Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 05:28:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PMNothing is being forced on anyone either way.

A company feeling pressured to sanatize content is the issue. Framing it any other way is disengenous.

Going a 'Not every company has been put to heel yet' is such a meely wishy washy defense.

But is that an accurate complaint against WOTC? At this point, I think WOTC as a company is pretty much woke, and they want to do this. And more power to them. Every follower of a dysfunctional, destructive -ism should have the freedom to toss their livelyhood down the toilet in the pursuit of their ideology.

Agreed - though I thought we were talking about Paizo here, not WotC? But the same is true for Paizo. As far as I can tell, Paizo isn't being blackmailed into choices they are opposed to. They've been on the progressive bandwagon from early on, like having a black woman as their iconic paladin on the cover.

Players can and should pressure companies by saying "I don't like this". That's just normal market pressure. I'm fine with Ocule's green/yellow/red list of companies for people who feel similarly, and the equivalent for left-leaning gamers. There should be different games for different tastes and different times, and gamers vote with their feet and dollars. At least currently, there's plentiful OSR content, plus easy access to older D&D material, in addition to newer material from Paizo and WotC.

EDITED TO ADD: Cross-posted with Shrieking Banshee.

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PM
Nothing is being forced on anyone either way.

How exactly do you suppose a game publisher would "force" anything on anyone? Perhaps they might listen to recordings of online games and cancel your subscription if you step out of line. Maybe they'd wire your dick to a machine and read passages of lore to decide what's too arousing and must be removed when the machine beeps?

Ridiculous, of course. Just like the idea that nobody is being forced to do anything is a ridiculous way of excusing the sanitizing and disclaiming that's going on. The removal of lore won't affect *my* game, so who cares, right?

This is not about any particular lore or particular game or some personal preference at the table; it's about the principle of letting a creative work stand on its own merit and not preemptively admonishing your customers if you think they might interpret the work in a slightly ungood way.

Perhaps we should extend this sniveling lack of principles to other areas? Maybe we should have museum visitors sign an affirmation that they are anti-slavery before allowing them into an exhibit about the slave trade. Maybe we should demand that novels and films about difficult subjects include prefaces that lecture us on the correct opinions about these subjects. Heck, maybe we should demand that works be continually updated to reflect modern sensitivities. There are mountains of works that contain "problematic" words and ideas.

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PM

Quote from: tenbones on December 28, 2021, 04:56:00 PM

Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
So I basically ran in an airbrushed version of the 1600s. In the real 1690s, as much as a third of the population of Port Royal were slaves, but in my game, it was just a rowdy town full of pirates, with a bunch of civilians thrown in.

Rape was similarly off-limits. Characters were expressly forbidden from going there, and for my part I as GM would not bring the subject up.

Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

This might be a generational thing - half of one of my LA crews were black players, and slavery was pretty common in parts of our game (Thay, Calimshan, etc.) where our campaigns were set. Not once did *any* of them ever associate slavery in the game with actual slavery in the United States history. Why do you think that is?

It's not that they weren't aware of it, they were not affected by this weird idea that slavery in a fictional setting was some kind of assumption of a real-world claim about society. Some of them bought slaves in-game, and treated them very well, and eventually freed them.

I don't speak for Lurkndog, but I have had a similar approach in most of my games. I don't assume that fictional slavery, torture, or rape is a real-world claim about society. But I don't necessarily want that content in the games that I play for fun. I've played in games with plenty of grimdark content - but it's not something I want all the time.

In general, I find that even though I am an adult -- stuff labelled as "adult entertainment" isn't my go-to for entertainment.

To Lurkndog's question:

Quote from: Lurkndog on December 28, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
Should that be the rule across an entire game line? I don't know. While it worked for me, and I'd certainly suggest it to others as a good practice, I wouldn't go so far as to force my rules upon others.

Nothing is being forced on anyone either way. The question is just what the default should be for the line. Individual games can go whatever direction they like.

There are game lines that have dark content built-in, like Call of Cthulhu, Bluebeard's Bride, and plenty of others. There are other games that default to lighter content, though, like Star Wars and others.

Despite defaulting to lighter content, there's slavery in Star Wars.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 28, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Holy shit. I gotta find that module.

A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade.

It's not the first module I ever owned, but it's the first one I read, and a big big part of why I love AD&D so. 

But, dig this: Markessa is so bad that if the party meets a fellow "sent by the downtown office", who happens to be an Ogre Mage, he'll ask them to kill Markessa because her shenanigans are interfering with the bottom line for the Slave Lords.

That's how bad she is.

Quote from: thedungeondelver on December 29, 2021, 01:13:36 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 28, 2021, 03:29:26 PM
Holy shit. I gotta find that module.

A2 Secret of the Slavers Stockade.

It's not the first module I ever owned, but it's the first one I read, and a big big part of why I love AD&D so.

I don't think I ever played A2, but I fondly remember the tournament module A4 "In The Dungeons of the Slave Lords" -- where the characters are naked through the whole adventure. (They are technically given loincloths, but their only weapons are using the loincloths as slings.) Playing through the challenges was hilarious as we described them going through the fights with all their parts hanging out.

Nothing wrong with all-naked adventures and other material. But not every game line has to include everything. I'm pretty sure A4 would have been changed to add some clothes if it were part of BECMI or in the 2E era, for example.

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:58:57 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 05:28:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PMNothing is being forced on anyone either way.

A company feeling pressured to sanatize content is the issue. Framing it any other way is disengenous.

Going a 'Not every company has been put to heel yet' is such a meely wishy washy defense.

But is that an accurate complaint against WOTC? At this point, I think WOTC as a company is pretty much woke, and they want to do this. And more power to them. Every follower of a dysfunctional, destructive -ism should have the freedom to toss their livelyhood down the toilet in the pursuit of their ideology.

Agreed - though I thought we were talking about Paizo here, not WotC? But the same is true for Paizo. As far as I can tell, Paizo isn't being blackmailed into choices they are opposed to. They've been on the progressive bandwagon from early on, like having a black woman as their iconic paladin on the cover.

Players can and should pressure companies by saying "I don't like this". That's just normal market pressure. I'm fine with Ocule's green/yellow/red list of companies for people who feel similarly, and the equivalent for left-leaning gamers. There should be different games for different tastes and different times, and gamers vote with their feet and dollars. At least currently, there's plentiful OSR content, plus easy access to older D&D material, in addition to newer material from Paizo and WotC.

EDITED TO ADD: Cross-posted with Shrieking Banshee.

I bolded that one line of text. What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Why do you care about the official cannon policy on slavery or anything else. You can run your own games with as mature and complex situations as you want.

Run the game you want and don't worry about what WoTC or Paiso does.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:25:58 AM
What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Could be worse, could be Fat Valeros.

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:58:57 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on December 28, 2021, 05:41:59 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 28, 2021, 05:28:18 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 28, 2021, 05:25:48 PMNothing is being forced on anyone either way.

A company feeling pressured to sanatize content is the issue. Framing it any other way is disengenous.

Going a 'Not every company has been put to heel yet' is such a meely wishy washy defense.

But is that an accurate complaint against WOTC? At this point, I think WOTC as a company is pretty much woke, and they want to do this. And more power to them. Every follower of a dysfunctional, destructive -ism should have the freedom to toss their livelyhood down the toilet in the pursuit of their ideology.

Agreed - though I thought we were talking about Paizo here, not WotC? But the same is true for Paizo. As far as I can tell, Paizo isn't being blackmailed into choices they are opposed to. They've been on the progressive bandwagon from early on, like having a black woman as their iconic paladin on the cover.

Players can and should pressure companies by saying "I don't like this". That's just normal market pressure. I'm fine with Ocule's green/yellow/red list of companies for people who feel similarly, and the equivalent for left-leaning gamers. There should be different games for different tastes and different times, and gamers vote with their feet and dollars. At least currently, there's plentiful OSR content, plus easy access to older D&D material, in addition to newer material from Paizo and WotC.

EDITED TO ADD: Cross-posted with Shrieking Banshee.

Yep,bolded. RPG publishers are listening to the needs of players. Maybe you call it woke because it doesn't directly benefit you. But for people who are into RPG gaming who come from different experiences than you it means much more. You just look at one side... just at what appeals to you. Then you criticize a game company for appealing to people not like you.

So what do you want?

RPG games should only ever appeal to your own personal tastes or the tastes that YOU personally deem appropriate?

Quote from: Shasarak on December 29, 2021, 04:28:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:25:58 AM
What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Could be worse, could be Fat Valeros.

Ok lol.
But seriously, is this a forum about RPG discussion? Or is this a forum about right wing fascist racist ideologies? I mean this thread pretends to bring discussion but it seems a dissenting opinion is not tolerated here.

But I'm challenging your statement. Its ok that you decline that challenge. But it will be duly noted.. lol.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:42:02 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 29, 2021, 04:28:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:25:58 AM
What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Could be worse, could be Fat Valeros.

Ok lol.
But seriously, is this a forum about RPG discussion? Or is this a forum about right wing fascist racist ideologies? I mean this thread pretends to bring discussion but it seems a dissenting opinion is not tolerated here. That's fine. Well not really, I'm going to continue to voice my opinion here whether you like it or not (or ban me) lol.

But I'm challenging your statement. Its ok that you decline that challenge. But it will be duly noted.. lol.

You challenge my statement?

You champion fat white Valeros over a strong black woman?

I am shocked but not that shocked.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:42:02 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 29, 2021, 04:28:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:25:58 AM
What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Could be worse, could be Fat Valeros.

Ok lol.
But seriously, is this a forum about RPG discussion? Or is this a forum about right wing fascist racist ideologies? I mean this thread pretends to bring discussion but it seems a dissenting opinion is not tolerated here.

But I'm challenging your statement. Its ok that you decline that challenge. But it will be duly noted.. lol.

Oh, another disingenuous gas lighting dumb ass who wants to play the victim I can ignore. LOL.

Quote from: palaeomerus on December 29, 2021, 05:27:25 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:42:02 AM

Quote from: Shasarak on December 29, 2021, 04:28:42 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:25:58 AM
What is wrong with a black woman as a paladin?

Could be worse, could be Fat Valeros.

Ok lol.
But seriously, is this a forum about RPG discussion? Or is this a forum about right wing fascist racist ideologies? I mean this thread pretends to bring discussion but it seems a dissenting opinion is not tolerated here.

But I'm challenging your statement. Its ok that you decline that challenge. But it will be duly noted.. lol.

Oh, another disingenuous gas lighting dumb ass who wants to play the victim I can ignore. LOL.

Agreed and seconded and seems to forget this is not the rpg.net or Paizo forums where the mods come crawling on their bellies whenever someone plays the victim or tries to use their sexual orientation as an excuse to behave badly.

So their attempt at concern trolling is noted and summarily ignored.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:33:36 AM
Yep,bolded. RPG publishers are listening to the needs of players.

Which needs and which players?

I think the major difference in viewpoints here comes from opinions on (1) if the decision came to satisfy unrepresented black players, (2) to satisfy white players, and Piazo employees, concerned over appearing racist because of the lack of black representation, (3) or because management believed everyone outside of Seattle is racist and they hoped ride the wave of indignation to make themselves feel superior.

I think most of the folks on the board would accept (1) as valid but don't believe for a minute that was the real reason for the choice.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:42:02 AM
I mean this thread pretends to bring discussion but it seems a dissenting opinion is not tolerated here.

In what way is your opinion "not tolerated" here? Or did you mean that someone disagreed with you?

Quote from: Ruprecht on December 29, 2021, 08:57:00 AM

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:33:36 AM
Yep,bolded. RPG publishers are listening to the needs of players.

Which needs and which players?

I think the major difference in viewpoints here comes from opinions on (1) if the decision came to satisfy unrepresented black players, (2) to satisfy white players, and Piazo employees, concerned over appearing racist because of the lack of black representation, (3) or because management believed everyone outside of Seattle is racist and they hoped ride the wave of indignation to make themselves feel superior.

I think most of the folks on the board would accept (1) as valid but don't believe for a minute that was the real reason for the choice.

Indeed, it's tough to swallow when never hearing a single complaint or comment from any of the black people, Mexican people, Asian people, Pacific Islanders, or numerous women I've played with since the 70's, who apparently all felt welcome and eager to play.

(Ew, I had to think like a racist to even compile that list, it never occurred to me at the time that anyone was other than a "player".)