Objectionable content in pathfinder


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Private individuals criticizing a work of art isn't censorship. Let's be serious here--it's part of the artistic process. This is especially (but not exclusively) true when the individuals are themselves affiliated with the work's creation.

Let's say I write a book. I feel pretty good about it. Someone comes along while I'm writing the sequel and says, "Hey, nice book, but I didn't like how you included the chapter with the talking basset hound. I thought it undermined my enjoyment of the story."

Now, I think about this, and I decide, hey, if the basset hound weakens the story for people, maybe I wrote him badly. I go back and review the material, and they're right! I write the basset hound out of the sequel.

Have I been censored, or have I responded to feedback?

People urging Paizo towards a social obligation isn't suppression of the arts. It is, as with the basset hound critic, offering feedback about the impact of the art upon the people who consume the art.

Now, mind you, if your concern is with the capitalist profit model creating an extra strain, that's fair. It doesn't apply to this situation at all, but it's fair as an abstract principle. But we can't control that and neither can Paizo. Would you ask us to refrain from critiquing because of a system we have no control over? Would you ask them to accept severe losses because of a system they have no control over? It's a pointless critique because really, you should be lobbying for an expansion of the NEftA, not complaining to Paizo.

Silver Crusade

"Correct, I am in favor of their choice to stop writing for a subject that no longer has a place in their creation."

Then there's no issue.

"As far as trying to be clever, I speak in broad strokes for a reason to avoid going into countless tangents."

There's a difference between succinct and vague, especially when you step into an already in progress argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Private individuals criticizing a work of art isn't censorship. Let's be serious here--it's part of the artistic process. This is especially (but not exclusively) true when the individuals are themselves affiliated with the work's creation.

Let's say I write a book. I feel pretty good about it. Someone comes along while I'm writing the sequel and says, "Hey, nice book, but I didn't like how you included the chapter with the talking basset hound. I thought it undermined my enjoyment of the story."

Now, I think about this, and I decide, hey, if the basset hound weakens the story for people, maybe I wrote him badly. I go back and review the material, and they're right! I write the basset hound out of the sequel.

Have I been censored, or have I responded to feedback?

People urging Paizo towards a social obligation isn't suppression of the arts. It is, as with the basset hound critic, offering feedback about the impact of the art upon the people who consume the art.

Now, mind you, if your concern is with the capitalist profit model creating an extra strain, that's fair. It doesn't apply to this situation at all, but it's fair as an abstract principle. But we can't control that and neither can Paizo. Would you ask us to refrain from critiquing because of a system we have no control over? Would you ask them to accept severe losses because of a system they have no control over? It's a pointless critique because really, you should be lobbying for an expansion of the NEftA, not complaining to Paizo.

Critique should always be welcome to an artist, that doesn't mean feelings wont be hurt but it does help us evolve. What I was trying and seemed to have failed to bring to the table was a company/artist should not be censored in their creation even if we as individuals have issue with its content (Bar breaking of laws). As I stated I support their choice if this is the direction they wish to go along with. The issue I was bring in and again I do apologize for failing to convey intent clearly, was there are a fair number or artist, companions and the like that are actively being faced with people trying to censor their work because subject X, Y and Z are in it. Be it because creatures that control ones free will, demons that represent sin incarnate, the corruption of people, etc.

One of the poster pointed out not a good time to hit the forums medicated, I will heed their advise and revisit this when I have a clearer mind and can properly discuss the topic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Rysky wrote:

"Correct, I am in favor of their choice to stop writing for a subject that no longer has a place in their creation."

Then there's no issue.

"As far as trying to be clever, I speak in broad strokes for a reason to avoid going into countless tangents."

There's a difference between succinct and vague, especially when you step into an already in progress argument.

You are correct and I concede to you. In future post I will do a better job of being less vague.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here the thing, this was an internal decision over the writers themselves not wanting to do these type of stories and plot hooks any more. Their hand wasn't forced.

So coming in with "think of the artists being "forced" to sacrifice their artistic vision" accomplishes absolutely nothing other than add fuel on fire. You're not enlightening or helping the conversation, as your concern was out of left field and irrelevant to the issue and conversation(s) at hand.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Castilliano wrote:
I think "censoring" is being tossed around too lightly; …

incorrectly

there has been no censorship, no attempt at such

incorrectly claiming censorship gives succor to those who are proponents of censorship

obligatory:
smurf


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Adventurer's Armory back in 2010. Never picked up that book. How ridiculous. Surprised it took this long to say something. What a terrible idea from the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Smurfing Gortlenator wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
I think "censoring" is being tossed around too lightly; …

incorrectly

there has been no censorship, no attempt at such

incorrectly claiming censorship gives succor to those who are proponents of censorship

I particularly liked the claim that companies shouldn't be censored, barring breaking of the law.

Like, what is censorship anyway?


Rysky wrote:

Here the thing, this was an internal decision over the writers themselves not wanting to do these type of stories and plot hooks any more. Their hand wasn't forced.

So coming in with "think of the artists being "forced" to sacrifice their artistic vision" accomplishes absolutely nothing other than add fuel on fire. You're not enlightening or helping the conversation, as your concern was out of left field and irrelevant to the issue and conversation(s) at hand.

My understanding was that Szadek thought that's Paizo's "removal" of slavery was much like other creators they know who have been formally censored, and they were concerned over someone pressuring the staff to change the stories they write about. They conceded the misunderstanding that it was strictly internal vs external pressure, but I think calling it "added fuel to the fire" is excessive when no one else has mentioned it in their posts, sans us.

As an aside, I agree with how absolutely insane it was to have that option Deriven, but I guess they were more keeping with the forward porting/adaptation of 3.5 since I'm pretty sure those rules existed back then, but I could be wrong on that front. Either way should have been left on the cutting room floor, regardless of origin of intention

Liberty's Edge

10 people marked this as a favorite.

TBH it was just another example of people coming out of the woods to rail against what they thought was cancel culture / SJW / woke forcing Paizo to bow to their wishes and who did not read the many posts explaining what was really happening just because it did not fit the narrative they so eagerly wanted.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I mean, its not that weird that people thought so, it'd be weirder not to think it, this is a direct quote from the freelancer:

Quote:
Even as Black fans, players and writers express our outrage and discomfort over and over again, certain writers at Paizo continue to ignore us and use an awful source of pain as fodder for their entertainment. And while I would typically choose to call out the company as a whole rather than any particular individual, in this case I feel I have no choice.

We do literally have writers who have previously pushed back on calls to do this, and the stated purpose of the letter was pressure. Like, we should support Paizo in listening, but we probably shouldn't crazy make people for thinking it was pressure that some of the writers writing it didn't want.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber

Hot take: we are spending too much time on this subject. Paizo will for the time being no longer publish material on slavery. You want to spend time in your game fighting slavery go ahead no one is stopping you. this is the writer's are agreeing with this so they are not being censored.

If you want to fight slavery, instead of doing it in forums how about making a stand and be the hero of your story and expose and stand up for the victims in slavery that is still going on. operation blooming onion is just a single occurrence many of which never get reported.

depending on what is considered objectionable content I'm fine depending on what is considered objectionable. Some people consider a positive representation of LGBTQIA+ objectionable I for one consider it good. things like PG-13 is a poor metric for acceptable after all MPAA has more issues than I care to discuss.

No writer should be forced to write something they find as objectional.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

They just don't wanna write about it anymore. It's not that hard to understand, and demanding they continue to do so anyway is childish entitlement.

The game is still good. The writing is still good. For the topics the Paizo team doesn't want to touch anymore, Infinite is right there for all of the folks who want it back, and all the 1e material didn't go anywhere.

I'm so tired of this same thread, over and over.

They don't want to to keep writing about it or they decide that is to much trouble to keep writing about it?

Giving that they had some issues or backlash with Agents of Edgewatch amidst the somewhat fiery, but mostly peaceful protest and some parts of the fandom have shown to be somewhat overzealous in recent times I believe is the second.

Grand Lodge

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

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
El Waiki wrote:
keftiu wrote:

They just don't wanna write about it anymore. It's not that hard to understand, and demanding they continue to do so anyway is childish entitlement.

The game is still good. The writing is still good. For the topics the Paizo team doesn't want to touch anymore, Infinite is right there for all of the folks who want it back, and all the 1e material didn't go anywhere.

I'm so tired of this same thread, over and over.

They don't want to to keep writing about it or they decide that is to much trouble to keep writing about it?

Giving that they had some issues or backlash with Agents of Edgewatch amidst the somewhat fiery, but mostly peaceful protest and some parts of the fandom have shown to be somewhat overzealous in recent times I believe is the second.

Overzealous in support of Paizo's decisions ?

Bad fandom part. No cookies.

Because fandom should only ever know nerdrage.

Why are people so keen on pushing their narrative of cancel culture on this ? Why not just accept the facts ?

That is how we end up with people pressuring a company in the name of said company's freedom. Because they know so much better than the company what its products should be. And because being free so obviously means doing as they say.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

ROFTL

Next we will be told PF2 APs are not edgy enough despite factual proof to the contrary.

... Wait a minute.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well put it this way, in the midst of the Edgewatch debacle I felt very uncomfortable with the idea about speaking up I defence of publishing the AP. I had seen other posters get fairly harsh language throw their way for daring to like the idea of the AP.

Now that is anecdotal evidence, I mat well be the only person who felt that way. Can't say for sure, nut I expect there are quite a few posters who didn't feel like it was worth the emotional effort to raise their opinion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
El Waiki wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

ROFTL

Next we will be told PF2 APs are not edgy enough despite factual proof to the contrary.

... Wait a minute.

Not at all, but they progressively been less so. Paizo has been retconning "problematic" elements of the setting. They difference is that now the implication is that nobody is going to touch certain parts of the setting or said parts are going to be sanitize beyond recognition.

Some of it needs to be gone.

I haven't been very much up on Golarion. The most into world lore I ever was back when Forgotten Realms was popular because they made so many high quality books and boxed sets with a good mix of crunch and fluff.

I doubt this change will have much of an impact on Paizo APs. They did very few covering the subject in question.

Read up on what incited Erik Mona's response. It doesn't have much to do with dark and edgy material. It has to do with very specific elements of the setting, some of it produced a long time ago that somehow remained in PFS.

I'm not even sure if anyone used these options, but really they shouldn't exist as player options. I played this game a long time and I don't recall D&D ever having such player purchasable elements in the game. Not in Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms. But who knows, maybe I missed those books too.

I get it. Golarion and Paizo have always pushed the envelope. But they pushed a little too far in this instance and finally someone spoke up about it. It needed to be changed.

I think people need to read on what incited this response. I'm pretty sure after a thorough reading, most will see it was necessary and too long in the making. It's one of those things that lingered around the game in places not many looked until finally someone said, "Hey. Get this garbage out of my fantasy game."

I'm good with it. I don't think it will have any affect on Paizo's storytelling whatsoever. The problem was very specific. It can be excised very easily without impacting much of what was around it.


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

Paizo as a company does not want to publish content that makes it look like they are treating the issue of chattel slavery as a cheap joke or cluelessly and repetitively ignore the ways their using it as window dressing was upsetting and causing harm to their own writers, as well as as large contingent of existing and potential future players.

Paizo makes content choices all the time and often base those decisions off of the reactions they get to past material. Implying any hint of coercion is behind these choice is a deliberate attempt to force one’s will over other people.

“There is no way that a company might make content editorial decisions that actively encourage new audiences to feel welcome and included into the game, even though that is a clearly stated mission of the company! This must be censorship!!!” Is a really bad hill to keep circling your wagons around.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I think it's a pretty ugly thing to start trying to make a mess for the moderators literally on their Christmas morning. And since El Waiki hasn't apologized for that temper tantrum from before, it's pretty obvious that that's still what they want to do: make a mess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

You can do pretty much damn near anything with the right mature table of people, its one reason I'm a big advocate for curating your group according to how you want to play. There are people who are happy to explore anything around the table, and with the right group that trusts each other, and makes each other feel comfortable, you can do pretty much anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Wait Raven Black you have only ever played variations of yourself in RPGs?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The-Magic-Sword wrote:
You can do pretty much damn near anything with the right mature table of people, its one reason I'm a big advocate for curating your group according to how you want to play. There are people who are happy to explore anything around the table, and with the right group that trusts each other, and makes each other feel comfortable, you can do pretty much anything.

True, but this also assumes that players are like fruit at a market, where we can literally cherry-pick the ones we want. It would require an in-depth awareness and familiarity with all involved that takes time and effort that doesn't work when attempting to start a game from scratch. It also assumes said players will get along with themselves while still being different, not unlike having various fish in a tank. Unless you know what fish can and can't get along with one another, chances are there will be casualties in the habitat, and you'll be the one left cleaning up the mess.

151 to 200 of 348 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Objectionable content in pathfinder All Messageboards