Pathfinder 1E An open letter to Paizo

[EricNoah]

I personally am of two minds. As a librarian, I certainly value the right and freedom of companies to produce and sell what they want. I have had to defend questionable material in my library collection -- even stuff I personally didn't care for -- and I don't agree with the notion that the presence of something that is opposed to your values somehow taints the entire collection (or store or company, particularly an item not produced by said company).

On the other hand the last thing D&D and RPGs in general needs is yet another reason for people to associate it with evil and drugs and devil worship and all that crap.

 

[6pakofdwarves]

There is nothing immoral or illegal in violence, provided it is done in self-defense, which is actually the case in D&D, at least the "default" way where the PCs are good.

OTOH, drug use , while it may or may not be immoral, certainly is illegal.

I have to disagree as to the "Default" way of playing. Most games do not revolve around waiting to be attacked and then killing in self defense. They involve SEEKING out evil and killing it. Which IS illegal. If I know a murderer lives down the street and I go in his house and kill him and take his stuff I am breaking the law.

I'm sorry, but their is no way to win this argument on a completely detached and logical level. You cannot condemn the doll and play D&D without being somewhat hypocritical. The OP obviously is emotionally wrapped up in this particular issue and lets those emotions color his opinion. He of course has a right to said opinion, but when you air it to the public in a somewhat confrontational way don't expect hugs and kisses in return. I feel his opinion is incorrect. I also think the OP is cutting off his nose to spite his face. One product does not ruin an entire company. If you don't want or like the doll, don't buy it.

And jonathan swift.... I honestly have never seen anybody play RPG's with no violence whatsoever. I would imagine it is boring though, and absolutely NOT what RPG's are intended for. You are in the absolute infinitesimal minority. Sorry, but you are.

 

[catsclaw227]

I am not sure if anyone else noticed, but I first saw this plush from the email that the Paizo store sends out advertising products. I didn't go to it, it came to me. It was one of the featured products in the right column - right near the top. Third product down.


Bummer....

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Huh?

Whyever not? Are you searching for the doll while she's with you?

If you aren't, and you're still looking at the same D&D stuff you were looking at before, why would she even ever see this particular item?

I can [sympathize] people who don't want Paizo to sell it, but the above argument is just ... Yeah.

If this product winds up on their front page as a top seller or as part of a promotion, then I can't go there.

It also boils down to standards. I hold myself to a standard whereby I don't support companies that sell products that support drug use. It's not a standard I expect from other people...just me, to set an example for my kids.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

You have some very sophisticated children if they can look at that doll, without ad copy attached (as it would be on the top seller list) and spot it as a drug reference. It's a little sleepy doll with dreadlocks. The biggest sin here is the stereotyping, in my mind.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

You have some very sophisticated children if they can look at that doll, without ad copy attached (as it would be on the top seller list) and spot it as a drug reference. It's a little sleepy doll with dreadlocks. The biggest sin here is the stereotyping, in my mind.

They don't necessarily know it is a drug reference...but being inquisitive and curious, they will ask (I can almost guarantee it) as they did with the Cthulhu plushes, forcing me to explain what Cthulhu was in a general sense.

 

[catsclaw227]

You have some very sophisticated children if they can look at that doll, without ad copy attached (as it would be on the top seller list) and spot it as a drug reference. It's a little sleepy doll with dreadlocks. The biggest sin here is the stereotyping, in my mind.

Sophisticated? A 10yr old can make the connection. You underestimate the deductive capabilities of children.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

Sophisticated? A 10yr old can make the connection. You underestimate the deductive capabilities of children.

Also true. There have been several news articles recently about how today's children are "growing up" faster than previous generations.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

The Gateway Beckons

It doesn't follow up with gamers or geek culture; and it doesn't fit in with their other Fanatasy or Science Fiction items.

Barring pharmaceutical analogs, it is not appropriate to advertise drugs for children.

Real gamers never get high, and their PCs never indulge in black lotus or spice.




Just say no to deathsticks, kids ....


​

 

[danzig138]

alchohol and tobacco use and most of them contain violence.

What is your point? If it's okay for a PG-13 movie, it's okay? Or is this very cleverly concealed sarcasm? I'm tired, so my meter might be off.

For the OP:
Good on you for letting them know your stance on this. I absolutely disagree with your stance (which I think any more would be a violation of the board policies), and I wholeheartedly endorse their selling of a very ugly and stupid little doll, but it's always nice to see people say something when something bothers them.

So again, more power to you, and I hope someone at the company addresses your concern one way or the other.

I guess anything else I'd want to address on here would also be against the policies of the board, so here's hoping this thread doesn't derail to much.