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.

Uhm, nobody has warned you or banned you for expressing your opinion. You are being 'tolerated' just fine- just not agreed with. There's a difference there that most woke folks have an issue digesting, and here you don't have a bunch of woke mods coming out of the woodwork to wipe away your tears and slam the mean non-woke posters who disagree.

What you are experiencing here is actual tolerance, not the pretend woke kind.

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.

Ooo me! Ooo me!

Since for the vast majority of D&D's history the cultures (note: cultures not necessarily nationalities which is distinct from ethnicities) are real-world analogues that for obvious reasons mostly European.

The issue is the assumptions of writers trying to shoe-horn real world ethnicities (note: Ethnicities) into cultures (note: cultures) free of ANY context for the purposes of virtue signaling.

Now as an Asian guy, I ****DEARLY**** love Oriental Adventures when it dropped. Was it because representation? HELL NO. Though the fact the boxset did a fabulous job giving content to other Asian cultures other than the Fancy Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) - thanks Mike Pondsmith, the fact was it was simply cool to have a setting that wasn't the standard D&D European fare.

But here's the thing... if I'm looking for representation, *I* don't want to see a person of a different ethnicity repping a culture they're not supposed to be from as "ICONIC". I'm not saying there can't be Mexican Samurai, or Black Samurai, or whatever but there should be some serious context to that outlier.

I assume this is true for people that are of European descent too. The "problem" is that Paizo and WotC and the rest of the woke crowd want to pretend that cultures and ethnic groups all mingle in some post-modern bullshit reality which reeks of shit they would call "whitewashing" if done in reverse.

This always goes back to my claim: the dirty secret is Kara-Tur, Nyambe, Maztica, Al-Qadim didn't sell. Now we can argue about the qualitative differences between those settings, Maztica is a horrible representation of Mesoamerican fantasy which is a real shame. But Al-Qadim is ***fantastically*** good. But not enough people came out to support it.

The unshocking reality is that /gasp people like playing with what they know. Freaky old-school GM's like me will happily run a Marco Polo-esque campaign that takes everyone from Fantasy Ireland to Saudi-Arabia, to Imperial China and Japan, then landing on the Sacred Isles of the Elves and Jungle Dwarven Kingdoms without missing beat. Most GM's don't want to do that.

And these knuckleheads in Paizo and WotC want to pretend that their newfound religions explains this: people are racist.

No they're not. They're just playing a game and want to have fun. They maybe not be as ambitious, the writing of the non-European content may not be enticing enough, but rather than make a modern attempt - they insert these cardboard cutout ethnic people into their European settings and don't even bother supporting their own ethnic cultures in their own worlds.

And who is gonna argue? They keep churning out the same old vanilla-flavored shit and people keep buying.

It's easier to make a Black Female Paladin in the European mold than to make a cool Black Female Fantasy Masai-Warrior that has their own cool schtick, or might be a Paladin analog culturally, call everyone Racist that disagrees even by implication. Let's make Hovito Knights in full plate with lances etc to rep South American's, instead of fantasy Feathered Serpent Warriors with obsidian blades as hard as steel, and their own cool "thing".

Yeah "representation" my ass.

Edit: LET me be more clear. The reason they don't do these things is because THEY look down on other cultures as "sub-standard" instead of elevating them to something cool and useful. It's their own inherent bigotry that we poor people of color *need* representation rather than give everyone a good taste of something different that might analogous to non-European cultures.

I had thought while I was making my coffee...

This is really a White Liberal problem. The only "POC's" that usually agree with these bullshit concepts of "representation" are those that have been gaslit into believing White Liberal redefinitions of these terms. They've accepted it. Otherwise you're branded as "Not real <ethnicity in quesiton>". Biden said this. You have to accept their terminology or be invalidated (You can't be Latino/Latina anymore you have to be Latinx)

So in some ways Paizo and WotC have painted themselves into a corner on this issue of representation. They've trained their followers so that any real attempt at portraying a Fantasy non-European real-world analog culture will likely get attacked before long.

This is why it's much easier to just insert rando ethnic person into a fantasy setting free of context, and the proliferation of the freakshow races persists. It's easier to dodge around the issue. Of course there is going to be a lot of bowing, kneeling for the mistakes of the past and lots of memory holing to shore up their Holy Books with the current dogmas.

QuoteThis is really a White Liberal problem

DINGDINGDINGDING WE HAVE A WINNAH

I mean there are some grifters out there who push it, too.  The guy who caused the cascade of "content warnings" to be plastered on old materials sold in the D&D Classics section of DTRPG was an Asian dude.

But generally speaking, yeah, it's white liberals.

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2021, 01:37:37 AM
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.

Sure, I don't think everyone would argue that, for example, every comic book should include the same story elements and art styles of Heavy Metal magazine (nudity, graphic sex).  Archie can be Archie without Axa waltzing in to Riverdale and having a foursome with some characters; but leave the reading options available, says I.

Oh, I just thought of another one that would put Paizo in a tizzy: in G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, there's a storm giantess being held prisoner.  Gary mentions that the Jarl "desires her to be his leman" (the Jarl also has a wife), and is keeping her locked up denying her food and drink until she submits.  Again, another great rescue situation (although I debate the ease with which a mere Frost Giant could subdue a storm giantess in her wrath).

Another one Paizo would forbid you running.

Quote from: fixable on December 29, 2021, 04:33:36 AM
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?

Baizuo is re-writing their entire game world based on one anonymous letter.  Who even knows if the person who wrote the letter is a actually a player, or even if they are offended. 

It's not that the removal of slavery offends us.  It is one of the best evils to fight against.  It's right up there with human sacrifice, and cannibalism.  But the method that Baizuo uses to remove the slavery from their campaign setting is utterly laughable.  We aren't outraged at Baizuo.  We are eating popcorn and watching them self destruct...

...over one anonymous letter

Quote from: tenbones on December 29, 2021, 10:46:27 AMThe only "POC's" that usually agree with these bullshit concepts of "representation" are those that have been gaslit into believing White Liberal redefinitions of these terms.

The grifters are much older then modern white liberals. Id say the Majority is white guilters, but there is a substantial group of POCs that happily will take a check.

Quote from: tenbones on December 29, 2021, 10:19:43 AM

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.

Ooo me! Ooo me!

Since for the vast majority of D&D's history the cultures (note: cultures not necessarily nationalities which is distinct from ethnicities) are real-world analogues that for obvious reasons mostly European.

The issue is the assumptions of writers trying to shoe-horn real world ethnicities (note: Ethnicities) into cultures (note: cultures) free of ANY context for the purposes of virtue signaling.

Now as an Asian guy, I ****DEARLY**** love Oriental Adventures when it dropped. Was it because representation? HELL NO. Though the fact the boxset did a fabulous job giving content to other Asian cultures other than the Fancy Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans) - thanks Mike Pondsmith, the fact was it was simply cool to have a setting that wasn't the standard D&D European fare.

But here's the thing... if I'm looking for representation, *I* don't want to see a person of a different ethnicity repping a culture they're not supposed to be from as "ICONIC". I'm not saying there can't be Mexican Samurai, or Black Samurai, or whatever but there should be some serious context to that outlier.

I assume this is true for people that are of European descent too. The "problem" is that Paizo and WotC and the rest of the woke crowd want to pretend that cultures and ethnic groups all mingle in some post-modern bullshit reality which reeks of shit they would call "whitewashing" if done in reverse.

This always goes back to my claim: the dirty secret is Kara-Tur, Nyambe, Maztica, Al-Qadim didn't sell. Now we can argue about the qualitative differences between those settings, Maztica is a horrible representation of Mesoamerican fantasy which is a real shame. But Al-Qadim is ***fantastically*** good. But not enough people came out to support it.

The unshocking reality is that /gasp people like playing with what they know. Freaky old-school GM's like me will happily run a Marco Polo-esque campaign that takes everyone from Fantasy Ireland to Saudi-Arabia, to Imperial China and Japan, then landing on the Sacred Isles of the Elves and Jungle Dwarven Kingdoms without missing beat. Most GM's don't want to do that.

And these knuckleheads in Paizo and WotC want to pretend that their newfound religions explains this: people are racist.

No they're not. They're just playing a game and want to have fun. They maybe not be as ambitious, the writing of the non-European content may not be enticing enough, but rather than make a modern attempt - they insert these cardboard cutout ethnic people into their European settings and don't even bother supporting their own ethnic cultures in their own worlds.

And who is gonna argue? They keep churning out the same old vanilla-flavored shit and people keep buying.

It's easier to make a Black Female Paladin in the European mold than to make a cool Black Female Fantasy Masai-Warrior that has their own cool schtick, or might be a Paladin analog culturally, call everyone Racist that disagrees even by implication. Let's make Hovito Knights in full plate with lances etc to rep South American's, instead of fantasy Feathered Serpent Warriors with obsidian blades as hard as steel, and their own cool "thing".

Yeah "representation" my ass.

Edit: LET me be more clear. The reason they don't do these things is because THEY look down on other cultures as "sub-standard" instead of elevating them to something cool and useful. It's their own inherent bigotry that we poor people of color *need* representation rather than give everyone a good taste of something different that might analogous to non-European cultures.

I am deeply frustrated that these people claiming to be liberal are so racist that they don't actually give a crap about settings outside of the weird pseudo-Europe they're obsessed with. There are many thousands of unique cultures across world history that could drive whole fantasy series individually. Instead we keep getting lazy rehashes of surface-level Tolkien readings with wokeness shoehorned in.

Quote from: thedungeondelver on December 29, 2021, 11:19:27 AM

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2021, 01:37:37 AM
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.

Sure, I don't think everyone would argue that, for example, every comic book should include the same story elements and art styles of Heavy Metal magazine (nudity, graphic sex).  Archie can be Archie without Axa waltzing in to Riverdale and having a foursome with some characters; but leave the reading options available, says I.

Oh, I just thought of another one that would put Paizo in a tizzy: in G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, there's a storm giantess being held prisoner.  Gary mentions that the Jarl "desires her to be his leman" (the Jarl also has a wife), and is keeping her locked up denying her food and drink until she submits.  Again, another great rescue situation (although I debate the ease with which a mere Frost Giant could subdue a storm giantess in her wrath).

Another one Paizo would forbid you running.

"Taming of the Shrew", indeed!

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

What a strange thing to say. What is your definition of tolerance?

Quote from: thedungeondelver on December 29, 2021, 11:19:27 AM

Quote from: jhkim on December 29, 2021, 01:37:37 AM
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.

Sure, I don't think everyone would argue that, for example, every comic book should include the same story elements and art styles of Heavy Metal magazine (nudity, graphic sex).  Archie can be Archie without Axa waltzing in to Riverdale and having a foursome with some characters; but leave the reading options available, says I.

Oh, I just thought of another one that would put Paizo in a tizzy: in G2 Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl, there's a storm giantess being held prisoner.  Gary mentions that the Jarl "desires her to be his leman" (the Jarl also has a wife), and is keeping her locked up denying her food and drink until she submits.  Again, another great rescue situation (although I debate the ease with which a mere Frost Giant could subdue a storm giantess in her wrath).

Another one Paizo would forbid you running.

Agreed, but sexualized violence is also a line where TSR would forbid you from running it, too. The original run of Module B3 "Palace of the Silver Princess" was recalled and copies destroyed because it had an illustrated scene of a woman tied up and threatened by a crowd of men - which turns out to be an illusion cast by a monster to draw the characters in to intervene. In the revised version, that encounter was cut along with a few other points.

Self-censorship has always been standard for mainstream game lines. If I want more edgy content than the default for a given game line, I can put it in for my own game - or just choose another game to play. B3 was more heavily self-censored since it was for the Basic Set, which was more family-friendly than AD&D. But there were still lines that AD&D wouldn't cross either.

The most edgy sexualized violence I've had in RPGs has been in Bluebeard's Bride -- which is an explicitly feminist horror game.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on December 29, 2021, 12:49:35 PM
There are many thousands of unique cultures across world history that could drive whole fantasy series individually. Instead we keep getting lazy rehashes of surface-level Tolkien readings with wokeness shoehorned in.

Yes.

Conan went to the Black Kingdoms, Vendaya and Khitai, in the non-Howard books he made it to the new world he didn't just sit around the Hyborian Kingdoms all day.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 29, 2021, 01:28:23 PM

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

What a strange thing to say. What is your definition of tolerance?

Anything that echoes only his carefully constructed personal narrative in the subject.

It's funny because outside of Woke forums whenever they don't get their way and the Mods refuse to bend the knee then anyone and everyone who disagrees with them is either right wing. Or worse ( insert word ) ist or phobic. Of course anyone and everyone who disagrees is in the wrong.

I am in contact with a poster Paizo recently banned for wrongthink and he had to give away his collection of pocket editions for 2E. He was selling them at 5-10$ Below Amazon price and beyond one buyer interested in one book no one could be bothered.

Anecdotal yes but I would not be surprised if their Woke decisions kill off 2E Pathfinder. They can't stop selling 1E as they gave their word as long as they are profitable the core books filled with nasty slavery and genocide would be kept in print.

Quote from: Abraxus on December 29, 2021, 01:43:33 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 29, 2021, 01:28:23 PM

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

What a strange thing to say. What is your definition of tolerance?

Anything that echoes only his carefully constructed personal narrative in the subject.

It's funny because outside of Woke forums whenever they don't get their way and the Mods refuse to bend the knee then anyone and everyone who disagrees with them is either right wing. Or worse ( insert word ) ist or phobic. Of course anyone and everyone who disagrees is in the wrong.

I see. Maybe he means "tolerance" is an end in itself (agreement), as opposed to a means (for having a discussion).