking the option of allowing groups to actively choose to include them in their games.

What does this mean for the Firebrands, Bellflower Network, Gray Corsairs, and others? At the moment, nothing. They can still do good and help people in ways that don't require fighting slavers. They might need to help liberated people get established in life. They could work to fight other forms of tyranny. They could go around rescuing the victims of kidnapping. We won't be having them deal with slavery directly going forward, however, and we'll make sure to expand or realign the focus of such groups when we get the chance going forward.

There's going to be a lot of nuance and figuring out exactly where we want other aspects that are tied to or similar to slavery land exactly within the Lost Omens setting. It's going to take work and time to make sure we continue to tell inclusive, exciting, and engaging stories and this will just be another aspect to keep in mind.


There are a lot of evils set outside the limelight; there's already been a line drawn in the sand as to acceptable story fodder. I'm pretty sure many of those evils are present in Golarion (perhaps omnipresent!) due to oppressive regimes, lawless territories, and so forth. Those too could have provided (and in some media have provided) powerful motivations for heroism. That's not a sufficient argument to feature them. Like the "standard Half-Orc conception" has been calibrated to suit a fantasy escapist game, now it's slavery's turn as the line shifts.

Those PCs (and your whole table if it desires) can maintain whatever line appeals to you; there's enough previous material to support that. Or they can shift their focus to the kidnapping industry, abusive bosses, and any (or all) other evil elements of the slave trade. Heck, they could reintroduce "standard Half-Orc conception" for their Half-Orc, it's just that default Golarion will no longer address it because of the stories that Paizo wants to tell. It doesn't mean such things couldn't happen.

ETA: What Luis said. :-)


8 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the …

No.

No it doesn’t.

All the removal of slavery [based on concepts taken from how slavery has been practice in our real world in the last few centuries] does is eliminate white supremacy talking points from Golarion.

That is it.

It does nothing else.
It doesn’t diminish anything.
It doesn’t remove the reasons that groups or organizations or individuals that fight against injustice exist or behave the way they do.
It doesn’t [take your pick].

It just doesn’t.

Anyone who thinks the elimination of slavery eliminates reasons to be fighting for a more egalitarian society isn’t paying much attention to current events.

Similarly for anyone who thinks elimination of slavery doesn’t allow oppression or subjugation on a mass scale.

The main - if not only - thing this change in how Paizo will conduct itself going forward does is pull a chair out from under some crazies who wished they were able to deny rights which they have to people they unjustly deem unworthy of those same rights.
That is it.
Such biased individuals won’t be able to find support for their lunacy here (or at least find less support, and none in future products).


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thanks for your explanation Luis.

The decision definitely still jives oddly for me? Like I said, it makes it hard for me to conceptualize parts of the setting, especially Hell and Cheliax.

But I very much appreciate the explanation of where you are coming from.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Maybe we are just not going to getting new material for cheliax anytime soon. I am totally good with this. There are so many other places on Golarion that I would really like to see developed. I think there are still pitfalls and careful considerations to make for exploring Tian Xian and Vudra for example, but if it takes 5 years to get another Cheliax AP I am perfectly fine with that.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the character spaces for those who oppose slavery. It removes the raison d'etre for Liberators, the Bellflower Network, the Eagle Knights, etc. Several of my players have come to me about this news, concerned that characters they previously played just... Don't fit in the setting anymore, because their concept was fighting against an evil that no longer exists.

It is also hard for me to personally conceptualize a world in which awful horrible evil exists but slavery doesn't. How does Hell exist, and what do we call the tormented souls there if not slaves?

On a related note I feel like there are a lot of things in the setting that are effectively slavery, and will continue to exist, but just aren't going to be called that and somehow that's okay? Like for example vampire spawn.

Idk. I'm still processing all of this, and very interesting in hearing other people's opinions.

I feel that the author of the open letter to Erik Mona unfairly misrepresented the Organized Play team. I also think that this change was communicated poorly, which is why Paizo staff have issued reversals on various platforms now.

As for what things will look like going forward, I guess we'll have to wait and see. I don't know how they'll handle topics like the Bellflower Network or duergar without rewriting and retconning them.

The discussion this has started from the community has been the worst I've ever seen from it, which has been dispiriting.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
I’m still not Gortle wrote:

No.

No it doesn’t.

All the removal of slavery [based of concepts taken from how slavery has been practice in our real world in the last few centuries] does is eliminate white supremacy talking points from Golarion.

That is it.

It does nothing else.
It doesn’t diminish anything.
It doesn’t remove the reasons that groups or organizations or individuals that fight against injustice exist or behave the way they do.
It doesn’t [take your pick].

It just doesn’t.

Anyone who thinks the elimination of slavery eliminates reasons to be fighting for a more egalitarian society isn’t paying much attention to current events.

Similarly for anyone who thinks elimination of slavery doesn’t allow oppression or subjugation on a mass scale.

You are right. And the setting will be IMO better for it.

It is still a massive, mostly unexpected though welcome, upheaval of the setting and one that will by necessity happen off-screen.

I am keenly interested in how the concerned factions (both antagonists and protagonists) will evolve. TBH I have all faith in Paizo that they will amaze us yet again.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Thank goodness someone made yet another thread about this. The last five or six really weren’t enough.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
Maybe we are just not going to getting new material for cheliax anytime soon. I am totally good with this. There are so many other places on Golarion that I would really like to see developed. I think there are still pitfalls and careful considerations to make for exploring Tian Xian and Vudra for example, but if it takes 5 years to get another Cheliax AP I am perfectly fine with that.

I don't think they had been were planning on a Cheliax AP anytime soon regardless. And even if they did adventures there don't need to focus on slavery. Likewise, they weren't going to do another antislavery AP like Age of Ashes so soon after the last one.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
Thank goodness someone made yet another thread about this. The last five or six really weren’t enough.

I actually searched the forums for another thread about this and failed to turn one up.

My apologies if I missed the others, the forum is a tangled mess to navigate.

Sanityfaerie wrote:
I’m still not Gortle wrote:

No.

No it doesn’t.

It... does, though.

Understand, I think that the change they're making here is worth making. I think that taking this away from the white supremacists has value. I think that making PFS safer for marginalized groups has value. I think it's worth the costs.

Let's not pretend, though, that there are no costs. Insisting that the choices that you prefer have no costs means that you're blinding yourself. You hamper your own ability to perceive and understand... which biases you on the next choice that comes up, which, (if you then ignore costs once you've made it) biases you more. All of this stuff involves tradeoffs, even in those cases where the more correct side is pretty clear.

Thank you. I wasn't sure how to reply to that, and this is basically what I think I would have wanted to say but wouldn't have known the words.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

A thread in Paizo General Discussion about Management was the first to ignite IIRC. Then there were several in Lost Omens boards.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
I’m still not Gortle wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the …

No.

No it doesn’t.

All the removal of slavery [based on concepts taken from how slavery has been practice in our real world in the last few centuries] does is eliminate white supremacy talking points from Golarion.

That is it.

It does nothing else.
It doesn’t diminish anything.
It doesn’t remove the reasons that groups or organizations or individuals that fight against injustice exist or behave the way they do.
It doesn’t [take your pick].

It just doesn’t.

Anyone who thinks the elimination of slavery eliminates reasons to be fighting for a more egalitarian society isn’t paying much attention to current events.

Similarly for anyone who thinks elimination of slavery doesn’t allow oppression or subjugation on a mass scale.

The main - if not only - thing this change in how Paizo will conduct itself going forward does is pull a chair out from under some crazies who wished they were able to deny rights which they have to people they unjustly deem unworthy of those same rights.
That is it.
Such biased individuals won’t be able to find support for their lunacy here (or at least find less support, and none in future products).

The point they are making is that it removes the entire motivation for those groups to exist in the first place, or to even continue existing, as it were. If slavery never existed, or is completely abolished across the setting, there would never have been a need for these organizations to, well, organize and battle against it, and there will not be a need for those organizations now, which means the members will either A. find another purpose for their organization, or B. disband and move on with their lives for something more meaningful in the current day. Is that the kind of message we want to send by implementing this change?

Consider the Liberator Champion, whose entire schtick was about freedom from the shackles of slavery and other, similar bindings, whether they be cultural tradition, laws, etc. If we have slavery entirely abolished or removed from the setting, those champions no longer have the same value, and are about as niche as the Eschew Materials feat, at best.

And plus, some people actually want to play as the one who wishes to fight against and stop slavery (and vice-versa, but that's for another thread), but in order to do that, it has to actually exist. In such a case, it becomes a necessary evil if that is the fantasy we wish to fulfill. Every story needs conflict for it to be engaging and have a purpose. Without it, it just becomes an imagined event. I'd rather we not treat slavery as some "imagined event" in a universe that has gladly gone out of its way to establish that it is wrong and immoral, and demonstrating both how real the problem is and how important it is to have such freedom fighters existing. Just as well, unless there is some in-universe explanation for how this can't just manifest in the future, such as Divine Intervention (ironic, considering), it's not like this is some alien concept that nobody in the universe can't grasp or apply because they're incapable of it. At that point, we are otherizing Golarion to the point of being incompetent fools, which isn't doing us any favors when trying to make an inclusive universe.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So my initial impression was that Paizo was saying "we are completely retconning slavery out of our setting".

It sounds like it's more accurate to say "slavery still exists but we aren't going to focus on those stories".

That at least maintains my verisimilitude for the setting, so I appreciate the clarification.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Reminder that nothing is being removed from the setting and Paizo is not going to paradrop James Jacobs into your house to tell you what kind of games you can or cannot run.


14 people marked this as a favorite.
I’m still not Gortle wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
I feel like the complete removal of slavery as a concept from the setting does real damage to the …

No.

No it doesn’t.

All the removal of slavery [based on concepts taken from how slavery has been practice in our real world in the last few centuries] does is eliminate white supremacy talking points from Golarion.

Neither good nor evil exists in a vacuum. Most stories have conflict in them.

My conclusion is that censoring adult conversation in anyway is bad. It generates less discussion and allows issues to foster rather than being resolved. Not talking about things is a more important enabler of certain crimes than shutting down "white supremacy talking points".

Obviously you wouldn't have a plot themed around rape, or bigotory, or slavery if that is an open wound for one of your players. You have to respect what other players are feeding back to you. Consent is important.

Not talking much about slavery is a reasonable decision for a company like Paizo to de-escalate the default setting, and making the default world a little less tense for the customers who would be upset by it. It is like everything public getting a G rating. If Paizo wants to be another Disney then I'm happy for them to do that.

I'll be putting an R label on most of my campaigns. I know most of my players pretty well so it will be fine. We will end up discussing some of the moral issues. We won't agree, but we will enjoy that because we are adult enough to allow that, and also to pull back when we hit major problems.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

So my initial impression was that Paizo was saying "we are completely retconning slavery out of our setting".

It sounds like it's more accurate to say "slavery still exists but we aren't going to focus on those stories".

That at least maintains my verisimilitude for the setting, so I appreciate the clarification.

Erik Mona did say that initially, then it was walked back by himself and others.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Consider the Liberator Champion, whose entire schtick was about freedom from the shackles of slavery and other, similar bindings, whether they be cultural tradition, laws, etc. If we have slavery entirely abolished or removed from the setting, those champions no longer have the same value, and are about as niche as the Eschew Materials feat, at best.

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. My existing Liberator Champion of Milani is quite, quite happy with his backstory, with his potential future adventures, and with his game mechanical choices. The odds of him fighting slavers in PFS or another published module just went way, way down. That is ALL that has happened

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
I’m still not Gortle wrote:


No.

Neither good nor evil exists in a vacuum. Most stories have conflict in them.

I'm sorry, I don't think that I can handle Gortle arguing with I'm still not Gortle. I don't care who is right or wrong :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

pauljathome made me chortle (or should that be gortle?)

and yes, conflict is, if not the foundation of a story, a major corner stone of telling those

yet if anyone thinks eliminating slavery (or not focusing on it or not mentioning it or whichever phrase of the day is being used at this moment) will eliminate or diminish or hamstring or denude or … the potentials for conflict …
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

and there are plenty of places in our modern world where the masses are downtrodden (without slavery) and they could use a liberator or group or organization or … who are working to alleviate their suffering and oppression


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Squiggit wrote:
Reminder that nothing is being removed from the setting and Paizo is not going to paradrop James Jacobs into your house to tell you what kind of games you can or cannot run.

"No one is forcing you to run your home games that way" is a crappy argument when it comes to rules changes, and it's a crappy argument here.

It's basically saying "the problem is that you shouldn't care about the setting", but that's not true at all; we absolutely should care about the setting.

Case in point when the whole "misogynistic Erastil" debate was being had, there were people saying "no one is forcing you to run Erastil as a misogynist". See how it falls a bit flat when it's an issue you feel strongly about?

We should be encouraging people to care about and engage with the setting, not trying to shut down discussion by saying "it doesn't matter because you can run your game however you want".

Too Many Gortles wrote:

pauljathome made me chortle (or should that be gortle?)

and yes, conflict is, if not the foundation of a story, a major corner stone of telling those

yet if anyone thinks eliminating slavery (or not focusing on it or not mentioning it or whichever phrase of the day is being used at this moment) will eliminate or diminish or hamstring or denude or … the potentials for conflict …
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

and there are plenty of places in our modern world where the masses are downtrodden (without slavery) and they could use a liberator or group or organization or … who are working to alleviate their suffering and oppression

I'm not saying it reduces the potential for conflict; that would be silly.

I'm saying it leaves organizations founded on opposing slavery in a weird place, and that it's hard to conceive Hell without slavery. Slavery is, arguably, the foundation of Hell. "Sin is when you treat people as things", after all.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
"No one is forcing you to run your home games that way" is a crappy argument when it comes to rules changes, and it's a crappy argument here.

Nah, because all we're talking about Paizo is not publishing a certain category of story in the future.

And people are throwing around words like "forced" and "censorship" like they are actively being bullied or attacked because Paizo isn't going to write a specific kind of module or AP anytime soon.

Nothing is being taken away from anyone. No one is being told to behave in a certain fashion. Paizo is just going to do other stuff with their books.

Quote:
Case in point when the whole "misogynistic Erastil" debate was being had, there were people saying "no one is forcing you to run Erastil as a misogynist". See how it falls a bit flat when it's an issue you feel strongly about?

Well see, you're presenting the point backward here. It's actually a perfect example of why this isn't a bad adjustment. Because "Misogynistic Erastil" was something you had to pick your way around or proactively excise if it wasn't something you wanted to deal with, so Paizo walked the idea back because it didn't align with their vision.

Meanwhile, if a home GM and their players want to deal with issues of sexism, or issues of abuse, or issues of slavery, or any of the other myriad of topics that aren't featured in Paizo's APs, they're still very much capable of doing that.


15 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
My conclusion is that censoring adult conversation in anyway is bad.

It is NOT CENSORSHIP for people to say, "I don't want to write these kinds of stories." Nor is it censorship for a company to say, "We don't want to publish these kinds of stories."

No one is censoring adult conversation. No one is stopping you from adding all the adult material you want to the games you play.

All they're doing is saying, "This isn't fun for us. We're not going to write or publish material like this."

It's not badwrongfun for them to tell different stories than they have in the past. In fact, they're even opening up the setting (via Pathfinder Infinite) for lots more people to write Golarion stories. None of that is censorship.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just stop already. Let Paizo do what they are going to do. It's not that important. And if it is to you, put it back in yourself in your home games.

Problem solved.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dancing Wind wrote:
Gortle wrote:
My conclusion is that censoring adult conversation in anyway is bad.

It is NOT CENSORSHIP for people to say, "I don't want to write these kinds of stories." Nor is it censorship for a company to say, "We don't want to publish these kinds of stories."

No one is censoring adult conversation. No one is stopping you from adding all the adult material you want to the games you play.

All they're doing is saying, "This isn't fun for us. We're not going to write or publish material like this."

It's not badwrongfun for them to tell different stories than they have in the past. In fact, they're even opening up the setting (via Pathfinder Infinite) for lots more people to write Golarion stories. None of that is censorship.

If you actually read what I wrote instead of reacting to each line out of context, you would realise I did not say what you are implying. I am actually supporting Paizo's position.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel like this has gotten a little complicated because there is a conversation about the knock on effects of getting rid of slavery from the setting entirely, and a conversation about Paizo choosing not to publish stories focusing on slavery, and points from one conversation are getting conflated into the other.

So to clarify - I have some issues with the idea of retconning away slavery entirely, but no issue at all with Paizo choosing not to publish material involving slavery.

To the extent that it has been clarified that Paizo is taking the latter approach, my original concerns are satisfied.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It does seem probable that as the Golarion timeline advances, there's going to be less in the way of slavery in the game world. Cheliax is likely going to figure out that an apartheid state is much cheaper to operate than a slave state, for example. It's just that you don't snap your fingers and say "that happened overnight".


Gortle wrote:
If you actually read what I wrote instead of reacting to each line out of context, you would realise I did not say what you are implying. I am actually supporting Paizo's position.

This is your 'support'?

Gortle wrote:
If Paizo wants to be another Disney then I'm happy for them to do that.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.

It’s not censorship if they weren’t going to do it in the first place.

Random person: hey I see your commissions are open, do you do Non-con or underage art?

Artist: no.

Random person: CENSORSHIP!

See how silly that argument looks? This wasn’t some case of a rabid mob forcing the poor Paizo writers to give up their beloved slavery stories they yearned for, though the Forums would have you think otherwise, it was the writers themselves that were sick and tired of these stories, the letter Owen published was from a Freelancer.

Again, the writers THEMSELVES were tired of dealing with slavery constantly in their Paizo ordered work.

Wayfinders Contributor

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Hmm is glad she opened this thread, because it means that she read Luis's comment. Thanks, Luis!

Grand Lodge

13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, the OP and Luis' posts are all that this thread needs to be.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Paizo is not going to paradrop James Jacobs into your house

This is the most disappointing thing I've read today. ;)

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

The announcement of it is the weird part for me. If it's just that, they didn't need to say anything. Just do it.

I do have some concern as to whether or not this means we won't see any more interaction or feats/gear for things like the Bellflowers. Although, I suppose as far as forgotten organizations they're not super high on my list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:

The announcement of it is the weird part for me. If it's just that, they didn't need to say anything. Just do it.

I do have some concern as to whether or not this means we won't see any more interaction or feats/gear for things like the Bellflowers. Although, I suppose as far as forgotten organizations they're not super high on my list.

They got a lot of love in 1e, a 2e Archetype, and some neat characters in Lost Omens: Legends. I’m not sure how much more they need.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:

The announcement of it is the weird part for me. If it's just that, they didn't need to say anything. Just do it.

I do have some concern as to whether or not this means we won't see any more interaction or feats/gear for things like the Bellflowers. Although, I suppose as far as forgotten organizations they're not super high on my list.

They got a lot of love in 1e, a 2e Archetype, and some neat characters in Lost Omens: Legends. I’m not sure how much more they need.

Much like cake and burritos, just because you've had more than you should, that doesn't mean you don't want another.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

It’s not censorship if they weren’t going to do it in the first place.

Random person: hey I see your commissions are open, do you do Non-con or underage art?

Artist: no.

Random person: CENSORSHIP!

See how silly that argument looks? This wasn’t some case of a rabid mob forcing the poor Paizo writers to give up their beloved slavery stories they yearned for, though the Forums would have you think otherwise, it was the writers themselves that were sick and tired of these stories, the letter Owen published was from a Freelancer.

Again, the writers THEMSELVES were tired of dealing with slavery constantly in their Paizo ordered work.

This whole rigamarole is the first time I have seen pretty much all of the writers and freelancers and creatives at Paizo say "we don't want to write about this anymore" and people in the community respond with "we can't enjoy the game without this one element, this is censorship and we demand that you keep writing about it!"

Like, when I asked James Jacobs if flumphs* where going to be a thing in 2e (because I love them), and he said he didn't think so because he really didn't like them, I respected that, because I can enjoy the game fine without Flumphs, and because I think it is pretty awful to demand that a creative include things they don't want to write about.

I can enjoy the game fine without flumphs, and can easily add them in myself. Same goes if the writers don't want to write much about large scale wars or whatever, despite me being really interested in war as a backdrop for adventures.

If you not only can't enjoy the game without slavery (and some people have more or less stated that the lack of slavery IS a dealbreaker for them), but can't enjoy it without slavery being a core part of the game rather than just something you are free to add yourself, then I think you really need to take a good hard look at why you play this game, because that is pretty weird.

*They later on actually did make it into the game in Bestiary 3, so I guess other people at Paizo wanted to add them, but I would have been absolutely fine with continuing to support PF2 if they never got added.

On a side note, censorship isn't a concept that really applies here - censorship is when a government or other similar body redacts information or pressures the media to cover up the truth, and things in a similar vein to that.

A private company that produces fiction having editorial control over its own works is not censorship, especially when that editorial decision is in line with the wishes of the writers themselves.

Scarab Sages

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people are saying censorship because it doesn't appear to be a natural decision, it is abrupt and doesn't jive with the setting as we've known it up to this point. Everything about it looks like a corporate or marketing decision.

Basically, how you say it matters as much or more than what you say, and this was done in a way that makes some people suspicious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did someone really say the lack of slavery in Golarion was a deal breaker?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

"Did someone really say the lack of slavery in Golarion was a deal breaker?"

Yes

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Tenten, tangent, but eeeeeeee, someone else who loves Flumphs!

1 to 50 of 214 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / The Slavery Thing All Messageboards