Objectionable content in pathfinder

[Nicos]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"less dark" - Where has Paizo said they are going to make Pathfinder less dark? Are you unable to conceive of a dark fantasy world that doesn't feature chattel slavery or sexual assault? Is the suffering of social minorities the only "darkness" you take seriously? Is fetishized slavery truly dark, and not just pulpy indulgence in old tropes that white people get to feel comfortable with because they don't have to think about outside their safe fantasy world?

while you put them as "question", KC, these are quite ill-intended and assume quite a lot from people that might disagree with you.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Plenty of people disagree with me without me assuming anything bad of them. I have personally been critical at times of the "less dark" direction, but not about this sort of thing. If the question hits home, maybe take a step back and rethink some things.

That said, a lot of the posts on this thread are flagrantly Baiting, and I'm not going to take those posts seriously.

"Oh, great, so what's next? Are the ogres going to be soft and cuddly?" This kind of argument, for example, is bait. Nobody has ever called for all the dangers in Golarion to become harmless. I have seen way too many posts trying to draft a Slippery Slope towards it, however.

[Norade]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Do you think only R-rated movies can achieve artistic heights? How strange.

Hardly, but if you restrict your output to only PG13 and below you do limit the stories you can tell.

That's fine, the best-selling movies in the world are PG13 paint-by-numbers superhero schlock that is literally censored to sell in China.

[Norade]

Cyouni wrote:

Man, I can't believe Disney is being censored.

They are, they have to cut certain types of content to be shown in China and as that is a market they are interested in, they follow Chinese censorship guidelines in order to show their films there.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I would be happy to have an R-rated setting, personally, but a PG-13 setting has its own considerable advantages. Giving more people access to it actually increases the stories the setting can tell, because more people will be engaging with the world.

TTRPGs aren't movies. They are much more audience-participation-oriented. It's the same reason why including a main character who owns slaves in a movie might be, depending on how it's handled, perfectly fine, but including rules for PCs owning slaves in a game would not be.

My best-case scenario is Pathfinder Infinite publishing more risque content, like stuff about Calistria or advice on featuring erotic content in games in a safe and healthy way, while "Canon Pathfinder" remains PG-13 and available for all.

[Temperans]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Are you calling Paizo freelancers "triggered"? Please say what you mean. "Triggered" is often used sarcastically to mock people's trauma, but it's strictly meant to be used to reference, well, trauma. So say what you mean up-front. The original complaints were from freelancers within the industry. Are they "triggered" because they are tired of Pathfinder fixating on a topic? Do you think having triggers is something to deride and dismiss over? Buzzwords make your points incoherent.

Anyways, movies are such a different medium from TTRPGs that it's a ridiculous comparison. Movies also feature sexual violence--sometimes very prominently, depending on the narrative. Should Pathfinder feature that, too? If not, why is sexual violence inappropriate but slavery isn't?

I was using it to mean the general population that gets angry that Paizo has content they dislike, and the people who only care about some topics not being talked about while ignoring Paizo.

I already said I support Paizo writing whatever they want. Getting tired of repeating it.

Also agreed that TTRPGs are not movies and should not use movie ratings. I was not the one who started that, so why are you complaining to me about it? Or did you just lump in that part to not double post? I am a bit confused. I only used if because I am tired of repeating that Golarion has always had questionable content and to counter all the people who keep saying Golarion is PG13. Golarion is not and has never been that.

As for the sexual abuse thing. Because of it is that I am fine with Paizo minimizing slavery to the bare minimum. Because it's much easier for some people to ignore questionable content that is not in your face about it. (Yes pathfinder has sexual abuse but in 90% of the cases it's only implied at best).

[Kobold Catgirl]

To be clear, I wasn't talking to you with the second paragraph. I honestly don't understand what you're saying with the last bit, can you clarify?

[Norade]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I would be happy to have an R-rated setting, personally, but a PG-13 setting has its own considerable advantages. Giving more people access to it actually increases the stories the setting can tell, because more people will be engaging with the world.

That increases the reach of the stories, but it does not increase the scope for said stories. Unless you're counting each group playing an AP as telling a story that would otherwise go untold; in which case yes, but also no.

Quote:

TTRPGs aren't movies. They are much more audience-participation-oriented.

Like a video game. Funny, those seem to range from E-rated to A-rated content. Even the discourse around them has firmly settled in an agreement that violent nasty games are just fine.

Quote:

It's the same reason why including a main character who owns slaves in a movie might be, depending on how it's handled, perfectly fine, but including rules for PCs owning slaves in a game would not be.

There are plenty of fantasy novels that deal with these issues and that take more engagement than movies, they sell as do the video games mentioned above, so I don't buy this argument one bit.

EDIT: To be clear, I've already come up saying that Paizo is making the right call for them on this issue. They want mass-market appeal and steady profits and PG13 is the sweet spot for that. I just lament that so many companies chase that goal so single mindedly.

[The Raven Black]

Temperans wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

They're not really. Paizo doesn't want an R-rated setting, they want a PG-13 rated setting. If they wanted an R-Rated setting they could more than happily go for it.

Why they needed to divorce themselves from PF1 Golarion more. PF1 Golarion from its roots is an R rated setting, it has always been.

I am willing to bet that people who are triggered will keep talking about stuff from the PF1 setting as complaints against Paizo.

TBH I have mostly seen (and not only recently) threads that lamented the loss of PF1's "edginess". Even when given actual proof of the contrary.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Norade wrote:

Unless you're counting each group as telling a story; in which case yes, but also no.

Yup! Like I said, TTRPGs are a deeply collaborative medium. Every additional group that plays a TTRPG puts their own spin on the work, including yours. You seem to consider a published TTRPG a finished work, but it's really only half of the overall artistic process. The other half is people using that TTRPG as an engine to tell new stories.

Video games aren't really a great comparison. Maybe Garry's Mod is slightly closer, since it's effectively a program for making new games. Funny enough, the base Garry's Mod seems pretty PG-13.

Novels are an even worse analogue. You're reaching with both of these comparisons, and I shouldn't really have to explain why on a TTRPG forum. Again, every group that plays a TTRPG puts their own spin on the game's themes and meaning, even in PFS. A movie or book or even video game can have a slaveowning character who the narrative meticulously and effectively criticizes*, but Pathfinder's ability to critique a slaveowning PC is pretty limited. If you put the option in the rules, you have no control over how it will be utilized.

Also, are you actually arguing that rules for PCs owning slaves should exist in Pathfinder? EDIT: Sorry, I don't think you are, seeing your edit, but I'm still confused at what you're arguing for here.

*Depending on the type of video game. I would not put mechanics for chattel slavery in an open-ended MMORPG or open-world Skyrim-alike, for instance, but a single-player game with a tighter narrative could potentially pull it off.

EDIT: Okay, so to be clear, while I would personally like "mass-market capitalist greed" to have less of a stranglehold on art in general and agree with you on that, I do think there are significant benefits to a TTRPG in particular being as broadly accessible as possible.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, the "R" rating doesn't itself mean very much. On one extreme of the rating we have "Waiting for Guffman" and on another we have "Mad Max: Fury Road" and on yet another we have "Human Centipede 2".

The first two are a fine place for Pathfinder to live, the last is decidedly not my taste.

[The Raven Black]

Davido1000 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Davido1000 wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I am amazed at the energy some people will spend just to make sure Paizo bows to their will so that slavery stays in future official products.

Arent you doing the exact same thing in reverse?

No.

Really? because you and others are putting up a hell of a lot of replies in the multiple discussions about this subject. Im not deriding your opinion but you also dont get to act like this is some subject thats beneath talking about when you are actively engaging in it yourself. People have opinions on this clearly divisive matter and acting like your side of the argument is the only one that matters isnt helping.

Really.

I am definitely not trying to make sure Paizo bows to my will :-D

[TOZ]

They haven't bowed to my will in ten years, I don't expect it to start working now.

[Temperans]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I would be happy to have an R-rated setting, personally, but a PG-13 setting has its own considerable advantages. Giving more people access to it actually increases the stories the setting can tell, because more people will be engaging with the world.

TTRPGs aren't movies. They are much more audience-participation-oriented. It's the same reason why including a main character who owns slaves in a movie might be, depending on how it's handled, perfectly fine, but including rules for PCs owning slaves in a game would not be.

My best-case scenario is Pathfinder Infinite publishing more risque content, like stuff about Calistria or advice on featuring erotic content in games in a safe and healthy way, while "Canon Pathfinder" remains PG-13 and available for all.

While I agree with the sentiment that wanting more people playing is great. I do worry about how Paizo will implement changes. There aren't a lot of good track records for people changing the tone suddenly. (Note that slow changes usually fair much better as people get used to the new writing style).

Agreed that TTRPGs aren't movies and should not be treated as movies. But some people seem set on calling Golarion PG13 and I will fight that back every time until the setting stops being Golarion or there is a massive in lore reason for it to change.

Pathfinder Unlimited will not be use for any questionable materials. That programs has a huge number of restrictions that are very broad over what is "questionable". Not to mention that it itself is tagged as being PG13. I though that Paizo would keep Golarion the regular setting than publish PG13 stuff under Paizo Unlimited. Afterall, most publishing companies handle PG13 and darker/mature content with different branches.

[Norade]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Norade wrote:

Unless you're counting each group as telling a story; in which case yes, but also no.

Yup! Like I said, TTRPGs are a deeply collaborative medium. Every additional group that plays a TTRPG puts their own spin on the work, including yours. You seem to consider a published TTRPG a finished work, but it's really only half of the overall artistic process. The other half is people using that TTRPG as an engine to tell new stories.

If I wanted to tell a collaborative story as my primary motive for playing an RPG I'd do forum-based free-form RP as I've done since the early 2000s. While TTRPGs can create moments and tell stories, I just don't find that they tend to be all that good compared to other methods.

Quote:

Novels are an even worse analogue.

Hardly. A reader will spend hours with novels and a lot of popular novels revel in sex, sexual violence, slavery, and all other manner of topics. In that sense, they are much the same as a TTRPG.

Quote:

Pathfinder's ability to critique a slaveowning PC is pretty limited.

Is it? They can easily put in a sidebar about how a slave-owning PC influences the way the NPCs feel about the party. It might be very difficult to interact with the average person, but lords and slavers may react positively. In this way, you can have the adventure itself serve as an editorial comment on those who own other sentient beings.

Quote:

Also, are you actually arguing that rules for PCs owning slaves should exist in Pathfinder?

I don't see the harm in a BoVD style tome that outlines rules for a lot of dark content. Slavery would be a topic such a book could cover.

Quote:

EDIT: Okay, so to be clear, while I would personally like "mass-market capitalist greed" to have less of a stranglehold on art in general and agree with you on that, I do think there are significant benefits to a TTRPG in particular being as broadly accessible as possible.

I agree as well. I just think there's scope to have both in the same system with not a ton of extra work.

[The Raven Black]

I remember Black Dog Company. Ouch.

They even made it a subsidiary of Pentex.

[Davido1000]

The Raven Black wrote:

I am definitely not trying to make sure Paizo bows to my will :-D

Nobody here is demanding anything.

[TOZ]

I demand cake.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Personally, I miss the days back when "PG" used to mean something, before people got convinced it was just "a Disney movie". PG-13 can have a lot of bite to it.

I'll reiterate my edit above: I support R-rated content in RPGs. I don't think an RPG like Pathfinder creatively benefits from being R-rated as much as it creatively suffers. Pathfinder is the kind of TTRPG that gets better the more people play it, the more people share stories about it, the more people join different gaming groups and bring their unique ideas into it. Honestly, if you wanted an R-rated dark fantasy RPG, that ship probably sailed when Pathfinder decided it wanted to be kitchen sink.

I would've joined you in that fight. But as Pathfinder stands now? PG-13 is, in my opinion, the right creative choice. I wouldn't mind there being R-rated supplements, and I hope PF Infinite will be a lot more permissive, but I think the central game, the APs? Those should stay broadly accessible.

I also do not think the slavery issue is about R vs. PG-13, for the record. Liberty Kids had slavery in it, but it was relatively tasteful and appropriate. Meanwhile, plenty of "grownup" R-rated slavery movies just use slavery fetishistically to appeal to white audiences' desire for shock and spectacle. Pathfinder made a similar mistake with making "slaveowner" a PC option, with making enslaving societies Neutral, etc.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I also disagree pretty massively with the idea that the experience of a TTRPG campaign, which is essentially a story told by six people using tools provided by the TTRPG/adventure writers, is "much the same as" a book. There are parallels. That's all.

I think we should probably agree to disagree on it, though, since it seems like a fundamental difference of perspective on how... art works.

[Temperans]

Speaking about weird centipedes and gross abomination made with the concept of centipedes that should be completely obliterated by the combined power of all the gods.

Paizo has a lot of weird, gross, and outright disturbing monsters. Everything from mind control parasites to hideous abominations best left as just text descriptions.

[siegfriedliner]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Personally, I miss the days back when "PG" used to mean something, before people got convinced it was just "a Disney movie". PG-13 can have a lot of bite to it.

I'll reiterate my edit above: I support R-rated content in RPGs. I don't think an RPG like Pathfinder creatively benefits from being R-rated as much as it creatively suffers. Pathfinder is the kind of TTRPG that gets better the more people play it, the more people share stories about it, the more people join different gaming groups and bring their unique ideas into it. Honestly, if you wanted an R-rated dark fantasy RPG, that ship probably sailed when Pathfinder decided it wanted to be kitchen sink.

I would've joined you in that fight. But as Pathfinder stands now? PG-13 is, in my opinion, the right creative choice. I wouldn't mind there being R-rated supplements, and I hope PF Infinite will be a lot more permissive, but I think the central game, the APs? Those should stay broadly accessible.

I also do not think the slavery issue is about R vs. PG-13, for the record. Liberty Kids had slavery in it, but it was relatively tasteful and appropriate. Meanwhile, plenty of "grownup" R-rated slavery movies just use slavery fetishistically to appeal to white audiences' desire for shock and spectacle. Pathfinder made a similar mistake with making "slaveowner" a PC option, with making enslaving societies Neutral, etc.

Hey not only white audiences want shock and spectacle I think that seems to be part of the human condition.

[Nicos]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Plenty of people disagree with me without me assuming anything bad of them. I have personally been critical at times of the "less dark" direction, but not about this sort of thing. If the question hits home, maybe take a step back and rethink some things.

That's quite a big and accusatory "if".

[Kobold Catgirl]

Personally, if the PG-13 rule is going to be broken anywhere, I'd like it to be with creepy monsters. Cheating the censors to put in really creepy monsters is a time-honored classic.

[Kobold Catgirl]

siegfriedliner wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Meanwhile, plenty of "grownup" R-rated slavery movies just use slavery fetishistically to appeal to white audiences' desire for shock and spectacle. Pathfinder made a similar mistake with making "slaveowner" a PC option, with making enslaving societies Neutral, etc.

Hey not only white audiences want shock and spectacle I think that seems to be part of the human condition.

No, but that's the audience that was assumed when the media was created. Obviously no group is a monolith. :)

As a comparison, I have no problem with depicting transphobia in Golarion, and personally enjoy it when it's done well. I don't think it belongs in the main game, because I want other trans people to be comfortable with playing and because I don't want them to join a PFS table and find they have a GM who hides behind "well, it's canon!" to harass them.

[siegfriedliner]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Meanwhile, plenty of "grownup" R-rated slavery movies just use slavery fetishistically to appeal to white audiences' desire for shock and spectacle. Pathfinder made a similar mistake with making "slaveowner" a PC option, with making enslaving societies Neutral, etc.

Hey not only white audiences want shock and spectacle I think that seems to be part of the human condition.

No, but that's the audience that was assumed when the media was created. Obviously no group is a monolith. :)

Can't argue with that.

[Malk_Content]

*I am not currently specifically talking about Slavery. More any content that deviates too far from the Pathfinder baseline*

Part of the problem perhaps then is the need for most adventure content to be pfs sanctionable. Without the guiding hand of session 0s and self regulating groups who can make informed decisions on content to use, Paizo probably are making the right choice steering clear of certain things in adventure content, as a pfs player might be exposed to it without explicit buy in.

As someone who plays with an established Home group I have the luxury of picking and choosing content that fits within that groups comfort zone, but not everyone has that luxury. As adventure content that doesn't get pfs sanctioning is inherently less resource efficient I can see the business pov there.

[I’m still not Gortle]

TOZ wrote:

I demand cake.

The cake is still a lie.

[The Smurfing Gortlenator]

ever pick up a whistle, blow it, hear nothing and think, “guess this whistle is broken”?

when you use the phrasing or tactics of haters and extremists,
that is dog whistling

if it was intentional (“I know exactly which whistle I grabbed”),
yeah that is wrong - don’t do that

if it was inadvertent (“guess this whistle is broken”),
you still blew the dog whistle (and it had its effects) even if you didn’t mean to blow it

claiming censorship is an aspect of Paizo’s recently stated planned actions regarding slavery, …
this is dog whistling because censorship has nothing to do with Paizo’s decision or any effects of it

saying “what’s next?!? they’re gonna ban [whatevs]?” then making an argument against that non-ban when no one except you suggested that ban (or you were one who replied to the bogus ban claim in support against the faux-ban),
this is dog whistling even if you were unaware (and it’s even worse if you were aware)

falsely equating to radically different aspects of this discussion (energy/time spent supporting content creators who don’t want to create a specific type of content is not the same as time/energy spent posting about how you want that content, or you want a ‘change’ in Paizo’s decision, or various other similar stuff),
yeah, you guessed it, dog whistling

baiting over this content
dog whistling

slippery slope, straw man, other logical fallacies used as part of an argument again Paizo’s decision (or that it should have been handled or implemented differently)
dog whistling

and before you go trying to call BS or shenanigans or otherwise get bent out of shape, let me be clear:

if you post content that a hater or extremist could read and very easily conclude,
“that person has hates and extremes that are a lot like mine, so clearly that poster posting I take as evidence as my views are not only valid but held more widely than I realized”
yes, that is the definition of dog whistling
statements skating under the radar that haters and extremists will take comfort in seeing posted

Paradozen wrote:

This thread feels like a mean-spirited "gift" to drop for the mods during their holiday

that’s only because it is

yet another round of constant whistling from either those intentionally doing so or ‘innocent’ members who have inadvertently picked up “the broken whistle” and instead of looking deeper to understand that “no, that whistle is not broken, it is doing exactly what it was intended to do when it is blown” they just go “poor whistle, too bad you’re broken and don’t work anymore ::sad face::”

I can only hope more will
Educate themselves before they wreck something

obligatory:

smurf

[Verzen]

siegfriedliner wrote:

So there has been a fair bit of discussion about removing of certain unpleasant themes in APs and the setting, which obviously has been discussed to death but it does pose interesting question as to what to do with legacy content and what to do which monsters and creatures that really play on to those them.

In particular domination (used in particular in reference to the spell) and subjugation are themes of quite a large number of monsters. For instance vampires in particular are known to be really into mind control and having mind controlled servants. There are quite a few different thrall and spawn type monsters which are by very definition the result of what happens when free will is removed.

Also there are a number of monsters that forcefully use humanoids to reproduce (ghouls, shadows etc) which bares on to another heinous theme that should get much focus in the modern world.

Should creatures that are all about subjugation and dehumanisation exist in Golarian and should they remain a fairly common creatures to encounter in aps ?

You're making an issue of something that's not an issue.

Imagine the walking dead, but zombies no longer bite people.

There's such a thing as making sure dark elves aren't all evil due to skin color and racism and then there's going too far and thinking zombies shouldn't bite people to make more zombies etc.

[painted_green]

thejeff wrote:

siegfriedliner wrote:

But moving back to my original topic, do people want a less dark golarian with less horrible monsters.

Or do people just not want to see extreme examples of human evil in aps and monsters are fine because they can represent our worst nature without being us?

I think the second is where we currently are.

The people I've see talking about wanting "a less dark golarian with less horrible monsters" are overwhelming using it as a slippery slope argument about what others must want.

Like I've seen dozens of posts claiming that if you want to get rid of slavery you must also want to get rid of charm and domination because that's like slavery, but I don't remember anyone actually seriously saying they wanted those spells gone.

Feel free to count me as half a vote for wanting them gone, I guess? I've explained my thoughts to some extent earlier in this thread. I wouldn't go as far as removing them completely, but then that's not what's happening with slavery either, is it, so it would be a bit much to expect that stance. I would definitely support alignment repercussions for using such magic, and I think not wanting adventures to focus on it is a reasonable stance. (This last part is pretty vague solely because I cannot think of an adventure that I know which has enchantment magic as a focal point, rather than just a thing that some antagonists do.)

As stated before, I think this would be a very interesting discussion to have, and both The Raven Black and Temperans gave some interesting input. However, looking at the state of this thread and the general quality of discussion within it, I feel forced to agree with The Raven Black:

The Raven Black wrote:

Then we should all put it on hiatus to come back and discuss it later. When the ripples of Paizo's decision about slavery in their products have died down.

Right now, this kind of topics are just putting unnecessary fuel on a raging inferno that makes many people's days a living hell, especially the brave moderators.

No need for that.

[Kobold Catgirl]

It's always worth remembering that the scariest elements of the Skinsaw Murders or the Hook Mountain Massacre did not require leaning on slavery, racism or sexism to be compelling.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I am comforted to see that a lot of the furor over this matter seems to be dying down as the stance of Paizo becomes clearer, and I hope that this trend continues and nuanced discussion more and more outweighs the reactionary "Oh, so now grimdark elements are banned?" takes and "these darn SJWs" virtue signalling.

You know, speaking of cringey.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Here's a video of a feminist who's work I find helpful in navigating these kinds of discourses. Her book being discussed in this video explores the dynamics of supremacy and victimhood, and the course conflicts like this tend to take, as well as how it affects victims, and how to engage in community repair after such a conflict has occurred.

[Gortle]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I am comforted to see that a lot of the furor over this matter seems to be dying down as the stance of Paizo becomes clearer, and I hope that this trend continues and nuanced discussion more and more outweighs the reactionary "Oh, so now grimdark elements are banned?" takes and "these darn SJWs" virtue signalling.

You know, speaking of cringey.

Not really.

I'm just tired of my statements being distorted and taken out of context. I make enough normal mistakes without this being compounded on top. There is a large majority of people who have already decided what their views are and there is little point in continuing. I do like to discuss philosphical issues and questions, but there are too many loud screamers on both sides who are more intent on ranting and declaring the other side evil than actually discussing issues. So I express an opinion and try to move on. Everyone has a mega phone and no one listens. It was never going to end well.

I like to play the game with people who want to play it. I do play with people across a broad philosphical and political spectrum. I do enjoy different opinions. I do enjoy new information. Thats all.

[Kobold Catgirl]

That's rough.

[TriOmegaZero]

I no longer enjoy philosophical discussions precisely because of the screamers and the disingenuous fakers who try to argue against the rights and existence of marginalized groups.

[TriOmegaZero]

Maybe this will stop the crusades.

James Jacobs wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

Is it "okay" to disagree with Mr. Mona's recent decision about Slavery in Golarion?

Yes, slavery is Evil and should have been more strongly flagged as such when the setting launched, but the surgical removal of it from the setting seems an overreaction. And Villains need to be able to do evil things.

It may be Erik's decision, but it's one I 100% support and am thankful that he made it and replied so quickly.

It hasn't been "surgically removed from the setting" as so many reactionary posts misunderstand. We aren't removing it from the world. It's still in the books we've published where it serves as an evil thing to fight against, and it's still in the upcoming Absalom book in historical context in the setting and as an illegal villainous thing for groups to fight against... but it's NOT a story element we'll be using going forward.

We have PLENTY of things for our villains to do that don't require slavery. Or rape or child abuse, for that matter–to name two other villainous activities that we don't think are appropriate to include in our products.

If slavery is required for your verisimilitude in your games, make sure your entire group consents and don't pursue those plots in public where they can be harmful or hurtful to others. If slavery issues don't bother you in an RPG, then you're lucky. If you don't care that it bothers other people and don't do what you can to help others who are bothered by it to feel comfortable by not wallowing in the subject or crusading to fight against imaginary publisher censorship, then Paizo isn't the correct game company for you.

Sorry if I come across a bit harsh on the topic, but the argument against this decision is REALLY not something that I have the patience any more to put up with.

So, yes, it's okay to disagree with the decision, but if you do, be at peace with the fact that we think the decision is the right one, and PLEASE do us and these boards and so many other gamers a HUGE FAVOR and quietly step back and don't publicly crusade against the decision.

Because this "holiday season" is awful enough for me already. I don't need more awfulness in this thread, of all places.

[Castilliano]

Paizo's PG-13 stance predates PF2, and came from them themselves (I believe I heard it from Jacobs what feels like a decade ago).
There's a lot of adult material in PG-13, much of it scary or unsettling! Most any genre or topic's available; it's a matter of presentation, what's in the camera lens. Ex. lots of torture rooms in decades of modules compared to actual scenes of torture.

That's why I think the issue w/ slavery is separate, and personal to Paizo's sensibilities. And I'm okay w/ replacing that institution and its pitfalls with simpler, similar fare like kidnapping and murder. (I said simpler, not fluffier!) The narrative space is easy to fill.

Even if it wasn't personal to Paizo, there's the issue that Paizo's narratives are ultimately about the PCs. Slaves become set dressing, victims, or just an easy excuse to label enemies Evil. None of that's necessary for a good (or terrifying or righteous-justice) narratives and the inverse, "PCs as slaves", would be difficult to market. And ultimately, slavery casts NPCs as people most defined by their enslavement. That's sloppy and again dehumanizing. Not to mention taking-down-slavers tales have been told umpteen times (and look it's so easy w/ some martial pressure). I've seen it more than rescuing princesses from dragons or wiping out undead armies. We don't want Paizo to go the "let's fight armies of giants...again" route when there's so much more material to mine. If we were to make a list of topics and terrors still available it'd be nigh infinite, even w/ a PG-13 cap. (Heck, some PG stories have solid suspense and danger.)

[Squiggit]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

We want a consistent story that doesn't possess outside influences dampening creative energies of the writers

But this whole thing started with writers, supported by other writers.

I'm sorry if this comes off as blunt or hostile but if this is legitimately your concern it deserves emphasis: You are the outside influence dampening their creative energy by demanding they make changes to fit your agenda.

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think we can and should all agree that if Paizo's writers feel that this move is the best thing to do, which we've seen them state multiple times now, that they really do believe in it, that we should support them in it.

I should cop to the fact that when I saw the original letter on twitter, it really made me worry that it was being used to pressure unwilling writers and force an internal decision, I apologize for the misunderstanding, and I'm looking forward to seeing whatever works come out of the decision and continuing to support you all.

All agreed?

[The Smurfing Gortlenator]

wonder who? wrote:

So, yes, it's okay to disagree with the decision, but if you do, be at peace with the fact that we think the decision is the right one, and PLEASE do us and these boards and so many other gamers a HUGE FAVOR and quietly step back and don't publicly crusade against the decision.

obligatory:

smurf

this is who:

if you were wondering

[Deriven Firelion]

I read what incited Erik Mona's response. Now that I have read the entire situation, I completely support Paizo's decision and I'm surprised it was even necessary to have someone speak out. That kind of material should have never made it in a game book no matter how much someone is trying to be "realistic."

I have played this game since I was child in the 70s. Never in all my time playing have I ever allowed someone to "buy a slave." None of my players have asked to do this. None of them have tried to roleplay this element even when playing evil characters.

I do not as a DM want this in my game. I don't want to have to roleplay it. I don't want to have to deal with some funny guy seeing this option in a game book and trying to do it expecting me to roleplay some person begging for their freedom while they beat the person or threaten their life to keep them in line.

Screw that type of garbage in an RPG.

I really don't care how realistic it is as I'm well aware this was common in many of the empires of various times as well as the nations of colonial powers. I personally want nothing to do with it as a DM or player. I certainly do not want the option available in any game book.

It's one thing to have slavery in the setting to add some element of realism, especially in evil cultures. It's entirely another thing to place this element in a supposedly Lawful Neutral city and provide "slaves" as a purchasable player option.

Once you put something like that in a game world book, you have crossed a fricking line that does not need to be crossed in an RPG book. I don't even want to have to ban or it imagine some game groups out there roleplaying that scenario as an option.

Get that garbage the hell out of the Absalom World book. I'm glad I didn't read that trash option in the book. Even in Kingmaker when we constructed the Kingdom we built, one of the first laws was "No slavery allowed in the kingdom or you die."

Slavery isn't lawful neutral. It's evil, period, end of discussion. It should never be a player purchasable option. Owning someone else by use of force while they beg you to let them go home to their family or be free is sickening.

Good riddance. I'm glad the writers questioned that and drove it from this game as some purchasable option. Get that sick trash out of there.

That really pissed me off after finding out why Erik Mona and Paizo decided to make that statement. Have some damn sense before you put something like that in a world book.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I actually think that discussion of more risque R-rated content in Pathfinder (the infamous Shayliss scene, the Hook Mountain Massacre, Calistria's sacred sex workers, the entire concept of the succubus, the long and storied tradition of shameless fanservice) would be worthwhile, and I might start a new thread for it when the mods are back from their break.

[Szadek]

Rysky wrote:

“ Should I be censured on my lets play streams because of it? Should the content I create and sell be disallowed because it offends someone?”

1) how does some writers not wanting to write slavery themed stories anymore censor you in any way possible?

2) that entirely depends on what you’re streaming.

To answer your questions, writers do not have an effect on the things I create other then inspiration for good or ill. What does have an effect on writers and other artist in the many fields, is people trying to demand change in their work because they disagree with it on some level and want creators to fit into their perfect little box of ideals of what should be allowed. This does lead to writers, artist, musicians, and the like to be censured or made to feel like they cannot express themselves in fear of retaliation. On note, I purposely did not use slavery in my post because the issues of censorship or what should and should not be allowed in a TTRPG goes beyond just that subject.

As for as what I stream, A general rating is given as well as content warning so those that find such things distasteful or hurtful in anyway can avoid it. I have no desire to bring unwanted distress on anyone or open wounds someone is healing from.

[Szadek]

Dancing Wind wrote:

Szadek wrote:

On the other hand, a company should not be made to feel they have to stop creating fictional content because there are those that do not like the content and consider it taboo I'm not saying that is what happen here but it is happening not just in the TTRPG circle but all works of fiction and art.

That's good, because that's absolutely not what's happening here.

So it's something of a troll to pretend that you can handwave that trolling by prefacing it with "I'm not saying that's what happened here" and then go on to say that it is happening here.

Szadek wrote:

The fact that we sit here online and complain about topics of interest offends parts of the world to the point they hate us. Should we simply shut up and be censured because we offend them or do we say screw it and keep on doing what we are doing?

As long as you are not breaking any laws, and aren't violating the terms of service for the platform that hosts you, the decision is yours. Act according to your own values. Do what you personally think is right.

If you're more worried about how many followers you have than doing the right thing, then accept that attention is more important to you than your own ethics. But don't try to blame other people for the ramifications of your decisions.

I do apologize if it seemed troll worthy, it was not my intent. I do not know if it is happening here as I have no insight into the inner workings of Paizo but artist, writers, musicians and the like are very much getting strong armed into either censoring their work or changing it all together because some people disagree with it. That is what I was trying to get across. Again I have been heavily medicated because I shattered my knee at work falling from a parked plane trying to close its front belly, so intent may be hard to get across.

As far as being worried about how many followers I have and doing the right thing? I am grateful for any viewers I have no matter the number and I do put a general rating on my streams as well as content warnings so those that have issue with subjects can avoid them and any distress or harm they would cause. I truly do believe in freedom of speech, religion and oneself but to achieve that ideal, there has to be give and take. What I find right or wrong will be different then what you do and I will defend your right to feel the way you do even if it goes against my own moral code. Because you are in fact a living breathing sentient creature that walks this world of ours and should not be forced to submit to my ideals of what should and shouldn't be.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Quote:

artist, writers, musicians and the like are very much getting strong armed into either censoring their work or changing it all together because some people disagree with it.

This is not the case. Creative Director James Jacobs, along with numerous high-profile freelancers, has spoken out in support of this change. Additionally, Erik Mona announced the change before virtually all of this discourse started, simply in response to the original critic. There was no Twitter mob. There was no strongarming. It was an internal industry decision. Some people disagreed with the decision, and that is where the discourse has come from--from your side, effectively, not ours.

By the way, among those freelancers speaking out? The original person who criticized Paizo over this. With Owen KC Stephens backing them up.

[Castilliano]

I think "censoring" is being tossed around too lightly; there's no authority decreeing anything. One has the freedom to make what artistic content one wills, and there's the freedom of others to push back or embrace.* "Market pressure" or "social pressure" might be more apt, though even those don't apply when Paizo's principles (or principals' principles) are what guide the standards and its changes.

*Yes, I understand this forum reaches an international audience where not everybody has that luxury! That makes the usage of terms more important.

[Tender Tendrils]

Szadek wrote:

I do not know if it is happening here as I have no insight into the inner workings of Paizo but artist, writers, musicians and the like are very much getting strong armed into either censoring their work or changing it all together because some people disagree with it.

That isn't what is happening here, many of the first public complaints about the content of the absalom book was by freelancers and in-house writers who where unhappy that they worked on a book and then got blindsided by the final product so heavily featuring slavery. Erik Mona writing so much about slavery in the book was a (poorly handled) attempt to handle how Absalom transitioned away from slavery by trying to explain it in-universe, which he later admitted that it would have been better to just move on from it entirely.

No one is pressuring paizo to remove slavery, on the contrary those of us who are against slavery being a big feature are being supportive of the wishes of the writers themselves, who made this decision in the first place.

It is the people demanding that paizo keep writing slavery content who are trying to pressure and control the writers.