Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1119746I think the accusation is hypocrisy--Paizo pretends to wokeness on the one hand but creates stuff like Folca on the other. Personally, I thought Paizo was worryingly fiend-happy back in the 3.5 days, so I'm not surprised by either.

There are definitely woke people within Paizo, you can see the personal pronoun brigade for sure.  On the other hand it is not legitimate to accuse them of being hypocrites when they have Demons that do stuff that Demons in main stream Movies do.  Or that anyone with half a brain would expect a Demon to do.  And Folca is pretty weak sauce considering all of the mental compulsion spells from the core handbook that a Pedophile mage could use.

Quote from: David Johansen;1119742So, Iron Cross, are you and have been a Chivalry & Sorcery fan?  Where did you come in and what's your history?

There's a lot that I like about C&S and I'd go as far as saying that I think that every last version of C&S is infinitely superior to any version of D&D. (just not a fan okay)

So how does C&S 5 mechanically represent the SJW cause?  I'd like a lot of the tools from Bireme and Galley to the miniatures rules.  I'm afraid I found the Skill scape system was a little too easily abused and people were one shotting the supposedly scary trolls at first level a little too much for my tastes.

Does Britannia have a reprint of the original red book or second edtion materials available?

This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society
While it is easy to demonstrate the error of those
who claim there were no black people or women
warriors in medieval Europe, no one can claim
medieval society was tolerant. Quite the opposite.
Historian R. I. Moore termed the Middle Ages
a "persecuting society" and traced the origins of
medieval intolerance to the middle of the 10th
century. While modern racism is a product of the
Renaissance and Early Modern Periods, other forms
of prejudice existed throughout the period covered
by Chivalry & Sorcery.
Anti-Semitism was rife in medieval Europe, which
saw mass murders of Jews, forced identification
through badges and specific clothing, and
segregation of both permitted profession and of
housing. Various monarchs protected the Jews when
it suited them and abandoned or expelled them
when that suited them. This aspect of medieval
intolerance still resonates today.
The medieval church regarded sex outside marriage
as a sin and reserved special ire for intimate samesex
relationships. While people in the past did not
regard sexuality in modern terms – no one before
the 20th century would recognise the labels of
homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual – same-sex
acts were listed in penitentials, often in salacious
detail. There is good evidence of an active, if
underground, gay scene in 11th and 12th century
France, at least for men. Church officials, including
bishops, wrote gay poems, and there was a thriving
underworld of male brothels. Only one love poem
between women is known. Same-sex relationships
seem to have been tolerated by the Church, at least
if kept discrete, until the Third Lateran Council
of 1179. After this homosexuality began to be
associated with heresy, witchcraft and paedophilia;
punishments for same-sex relationships became
more severe. Ultimately, homosexuality was one of
the charges used to discredit the Knights Templar in
1306. This iintolerance also resonates today.
Medieval society was clearly patriarchal. In
Christian theology Eve, the First Woman, was
responsible for tempting Adam, the First Man, into
sin. At the same time, it revered the Virgin Mary;
the misogynistic idea of women as madonnas
or temptresses was common. Islam has no such
theological basis; in Surah 2, The Cow, Satan
tempted Adam and Eve together to eat of the fruit
of the forbidden tree. Nevertheless, Islamic society
was also patriarchal. While women in the Middle
Ages ran businesses, took up arms, managed estates,
and cultivated land, they did so in the shadow of
patriarchal society.
Other kinds of medieval persecution – that of lepers
and heretics – hold less power today but were
prevalent in the medieval mind. Often, forms of
otherness were conflated – leprosy was considered
an outward reflection or heresy or sexual sins;
stories sometimes accused lepers and Jews of
working together to commit crimes against society.
Groups considering introducing such prejudices
into their games – whether historical or fictional -
should discuss them beforehand and set boundaries
everyone in the group is comfortable with. Groups
may also consider a mechanism such as an X-card
for use in play, allowing players to indicate when
the game is moving into areas they do not wish it
to. Sean K Reynolds' and Shanna Germain's Consent
in Gaming (Monte Cook Games, 2019) offers an
excellent discussion of why this is important, and
techniques and tools to ensure everyone in the game
is comfortable with the tone and content of the
game. It's a free PDF available from DrivethruRPG
and Monte Cook Games' websites.

Greetings!

Oh, geesus. That right there makes me want to throw the book to my dog and watch him shit on it.

That's what that book deserves. C and S can choke on a trainload of shit. You can tell they are fucking brainwashed by SJW-ism.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad;1119751Nevertheless, Islamic society was also patriarchal.

You think? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Brad;1119751This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society
While it is easy to demonstrate the error of those
who claim there were no black people or women
warriors in medieval Europe, no one can claim
medieval society was tolerant.

While it is easy to build up and then savagely attack a straw man, no one can make a piece of political propaganda disguised as pseudo academic rambling without relying on them.

Jesus Christ! That framing.

Thanks for at least posting some type of example of what these complaints are about, since the OP couldn't be bothered.

It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119756It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

Greetings!

Oh, man. That writing in the C and S book is so terrible, so smug with SJW propaganda it almost makes me feel like laughing hysterically at some drooling moron. It's mind boggling.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Brad;1119751This kind of stuff right here is why it's fucking annoying reading this book:

A Persecuting Society

Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1119745Dude's handle is Iron Cross...

Indeed.  I was thinking of suggesting to OP that perhaps if he didn't want to be perceived as a white supremacist then maybe he shouldn't base his online identity around symbolism associated with white supremacists.  But that's none of my business.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119759Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Greetings!

Excellent, Stephen! Amazing how you can write something that is informative, interesting, and thoughtful, without any of the SJW bullshit, and absolute moronic interpretation of history. But these C and S people...my god, the stupidity in the writing is so eye-rollingly huge, you know? Why don't these idiots have the common sense you have? And these people make money writing drivel, Stephen!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

QuoteSame-sex relationships seem to have been tolerated by the Church, at least if kept discrete, until the Third Lateran Council of 1179.

  Uh huh. Despite the fact that St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah comes from a century before this?

  I suspect this is rooted in something a lot of people don't get about Church councils--they often act defensively, defining and reinforcing a point because it's recently come under threat.

Quote from: SHARK;1119761Amazing how you can write something that is informative, interesting, and thoughtful, without any of the SJW bullshit, and absolute moronic interpretation of history. ...Why don't these idiots have the common sense you have?

I suspect quite a lot of people I know would do a spit-take if they heard someone say I had common sense, but I'll take what I can get. Much obliged for the kind words.

And to be fair, there's a case to be made that people caring too much about a particular issue -- for which people can have very good reasons -- is precisely why those people's first drafts, or indeed possibly any drafts, on the topic shouldn't be passed through without detached review.  But these games all tend to be labours of love, so detached reviews are hard to come by anyway.

The point remains: Even assuming the longer original text, if that's the only comment on the basic issue in the game, it doesn't seem like it would render the product unusable. If there's a lot more of it and it pops up every few pages or so, on the other hand, that might be cause for me to rethink my purchase plans.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1119756It's amazing how many women were dual wielding katanas in the middle ages, destroying armies with their vaginas, owning property and running businesses while being pregnant and barefoot and were still oppressed by the patriarchy...

I'm glad that you acknowledge that, because while it is easy to demonstrate the error of those who claim there were no women dual wielding katanas in medieval Europe, no one can claim that they weren't also simultaneously barefoot, pregnant and oppressed by the Patriarchy(tm) while skillfully spinning that Japanese steel. And to imply otherwise would be racist.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1119759Is that quote from C&S 5E?  I can see what people are griping about if it is.  That said, if that's the only section addressing the topic in the entirety of over 600 pages, it seems easy enough to skip past or scribble over.

Personally I think it could have been addressed much more quickly and comprehensively, maybe something like this as a single brief sidebar:

"Ostracism: Mediaeval European civilization was a lot more open than the modern West about hostility to strangers and outsiders of any variety, whatever the particular quality that made them so; this can range from armed adventurers wandering into town to those who, however good their reasons, refuse their assigned place in -- and thus threaten -- the order of things. Even when such outsiders were tolerated in certain times and places, such tolerance was disquietingly prone to being revoked in times of crisis and public fear, or merely for political convenience when a handy scapegoat was needed or an opportunity for profit presented itself. Some outsiders, like lepers or war refugees of an opposing power, could not hope for public acceptance of any kind short of isolated housing that met the bare minimum needs of survival.  Some players may enjoy the challenge of playing a PC who will have to face such social ostracism on a more or less regular basis, as long as they're made aware of what it will entail; others may have no interest in such things being a part of their game even if it doesn't affect their PCs personally at all.  As always, whenever considering a potential PC whose gameplay may put a damper on others' fun (and this does include character concepts which essentially require the GM to change the game's cultural setting in order to work), common discussion beforehand is strongly recommended."

Nice sidebar text, but you forgot to throw in some jabs at people objecting to the notion that women warriors and black people were commonplace in medieval Europe, then work in some defense of Islam while simultaneously acknowledging that they were also patriarchal to shut down any objections to that defense, and finish it off with a recommendation to some downloadable woke propaganda disguised as game aids.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119766I'm glad that you acknowledge that, because while it is easy to demonstrate the error of those who claim there were no women dual wielding katanas in medieval Europe, no one can claim that they weren't also simultaneously barefoot, pregnant and oppressed by the Patriarchy(tm) while skillfully spinning that Japanese steel. And to imply otherwise would be racist.



Nice sidebar text, but you forgot to throw in some jabs at people objecting to the notion that women warriors and black people were commonplace in medieval Europe, then work in some defense of Islam while simultaneously acknowledging that they were also patriarchal to shut down any objections to that defense, and finish it off with a recommendation to some downloadable woke propaganda disguised as game aids.

Greetings!

Preach on, VisionStorm!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Reading that excerpt, I don't really disagree with anything stated. One can easily skip the advice in the last paragraph if you're not into those approaches.

This really amounts to an overblown melodramatic response to an equally melodramatic virtue signaling. If you don't want to buy into the faux-alarmist bullshit of the faux-SJW crowd, stop reacting to it. If you like the game, play it. Support it. You don't have to make your C&S = Chicanery and Sensibility unless you want it to. Maybe those of us here with some reason left could be the adults in the room?

To the idea that "You stupid racists, Medieval Society was so diverse, although persecutory and we won't stand for your Whitesplaining it all away" -

So our solution is to then insert a bunch of minorities and then persecute them? Is that helping? At face value, watching a bunch of white people hand-wringing the guilt out of their pores and tripping over their dropped-pants trying to pay intellectual restitution via an RPG setting should be a simple warning unto itself. It's fucking absurd. If you don't want to be victimized by virtue signaling bullshit, check out the Pundit's works (Lion & Dragon, et al). He doesn't need to rewrite history so special people will buy it.

This whole thing would be much more conceivable as a "problem" if C&S was a good game or people were playing it...