Pathfinder 1E A more mature setting?

[VelvetViolet]

PF is great and all, but I don't find the official setting particularly original or thought-provoking. I'll list my complaints below:

• Various races like drow, orcs, goblins and so on are arbitrarily evil, cartoonishly so. Ogres are rapist hillbillies. Half-orcs are rape babies. Rape is a common way of identifying evil creatures, despite being both cliche and offensive. Furthermore, there is no contraception to prevent half-orcs from being born if rape by orc is such a common fear for women. The ancient greeks harvested a contraceptive herb to extinction, so the faux-medieval setting is no excuse. (A feminist blog mentioned these problems, and the Paizo writer who responded basically said they won't change it.)
• The entire escapist premise revolves around colonialist narratives, ethnic cleansing, and crime fantasy. Orcs and goblins are stand-ins for the ethnic "other" who the PCs systematically murder and loot.
• Non-white, non-heterosexual, and non-gender binary characters are added for PR reasons, without any critical thought given to how prejudice operates in the setting. It contrasts hugely against the colonialist narrative mentioned above.
• The disturbing morality of the game world has nothing in common with morality in real life. Whether something is good or evil depends on how "icky" it is rather than any rational reason. This leads to numerous tautologies and contradictions in the metaphysics and societies, like the lack of moral agency.
• There is a magic potion of sex change in one book, which is too expensive for transsexuals who aren't mid-level adventurers to afford because the item rules don't model an actual economy (e.g. an average peasant farmer is 50% likely to fail at his job everyday).
• Taking everything together, any attempt to critically examine the setting causes it to fall apart pretty much everywhere. The metaphysics are contradictory, the morality is repugnant, the sociology is nonsensical, the economy couldn't possibly exist, and so on.

While I know Paizo is never going to address this, I would like to see a 3pp setting that addresses all the different problems with this warped fantasy nightmare worldview. You don't even need to change the setting: simply providing well-reasoned justifications could create a far darker setting a la Neon Genesis Evangelion or Puella Magi Madoka Magica.

Thoughts?

 

[GMMichael]

...and Pathfinder is the only place you've found this problem? How about Lord of the Rings? Disney? History books?

One reason for these phenomena is that they tested well in focus groups.

 

[Reynard]

Evil as an absolute is a perfectly viable element to a fantastic world. It is, in fact, the way the real world operated for the vast majority of its history. You may want to take a gander at the Old Testament for a few examples of such.

Mostly, though, it seems you are equating "mature" with "aligns with your own social and political views." While these things are not necessarily mutually exclusive, they are not necessarily the same either. Your big tell, by the way, was how you dismissed the actual elects of the setting that would qualify as socially progressive as a "diversity quota" which is insulting and close minded.

Having an axe to grind is fine and all, but I would not expect too much support. Your definition of "mature" is not itself especially mature, and neither is your method of expression.

(All that said, rape as the go to indicator of evil needs to stop, not just in fantasy but everywhere.)

 

[VelvetViolet]

...and Pathfinder is the only place you've found this problem? How about Lord of the Rings? Disney? History books?

Lord of the Rings didn't portray orcs as rapacious rapists. In fact, they demonstrated positive qualities like honor, loyalty, and friendship. Half-orcs were produced in breeding programs with willing participants over the course of decades. Sauron wasn't evil because he was a rapist, he was evil because he was fascist.

Disney is now producing movies that portray their classic villains as heroes and anti-heroes with angst-filled backgrounds. Maleficent, Once Upon a Time, etc.

History books are pretty much dead, since people on opposite sides of the globe can compare notes. The big thing now is Lies My Teachers Told Me.

Evil as an absolute is a perfectly viable element to a fantastic world. It is, in fact, the way the real world operated for the vast majority of its history. You may want to take a gander at the Old Testament for a few examples of such.

The ancient holy texts ordered that people should be brutally killed for differences of opinion, like heresy or homosexuality. Yet people wonder why religion is declining in developed countries?

Your big tell, by the way, was how you dismissed the actual elects of the setting that would qualify as socially progressive as a "diversity quota" which is insulting and close minded.

Does the fact that some characters are women, black, transsexual, or gay play any role in the plot other than to say "we at Paizo are committed to diversity, so we're including minority characters to show how committed we are"? Normally, I would not have any problem with that because these categories actually exist.

The fact that the game is founded on ethnic cleansing makes the diversity quota stand out. For example, a PC may be a gay black transman paladin who sometimes suffers minor discrimination but has no moral compunction against slaughtering and looting goblin villages for the "crime" of being born goblins. In this world of moral absolutes it is totally okay to be a member of a minority like black, gay, or trans. If you are an orc, goblinoid, or drow, then you default to being a horrible evil monster who must be killed for the sake of all that is good and decent. That is an incredibly twisted moral message that only exists because Paizo is committed to perpetuating sacred cows from an older era of political incorrectness alongside modern politically correct issues regardless of the obvious internal contradiction. Heaven forbid you play a gay drow transwoman.

Having an axe to grind is fine and all, but I would not expect too much support. Your definition of "mature" is not itself especially mature, and neither is your method of expression.

Noted. I've edited the OP a bit to sound less conceited.

 

[Reynard]

Lord of the Rings didn't portray orcs as rapacious rapists.

No, just vicious cannibals.

In fact, they demonstrated positive qualities like honor, loyalty, and friendship. Half-orcs were produced in breeding programs with willing participants over the course of decades.

Both of these assertions are going to need textual evidence to back them up.

Sauron wasn't evil because he was a rapist, he was evil because he was fascist.

No, he was evil because he was Capital E Evil, a supernatural entity composed of malice. He was fascist because he was the kind of Evil that wanted to control creation.

The fact that the game is founded on ethnic cleansing

This is not a fact, it is a disingenuous interpretation. Absolute morality in PF is not code that the Paizo folks are down with genocide. In the genre that Golarion exists in, some creatures are made evil and the reason it is acceptable to destroy them is that if you don't, they will burn down your village and literally devour your children. You may not like that kind of fantasy and might prefer to make moral relativism an integral part of your fantasy, but what you are actually doing is denigrating some people who have managed to be really positive and progressive in a hobby and genre that is decidedly backwards much of the time.

 

[VelvetViolet]

No, just vicious cannibals.

Both of these assertions are going to need textual evidence to back them up.

Gladly. They didn't eat their own kind and in fact used cannibalism as an insult. Orcs in Tolkien's work are remarkably human, for what it's worth.

'Aye, we must stick together,' growled Uglúk. 'I don't trust you little swine. You've no guts outside your own sties. But for us you'd all have run away. We are the fighting Uruk-hai! We slew the great warrior. We took the prisoners. We are the servants of Saruman the Wise, the White Hand: the Hand that gives us man's-flesh to eat. We came out of Isengard, and led you here, and we shall lead you back by the way we choose. I am Uglúk. I have spoken.'

'You have spoken more than enough, Uglúk,' sneered the evil voice. 'I wonder how they would like it in Lugbúrz. They might think that Uglúk's shoulders needed relieving of a swollen head. They might ask where his strange ideas came from. Did they come from Saruman, perhaps? Who does he think he is, setting up on his own with his filthy white badges? They might agree with me, with Grishnákh their trusted messenger; and I Grishnákh say this: Saruman is a fool. and a dirty treacherous fool. But the Great Eye is on him.

'Swine is it? How do you folk like being called swine by the muck-rakers of a dirty little wizard? It's orc-flesh they eat, I'll warrant.'

Many loud yells in orc-speech answered him, and the ringing clash of weapons being drawn. Cautiously Pippin rolled over, hoping to see what would happen. His guards had gone to join in the fray. In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Uglúk, standing facing Grishnákh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North. They had drawn their knives and swords, but hesitated to attack Uglúk.

"Though orcs will often pursue foes for many leagues into the plain, if they have a fallen captain to avenge." (The Fellowship of the Ring, II, 6: "Lothlórien"; said by Gimli.)

"No, I don't know," said Gorbag's voice. "The messages go through quicker than anything could fly, as a rule. But I don't enquire how it's done. Safest not to. Grr! Those Nazgul give me the creeps. And they skin the body off you as soon as look at you, and leave you all cold in the dark on the other side. But He likes"em; they're His favourites nowadays, so it's no use grumbling. I tell you, it's no game serving down in the city."

"You should try being up here with Shelob for company," said Shagrat.

"I'd like to try somewhere where there's none of"em. But the war's on now, and when that's over things may be easier."

"It's going well, they say."

"They would." grunted Gorbag. "We'll see. But anyway, if it does go well, there should be a lot more room. What d'you say? - if we get a chance, you and me'll slip off and set up somewhere on our own with a few trusty lads, somewhere where there's good loot nice and handy, and no big bosses."

"Ah! ' said Shagrat. "Like old times."

(One could interpret this as a signal they are gay lovers. I think that's a stretch, but YMMV.)

"Ah well, you always did take a gloomy view." said Shagrat. "You can read the signs how you like, but there may be other ways to explain them. Anyhow. I've got watchers at every point, and I'm going to deal with one thing at a time. When I've had a look at the fellow we have caught, then I'll begin to worry about something else."

"It's my guess you won't find much in that little fellow," said Gorbag. "He may have had nothing to do with the real mischief. The big fellow with the sharp sword doesn't seem to have thought him worth much anyhow - just left him lying: regular elvish trick."

"We'll see. Come on now! We've talked enough. Let's go and have a look at the prisoner!

"What are you going to do with him? Don't forget I spotted him first. If there's any game, me and my lads must be in it."

"Now, now," growled Shagrat. "I have my orders. And it's more than my belly's worth, or yours, to break"em.Any trespasser found by the guard is to be held at the tower. Prisoner is to be stripped. Full description of every article, garment, weapon, letter, ring. or trinket is to be sent to Lugburz at once, and to Lugburz only . And the prisoner is to be kept safe and intact, under pain of death for every member of the guard, until He sends or comes Himself. That's plain enough, and that's what I'm going to do."

"Stripped, eh? ' said Gorbag. "What, teeth, nails, hair, and all? '

"No, none of that. He's for Lugburz, I tell you. He's wanted safe and whole."

"You'll find that difficult," laughed Gorbag. "He's nothing but carrion now. What Lugburz will do with such stuff I can't guess. He might as well go in the pot."

"You fool," snarled Shagrat. "You've been talking very clever, but there's a lot you don't know, though most other folk do. You'll be for the pot or for Shelob, if you don't take care. Carrion! Is that all you know of Her Ladyship? When she binds with cords, she's after meat. She doesn't eat dead meat, nor suck cold blood. This fellow isn't dead!"

As for being rapacious rapists, there were many thousands of Uruk-hai in Saruman and Sauron's armies. For Saruman to have been breeding so many in Isengard for decades without suspicion, he would have needed all participants to be willing (and at the very least, paid) to keep anyone from wondering why thousands of women have gone missing. In Sauron's case, all humans living in Mordor were Black Numenoreans. It is infinitely more chilling (and competent) if Saruman and Sauron bred their soldiers through industrial prostitution rather than presume they ran state-sponsored rape camps. This isn't Cthulhutech.

This is not a fact, it is a disingenuous interpretation. Absolute morality in PF is not code that the Paizo folks are down with genocide. In the genre that Golarion exists in, some creatures are made evil and the reason it is acceptable to destroy them is that if you don't, they will burn down your village and literally devour your children. You may not like that kind of fantasy and might prefer to make moral relativism an integral part of your fantasy, but what you are actually doing is denigrating some people who have managed to be really positive and progressive in a hobby and genre that is decidedly backwards much of the time.

I am not denigrating anyone. I am providing constructive criticism for a game that is alternately backwards and progressive. The PFRPG morality is so vague that in many instances I cannot determine where a person ceases to be good. The developers have explicitly endorsed slavery and infanticide as morally ambiguous but singled out homophobia as always evil. I have examples:

You can say bad things about Paizo, but you can't deny they are doing their best to be inclusive when it comes to sexuality and race

Allow me to elaborate on that issue without risking a ban then. See quite frankly, their depiction of inclusion on sexuality and race, is hamfisted at best and insultingly insensitive at worst. The main problem being their stance upon the bearing of equality and alignment. Canonically within Golarion, there are certain given concretes and certain areas in which the mentality is more of a guideline. Sexuality is something that has had a certain stand taken. The official response has been that being against LGBTQ or LGBTQ marriage, is that it is being inherently against equality period and no positively (ie. good) aligned deities are against homosexuality or gay marriage period. People have requested access to a good deity with similar beliefs to their own only to be rejected. Others have come up with deities that they theorize to support their beliefs, only to have Paizo staff fill them in on the truth of the situation. Good deities unanimously support LGBT rights. Even the deities of life (or strong conservative traditionalists such as Erastil) don't care, so long as they raise a baby (eg. adoption counts in this scenario). This offends some people, who now have characters or beliefs labelled evil or in the case of a best scenario (which it usually reads not to be - it tends to be evil) neutral.

Meanwhile, Slavery is an area of more malleable connotations. Its not inherently evil, but morally ambiguous. With the possibility of it being seen as allowable/acceptable by Lawful Good or Neutral Good deities and characters. An example of this is the Church of Saerenrae within Qadira as it has slaves. Its causing a schism within the faith, but technically their alignment has not changed. This sect is "redeeming their enemies" and tolerant of slavery. Other than that there is no real reason to believe they are treated any different than Qadiran slaves typically are. In other nations such as Jalmeray, Molthune, Osirion, Qadira, Rahadoum, Sargava and the Shackles, slavery is quite legal without shifting them from their neutral disposition.

Racism is likewise of a liquid nature with regards to its affect on alignment. Likewise it is also, inherently not evil but morally ambiguous. For example, a character might hold a racist disposition towards orcs. Orcs are typically evil. A lawful good character can hold a racist disposition towards orcs without violating his alignment. In fact, he could quite literally kill orc babies under the presumption that he could be preventing further criminal or otherwise negative effects that should come to pass if these babies are allowed to live and/or propagate, as well as making an act of mercy in the event that any orcs who would have been capable of raising said babies have been slain, or would impart similarly "evil" tendencies and mindset. This is something seen in Rise of the Runelords/Jade Regent. You have the ability to slaughter entire goblin tribes with little to no repercussions on alignment as these beings are quite commonly of evil alignment. What about the origin story of the drow? A people who, hearing of the aboleths plan to destroy the human civilizations, stayed behind to protect their homes, only to be buried under the surface where their anger festered and an evil god perverted the species. As such, they turned black and cruel. A race that cannot integrate back into their home society which fled such disaster.

Now reconsider your initial statement. They are doing their best to be inclusive. But at what cost? Cognitive dissonance? They are quite clearly taking the stance that gender identity and sexuality are more important than racism and slavery. Their depictions of demographics in general are poorly drawn caricatures (see Ezren the archetypal atheist douchebag) or have their gender identity or sexuality inserted very maladroitly. The forum to which paizo has most of its communication is heavily moderated to the point that there is also a degree of censorship in that posts are arbitrarily deleted or edited by Paizo forum mods and staff based on content they find inappropriate to this discussion. Its an echo chamber where good praise resonates and criticism is erased or left only to be mocked. Hell, you know the is bad when people argue in hopes that an iconic (Alain) is LGBTQ as that would be a redeeming feature (as if somehow sexuality or gender identity are determinant of a characters overall literary/figurative value).

That being said, I'm all fine and dandy for inclusion of topics such as sexualization, racism, sexuality or gender identity etc. Don't get me wrong. But haphazardly polarizing these topics on a such an antiquated alignment system which renders in game effects as distinct benefits or consequences for actions or beliefs pertaining to their alignment is at the very best poorly thought out or illogical. Ideologically, ones personal beliefs regarding such topics, as a game designer, should not interfere with the implementation of rules or narrative within a given setting. By that I mean, either adopt a more fluid display of character alignment, or a less reflexive categorization to things you are morally opposed to.

 

[gamerprinter]

I think orc is a bad example. There are no modules nor APs that have orc encounters in them (that I can think of). Beyond the bestiary listing for orc, among the monstrous humanoids in PF, orc is mostly absent. I don't think there are any mentions of orc societies in any of the setting guides either. There's quite a lot about goblins and ogres, but orcs, not so much. Looking at most of your posts you seem to look really deep into orc, and as stated, Paizo pretty much leaves orcs alone, so, as said, I think its a bad example and in no way proving nor disproving your argument

I'm in no other way picking a side on this issue, though, since I really don't touch Golarian in any of my PF games, I run only homebrew, so social problems that might exist in Golarian doesn't occur in my games.

As an aside, in first looking at your thread title, I thought you were looking for a more mature PF setting, but the body of your post seems to suggest that you're wondering if others agree that Golarian might be a little too "mature" for your tastes. In some ways, I find Golarian not mature enough.

 

[VelvetViolet]

As an aside, in first looking at your thread title, I thought you were looking for a more mature PF setting, but the body of your post seems to suggest that you're wondering if others agree that Golarian might be a little too "mature" for your tastes. In some ways, I find Golarian not mature enough.

PF is more mature than the D&D game which inspired it, mainly by including explicit mentions that various monsters are rape fiends. That is not the sort of maturity I am interested in.

The sort of maturity I want to see is a critical examination of morality as a magical absolute and its subsequent effects on the world. While PF morality may be objective, it is extremely arbitrary and often contradictory. What entity or force defines those moral absolutes?

Positive and negative energy are equal but opposite, morally neutral, and both can empower life (e.g. living creatures with negative energy affinity). Yet, enslaving an elemental (with intelligence equivalent to a severely retarded human being) to animate a construct is a morally neutral act that creates a mindlessly loyal slave but reanimating a corpse as a zombie or skeleton creates an evil undead (despite lacking moral agency due to being mindless) that will attempt to snuff out any life it finds if not currently following orders. If undead are powered by negative energy, why do some of them need to drain the positive energy from living creatures to survive? Why are jyoti neutral (despite being violently xenophobic) but their counterparts the sceaduinar evil if the energies are neutral? Why does the metaphysics work like this?

Why are some races, like orcs, goblins, drow, and ogres, inherently prone to evil while others, like humans, dwarves, and elves, are not? What universal constant enforces this? Can evil races even be held responsible for their actions if they lack the moral agency and free will to make their own decisions like other races?

The answers to these basic questions about why the rules work the way they do can dramatically change the way we view the game without changing how the rules work.

 

[gamerprinter]

Ah, I understand where you're going, now.

When I first saw the thread, I was going to point to my Kaidan Japanese horror setting as a more mature setting - questions of metaphysics, life, death and reincarnation; all very esoteric stuff. While prostitution is mentioned, especially as related to yakuza crime activities, rape doesn't come up, ever. I think Kaidan is more mature, the correct way - or at least in the direction of your interests more, than Golarian in this regard.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Ah, I understand where you're going, now.

When I first saw the thread, I was going to point to my Kaidan Japanese horror setting as a more mature setting - questions of metaphysics, life, death and reincarnation; all very esoteric stuff. While prostitution is mentioned, especially as related to yakuza crime activities, rape doesn't come up, ever. I think Kaidan is more mature, the correct way - or at least in the direction of your interests more, than Golarian in this regard.

I am more interested in the practical effects of the metaphysics.

Prior to 3rd edition, mindless undead were neutral, good undead existed, some undead were animated by positive energy, healing spells were part of the necromancy school, and good clerics could cast animate dead in emergencies. 3rd edition introduced the idea that negative energy is evil and positive energy is good while paying lip service to the two being neutral, along with the general idea that good is just evil multiplied by negative one as exemplified in the Book of Exalted Deeds. Pathfinder not only continues the tradition, but further confuses the issue by introducing living creatures that are powered by negative energy like undead. There are clear logical problems with this. If you embraced the idea that negative energy is evil and positive is good and took it to its logical extreme, this means that evil creatures like fiends and Cthulhu are inherently good because they are powered by positive energy. To resolve this paradox, you would have to change the evil subtype so that it automatically provides negative energy affinity and explain why drow, orcs, goblins, ogres and other evil races could possibly be inherently prone to evil if they are inherently prone to good by virtue of being powered by positive energy (e.g. give them the evil subtype and literally turn them into negative energy-powered fiends). This would, of course, require numerous rule changes.

This is merely one of many problems with the concept that anything that isn't literally made of evil could be inherently evil. It would simpler to just say that undead are evil because they are animated by evil forces. This also requires explaining and defining in the core rules what the nature of the soul is and what happens to the soul when someone becomes undead. The information on souls is haphazardly scattered through the rules and supplementary materials, which is hardly a convenient location for information vital to the metaphysics of the entire game.

The magic jar spell states that only "sentient" undead have souls (I will assume this means any undead with an Intelligence score). Neither does it state if this is the same soul they had when alive, part of their original soul, or a completely different soul, because the core rules never define what a soul actually is despite referring to it many times for different spells. More information on the nature of the soul is provided by the petitioner, a monster in Bestiary 2. When a person dies, its soul passes to the outer planes and becomes a petitioner, which retains only fragments of its living memories and rarely retains the same personality (logically meaning that they are NOT the same person when they were alive, since a person is defined by their memories). When a person is raised, they retain no memories of their experience as a petitioner (meaning that raise dead and similar are logically equivalent to murder). If a petitioner is killed then it is gone forever, but no explanation is given for how this would affect raise dead and similar spells. The devourer, a monster in the Bestiary, explains that "A soul that is completely consumed may only be restored to life by a miracle or wish." I would assume this applies to any situation in which a soul is destroyed, but again the rules are annoyingly vague on this front. No explanation is given to how a petitioner metamorphosing into a celestial or fiend affects whether the person they originated from can be raised. The speak with dead spell, combined with the above, implies that memories are somehow stored in the corpse after death as well as some remnant of personality that allows the corpse to refuse to answer or lie to the speaker. Liches retain their memories across bodies, implying they store their memories in their phylactery with their soul. The magic jar spell states that a soul in another body retains it original memories and "mental abilities" (no indication if this covers spells and spell-like abilities) and equates the soul with the "life force." While no explanation is ever given, raise dead and reincarnate cannot return people to life if their corpses were ever reanimated and resurrection and true resurrection cannot return someone to life if they have ever been reanimated unless said undead creature is destroyed. This is especially strange if the undead in question doesn't have the original soul or the spell doesn't require the corpse intact.

Under rules where morality is an absolute, metaphysical concept, you can't have both moral agency and inherent predispositions without special situations like being made of evil. Fiends are evil because they are made of evil. PCs are free to choose their alignment by action because they are not made of good or evil. Evil mortal races are not made of evil, but are as prone to being evil as fiends are. The reason for this is generally chalked up to their upbringing or because they are "born evil" (much like how gay people are "born gay," which is why I find the concept of being "born evil" so offensive in the first place), but this is not particularly compelling. If this is due purely to upbringing, then logically there should be good societies of those races somewhere. If they are born evil, then they are logically equivalent to fiends. In which case, why not use actual fiends instead of forcing mortal races to be inherently evil?

This is why Paizo should be focusing on the logical implications of the alignment system and its far reaching effects on the rest of the rules and setting before they start adding reusable potions of sex change so that players can vicariously satisfy their gender bender fantasies. The Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge already does that and does it far more respectfully.