Try rereading my posts slowly. I said that I don't mind controversial issues in the service of the story. Or to put it another way, it's not necessarily true that these things do not belong in a story. I mind that these topics are appearing with great frequency and not always in the interests of a good story. I think it's a mistake for any company to align itself so strongly with a political ideology that people no longer appreciate the art for hatred of the artist (e.g., the Dixie Chicks). I like having certain spheres of my life free of politics, in particular, my leisure.
You imply that this kind of thing doesn't lead to good gaming and hurt sales, but that's not necessarily true. You're in favor of good stories. So am I. One man's bias is another man's story.
Okay. Explain it to me.
Seriously, I'm not one of the ones caught up in the whole Real World Religion thread jack and I thought that I was responding respectfully to you.
I'm clearly missing your point.
I re-read your post and I thought it was about good story-telling and gaming experiences and I was sharing a couple of examples of those that I thought that you were dismissing out of hand.
Clearly, you're weren't. But now you're saying that you want your gaming free of politics and you want good stories. Outside of the pure "Kick Down the Door" style, I don't see too many games that don't have a political angle. So clearly you mean something in particular by what you want and don't want that I am not getting. What do you mean here?
|
Try rereading my posts slowly. I said that I don't mind controversial issues in the service of the story. Or to put it another way, it's not necessarily true that these things do not belong in a story. I mind that these topics are appearing with great frequency and not always in the interests of a good story. I think it's a mistake for any company to align itself so strongly with a political ideology that people no longer appreciate the art for hatred of the artist (e.g., the Dixie Chicks). I like having certain spheres of my life free of politics, in particular, my leisure.
You imply that this kind of thing doesn't lead to good gaming and hurt sales, but that's not necessarily true. You're in favor of good stories. So am I. One man's bias is another man's story.
Sebastion, your use of of the word 'political' continues to confuse me. Do you feel that Paizo is paying undue attention to its homosexual characters, or is it the mere inclusion of gay characters that's the issue?
The argument is that perpetuating the myth that homosexuality is unbalanced is that the most visible effect is generally on gay and lesbian teenagers.
But in this case, while there is a homosexual relationship in the mix, it becomes increasingly clear through exposure of the plot that there is no real unbalance. There is an external cause of Ileosa's change from petulant queen in the town she hates to genocidal maniac and it has nothing to do with her sexuality.
Does that really perpetuate the myth that homosexuality is unbalanced?Ultimately, I think the character to really watch is Sabine the bodyguard.
|
I think I understand where Sebastian is coming from. Like it or not, homosexuality seems to have become as much, if not more of, a political debate as it has a lifestyle/religious debate. Hell, let's face it, there isn't much these days that doesn't seem to become a heated political debate. And homosexuality, much like the War on Terror, or abortion, or maybe even taxes, is one of those issues that is very polarizing and in-your-face. You can't turn on the TV these days without being saturated by these and other issues. For that to potentially emerge into D&D is creates a feeling of "Can't I jsut have one little corner of my life where I go to get away from these things?"
Let's face it, many of us play D&D because we like to pretend we are someone else in another world, dealing with issues we don't normally face. For some, having these real-world, ultra-polarizing issues suddenly come into play makes everything less fun.
Hopefully this helps the conversation, and doesn't confuse things.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastion, your use of of the word 'political' continues to confuse me. Do you feel that Paizo is paying undue attention to its homosexual characters, or is it the mere inclusion of gay characters that's the issue?
Selk, it's the former. I feel like Paizo has moved the needle on homosexuality too far too fast. I don't objection to having gay characters included, but the rate at which they are being included and the amount of them that are appearing smacks of pushing an agenda rather than telling a story. It's one thing to say "we won't avoid including a gay character" it's another to say "we must include x gay characters in our products to compensate for the historical exclusion of gay characters in fantasy for so many generations." The gay iconic feels very very much like the later. That's why I feel it's political - we aren't seeing gay characters for the sake of the story, we're seeing gay characters for the sake of righting some sort of historical wrong.
The Sandpoint write-up is particularly bad in terms of politics because it strikes me as setting out to rub people's faces in progressive issues. There's an alchemist that performs abortions in the town and not only that, she's good in alignment. That's going to (and it did) offend some people and it adds very little to the game. Similarly, many people object to homosexuality on religious grounds, so having a devoutly religious paladin be homosexual seems like a purposeful attempt to show that in a setting with objective definitions of good and evil and active gods monitoring such behavior, homosexuality is not anathema to religion (a belief many hold dearly). At the time I read the Sandpoint article, I thought, okay, that's a bit in your face, but it's novel and interesting. Now, from the comments on this thread and the latest adventure path, it seems like including in your face politics is not something novel and interesting, it's par for the course.
I don't want Paizo to depict gay characters as evil villians, I don't want them to completely exise them, I just want them to chill the f$#& out on including such high amounts of progressive politics in their products. If you're going to correct for the exclusion of gay characters in fantasy, and in particular in D&D, let's not over-correct.
Sigh.
Setting aside the whole issue of whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know how it feels. If you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be alienated by the topic itself, I am annoyed that Paizo is choosing to push their politics into their products.
Anyway, I'm disgusted with this thread, somewhat disgusted with Paizo, and generally done with the topic.
And I was quite serious... how does it feel?
You are making claims of Paizo's "political axe grinding". Which to me, you don't really have a foot to stand on beyond a couple of lines of text in an AP (which a DM can excize from his game if not wanted).
Now, if Paizo had been actively been placing adds in the back of the AP's for national PFLAG or LGBT groups, then yeah. You would have a leg to stand on.
So, concidering your are "disgusted with this thread, somewhat disgusted with Paizo". I can nonly conclude that you are a person who is feeling like Paizo is allienating them.
A note to some posters in regard to some Old Testament references: although some "Thou shalt nots" clearly deal with morality and sin a great number of them (particularly in Leviticus) deal with ceremonial cleanliness. This is particularly true in regards to what to eat and what to wear. These commandments were provided to set apart the Israelites from the cultures around them.
Moreover, in the Old Testament period (and even through today in some areas of the world) things like pork and shellfish are not always safe to eat.
My sister can't eat shellfish...because she's pregnant and it's not safe for the baby.
So it's not exactly fair to list these commandments in the same category as the sexual taboos.
|
Try rereading my posts slowly. I said that I don't mind controversial issues in the service of the story. Or to put it another way, it's not necessarily true that these things do not belong in a story. I mind that these topics are appearing with great frequency and not always in the interests of a good story. I think it's a mistake for any company to align itself so strongly with a political ideology that people no longer appreciate the art for hatred of the artist (e.g., the Dixie Chicks). I like having certain spheres of my life free of politics, in particular, my leisure.
You imply that this kind of thing doesn't lead to good gaming and hurt sales, but that's not necessarily true. You're in favor of good stories. So am I. One man's bias is another man's story.
I don't think we're getting a political agenda from Paizo. We're getting a 'breathing world'. The 'gay iconic' refers to the Paizo perception and has to do with a line of novels I've seen a lot of people asking for...
So, I think you are getting what you want - situations that are part of telling a story. And in the AP it doesn't matter that Lem may be gay, because the player decides that. But if later a line of novels come out, it might matter. At least to the readers.
I think roguerouge has a point about needing a gay hero. Outing one of the gay iconics would provide just such a hero.
Hehheh...the lobbying continues. ;p
|
|
Moderators, in spite of your repeated warnings, you knew what was going to happen when this thread showed up. You knew nobody was going to be able to stay away from it. You knew what it was going to devolve into (regardless of how polite the discourse). This was exactly the kind of shameless promotion I was talking about: trying to generate "buzz" and controversy, instead of content or community.
My opinion of Paizo has not improved because of this thread.
I think there has been some 'productive discourse' in this thread. The point of this thread isn't to change anyone's view on hetero or homosexuality, though certainly some might hope to have that effect. It is to discuss what is the appropriate place for sexuality (including alternative sexuality) in Golarion.
In this thread we've had a chance to discuss that sexuality is a powerful motivator for human activity, and thus fits well as a critical story element.
We've learned that if sexuality is an accepted part of the story, and historically homosexuality has always existed (even in nature) it at least makes sense that there are examples of homosexuals in Golarion.
Now, the next part is where the controversy seems to lie. There are, most appropriately, homosexuals in Golarion. Some people think that the fact that the people in Golarion aren't too hung up on sexual morality is a problem. So, the discussion is along the lines of 'why does American society object to homosexuality, and is that appropriate to a world that has a completely different history?'
That's an interesting discussion, and it can go somewhere. Now, I do think that people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality should excise that aspect from their games completely. It isn't NECESSARY to the game anymore than having a bad guy be an ogre is NECESSARY. It is just an option, and in the opinion of the Paizo staff (and in my mind) it can help to make the stories better. So, dealing with it is a good thing. Discussion of how they're dealing with it is also a good thing. Discussing whether 'intolerant groups' whether intolerant of alternative sexuality, a particular racial background, or even interaction with magic also deserves discussion.
So, this is topic still has some life in it. Obviously homosexuals exist, and in my opinion, for that reason should exist in Golarion. That still leaves other questions about 'what comes with it?'.
|
|
Sebastian, that's a nice peek into your viewpoint and I appreciate your response.
I think, in terms of town descriptions, where you live is often where you draw inspiration from. For me, it's hard to see Sandpoint as pushing any sort of political envelope. It's what I see every day, it's what I'm used to, so framing the act of going about one's day-to-day business as controversial can be confusing.
I believe most of Paizo's staff lives in the Seattle area, a pretty liberal place, so their understanding of what is normal - what's not an issue - might be different than yours. What you call politics might just be what many of us call life.
Considering that 1 in 10,000 men and 1 in 30,000 women (an estimate by the Amsterdam Gender Dysphoria Clinic) seek sexual reassignment there should be at least one in a large city in D&D and several in a metropolis. It may not be for everyone, but I think this kind of background is interesting, both from a role playing and immersion perspective.
I seem to recall a cursed magical item called the girdle of femmininity/masculinity that magically switches a character's gender. That would be a boon for folks wanting gender reassignment.
And drow are into SM? Hm, Verik married a drow at the end of his career, no wonder he's happy... ;)
"You think being a god is tough? Try raising my three kids." -Verik Wolf.
|
|
Basically, I commend Paizo for being on the 'cutting edge' of RPG's. They have pushed the envelope on the horror and violent content in their adventures. And now they have proven that they aren't afraid to ignore the old-fashioned cultural bias against alternative lifestyles. This is healthy I think. D&D was never a game that was designed for kids; it has always been geared towards adults. After all, the crux of the game involved using steel and spell to slaughter sentient beings and steal their stuff. Not really a child-like concept; hacking and slashing and murdering and all that.
Paizo, it seems to me, trying to remain progressive. Like it or not, we have moved into the 21st century people. Homosexuality is a valid life choice. You can keep trying to live in the past, with values that are out of touch with the current times (which is, of course, your right) or as Wayne Cambell said: "Get in the now." Gay people are still people. They aren't monsters, or sick, or demented or evil. They are a not a few misfits in the shadows. They are a decent percentage of our world and always will be. Golorion is trying to be a fantasy mirror of our world. There are gay people in Golarion. There are gay people in Faerun. There are gay people in Greyhawk. Cool. I am glad.
Different is good. That's right. There is no reason to fear different lifestyles or different races, creeds or politics. If we were all the same; the world really would be a boring place.
Is Paizo trying to push an agenda? I don't think they are, but if they were: this is a damn good agenda to push. Discrimination is bad. Bias is bad. I'd much rather them be on the side of acceptance and love, then discrimination and hate. Save the hate for the undead and the evil outsiders (and those that do evil in the guise of good and righteousness). Too much fear and hate in the real world right now; and they aren't a lot of heroes out there to slay those dragons.
Wow, that was awful soapbox-y. Oh well, just wanted to back up JJ and company. Keep up the good work guys.
Bacon-eaters, engaging in a sin as dire as two chicks in a shower, get away with eating delicious bacon. (I had some with breakfast. I also get my hair cut regularly. And I never leave town to expel waste! I'm *such* a sinner!) Apparently, 'sins' that don't make insecure people feel icky don't rate these days.
True that, I guess the point might be that socially/culturally, those "bridges" have already been crossed. Of course some groups still have problems with them, but most western cultures do not. Now culturally we are trying to cross the "homosexual bridge", and as with all change there is going to be resistance (is this change necessary, is it good, is it bad). But I am sure that there were significant debates for all of those issues at some point. Just because there isn't a great one now, I don't think we should assume there wasn't ever one.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Sebastian, that's a nice peek into your viewpoint and I appreciate your response.
I think, in terms of town descriptions, where you live is often where you draw inspiration from. For me, it's hard to see Sandpoint as pushing any sort of political envelope. It's what I see every day, it's what I'm used to, so framing the act of going about one's day-to-day business as controversial can be confusing.
I believe most of Paizo's staff lives in the Seattle area, a pretty liberal place, so their understanding of what is normal - what's not an issue - might be different than yours. What you call politics might just be what many of us call life.
Thanks, I'm glad to get a solid response back instead of just getting lumped into the anti-gay camp and left to rot. As I mentioned before, I tend to lean more towards progressive politics, albeit in a more libertarian mindset (leave me the f@%@ alone, I'll leave you the f!!# alone). I am particularly sensitive to unrelated editorial bias (I recently cancelled my WSJ subscription because they had crossed the line between objective reporting and biased agenda pushing). I'd be equally vocal if Paizo were including bible verses at the end of each issue (actually, I'd probably be more vocal).
Aberzombie made a good point earlier that part of the problem is that homosexuality and abortion are such hot button issues. They are used by political parties to divide people and as a result tend to be polorizing in almost every arena. A little bit goes a long way.
Sebastian, that's a nice peek into your viewpoint and I appreciate your response.
I think, in terms of town descriptions, where you live is often where you draw inspiration from. For me, it's hard to see Sandpoint as pushing any sort of political envelope. It's what I see every day, it's what I'm used to, so framing the act of going about one's day-to-day business as controversial can be confusing.
I believe most of Paizo's staff lives in the Seattle area, a pretty liberal place, so their understanding of what is normal - what's not an issue - might be different than yours. What you call politics might just be what many of us call life.
Sure, but let's take a look at the gay paladin for a second. Paladins have to be Lawful Good. What does it mean to be Lawful?
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Now compare that to Chaos.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
I would argue that Lawful could be thought of as synonymous with "Traditional" or "Conservative" (not the political view necessarily). While Chaotic could be thought of as synonymous with "Non-Traditional" or "Liberal". Now see your comment that homosexuals may be more common in places that are viewed more "Liberal" (or Chaotic in D&D terms). Then it seems like a strange to decision to make a character that is suppose to be very , no strike that, extremely traditional and conservative to have a characteristic that from our real world perspective would fit more liberal.
That is why the whole gay paladin comes across to alot of people as either pandering or as a joke. Now if it was expanded on that in that particular faith, all (or almost all) paladins are in fact homosexual, that it is the tradition for that faith, that would be something. But as it is, it seems, at least superficially, to be a jab in the eye of folks who are themselves more conservative or traditionalist (i.e. "Lawful" in the D&D sense).
You could extend that a bit further by saying that a society that views homosexual behavior as part of the norm (I suspect elves might), or is a tolerated minority group, a gay paladin wouldn't be out of place.
"If you thing being a god is tough, try raising my three kids." -Verik Wolf.
|
Okay Herald, you've thoroughly convinced me and everyone still reading this thread that you're not a "fanboy." Sorry if you were offended by that "derogatory" term. I must include myself in the "fanboy" group as just finished downloading the Megan Fox/topless pics, that broke on the Internet today. (Best line from AICN Talkback: "You guys need to find a girl who's last name isn't .jpg.")
Sarcasm aside, you haven't changed my opinion, but it's good that you've defended yours, as you obviously feel strongly about it. We just don't agree.
As long as I'm here. As far as I can see, no one's opinion here has changed towards homosexuality, except to become more entrenched. Have the readers' opinions of Paizo changed however?
Moderators, in spite of your repeated warnings, you knew what was going to happen when this thread showed up. You knew nobody was going to be able to stay away from it. You knew what it was going to devolve into (regardless of how polite the discourse). This was exactly the kind of shameless promotion I was talking about: trying to generate "buzz" and controversy, instead of content or community.
My opinion of Paizo has not improved because of this thread.
Dude, it's only buzz if it happens in locations other than your own boards. As far as I can tell, no one cares anywhere else about this other that the discussion except here on these boards.
It's hardly shameless promotion. You are trying to make it look like this is a crisis. It's not. It's just a disagreement amongst board members. This is a tempest in a teapot.
Shameless promotion would be something like Piazo putting out press releases saying that they are the soul proctector of "Gay/Lesbian/Bi/Transgendered" game themes. Or that they are victims of vicious anti-queer censors. That would be shameless because it isn't true.
There is no need to conflaglerate this issue. There is no need to "Shame" the mods. But you are right people have stated thier beliefs and have expressed that thier not going to change thier minds. Is anyone surprised? Aren't we the group of people who decided that we didn't want to leave 3.5 just because 4.0 was coming? Honestly I would rather we agree to disagree than just have people go on and on, but that's not the nature of messageboards.
But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I can respect your opinion that you don't like Piazo's inclution of alternative lifestyles in it's publications. I don't agree with you, but I can see your point.
As for me, I do like the work that they have created and look forward to more.
|
|
Sebastian, that's a nice peek into your viewpoint and I appreciate your response.
I think, in terms of town descriptions, where you live is often where you draw inspiration from. For me, it's hard to see Sandpoint as pushing any sort of political envelope. It's what I see every day, it's what I'm used to, so framing the act of going about one's day-to-day business as controversial can be confusing.
I believe most of Paizo's staff lives in the Seattle area, a pretty liberal place, so their understanding of what is normal - what's not an issue - might be different than yours. What you call politics might just be what many of us call life.
Sure, but let's take a look at the gay paladin for a second. Paladins have to be Lawful Good. What does it mean to be Lawful?
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.Now compare that to Chaos.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.I would argue that Lawful could be thought of as synonymous with "Traditional" or "Conservative" (not the political view necessarily). While Chaotic could be thought of as synonymous with "Non-Traditional" or "Liberal". Now see your comment that homosexuals may be more common in places that are viewed more "Liberal" (or Chaotic in D&D...
And this is why I hate trying to equate alignment to real world politics.
I can make a totally reverse arguement and we can both be right. Maybe this is why I think there is a strange divide in politics.
The more you look into Conservative views, the more you can see Chaotic values.
Low government regulation
Small Government
Loose interpritation of the Constitution.
A philosophy that government dependance destroys the Human spirit.
Liberal Views seam to be more Lawful
Broad Government
Strict interpritation of the Constitution to ensure rights.
A philosophy that government can balance the the power from haves to have nots.
Now in practice both sides have had problems living up to their general values. (I'm a Moderate by the way. Go ahead call me a fence sitter.) And yes what I posted above isn't always true of all Conservatives and Liberals or thier politics. But that goes back to underscoring my point of why I hate trying to apply real world to alignment. It's just not cut and dry.
You could extend that a bit further by saying that a society that views homosexual behavior as part of the norm (I suspect elves might), or is a tolerated minority group, a gay paladin wouldn't be out of place.
"If you thing being a god is tough, try raising my three kids." -Verik Wolf.
Yet elves tend to be CG, so is conforming to a CG society Lawful or Chaotic? ;)
Then how about we have a Left Handed Iconic as well.I think roguerouge has a point about needing a gay hero. Outing one of the gay iconics would provide just such a hero.
Hehheh...the lobbying continues. ;p
That would be too sinister. ;)
And this is why I hate trying to equate alignment to real world politics.
I totally agree (which is why I said that comment about conservative not necessarily being the political viewpoint). Instead I was refering to:
Conservative
3 a: tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b: marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c: marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
and
Liberal
5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. By the way, I had come to the same conclusion about the various parties in the U.S. and their "Lawful" and "Chaotic" bends (Dems being socially "chaotic" and fiscally "lawful", Reps being fiscally "chaotic" and socially "lawful").
|
|
Pres Man, that's an interesting attempt, but there's an easy argument to make when you leave out the second half of the pertinent alignment. Paladins are Lawful Good, not just Lawful, and they're the flag bearers of the great moral questions of any law abiding society - "When is it more important to be good than it is to be lawful? How does a lawful man fight injustice?" That's what makes Paladins so fascinating to play.
If this were as simple a question as your argument suggests, then no cultural reformer could be considered to be Lawful Good, regardless if they were trying to institute better laws. The Lawful Good man wants good laws, beneficial and just, not merely laws that preserve the peace.
Basically, I call poopy poop on your Liberal = Chaotic argument.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That would be too sinister. ;)
Then how about we have a Left Handed Iconic as well.
Ah, after having to explain to co-workers why the skull on my desk is named Yorik, and who Elektra was in Greek theatre, someone who gets it is so refreshing.
Hmm, Sinister. Nick Louge for the 13th Iconic!
|
|
Basically, I commend Paizo for being on the 'cutting edge' of RPG's. They have pushed the envelope on the horror and violent content in their adventures. And now they have proven that they aren't afraid to ignore the old-fashioned cultural bias against alternative lifestyles. This is healthy I think. D&D was never a game that was designed for kids; it has always been geared towards adults. After all, the crux of the game involved using steel and spell to slaughter sentient beings and steal their stuff. Not really a child-like concept; hacking and slashing and murdering and all that.
Paizo, it seems to me, trying to remain progressive. Like it or not, we have moved into the 21st century people. Homosexuality is a valid life choice. You can keep trying to live in the past, with values that are out of touch with the current times (which is, of course, your right) or as Wayne Cambell said: "Get in the now." Gay people are still people. They aren't monsters, or sick, or demented or evil. They are a not a few misfits in the shadows. They are a decent percentage of our world and always will be. Golorion is trying to be a fantasy mirror of our world. There are gay people in Golarion. There are gay people in Faerun. There are gay people in Greyhawk. Cool. I am glad.
Different is good. That's right. There is no reason to fear different lifestyles or different races, creeds or politics. If we were all the same; the world really would be a boring place.
Is Paizo trying to push an agenda? I don't think they are, but if they were: this is a damn good agenda to push. Discrimination is bad. Bias is bad. I'd much rather them be on the side of acceptance and love, then discrimination and hate. Save the hate for the undead and the evil outsiders (and those that do evil in the guise of good and righteousness). Too much fear and hate in the real world right now; and they aren't a lot of heroes out there to slay those dragons.
Wow, that was awful soapbox-y. Oh well, just wanted to back up JJ and company. Keep up the good...
Well said.
I am interested in Paizo products not only for the quality writing but because they are willing to push the envelope.
Gay rights are polarizing. But so was the Black Civil Rights Movement, Women's Rights, etc. These movements are still quite controversial today. A good part of the success of those movements happened in the courts and in the halls of government. But an even larger part came when people of color and women gained acceptance in entertainment venues as equals. I applaud that Paizo is willing to take a stand and give a voice to groups of people that have been woefully under-represented in RPG products.
As a gay man I find Paizo's products to be welcoming. By providing a diverse and varied game world I feel like the company truly understands what I am looking for in entertainment. I want gay characters in my entertainment venues. I want them just as much as I want characters of varying races, gender identities, creeds, religious beliefs, and any thing else you can think of. I want diversity. And I want to be able to identify with these characters on a variety of levels.
I understand that providing what I want necessarily steps on the desires of another. I know this and I am okay with this. Why? Because there are enough channels of distribution out there that provide quality entertainment we can all be happy. Paizo is a private company and they produce the kind of game material I look for. If this conversation dealt with any kind of public venue my stand would fall strongly into "we all enjoy total freedom up to the point where my freedom causes grevious harm someone else." If Paizo is pushing a "political agenda" then I have to say it lines up with my own.
Lest this seem selfish on my part let me say I think people should voice their concern. Please do so. How else will Paizo know how you feel? But it is pretty obvious that James has the right of it here. If you don't like what you see you should vote with your wallet. I am certain that if enough people bail while expressing the reasons for their departure you will probably see a change. On the other hand, my friends and myself will be right there voting with our wallets as well, in favor of the current design philosophy and all that entails.
I wish I could subscribe to every product line Paizo offers. Unfortunately I have seen a distinct cut in hours at work and that makes such purchases difficult. In the end though, I will buy what I can, when I can and make sure the company knows I approve of their choices every chance I get.
Basically, I call poopy poop on your Liberal = Chaotic argument.
So you don't think that the description from the PHB for Chaos that I posted above fits the dictionary definition for Liberal I posted later?
EDIT:
If this were as simple a question as your argument suggests, then no cultural reformer could be considered to be Lawful Good, regardless if they were trying to institute better laws. The Lawful Good man wants good laws, beneficial and just, not merely laws that preserve the peace.
Maybe I am misinterpreting this, but you seem almost be indicating that someone couldn't be considered "conservative" and be a cultural reformer. Certainly that is not what you mean.
|
|
Thanks, I'm glad to get a solid response back instead of just getting lumped into the anti-gay camp and left to rot. As I mentioned before, I tend to lean more towards progressive politics, albeit in a more libertarian mindset (leave me the f&*% alone, I'll leave you the f&*% alone). I am particularly sensitive to unrelated editorial bias (I recently cancelled my WSJ subscription because they had crossed the line between objective reporting and biased agenda pushing). I'd be equally vocal if Paizo were including bible verses at the end of each issue (actually, I'd probably be more vocal).Aberzombie made a good point earlier that part of the problem is that homosexuality and abortion are such hot button issues. They are used by political parties to divide people and as a result tend to be polorizing in almost every arena. A little bit goes a long way.
And I can agree with this point. If Paizo was a news agency I would agree even more.
I can also agree with the point Paizo could avoid undue bad press to preserve sales. But I truly believe Paizo should put whatever they want in their products and everyone should base their purchasing habits on how comfortable they are with that. Only they can say for sure if the material is hurting sales.
Reading over your responses I know I never considered you might be "anti-gay". I just assumed you were concerned for Paizo's future and that, perhaps, they were going too far. I can respect that opinion.
|
|
Basically, I call poopy poop on your Liberal = Chaotic argument.So you don't think that the description from the PHB for Chaos that I posted above fits the dictionary definition for Liberal I posted later?
EDIT:
If this were as simple a question as your argument suggests, then no cultural reformer could be considered to be Lawful Good, regardless if they were trying to institute better laws. The Lawful Good man wants good laws, beneficial and just, not merely laws that preserve the peace.Maybe I am misinterpreting this, but you seem almost be indicating that someone couldn't be considered "conservative" and be a cultural reformer. Certainly that is not what you mean.
My argument is inclusive, not exclusive. Social reformers of either stripe could be Lawful Good. Two Lawful Good people could be at odds about what is a good law.
I feel like Paizo has moved the needle on homosexuality too far too fast. I don't objection to having gay characters included, but the rate at which they are being included and the amount of them that are appearing smacks of pushing an agenda rather than telling a story. It's one thing to say "we won't avoid including a gay character" it's another to say "we must include x gay characters in our products to compensate for the historical exclusion of gay characters in fantasy for so many generations." The gay iconic feels very very much like the later. That's why I feel it's political - we aren't seeing gay characters for the sake of the story, we're seeing gay characters for the sake of righting some sort of historical wrong.
The Sandpoint write-up is particularly bad in terms of politics because it strikes me as setting out to rub people's faces in progressive issues. There's an alchemist that performs abortions in the town and not only that, she's good in alignment. That's going to (and it did) offend some people and it adds very little to the game. Similarly, many people object to homosexuality on religious grounds, so having a devoutly religious paladin be homosexual seems like a purposeful attempt to show that in a setting with objective definitions of good and evil and active gods monitoring such behavior, homosexuality is not anathema to religion (a belief many hold dearly). At the time I read the Sandpoint article, I thought, okay, that's a bit in your face, but it's novel and interesting. Now, from the comments on this thread and the latest adventure path, it seems like including in your face politics is not something novel and interesting, it's par for the course.
Maybe the solution is to refuse to see issues of homosexuality and termination of pregnancy as political. By viewing them as political, you give power to the people who intend to use them as political issues, usually for divisive purposes.
I was giving some thought to this issue this weekend while I was mowing the lawn (Hey, it's good thinking time since I can't hear a damn thing over the sound of the mower other than my own thoughts anyway). I was thinking of the old feminist slogan "The personal is political." My take on it is that shouldn't be the case. The only reason it is is because people have made it so. The goal should be to make the personal apolitical by taking the issue off the agenda, making it irrelevant in the realm of politics (which takes political action, true, but hopefully only in transition).By including examples of gay characters, herbalists doing their historical jobs, and portraying them as realistic townsfolk, heroes, villains, Paizo is doing just that.
The reason Paizo's inclusion of these characters appears political is because too many groups have used the issues surrounding those characters as political weapons. Try standing the perception on its head.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then how about we have a Left Handed Iconic as well.
An unfortunate example: characters in D&D do not have handed-ness.
Perhaps a stuttering or dyslexic iconic.
--
Someone up-thread posted about the girdle of femininity / masculinity. If each of those were made for a particular transgendering patron, it's easy to see why they're single-use items. It's harded to see why they're sitting around in dungeon treasure troves, unused.
And I've been wondering for years why they're considered "cursed" items. I guess it's because the boys Gary played with in the 70's thought girls were icky. "Haw haw! You're a girl!" Yep, that's a curse.
I'm reminded of a study done about 20 years ago. Researchers asked 8- and 11-year-olds to describe "what life would be like, if you were the other sex". Girls, typically, talked about doing things that boys normally do. Fully half the boys, on the other hand, said they would kill themselves.
Anybody remember Sir Tristan in Camelot 3000?
|
|
I dunno Bill. "The personal is political" stems from the idea that politics are used to create, alter or repeal laws. Laws have a profound, personal impact on some people. It's easy enough to say live and let live, but I can imagine what might happen if the average man here were denied access to his injured wife or children because someone disapproved of his relationship. Laws can quickly become chest-beating, storm the castle issues when you feel like you're being William Wallaced.
It's not an academic argument. It's love and property.
Not that I think this needs to be explored in Pathfinder (it's not really the forum), but in the real world, calling it 'politics' doesn't begin to cover it.
|
|
This post was intended as a summary answer to many comments that I don't feel necessary to get into a "tit for tat" style of dialog - over and over again this sort of internet discourse has proven to fail miserably.
As to organized religion: I guess it depends on the organization. I participate in "organized religion" not so that I can pat myself on the back and gloat over how much better than you I am, but rather, to closer examine just how wrong *I* (and I alone) am, and to perhaps make myself better.I know this is going way off topic (although it's already a bit all over the spectrum), but why does this always have to be done through religion? Are people really so insecure that they can't own up to being a smuck and just say "Hey, I think I want to live a better life, be a better person and do good things towards other people"? I don't see why religion has to make an appearance here.I can't answer for other people, I can only answer for myself. Nothing I've said was meant to be (and I don't see it being phrased that way) as a sweeping declaration for the rest of society. I can, however, speak with full authority as to my own self and the specific path I took. I don't think insecurity ever entered into the equation however.
As to the rest I won't take up a discourse here.
My argument is inclusive, not exclusive. Social reformers of either stripe could be Lawful Good. Two Lawful Good people could be at odds about what is a good law.
Ok, maybe I'm not understanding what your issue was then. Maybe you could explain what you think Lawful and Chaotic signify and then explain why my view is illegitimate (notice I said it Could be thought of that way, not that it was the only way). For myself I was trying to draw parallels to the terms used in the PHB and more common terms, to better understand them (I don't know how many times I've had discussions with people that thought Lawful meant you had to follow all the laws all the time).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I can also agree with the point Paizo could avoid undue bad press to preserve sales. But I truly believe Paizo should put whatever they want in their products and everyone should base their purchasing habits on how comfortable they are with that. Only they can say for sure if the material is hurting sales.
Reading over your responses I know I never considered you might be "anti-gay". I just assumed you were concerned for Paizo's future and that, perhaps, they were going too far. I can respect that opinion.
This is something I thnk we can all agree on.
I just noticed, looking for Lefies... the Drow by herself is left handed by herself. On the cover though she's right. So does this mean that she switch hits?
|
|
Sure, but let's take a look at the gay paladin for a second. Paladins have to be Lawful Good. What does it mean to be Lawful?
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.Now compare that to Chaos.
"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Alignment is not a straitjacket. You can be lawful and be honorable, trustworthy, obedient to authority and reliable and still be reckless. The whole point of alignment is to describe a general 'philosophy' in which more of your actions 'fit' in that category. So, sure, the Lawful Good Paladin might be boffing another guy, which is okay in the alignment sense as long as he isn't also mugging people in an alley (for example).
The Paladin in Sandpoint may be 'free' with his personal affection, but that doesn't imply that he isn't lawful. I don't think he is lobbying for 'unfettered personal freedom' in the society. Perhaps, like many people in this day and age, he doesn't think that there needs to be a restriction on what people do in the bedroom, but there does have to be 'law' in order to protect society. An organized response has a better chance of defeating a giant's invasion than every Sandpoint citizen choosing their own response.
That's lawful.
And even with the SRD, there are places where it basically says the same thing about different people and ascribes to one 'lawful' and to the other 'chaotic'.
For example, please compare the description of Ember and Mialee's devotion to their 'art'. Basically it says the same thing about both, but one is lawful and one is chaotic for no apparent reason (other than monks must be lawful and elves are generally chaotic). Crazy, I know.
In any case, there can be 'radical' people that we would call 'conservative' even if what they want is something that we've never had before. Most liberals want 'progressive' change. Many conservatives want to keep things as they are (defenders of the status quo) but some want a new status quo based on different ideals.
If someone wants our society to return to 'preindustrialism', it is a pretty radical notion, but in our 'either conservative or liberal model' it gets thrown in with the conservatives even though it is very radical. Crazy.
So, alignment exists in D&D. Paladins are Lawful Good. They have a code. Since we don't know of any laws (good or evil) that say it is wrong to have sexual relations with another man, the lawful aspect of the Paladin is in no way in conflict with homosexuality.
If homosexual relations are a 'sin' (evil act) than it might conflict with the Paladin's 'good' axis of alignment. But not the lawful part.
My irritation is with Paizo is with their management of this messageboard, whereas before I had been quite pleased with it, as well as their target marketing and exploitation of certain segments, namely "fanboys" and gays in this case. I can only see that the inclusion of certain character elements were simply meant to shock or pander to specific audiences, rather than having actual story value.
We try to be as hands-off as possible on these boards. Our community does a very decent job (most of the time) of censoring and moderating itself. Rarely do we have to lock a thread or moderate a user. And I mean very rarely. We simply do NOT have the time to read and moderate every thread on our messageboard. We are a small company, folks.
As the guy responsible for directing the marketing operations of this company, allow me to assure you that our "target market" is currently "people seeking a quality adventure experience." Horribly general, yes, but we're certainly not rubbing our hands together in meetings and wondering aloud how we might, to use your turn of phrase, "target and exploit fanboys and gays." There are a handful of homosexual characters in our modules, adventure paths, and in our world -- that does not a targeting or exploitation make. Since we have minotaurs in our modules and in our world does this mean we're exploiting the much sought after minotaur demographic in the real world?
I don't think so.
Don't ascribe to marketing menace what can simply be explained as a plot or setting choice on the part of an individual author. Paizo does not have an agenda, is not trying to force an agenda on anyone, and is not in anyway a political entity. We're a business, we're here to provide entertainment for our customers and our community and, along the way, make a nice living and turn a profit.
I, for one, think this thread is done. If folks wish to continue the real world arguments about homosexuality I'd recommend you do what one poster has already suggested and start a "Civil sexual discussion" thread in the Off Topic forums and continue there. Continuing the real world religious and political discussion here is pushing this thread precariously toward completion and I'd rather it either went back on topic or ceased altogether rather than me having to lock it.
|
|
My argument is inclusive, not exclusive. Social reformers of either stripe could be Lawful Good. Two Lawful Good people could be at odds about what is a good law.Ok, maybe I'm not understanding what your issue was then. Maybe you could explain what you think Lawful and Chaotic signify and then explain why my view is illegitimate (notice I said it Could be thought of that way, not that it was the only way). For myself I was trying to draw parallels to the terms used in the PHB and more common terms, to better understand them (I don't know how many times I've had discussions with people that thought Lawful meant you had to follow all the laws all the time).
Lawful characters are concerned with how a society behaves, and how they behave within that society. Chaotic characters are more concerned with their own behavior and perhaps the bahavior of a few close comrades. They cast a smaller social net, basically. A Chaotic Good society is liberal, yes, but they don't have a strong underlying system of social justice or support. They're clannish and rely on one another's good nature (and not laws) to grease interactions.
Lawful Good characters and societies trust in the idea of arbitration and want there to be a strong common consensus on what is right. But they are wary of the concept of 'right' overshadowing the concept of 'good' - and that good requires compassion, flexibility, and wisdom. Lawful Good conservatives are still willing to consider that some of their laws may be unjust, and Lawful Good liberals are willing to consider that some seemingly unjust laws are born of a wisdom that deserves a closer look. And they talk about them. Lawful Good societies are complex.
That's my take anyway.
I'm a little upset with myself that I fell into the 'Alignment Debate', but there we go ;)
|
|
Regarding the 'productive' aspects of this thread, I think I laid them out in the post you quoted. Personally, I don't feel that there is much of an issue here. The sexuality of the NPCs has not been 'in your face'. I don't think it needs to be.
I do think that the existence of homosexuals in Golarion should be a given. I think that the same is true for dragons that sleep with unicorns. Some people might think that's icky. I can see that. I'm not even saying I disagree, but if it helps the story, I'm all for it.
What has been productive is that even though there are some people that have only talked about whether something is good or bad, and others who have chimed in with constant cries to lock this thread, others have maintained a civil discourse about the subject and some conclusions are likely to be inferred.
For example, in a society where there is no concept of Judeo-Christian morality (and for full disclosure, I should say I am a practicing Catholic and my religious beliefs are deep-seated and very important to me) there is likely to be less emphasis on many of the 'moral questions'. A worshipper of Abadar probably will take a very different view than a worshipper of Desna on issues like 'private property' for instance. Since we 'know' that both gods ACTUALLY EXIST in the game world, there can be no accusation of 'following a false god' (except by irrational extremists) and therefore there is likely to be someone that believes any action is 'acceptable', up to and including the slaughtering of innocents.
Our founding fathers were smart men, and when they wrote the Constitution, they invoked a higher power. The idea that 'All Men are Equal' is tied to the idea that 'All men are created in the image of God'. Now, belief in the higher power is not a requirement for following the laws in our land, but much of the 'moral imperative' for the way we treat others comes from the 'divine reflection'. Since there can be no 'appeal to a higher power' since there are so many higher powers, the people of Golarion lose access to a powerful tool for determining what is right and what is wrong. Much of our morality (historically, at least) boils down to 'it is God's will'. When two 'gods' are in conflict, that doesn't work so well.
So, I think that a place for homosexuality has been assured by the topic of this thread. The nature of Paizo's treatment could of course stand further discussion. But of course James Jacobs already said that it had a place back on page 1. I will admit that this thread is somewhat verbose (and I'm at least partly to blame), but I don't see it as 'fracturing' the community. Not nearly the way the announcement of 4th edition did.
In actuality, I feel a conversation like this makes me feel like more of a part of the Paizo community. It isn't that they support my agenda, or I theirs. It is that they're willing to address issues that SHOULD be addressed to tell their stories. Now, so far, sexuality hasn't been a major part of any of the stories (and I haven't read Curse of the Crimson Throne because I intend to be a player) but it sounds like that's not a major factor there, either. It is simply provided as a motivation for some of the events in the story, which is entirely appropriate. There is nothing about 'titillation' or 'pandering' and that's why I'm pretty happy with it. But the fact that we're on a Messageboard and this conversation is not only allowed to continue but has seen contribution by various members of the Paizo Staff - this is clearly proof of the Nirvana that is the Paizo Boards. Where else in the RPG community could you have a talk about homosexuality without one side or the other being completely shouted down? Where would you have a conversation without the thread being locked immediately simply because the moderators DON'T think we're mature enough to have such a conversation? Where else would the staff contribute to what is clearly a 'hot-button issue' for many people?
I don't think it would happen anywhere else. And so the events of this thread, I have found informative and interesting, and I have also found them reaffirming my support for Paizo.
I'd say that is pretty productive.
I've been going back and forth for a few days now debating whether or not to add my 2 cents to this discussion. Even as I type this, I'm not convinced it's a good idea. But at 11 pages of forum posts, this seems to be a hot topic and I would like to add my voice if there is any chance of influencing the course of Pathfinder. I'm not really in favor of making a case for- or against- but here are the observations and impressions I've been left with, for better or worse.
1) I like the more mature, real-world aspect of the Pathfinder products than the sanitized stuff we typically get. I tend to play without alignments anyway and I leave it for my PCs to interpret the actions of NPCs. I'd much rather the PCs be viewing the NPCs as evil because of their actions rather than just b/c they're EEEEVILLL.
Also, I'm big on creating a sense of reality (even in my Fantasy RPGs) as much as I can. That means there are bigots, homosexuals, cowards, flawed heroes, slaves, slave-owners, zealots, heretics, etc. It's all story-fodder b/c I'm PLAYING A GAME.
2) Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Paizo has shifted from "flavor" to "agenda". The NPCs in Pathfinder 1 added flavor and could be used for role-playing fodder or an interesting side story. Now for the gay couple involving the paladin to really be shocking/scandalous, it would seem to suggest that homosexuality doesn't have widespread acceptance in Sandpoint. It's left to the GM to determine how much or how little to play that point up - as it should be.
Now however, we're told that Varisia is pretty open-minded (so where's the scandal) and Cheliax (those damn devil-worshippers) are against it. I'm not seeing where this is helping things from a story or game perspective b/c now you're imposing viewpoints on the setting rather than leaving them to the individual gaming group or GM.
Additionally, we hear that we have at least one, and probably two, gay iconics. Aside from Pathfinder fiction, I don't see the point, really.
As a slightly off-topic aside: Valeros ain't one of the gay iconics, IMO. An "evening of hard drinking and soft company" (from his pre-gen character background excerpt) doesn't strike me as a gay man's choice of describing his casual relationships. (I can only use the gay men I know as a point of reference.) If this is Valeros "hiding" his orientation, we're back to wondering how accepted such behavior is in Varisia (at the minimum).
3) I've been sorely disappointed at the manner in which anti-religious bias has been thrown around unchallenged by the moderators. If we, as a forum community, aren't going to abide bigotry, then it should be all types of bigotry, not just the ones we disagree with. To attack someone just because they're religious is no better than attacking someone just because they're gay.
4) We have sidebars in the APs about playing down (or ramping up) sensitive content in the game. Clearly, the Paizo staff are sensitive to how incendiary certain topics can be and that tastes vary. I thought Paizo was doing a good job of walking the line prior to this thread. I'm hoping this, being a forum thread, is an anomaly and not an indicator of things to come.
Please continue to creat a vibrant, interesting, and believable setting that I can set adventures in and read for my enjoyment. Please DO NOT impose a value system on me or my players - and I don't care which side of the aisle that value system is originating from.
My irritation is with Paizo is with their management of this messageboard, whereas before I had been quite pleased with it, as well as their target marketing and exploitation of certain segments, namely "fanboys" and gays in this case. I can only see that the inclusion of certain character elements were simply meant to shock or pander to specific audiences, rather than having actual story value.We try to be as hands-off as possible on these boards. Our community does a very decent job (most of the time) of censoring and moderating itself. Rarely do we have to lock a thread or moderate a user. And I mean very rarely. We simply do NOT have the time to read and moderate every thread on our messageboard. We are a small company, folks.
As the guy responsible for directing the marketing operations of this company, allow me to assure you that our "target market" is currently "people seeking a quality adventure experience." Horribly general, yes, but we're certainly not rubbing our hands together in meetings and wondering aloud how we might, to use your turn of phrase, "target and exploit fanboys and gays." There are a handful of homosexual characters in our modules, adventure paths, and in our world -- that does not a targeting or exploitation make. Since we have minotaurs in our modules and in our world does this mean we're exploiting the much sought after minotaur demographic in the real world?
I don't think so.
Don't ascribe to marketing menace what can simply be explained as a plot or setting choice on the part of an individual author. Paizo does not have an agenda, is not trying to force an agenda on anyone, and is not in anyway a political entity. We're a business, we're here to provide entertainment for our customers and our community and, along the way, make a nice living and turn a profit.
I, for one, think this thread is done. If folks wish to continue the real world arguments about homosexuality I'd recommend you do what one poster has already suggested and start a...
Joshua,
Thanks for the input into the discussion and the official word. I was apparently typing my post as you were adding this. If Paizo isn't pushing an agenda (pro- or con-), I'll take you at your word. I just wasn't liking how the religious-negatives were taking inflamatory shots without being challenged.
I can certainly appreciate that Paizo staff can't read every thread or every post. However, this one's been a hot topic for days. With 11 pages of posts and James weighing in early on, I don't feel the "strongly opinionated" views that were being expressed should have gone unaddressed for as long as they did. Right or wrong, that's how I feel.
Again, thank you for the official word.
So we're all done then?
Unless you want to out the gay iconic? :)
Just so long as there's none of those left-handed weirdos. :D
|
|
If Paizo is pushing a "political agenda" then I have to say it lines up with my own.
I wanted to point out, because I am kinda paranoid this way, that I do not think that Paizo is pushing any kind of agenda. I was simply making a statement for illustrative purposes.
Sorry if it seems silly but I wanted to be clear.
As a slightly off-topic aside: Valeros ain't one of the gay iconics, IMO. An "evening of hard drinking and soft company" (from his pre-gen character background excerpt) doesn't strike me as a gay man's choice of describing his casual relationships. (I can only use the gay men I know as a point of reference.) If this is Valeros "hiding" his orientation, we're back to wondering how accepted such behavior is in Varisia (at the minimum).
Off-topic aside to the off-topic aside: I don't know, I guess it depends on what kind of men he likes. But I would be very disappointed if Valeros were into "fems". Would destroy the image I have. :)
I would argue that Lawful could be thought of as synonymous with "Traditional" or "Conservative" (not the political view necessarily).
Yes, but conservative or traditional relative to what? Conservativism is simply the value system that change should be carefully considered rather than embraced for its own sake (which is why I consider myself a conservative despite having started this thread to begin with). In the oppressive nation of Cheliax conservative has a completely different meaning than in the more liberal Varisia, relative to that a paladin could be both gay and conservative in Varisia.
And now for something slightly different...
I don't really get the idea that Paizo has been tacking on homosexuals as part of some agenda, every single one of the homosexual elements thus far have been incredibly low key, so much in fact that you could easily miss most of them (like I did). Someone said that they play D&D to get away from real-life issues like homosexuality, but I don't get that argument either. I don't see that Paizo has been "exploring the issue" at all, they have simply added some gay characters to the background without ever raising the question of morality, I don't see anyone having a problem with Pathfinder having black characters so why should it matter that there are gay characters? It simply doesn't become an issue until you choose to make it one.
And finally...
Leave the gay iconic(s) alone, I'm sure they will come out in the open when they feel ready themselves ;)
So...uh....who's getting the lights?
<< CLICK >>
I, for one, think this thread is done. If folks wish to continue the real world arguments about homosexuality I'd recommend you do what one poster has already suggested and start a...
Sorry Josh, I posted before I read your post. And I agree, I think this thread has completely gone beyond what I intended to begin with. I won't object to it being closed, with more than 500 posts in three days I think the air has been suitably cleared.
And I'd say that was a fantastic summary.I'd say that is pretty productive.
Agreed.
|
|
The Wrasslin match is probably two males fighting. Squirrels are big into playing hard to get. A female squirrel in heat attracts males - usually 3-5 and then she runs as fast as she can jumping over barriers and from tree branch to tree branch. The males chase her and try and knock their competitors off the roof or bite their tails. Fastest male squirrel gets to mate. Makes a lot of sense really, speed is an important survival trait in squirrels and this mating method rewards speed.
I'd like to point this out as the most interesting post in the 11 page thread =p I never knew that, and now know why I hear the squirrels all race across my roof with 1 followed by half a dozen...