|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Nor do they actually have players to get upset when they can't keep up with the big boys.
Then you can't do it. And you can't do it whether or not you want them to hate LGBTQ people or not.
I mean, what's the alternative? Is it more realistic and less disruptive to have a world with magic and active deities with all sorts of different views and other sentient species with their own psychologies and histories and still have it all turn out just like medieval Europe? Without Christianity or anything to play that role, but with all the same mores and attitudes? Except the class structure. And maybe some of the sexism. We'll handwave all that away without worrying about it, but not the LGBTQ prejudice. That's beyond the pale.
The same kind of argument would also lead towards enforcing the sexism and enforced gender roles found in European medieval society. But that's often dropped, nowadays without much trouble.
Or the strongly enforced class structures which are almost always ignored or at most nodded at and are a far greater shift from real medieval society than anything to do with LGBTQ rights.
LGTBQ prejudice is forced in because it's still controversial in the modern world and medieval attitudes are an justification, not a requirement.
More like, "They kill, corrupt or drive mad other sentients just by their very nature and presence, often without even noticing the other sentients are there."
The Cultists are often blatantly evil, that's certainly true. Also often deluded about what will happen to them, should their plans come to fruition. Of course by that time, they're generally warped and mad anyway.
Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Why? Why does removing prejudice against LGBTQ people in a setting have to mean removing all prejudice entirely? Is it possible to do in one culture in the world, but not all of them? Could cultures actually be different and not all based on medieval European norms?
On a higher level, how do you avoid introducing real-world issues? Isn't having prejudice against LGBTQ people a real world issue, just as much as not having it? Or having sexism? Or having racism? Isn't it all real world issues?
Yeah. That, but without the snark.
Sure, it's always part of the story. No, it doesn't matter what (unassigned) orientation the nameless mooks the PCs slaughter would really have had.
That doesn't mean it isn't a political act to assign orientation in those stories. Whether it's a deliberate choice to include LGBT characters to promote inclusion or whether you just make all the couples that come on stage straight because that's the way things are.
Wait, let me get this straight, are you saying that the very existence of LGBT people in the setting or their existence without prejudice is somehow more of a political statement than the existence of straight people? Because that's a hell of a claim, there.
Heteronormativity. To be fair, the existence of LGBT people in the real world or a least their uncloseted existence is a political statement in a way that being openly heterosexual isn't.
It shouldn't be political and it's getting less so, but it definitely is.
Jessica Price wrote:
And the particular backlash of "Now you're hurting me by silencing me."
Not admitting they're driving away voices that need to be heard. I've learned a lot from your posts and from Crystal's and both of you have backed off from such discussions. Which is perfectly understandable, but makes me sad.
I do find it interesting to contrast the attitude in that thread that nothing bad's being said and it's just open discussion and Paizo is censoring us and the posts over here saying it's triggering and exhausting and "multi-day anxiety" attacks and people staying out of it to avoid the conflict.
The very "shutting down of dialogue" that's cited as a reason not to moderate is happening, but for the opposite reasons and in the opposite direction.
I don't see most of that thread as too bad, but then I'm a straight, cis guy. In a way, it's all academic to me, not personal. Which is why I try to listen, even when I don't really understand.
And those paladins fall. At least in my games.
Paladins may be involved in destroying humanoid villages, if and when those particular groups have been posing a serious threat. Much like paladins might be involved in destroying a bandit camp. Either way solutions will be sought that don't involve wholesale slaughter.
The "PCs go wipe out dungeon full of a humanoid tribe complete with families for no particular reason" trope in D&D/PF needs to die a quick death and be forgotten. And frankly, though I've seen it talked about on line, I haven't seen it in an actual game in decades.
Great. The errata needs errata.
Jessica Price wrote:
Yep. And all the "completely free speech is the highest good in all situations" stuff is so unexamined, but I lack the energy and patience to untangle it for the 900th time. :-/
As often happens, xkcd sums up my take on that quite nicely.
The problem is "social justice warrior" is almost exclusively used as an attack phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. Even with Ashiel's definition, it just turns into a way of accusing people of meeting that definition.
Much like there may well have been too much "political correctness" back when that phrase went mainstream, but it was quickly co-opted and used against any attempts to counter racism or sexism.
And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.
Nor am I sure why "equity" is preferable to "justice".
But the "stupid stuff" isn't the "traumatic stress" kind and doesn't need even amateur therapy, so there's no danger there either. Since you specifically said, "traumatic stress", it seemed clear that you were talking about the more serious kind and I really wanted to push back against anyone thinking they should be using their RPG as therapy for any serious issues. Especially without informed consent from the players.
Since you also say you do give trigger warnings ("alerts for things that crop up in play") or at least are sure to know your audience well enough to know what will be a problem, it seems we're really only arguing about where we should draw the line between super intense things that need warnings and stupid stuff that doesn't.
However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.
I just wanted to point something out about this part: Yes, facing things can be a way of treating traumatic stress. Yes, roleplaying can be good for that, though usually therapy roleplaying isn't much like game roleplaying. Nor are most GMs psychiatrists or their players patients. Roleplaying something traumatic, without warning, preparation and training, isn't likely to be therapeutic and is probably just going to be unpleasant, if not actually damaging.
Trigger warnings are absolutely not damaging in the sense you're talking about. They let the person choose whether to face the stress and prepare for it if they do choose to.
I have some problems and some agreement with the rest of your post, but I really dislike the idea of GMs thinking they're justified in pushing trauma on people as some form of amateur therapy.
I like the idea of the cha mod replacing con, dex, or wis mod for a save.
It still lets an already SAD character become even more so. Not a great idea. With that, an Oracle or Sorcerer can dump everything but Cha (and Con for hp.)
In my case: Then Crisis happened and was AWESOME and screwed everything up. The Titans went into decline, partly flailing around with Wonder Girl who'd never known Wonder Woman. The Legion kind of imploded, again with the loss of Superboy. Both Infinity Inc & the All Star Squadron fizzled with the loss of Earth 2.The new Wonder Woman was really good. The Giffen/Bierbaum Legion was good, but uneven and ultimately doomed.
Crisis originally hooked me on DC and simultaneously trashed much of what it had led me to love about DC. I'm still bitter. :)
I'm not interested in self-flagellating "Westerner guilt", but I'm also not interested in whitewashing our history or present.If you think the wounds from the Civil War healed quickly - or have healed yet, for that matter - you're missing something. Read up a bit on the "Lost Cause" or the Klan or the ubiquitous Stars and Bars. We really are still dealing with it. And with the consequences of the slavery that led to it.
And while we don't have wars raging on our streets and violent crime is definitely down, we are still the most gun happy people on the planet (or in the close running at least). We seem to feel the need to have them at all times, even though violence is down.
This certainly isn't the worst place to live. Far from it. Far even from the worst country to play the role of sole superpower. But lets not close our eyes to the flaws or pretend any criticism is claiming we're the worst either.
Way the hell off topic again. If you want to go farther with this, we should take it to Off Topic.
Depends on the situation. It could make a very nice emotional capstone for a campaign. There would have to be a very good motivation and the Dauphin would have to owe you. Not be done lightly, but it could work.
It's the merging of real world monotheistic religions and their claims to an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God with the kind of access to the divine that PF magic (and especially divine) magic gives you that causes the problem for me.
In a polytheist world like Golarion, the Gods themselves are fallible. They can disagree amongst themselves and are not the final word on anything. And even there violent clashes between sects of the same religion bother me - unless it's that religion's thing. Certain gods might even encourage it.
It's harder to accept when it's an actual Supreme Being giving His blessing to what most of us now consider to be evil. Leaving aside the sexuality side, do Clerics participating in slavery remain in good standing? Is the Inquisition really the will of God? Or does God not actually withdraw his favor for sinning?
Again, I'm quite happy playing with moral ambiguity and with different cultural mores. I'd just rather not do it with a system in which some can literally ask the supreme moral authority for the answer. The typical fantasy world isn't one of those, since the various Gods aren't actually supreme.
Wait... People actually play as someone who wants to switch genders?! Why? Why not start out with the gender you want to play as?
Because you want to play as someone who wants to switch genders? Because you want to play through the experience of both deciding you want to change and of how that changes you?
Kirth Gersen wrote:
More CO2 -> more acidic oceans -> dying reefs -> less CO2 sequestered -> warmer climate.
Not to disagree with your larger point, just one of the sadder consequences we've already seen.
For those talking in terms of pre-modern or historical settings, I hope it's not just LGBTQ issues you avoid on those grounds. Women's lib is modern too. As are modern attitudes towards formal class structures. Widespread acceptance of slavery and/or serfdom. Noble classes with more legal rights than the masses. All or most of it understood to be ordained by God.
It's not just one, still controversial, subset of the differences between the modern world and a historical setting that beyond the pale, right?
You wouldn't get 97% to agree on all the details most likely, but that's not what's being asked about climate change either. I'd bet you'd easily find 97% of biologists supporting evolution or 97% of geologists supporting plate tectonics. That's a lot closer to "supporting human caused climate change" than internal debate within the field about the exact mechanics of gravity.
There are some pretty majorly bad things happening this very day, but you know what, no one knows about them (did you know how many animals have gone extinct in the last 6 months?). Why...because they are too busy mocking Al Gore and others for saying Manhattan would be underwater right now instead of dealing with the REAL problems that are occurring this very instant and are having some very REAL effects on nature and the world. These are problems addressed in many of the same papers and predicted as what and how they would happen (did you know the California drought was predicted YEARS ago?)...but everyone ignored them because...the politicians stole the show and pointed everyone towards extremes for sensationalism instead of the reality of what was going to happen.
The people mocking Gore aren't the ones who'd be dealing with the REAL problems anyway.We've been through the "Al Gore and others for saying Manhattan would be underwater right now" thing before in this thread and unless some better evidence turns up, he didn't say it.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Take the claims that "An estimated 2 to 5% of the population is transgender" (source: http://www.transgenderlaw.org/resources/transfactsheet.pdf). This has not happened before. This wasn't the case in your grandfather's time and it wasn't the case before that. Their rise in numbers is new and very much a late modernity phenomenon, unless you can prove at least 2% of a previous culture's pop was transgender previously and in the relevant contexts (third gender islanders doesn't matter if a game isn't set on those islands. Would you not agree?).
That claim is far higher than anything I've seen elsewhere and doesn't seem to be sourced to anything. Numbers I've seen are much lower, topping out at 0.5% or so. The larger number might be referring to anyone with any degree of gender dysphoria - gender fluid or genderqueer rather than transgender perhaps. Of course, those would be harder to see in the historical record.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Transgender goes back long before modern times. Some cultures had specific roles for those not fitting as male or female. Even in western history there are cases that may fit. If, as modern science suggests, gender dysphoria is a medical condition with disconnect between physical sex and mental gender, that's not caused by "modern questioning of gender norms or roles", it's far more fundamental than that. That questioning may make it more acceptable to be open about it and to try to transition rather than hide & suffer. It may even make it more likely to realize why you're miserable.OTOH, as I said, some cultures recognize other genders already and it would be easier - even without modern medical treatment.
"Agenda" is a loaded term. It's probably best to leave it out.It is quite possible that someone is not including LGBT people because it hasn't occurred to them. That goes away once they start talking about it. As for them not being appropriate in context - there have been LGBT people throughout human history. However quasi-historical your setting it, it makes sense to have them in it. It might also make sense to have them be closeted and persecuted, but that's your call.
It gets more complicated when you have divine powers bestowing power upon the worthy - then you have to decide whether the attitudes of the day qualify as worthy in the eyes of that divine power. And not just LGBT people or those who persecute them, but also those who support slavery or torture or the inquisition or serfdom or sexism or racism or all the other horrors of the past that religious authorities of the day often stood behind.
Painful Bugger wrote:
It's as much a non-issue in my games as race, fictional prejudices aside, and its never brought up. I'm of the firm belief that any explicitly sexual topics should be avoided or lightly touched upon as it makes things at the table awkward depending on how specific people will react to it. Not everyone you'll game with can handle this with grace and maturity. If a player, me as the DM, told me that their character is gay or trans the most they will get out of me is "okay that's fine, what's your alignment. The monster is casting something." I had enough headaches with how people behaved in my games before in inappropriate manners that I just sandbag that line of thinking.
Do you allow characters to do things like flirt with the waitress or the princess they just rescued?
Obviously it's fine and very common to keep anything explicit out of the game or at least at "fade to black" levels, but that doesn't preclude some level of romance.
Well, a foreign infidel doing so certainly wouldn't go over well. A local Muslim Hero of the Realm, possibly an Imam himself, having just publicly saved the city from a djinn with the aid of miracles, announcing his homosexuality in a less blasphemous fashion, might actually provoke a change in the faith rather than just be shot out of hand.
As for the Christians, that gets to my larger point: If you're using something like PF, where clerics and other divine casters get and lose their powers from God directly, then you have to actually decide for your setting what God thinks of it. And that's going to affect the social stigma. If the Church doesn't censure it because God doesn't censure it, then it wouldn't be a problem. If the Church censures it, but in error because God doesn't, then it's a valid thing to play out - reforming the faith. If the Church and God both censure it, then that's another thing entirely.
All of this ties directly to why I'd be uncomfortable with even a quasi-historical game with nearly as much access to divine power/contact as PF has. It's too easy to poke directly into big questions and demand answers. Not just this, but plenty of things that religions has approved of that are pretty sketchy by modern standards - The Inquisition, the divine right of kings, slavery, etc, etc.
I actually quite liked both Thor movies, the second probably more than the first. Despite there definitely being things I didn't like about each.
There's a very long way between "these days I'm firmly of the opinion that unless a story *must* involve rape, it probably shouldn't" and "wipe away anything that someone might find offensive". I don't think you need to worry.
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
No. I don't think anyone's saying that at all.
Though I would say that bigots are bad. Isn't that almost a tautology? Though obviously bigots can have other good qualities, but their bigotry is bad.
Beyond that, most of the rest is left as "bigotry is rare, women can do anything" more so that players can play characters of different races, genders and orientations without having to deal with prejudice, because it's a game and it's often not fun to do. It's left possible, but somewhat vague, to have such prejudices in various places so that players can play with facing and overcoming prejudice themes if they want to, but they're not forced to by default.
Specifying "*where* gender roles exist in Golarion, how they exist, and what kind of races or nations feel about people who don't fit into the gender binary" would mean if you wanted to play a female barbarian from the Mammoth Lords, for example, you'd have to play breaking out of your gender role whether you wanted to or not.
In this context: Gender is the sex in your head. When it doesn't match the sex in your body, there is internal conflict - the body doesn't match who you are. Gender Dysphoria.Changing the body, with hormones and possibly surgery alleviates that. Theoretically a magical transformation could remove it completely.
But it's an internal thing, not directly fitting a societal role or expected behavior, though it can tie into those.
Disclaimer: That's my understanding from outside, much of it gleaned from discussion here. If it's wrong or phrased badly, assume ignorance, not malice.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
OTOH, it's unclear to me how much these problems come up in novice games. They seem to me more linked to a certain kind of optimization/build focused game. Really it's only when the guy playing the caster starts figuring out all the God Wizard tricks that you really run into problems.If you and your buddies pick up the game for the first time and start playing characters like your favorite fantasy characters, you're generally not going to see the real problems. At least until high level. Which your early campaigns aren't going to reach most likely.
It's the combination of experienced players who don't get the gentlemen's agreements that breaks things.
I don't even begin to know how to respond. There's a fundamental gap here I'm not seeing.
Whether there are gender roles or not, a women crossing one of those gender boundaries doesn't become a man. A female soldier doesn't become male when she joins the army. Nor does who she wants to sleep with change that.
Do you identify people as male or female only based on their jobs?
I get that there can be difficulty getting that across in a text story or more so a module, without being heavy handed, but are you really arguing that being known "as a man" to your family for example wouldn't mean anything in the absence of strict gender roles?
Mr. Bubbles wrote:
More importantly, how does being trans have anything to do with working in a "stereotypically male dominated profession"? Gender roles aren't gender identification. A woman isn't a transman if she wants to take a stereotypically male job. A transman isn't less of a transman if he wants a stereotypically female job.
Lou Diamond wrote:
I know I shouldn't try to reason, but: Would that be this study?
A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
Exactly. "adventurers who are out for profit" is the breaking assumption here.Yes, if your motive for adventuring is profit, then not splitting the profits fairly is hard to understand.
If you're on a quest to stop the witch queen from plunging the world into eternal winter, for example, dividing up the gear for maximum group effectiveness might be a higher consideration.
Jacob Saltband wrote:
All along. Though it was different before 3.0.
If you're a group that's more focused on achieving goals than getting loot, it makes sense to divide loot to make the party most effective than to focus on dividing equally. Most intuitive when dividing up useful found items, but there's no reason not to apply the same approach when considering what to buy.
Of course, that might lead to buying more force multipliers for the casters and leaving the martials home.
Just a Guess wrote:
I think he's talking about the "originals". Like those who played in Gary's first groups and the like. Maybe up to those who started with OD&D before Advanced or Basic came out. Which is still a fairly small number, but guessing by what little I know of print runs at least in the 10s of thousands, so it would be hard to say the numbers don't add up.
Even so, I'd say that most of those talking about their long experience are probably not talking about OD&D, but AD&D, which can still be nearly 40 years now. And there were a lot of people playing that. Probably more then than are playing RPGs now, so it doesn't really make any sense to talk about those numbers not adding up.
Perhaps, but it still was a radical concept. And one that even the US didn't fully implement for a long time, despite the Constitution.
And it has nothing to do with being an "insecure coward", though perhaps with being unfit. It's a very real threat to those in power.
You can talk about natural states and inherent rights all you want. If you claim it was "invented", it was invented back in prehistory and has been with us ever since.
So in other words, it should be done the way Paizo's always done it with their various diverse characters?Yes, it could be done in a bad, ham handed way. Or it could be noted for the GM as part of the characters history and get revealed to the players as it comes up in play or if it comes up in play.
But, as Jessica says, if you're going to bother doing it at all, it should be set up to be likely to come up, otherwise why bother? What's the point if no one's going to know about it? So use characters where there's going to be the chance for it to come up.
Part of it of course is simply the odds. There's a lot more straight guys out there than gay ones. If I'm a straight guy and 5 out of 5 women I hit on are gay, I'm doing something wrong. If you're a gay guy and 5 out of 5 guys you hit on are straight, that's really pretty likely.
And that's probably the most important part for the more human characters in team books. Either they get shortchanged and left out while the powerful characters deal with things or the author sets up problems for them to deal with while the demigods fight it out.Neither of which works well in party based D&D.