Zardnaar |
This came up in one of our games in Kingmaker. One of our players was asking if her PC a Queen could marry a women. She wasn't trying to make a social statement she just wanted her partner to have a high charisma score as Kingmaker the king and queen got to add their charisma modifiers together.
I did veto that one though. I did not care how she ran her character but I doubted her subjects would have accepted an openly gay lesbian marriage in a new kingdom. Probably doesn't help I had been playing Crusader Kings II.
Ross Byers Assistant Software Developer |
thejeff |
This came up in one of our games in Kingmaker. One of our players was asking if her PC a Queen could marry a women. She wasn't trying to make a social statement she just wanted her partner to have a high charisma score as Kingmaker the king and queen got to add their charisma modifiers together.
I did veto that one though. I did not care how she ran her character but I doubted her subjects would have accepted an openly gay lesbian marriage in a new kingdom. Probably doesn't help I had been playing Crusader Kings II.
I'd probably allow it, though I'd be less likely to if it was just for the mechanical Charisma reasons with no existing role playing behind it.
They would need to address the question of succession up front though.
Alice Margatroid |
Considering the Kingmaker subjects have to accept all sorts of other oddities (necromancy or summoning demons/monsters? befriending monsters like kobolds and fey? regularly defending against whatever enemies their leaders have made while off adventuring? whatever oddball laws the PCs instate in their kingdom?) I would think that being ruled by two women would be the least of their problems...
They would need to address the question of succession up front though.
The kingdom doesn't have to pass on power via blood/birth. The PCs made it, after all, they can simply declare that someone else will succeed (or perhaps even establish a democracy!)
Alternatively, they could use magic like alter self for some fantasy-style IVF (with the added benefit of it really being both mothers' DNA! It's just that one had to turn into a man first...) or simply adopt.
Berik |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a heterosexual guy and don't really have any close gay or lesbian friends, but I really like the treatment of homosexual couples in Golarion. I like that we're at a point where something like the gay couple in Sandpoint can be casually placed in the book and it doesn't feel like either a controversy waiting to happen or a bold political statement, it's just how things are. Certainly there is still a way to go, but I think it also shows how much more accepting that society has come to this kind of thing.
And I think Paizo's attitudes to protests around homosexual characters has been very well framed as well. Allowing people to voice displeasure if they wish but drawing a firm line in the sand that this is part of life on Golarion.
Alice Margatroid |
Well, obviously it sounds like they were doing it for metagaming reasons, which is why I'd shut that down too... but I don't think that there's really any problem in theory.
On the contraception note, I would probably allow PCs to research an immaculate conception spell that would either allow two lesbian parents to conceive, or maybe even allow a third party woman to carry two gay parents' child to term. (How does that work? Who knows! It's magic!)
My alter self suggestion also works, but I suspect it's going a little too far into /d/ territory for most people's tastes.
TanithT |
Addressing the topic of whether or not it is evil for a character (or a player) to be a bigot, to have a 'moral' objection to homosexuality. Given the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice but a fundamental aspect of biology and evolution that is consistent across the spectrum of social mammals, the equivalent here is someone having a 'moral' objection to people being born with dark skin.
This can make for an interesting NPC or plot hook, certainly. Oppressive environments have good plot potential. Drizzt Do'Urden comes immediately to mind as an example of how these kinds of plot hooks can work positively to build a strong story.
It is pretty clear who the villains are in this story. People who despise others based solely on their skin color, race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, are the bad guys. It is possible to set up a sympathetic character who is also a bigot, if they have something horrific in their background that causes them to have this reaction to an otherwise good person. But it's difficult, and most people understand immediately that drawing a character as a bigot is shorthand for "this person is a jerk."
When we read or play these stories, we instinctively know that the bigots and oppressors are the villains. That much is clear. That's a pretty solid take-home message for real life, too.
And for the record, I am very proud of Paizo and its representatives for responding in an appropriate and classy way to expressions of bigotry. I will also be voting with my wallet and my personal support for an inclusive company that respects human rights and human diversity. Thank you, James Jacobs and others.
Azaelas Fayth |
It was mostly the succession part of it. I also prefer a quasi realistic dark ages type setting. It was also a purely mechanic min/max argument as well and the intended queen wasn't a lesbian in any event.
You might want to do some more research...
The Dark Ages & Before were known for being very open when it came to sexuality. It wasn't until around the early 1700's that it became a major "no-no".
Mikaze |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a lesbian marriage kicking off a line of leadership in a River Kingdom on Golarion is all that farfetched. Golarions is far from Dark Ages Earth, and there are far more unusual things that get taken for granted in that world.
Honestly, in some areas a heterosexual half-orc/half-elf royal-starter couple may very well meet more opposition than two human women.
In Taldor, it would be "Why would I care? She's not marrying a Keleshite/Sarenraen."
In Qadira, it would be "Why would I care. Sultanas and other rich women marry all the men and women they want so long as they can support them. If one of them is Taldan, at least she'll be civilizing her."
In Osirion, it would be "The Pharoah can marry whoever she wants. She's the God-Queen."
In Katapesh, it would be "You married the daughter of the merchant lord from the next town over? PROFIT!"
In Mendev, it would be "You're married. Now kiss the bride. Now grab your sword. Now unto the breach!"
Remember, three of the major goddesses of good kinda have a relationship going on from time to time. Lesbianism isn't going to be a big taboo in as many places as it was on RL Earth at the times commonly referenced. Same applies to gay male couples. And many other kinds of couples. Or triples, and so on.
Hell, the goddess of the kitsune and the goddess of nagas have a thing.
And then there's Kaer Maga.
But that's a couple that would actually have trouble establishing themselves as royalty in the River Kingdoms.
Odraude |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a lesbian marriage kicking off a line of leadership in a River Kingdom on Golarion is all that farfetched. Golarions is far from Dark Ages Earth, and there are far more unusual things that get taken for granted in that world.
Honestly, in some areas a heterosexual half-orc/half-elf royal-starter couple may very well meet more opposition than two human women.
In Taldor, it would be "Why would I care? She's not marrying a Keleshite/Sarenraen."
In Qadira, it would be "Why would I care. Sultanas and other rich women marry all the men and women they want so long as they can support them. If one of them is Taldan, at least she'll be civilizing her."
In Osirion, it would be "The Pharoah can marry whoever she wants. She's the God-Queen."
In Katapesh, it would be "You married the daughter of the merchant lord from the next town over? PROFIT!"
In Mendev, it would be "You're married. Now kiss the bride. Now grab your sword. Now unto the breach!"
Remember, three of the major goddesses of good kinda have a relationship going on from time to time. Lesbianism isn't going to be a big taboo in as many places as it was on RL Earth at the times commonly referenced. Same applies to gay male couples. And many other kinds of couples. Or triples, and so on.
Hell, the goddess of the kitsune and the goddess of nagas have a thing.
And then there's Kaer Maga.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't know...
Mikaze |
11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know...
** spoiler omitted **
OH MY.[/takei]
I need to get the allclear to read the rest of Kingmaker it seems.
edit-Oh God that made it sound like I have a thing for that I DON'T HAVE A THING FOR THAT
edit2-I'm not saying it's wrong either.
edit3-But I'm also not endorsing...you know...with snakes.
edit4-Not that I'm suggesting people that are into that are into snakes
edit5-People that are into nagas I mean
edit6-Oh dammit
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, obviously it sounds like they were doing it for metagaming reasons, which is why I'd shut that down too... but I don't think that there's really any problem in theory.
On the contraception note, I would probably allow PCs to research an immaculate conception spell that would either allow two lesbian parents to conceive, or maybe even allow a third party woman to carry two gay parents' child to term. (How does that work? Who knows! It's magic!)
My alter self suggestion also works, but I suspect it's going a little too far into /d/ territory for most people's tastes.
Then the kingdom goes into a riot, as the resulting baby is born blue, furry, with a tail...
Edit: And I still prefer that origin over Chuck Austin's horrid writing. It's... sweet.
Drejk |
It was mostly the succession part of it. I also prefer a quasi realistic dark ages type setting. It was also a purely mechanic min/max argument as well and the intended queen wasn't a lesbian in any event.
Do the kingdom rules require the co-rulers to be couple? There are lots of historical precedents for realms ruled by pair of kings (Sparta, Republican Rome had two consuls, Middle and Late Roman Empire - often they were family but sometimes it was designated successor unrelated to emperor, Byzantine Empire ditto, early Kingdom of Poland had a few cases of co-rulers - but it tended to end badly, Ancient Egypt had a few case too IIRC).
EDIT: If the population would object to unrelated co-rulers, the Queen could adopt the other and designate as heir and co-ruler.
Azaelas Fayth |
I know but you could not have a lesbian marriage. It was also difficult for women on the throne as well.
Actually, most cultures didn't have a gender specific Marriage law like Modern Cultures. Most only had a this is final the only way out is by one of you dying restriction. If they even had a Marriage system at all.
Zardnaar |
The player concerned was trying for a lesbian marriage purely for the mechanical benefits of the Kingmaker rule set. That was the main reason I shut it down.
Some of my rulers etc have been homosexual with rumors and the like floating around but succession has been a touchy thing IRL with wars fought over it. Its not as easy as adopt someone although that has been used depending on time/place/culture.
WotC's Nightmare |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wait to see the respectable Nambla NPC and the respectable druid and its "companion".
Ok, I'm being a little flippant here. ;)
But anyone ever read Elfquest? Does the idea of a druid having relations with their "companion" really seem so far fetched in a fantasy setting? And the talk about the Greeks and homosexuality, often in a positive light, too often sounds like support for the ideas of Nambla. Not to mention the exploitation of underlings by their superiors. I don't think anyone pushing for respect for homosexuals should ever by pointing to the Greeks and their exploitation of young men as a good thing.
Frankly I don't really care about if their are homosexual characters or not, though I would say that the fact that the only group that has been bothered by it in Pathfinder series was a immoral family is a bit disturbing. To me that shows there is not a very balanced view on this issue. It also indicates, perhaps subconsciously, that one can't be opposed to homosexual behaviour (whether done by a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, trysexual or whatever) and be a decent person in the viewpoint of the Paizo staff/writers. James' comments about how he finds such ideas disgusting do nothing to aleviate that viewpoint.
Exactly. It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion) are evil. It's not okay to say "I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral." That is hypocritical and definitely not tolerant. The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
The easiest way to be inclusive as possible is to only exclude those that would exclude others.
Zen of gaming aside, I'd rather someone be open about who they're excluding instead of hiding it. :-)
I guess that's one of the 'good vs. evil' comments about PF and real life.
"Come join the church of Erastil! Promoting stable relationships since Earthfall!"
vs,
"Come join the church of Asmodeus! Don't forget to read the fine print!"
Gorbacz |
12 people marked this as a favorite. |
pres man wrote:Exactly. It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion) are evil. It's not okay to say "I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral." That is hypocritical and definitely not tolerant. The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.I can't wait to see the respectable Nambla NPC and the respectable druid and its "companion".
Ok, I'm being a little flippant here. ;)
But anyone ever read Elfquest? Does the idea of a druid having relations with their "companion" really seem so far fetched in a fantasy setting? And the talk about the Greeks and homosexuality, often in a positive light, too often sounds like support for the ideas of Nambla. Not to mention the exploitation of underlings by their superiors. I don't think anyone pushing for respect for homosexuals should ever by pointing to the Greeks and their exploitation of young men as a good thing.
Frankly I don't really care about if their are homosexual characters or not, though I would say that the fact that the only group that has been bothered by it in Pathfinder series was a immoral family is a bit disturbing. To me that shows there is not a very balanced view on this issue. It also indicates, perhaps subconsciously, that one can't be opposed to homosexual behaviour (whether done by a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, trysexual or whatever) and be a decent person in the viewpoint of the Paizo staff/writers. James' comments about how he finds such ideas disgusting do nothing to aleviate that viewpoint.
Dear Mr. I'll Post Under An Alias, Maybe They're Not Smart Enough To Spot That!
Considering that Paizo staffers have repeatedly stated that they have no intention to change their stance, you might want to exercise the most basic capitalist response and vote with your wallet, never buying any Paizo products again. Burning all books is optional, but over here in the godless sodomite union of soviet European lands, we used to have people who burned books and also gassed people for being different (including: non-straight) and that didn't end well.
And given that the salaries handed out by Paizo from money earned on *your* purchases helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employees, you might want to do that quick before it's too late and another pair of walking insults against nature's/god's order exchange rings bought thanks to *your* money.
Odraude |
Odraude wrote:I don't know...
** spoiler omitted **
OH MY.[/takei]
I need to get the allclear to read the rest of Kingmaker it seems.
edit-Oh God that made it sound like I have a thing for that I DON'T HAVE A THING FOR THAT
edit2-I'm not saying it's wrong either.
edit3-But I'm also not endorsing...you know...with snakes.
edit4-Not that I'm suggesting people that are into that are into snakes
edit5-People that are into nagas I mean
edit6-Oh dammit
In my Kingmaker game, the king (a half orc barbarian) got married to the nixie you see in book 2. Although this was under the assumption she was medium sized. When we found out she was Small, I just kept her medium sized lol. And yes, they did sire a child. Made the child an aquatic sorcerer half orc.
pres man wrote:Exactly. It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion) are evil. It's not okay to say "I believe homosexual behavior to be immoral." That is hypocritical and definitely not tolerant. The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.I can't wait to see the respectable Nambla NPC and the respectable druid and its "companion".
Ok, I'm being a little flippant here. ;)
But anyone ever read Elfquest? Does the idea of a druid having relations with their "companion" really seem so far fetched in a fantasy setting? And the talk about the Greeks and homosexuality, often in a positive light, too often sounds like support for the ideas of Nambla. Not to mention the exploitation of underlings by their superiors. I don't think anyone pushing for respect for homosexuals should ever by pointing to the Greeks and their exploitation of young men as a good thing.
Frankly I don't really care about if their are homosexual characters or not, though I would say that the fact that the only group that has been bothered by it in Pathfinder series was a immoral family is a bit disturbing. To me that shows there is not a very balanced view on this issue. It also indicates, perhaps subconsciously, that one can't be opposed to homosexual behaviour (whether done by a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, trysexual or whatever) and be a decent person in the viewpoint of the Paizo staff/writers. James' comments about how he finds such ideas disgusting do nothing to aleviate that viewpoint.
Actually, like it was pointed out earlier, you are incorrect. The NPC (Titus Scarnetti) is not evil in any version of Rise of the Runelords. He is LN. He is bothered by that because he comes from the oppressive police state of Cheliax, where anything that deviates from their tradition is deemed immoral. Put someone like that in the more free-spirited Varisia and you're bound to have problems. But again, he isn't listed as evil. The only two evil NPCs in Sandpoint are evil because they have dealings with the Scarzani.
Next time, I'd suggest actually reading the adventure instead of making false assumptions. Considering you've been in this thread long enough Cory, you should have read that post already.
Jessica Price Project Manager |
Alice Margatroid |
It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion)
Aw mannn. C'mon. Really?
helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employes
Huh. Seriously? Awesome!
May I ask who? Or is that too nosy?
Drejk |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC's Nightmare wrote:It's fine to say "homophobes" (which is a misnomer since it's disgust not fear that is the relevant emotion)Aw mannn. C'mon. Really?
** spoiler omitted **
Not to mention that disgust is common reaction in people suffering from phobia.
Gorbacz wrote:helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employesHuh. Seriously? Awesome!
May I ask who? Or is that too nosy?
Nope. It won't be. We had a thread for that purpose: Crystal and Lissa
Gaekub |
Odraude wrote:I don't know...
** spoiler omitted **
OH MY.[/takei]
I need to get the allclear to read the rest of Kingmaker it seems.
edit-Oh God that made it sound like I have a thing for that I DON'T HAVE A THING FOR THAT
edit2-I'm not saying it's wrong either.
edit3-But I'm also not endorsing...you know...with snakes.
edit4-Not that I'm suggesting people that are into that are into snakes
edit5-People that are into nagas I mean
edit6-Oh dammit
Mikaze, I don't know what gender you are, and I don't mean to emasculate or in any way demean you, but...
This is adorable.
Louis Lyons |
Addressing the topic of whether or not it is evil for a character (or a player) to be a bigot, to have a 'moral' objection to homosexuality. Given the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice but a fundamental aspect of biology and evolution that is consistent across the spectrum of social mammals, the equivalent here is someone having a 'moral' objection to people being born with dark skin.
[...]
It is pretty clear who the villains are in this story. People who despise others based solely on their skin color, race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, are the bad guys. It is possible to set up a sympathetic character who is also a bigot, if they have something horrific in their background that causes them to have this reaction to an otherwise good person. But it's difficult, and most people understand immediately that drawing a character as a bigot is shorthand for "this person is a jerk."
When we read or play these stories, we instinctively know that the bigots and oppressors are the villains. That much is clear. That's a pretty solid take-home message for real life, too.
I would like to take the time to point out that there is a vast gulf of difference between one's beliefs and the actions that one takes on those beliefs. Bigots do not necessarily become oppressors.
For example, one character might believe that most halflings are natural-born thieves, and be prejudiced against halflings. That does not mean that particular NPC will necessarily oppress halflings or join in a campaign of genocide against halflings. Such a person might even join the resistance against such a campaign because his bigotry butts heads against his empathy, and empathy wins out ("Just 'cause they're dirty little rock-chucking thieves doesn't mean they should be flat-out murdered!").
That is where the moral gray area really comes in. You may even have a bigot who has far more courage and who does far greater good than someone who is inclusive in their beliefs but is not willing to stick his neck out to defend the oppressed. Who is the more moral in that situation? The one with sincerely-held evil beliefs who does good in spite of those beliefs, or the one with sincerely-held goodly beliefs who will not act on them when the chips are down?
Crystal Frasier Production Specialist |
21 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:Nope. It won't be. We had a thread for that purpose: Crystal and Lissa
Gorbacz wrote:helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employesHuh. Seriously? Awesome!
May I ask who? Or is that too nosy?
That's us! Thank you everyone (even Corey) for helping us to get married. I thank you. My wife thanks you. Our puppy thanks you. And our eventual child thanks you.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TanithT wrote:Addressing the topic of whether or not it is evil for a character (or a player) to be a bigot, to have a 'moral' objection to homosexuality. Given the fact that sexual orientation is not a choice but a fundamental aspect of biology and evolution that is consistent across the spectrum of social mammals, the equivalent here is someone having a 'moral' objection to people being born with dark skin.
[...]
It is pretty clear who the villains are in this story. People who despise others based solely on their skin color, race, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation, etc, are the bad guys. It is possible to set up a sympathetic character who is also a bigot, if they have something horrific in their background that causes them to have this reaction to an otherwise good person. But it's difficult, and most people understand immediately that drawing a character as a bigot is shorthand for "this person is a jerk."
When we read or play these stories, we instinctively know that the bigots and oppressors are the villains. That much is clear. That's a pretty solid take-home message for real life, too.
I would like to take the time to point out that there is a vast gulf of difference between one's beliefs and the actions that one takes on those beliefs. Bigots do not necessarily become oppressors.
For example, one character might believe that most halflings are natural-born thieves, and be prejudiced against halflings. That does not mean that particular NPC will necessarily oppress halflings or join in a campaign of genocide against halflings. Such a person might even join the resistance against such a campaign because his bigotry butts heads against his empathy, and empathy wins out ("Just 'cause they're dirty little rock-chucking thieves doesn't mean they should be flat-out murdered!").
That is where the moral gray area really comes in. You may even have a bigot who has far more courage and who does far greater good than someone who is inclusive in their...
Yeah you might. I bet there were racists who opposed slavery too. And some less racist who just didn't want to rock the boat.
But by and large the abolitionists were less racist than the slave owners and their supporters. And later on, the white Civil Rights campaigners were less racist than the segregationists.Bigots are not necessarily oppressors, especially when it comes to the extremes of oppression, but they're a lot more likely to be. Maybe your hypothetical empathetic bigot doesn't want the halflings killed out of hand, but he's perfectly happy to have them run out of town. And God help a halfling accused of theft if he's on the jury.
Scott Betts |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that Paizo staffers have repeatedly stated that they have no intention to change their stance, you might want to exercise the most basic capitalist response and vote with your wallet, never buying any Paizo products again. Burning all books is optional, but over here in the godless sodomite union of soviet European lands, we used to have people who burned books and also gassed people for being different (including: non-straight) and that didn't end well.
And given that the salaries handed out by Paizo from money earned on *your* purchases helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employees, you might want to do that quick before it's too late and another pair of walking insults against nature's/god's order exchange rings bought thanks to *your* money.
But he already hates WotC! He'll have nowhere to go! It's almost like the world is shrinking around people like Cory.
He'll just have to start his own gaming company, founded on the guiding principles of liberty and freedom. He could call it Conservapaizo.
Drejk |
Drejk wrote:That's us! Thank you everyone (even Corey) for helping us to get married. I thank you. My wife thanks you. Our puppy thanks you. And our eventual child thanks you.
Quote:Nope. It won't be. We had a thread for that purpose: Crystal and Lissa
Gorbacz wrote:helped fund at least one LGBT wedding of Paizo employesHuh. Seriously? Awesome!
May I ask who? Or is that too nosy?
Won't you get a kitten too? :(
Crystal Frasier Production Specialist |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
All kinds of smiles right now :) Hope you two have a wonderful life!
Thank you! It feels absolutely wonderful that someone would willingly become family with me, especially since my parents once held ignorant, selfish beliefs not too distant from a certain "disgusted" poster in this thread, and threw their only daughter out on her butt.
There have been reconciliations since then, but the experience certainly makes one appreciate the people who accept her as she is.
Drejk |
He'll just have to start his own gaming company, founded on the guiding principles of liberty and freedom. He could call it Conservapaizo.
Look Gorbacz, Paizo-in-a-can! :D
Alice Margatroid |
Alice Margatroid wrote:All kinds of smiles right now :) Hope you two have a wonderful life!Thank you! It feels absolutely wonderful that someone would willingly become family with me, especially since my parents once held ignorant, selfish beliefs not too distant from a certain "disgusted" poster in this thread, and threw their only daughter out on her butt.
There have been reconciliations since then, but the experience certainly makes one appreciate the people who accept her as she is.
Internet hugs being sent your way! I'm lucky enough to have wonderfully supportive parents, but my girlfriend's mother is apparently "heartbroken" and they will probably never accept us as a couple. *shakes head* I just don't understand what makes people think that way about their own children...
I prefer the term gaycist over homophobic.
Never heard that term before. It also doesn't seem appropriate on some levels, namely being unintentionally exclusive to people who don't identify as "gay" but are still same-sex attracted. "Gay" is associated with "men" in my mind, I guess. Mind you, homophobia isn't perfect either. But language rarely is. :)
I try to avoid using the homophobia term because people will always yammer on about blah-blah-I'm-not-scared-just-morally-opposed kind of intellectually dishonest arguments. "Bigotry" or "discriminatory" seems to work in most situations anyway.
thejeff |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
thejeff wrote:I bet there were racists who opposed slavery too.Yeah, he was named Abraham Lincoln.
There's that too. But by the standards of the day, he was pretty low on the racist scale. By today's standards sure, but by today's standards damn near everybody back then was racist. And the people who were considered racist back then wouldn't even be welcome in the Klan today.
Scott Betts |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I try to avoid using the homophobia term because people will always yammer on about blah-blah-I'm-not-scared-just-morally-opposed kind of intellectually dishonest arguments.
Just point out that they're scared of homosexuality spreading or affecting their lives. You should use the word "homophobia", and you should explain why it applies, because it forces them to accept that the term applies to them.
At least, that's the idea.
Alice Margatroid |
Just point out that they're scared of homosexuality spreading or affecting their lives. You should use the word "homophobia", and you should explain why it applies, because it forces them to accept that the term applies to them.
While I agree with this 100%, it's tiring to have to rehash the same stupid arguments over and over. People become increasingly defensive if you label them with a term like that, but you can sometimes get cogent arguments from people if you avoid it.
Words like "racist", "bigot", "homophobia", etc have been used by the social justice community to try and "shame"/"other-ify" people, and the unfortunate backlash of that is that people will do anything they can to avoid applying the term to themselves. That way, they don't have to face the social shame/otherness and can feel more justified in their beliefs.
Wonders never cease, MPs do something right.
And Britain is now officially less conservative than Australia. What is this I don't even...
(yay for Britain, though!)
Liz Courts Webstore Gninja Minion |
James Jacobs Creative Director |
29 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that they made a gay paladin (Really? There are many DM's that could not conceive of him engaging in such behavior and remain lawful good and keep his paladin abilites.) and the only one in a small town that disapproves of the homosexual couple is "evil". That isn't just putting gay npc's in an adventure path. That is Paizo saying "Homosexual behavior is defintiely not evil, but disliking it is." That definitely has no place in an rpg.
Folks have already pointed out the errors in the above statement (Titus Scarnetti is not evil at all, he's merely an intolerant jerk and a bad father and a pretty accomplished aristocrat), bit as the "they" in question who dared to make the paladin gay in that adventure...
Yes, it was absolutely and positively a conscious decision to make a member of what is probably the most restrictive of all the character classes in the game and who must be lawful good a gay character. Precisely because doing so used the existing game rules to say without a shadow of a doubt that here, in Golarion, in the very first Pathfinder Adventure Path volume, homosexuality is a part of the world and it's one that we at Paizo intend to treat as something positive rather than negative.
AKA: If the class that's the most restrictive on what options it allows is okay with homosexuality, then by extension ALL classes must be okay with it.
100% on purpose. And I'm really glad that folks noticed it, and even more delighted that the vast majority of those who noticed liked it.
Erosthenes |
Ummm I have not read all the posts, but I have a serious question that might sound flippant. If my character undergoes a mandatory sex change, does she/he retain her original sexual orientation?
I won't wade into the discussion, but I am curious about the thoughts you all might have about my question.
Eros
Jeff Erwin Contributor |
Ummm I have not read all the posts, but I have a serious question that might sound flippant. If my character undergoes a mandatory sex change, does she/he retain her original sexual orientation?
I won't wade into the discussion, but I am curious about the thoughts you all might have about my question.
Eros
Well, my sister is trans. Most trans people retain whatever sexual orientation they were born with, some preferring men and some preferring women and some being more fluid. Gender is independent of this. Hence, if your character puts on a Girdle of Feminity/Masculinity (no longer a cursed item, thank you), for example, they will be still be attracted to whomever they were already attracted to. An elixir of love, however, could affect your sexual preference toward a specific person, without changing your overall preference for one or another gender.
Alice Margatroid |
Gender/sex is not connected to sexual preference.
For example, a trans* person might consider themselves heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or something else. The fact that a trans man might have the secondary sexual characteristics of a woman doesn't change the fact that he might identify as a gay man, being interested in men, or a straight man, being interested in women.
So, if you change your sex from male to female, and you were attracted to women as a man, you're not going to stop being attracted to women just because your "bits" changed. Depending on the circumstance of the sex change (a magical curse for example) you might still identify as a heterosexual man trapped in a woman's body.
Scott Betts |
Gender/sex is not connected to sexual preference.
That's not precisely true; while it's certainly the case that sexual preference and gender or physical sex can line up differently, it is overwhelmingly the case that if you are born physiologically male you will be sexually attracted to females, and that if you are born physiologically female you will be sexually attracted to males.
So it's not wholly correct to say that they always line up a certain way, but it's also not wholly correct to say that they have no relationship to one another.
Just a nitpick.
So now we're forced to wrestle with the question of what, exactly, a magical sex change changes. If it only changes primary sex characteristics, then sure, it's likely you'd end up attracted to the same group as before. But if it actually turns you into an opposite-sex version of you, it seems likely to me that your sexual preferences would be affected in some way. And likely with a lot of psychological trauma associated with reconciling the before and after.