I for one miss the old Random Harlot Generator table and think removing it moves the wrong way. I'd rather just add in a Random Gigolo Generator beside it so you can see if you've found a Genial Gigolo, a Pampered Catamite, a Typical Rent Boy, or perhaps an Aging Roue looking to procure the services of someone on either table.Indeed, and that implanted diversity is what pisses off some players and dms that don't want that in their games, or they want adventures to be of the old style (hetero if it comes up, no-homo).Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
To which I'd reply:
1) If they can't make those kind of minor changes to NPC relationships/backstorys on the fly, I'd say their game is gonna suffer much bigger issues.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength, female depictions in art were designed exclusively for the male gamers gaze, and half the female NPCs were some variety of whore/prostitute or female-hookup-not-yet-Freezered. Bleh. :(
and c) F@*# 'em (definitely not literally).
A Discreet Luggage-Lifter, mayhap?
(yeah, I'm bad)
Oh, that would be a Strapping Porter, like the one in "The Porter and the Three Ladies of Baghdad."
Oh, that would be a Strapping Porter, like the one in "The Porter and the Three Ladies of Baghdad."I for one miss the old Random Harlot Generator table and think removing it moves the wrong way. I'd rather just add in a Random Gigolo Generator beside it so you can see if you've found a Genial Gigolo, a Pampered Catamite, a Typical Rent Boy, or perhaps an Aging Roue looking to procure the services of someone on either table.Indeed, and that implanted diversity is what pisses off some players and dms that don't want that in their games, or they want adventures to be of the old style (hetero if it comes up, no-homo).Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
To which I'd reply:
1) If they can't make those kind of minor changes to NPC relationships/backstorys on the fly, I'd say their game is gonna suffer much bigger issues.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength, female depictions in art were designed exclusively for the male gamers gaze, and half the female NPCs were some variety of whore/prostitute or female-hookup-not-yet-Freezered. Bleh. :(
and c) F@*# 'em (definitely not literally).
A Discreet Luggage-Lifter, mayhap?
(yeah, I'm bad)
Random public bath encounter? It would make excellent table to any Roman-inspired game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
I actually did see the benefit of having different strengths for different genders---what they should have added was an ability for a woman to increase her weight to the equal of a mans to get equal strength IE become a body builder.
otherwise the woman has a clear advantage as she has less weight to lift herself up or for her mount to have to carry--all for the same strength.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is that ability - it's called writing 180 lbs on your character sheet in the "weight" column.
But y'know, I don't necessarily want my characters to look like body-builders, male or female, even if they have 18 Strength. How do they hit so hard? Magic! *shrug*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
I actually did see the benefit of having different strengths for different genders---what they should have added was an ability for a woman to increase her weight to the equal of a mans to get equal strength IE become a body builder.
otherwise the woman has a clear advantage as she has less weight to lift herself up or for her mount to have to carry--all for the same strength.
And she can have the same Strength as 35 pound halfling male. *shrug*
|
There is that ability - it's called writing 180 lbs on your character sheet in the "weight" column.
But y'know, I don't necessarily want my characters to look like body-builders, male or female, even if they have 18 Strength. How do they hit so hard? Magic! *shrug*
Not to mention, any reasonable human character traipsing around a dungeon in full plate and carrying a sword would not be some willowy little waif. 110 pounds is a reasonable weight for someone in the random-murder-and-body-looting profession that we call adventuring only if that person's lugging around a spellbook and dressed in robes (or if they're not human, but whatev's), or if their height is somewhere around five-foot-nothin'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention, any reasonable human character traipsing around a dungeon in full plate and carrying a sword would not be some willowy little waif. 110 pounds is a reasonable weight for someone in the random-murder-and-body-looting profession that we call adventuring only if that person's lugging around a spellbook and dressed in robes (or if they're not human, but whatev's), or if their height is somewhere around five-foot-nothin'.There is that ability - it's called writing 180 lbs on your character sheet in the "weight" column.
But y'know, I don't necessarily want my characters to look like body-builders, male or female, even if they have 18 Strength. How do they hit so hard? Magic! *shrug*
Except, D&D/PF makes no relation between height/weight and ability scores. So you can roll a character with maximum Strength and Constitution and still roll minimum when determining height/weight. Halfling with Str 16, Con 18 that is shorter than a stool is real possibility with rolled stats.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, D&D/PF makes no relation between height/weight and ability scores. So you can roll a character with maximum Strength and Constitution and still roll minimum when determining height/weight. Halfling with Str 16, Con 18 that is shorter than a stool is real possibility with rolled stats.Not to mention, any reasonable human character traipsing around a dungeon in full plate and carrying a sword would not be some willowy little waif. 110 pounds is a reasonable weight for someone in the random-murder-and-body-looting profession that we call adventuring only if that person's lugging around a spellbook and dressed in robes (or if they're not human, but whatev's), or if their height is somewhere around five-foot-nothin'.There is that ability - it's called writing 180 lbs on your character sheet in the "weight" column.
But y'know, I don't necessarily want my characters to look like body-builders, male or female, even if they have 18 Strength. How do they hit so hard? Magic! *shrug*
This is if you're rolling height/weight. :) I haven't rolled height/weight in ages - it's either irrelevant or I have a specific image in mind when I rolled the character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, and that implanted diversity is what pisses off some players and dms that don't want that in their games, or they want adventures to be of the old style (hetero if it comes up, no-homo).Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
Why does material being a little closer to real life "pisses off" these people. When roughly 1 in 20 people doesn't identify as hetrosexual, isn't it only reasonable that some LGBT folk turn up in these thing, just for realism sake?
I strikes me as some how at odd with reality to go "La, La, la, no gay in fantasy, La, la, la."
If you don't want it in your games just ignore them, let the people who are LGBT and who enjoy realistic stuff in their games enjoy it, don't spoil it for others because you yourself are narrow minded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always made it a point of order to try and include some degree of homosexual characters in the world. Not for any particular reason or expression, but because I feel it adds a tiny degree of realism to the game. Homosexuals are a thing, they aren't unnatural, so I'm not sure why in any world where they aren't hunted like dogs that they wouldn't exist. In fact, in several campaigns, I've had small plots based around the rights/protection of homosexuals, such as a nation that suddenly decided to exterminate them (a la Hitler), and the PC's getting the call to action to defend the innocents. The PC's ultimately made me chuckle when they ousted the monarchy and set up a new king who was homosexual, just to make a point.
I've also been willing to let a PC enact a homosexual relationship if they wish to pursue it, even if it isn't strictly comfortable for me. PC relationships don't come up often, but when they do it can sometimes be a small point of contention for my players. Some of them expect the NPC wife/husband to just bow to their every whim. I showed them recently that this would never be the case, when a Deck of Harrowing gave one of my stronger players a Marriage card, and he got saddled with a Shaitan wife, who was very pleased when he spent every penny he had on his wedding. It wasn't until later when he started begging favors of her that he learned that he hadn't simply earned a powerful cohort, because she started making him pay for her services with various favors, or just outright bribes. Give the lady a nice big emerald, she might just be up to plane shifting you and your party to where you want to go.
Meanwhile: I'm now going to work out a public bath encounter into my current campaign...
Indeed, and that implanted diversity is what pisses off some players and dms that don't want that in their games, or they want adventures to be of the old style (hetero if it comes up, no-homo).Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
Why does material being a little closer to real life "pisses off" these people. When roughly 1 in 20 people doesn't identify as hetrosexual, isn't it only reasonable that some LGBT folk turn up in these thing, just for realism sake?
I strikes me as some how at odd with reality to go "La, La, la, no gay in fantasy, La, la, la."
I actually find some of this funny, as many of the same people that want, say, firearms in fantasy to be more realistic, don't want diversity to be realistic. Boggles the mind to me.
However, before we dogpile any further, let me say that there is a small bit of truth in what loyalist has said. Bear with me here.
There are some people that like to game simple games of high adventure, without some of the cultural baggage you see in real life. Things like racism, sexism, prejudice, etc. Some people just want to play big damn heroes fighting villains without some of the real-world issues we deal with. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. And admittedly, with what's going on in our present time, it can be difficult to divorce adding a homosexual character from the social injustice aspect. I call this the Half Orc Syndrome. It's hard to have a half-orc (or tiefling or drow) in the game without everyone in town hating them. Likewise, it can be difficult to have homosexual characters in a game without having people in town hate them. Because that's conflict and conflict tends to make interesting stories and plot hooks (when done well).
It's not impossible, of course, and you could honestly, as a GM, make it happen. Hell, Golarion downplays sexism quite a bit (with it coming up rarely and for story matters) so it's certainly possible to have homosexuals (or any alternative sexuality) in a game without the prejudicial baggage. Sandpoint is probably a decent example, as nobody but one family is really is against the homosexual couple or even cares about it.
For example, I was once running a super hero game in the HERO system and I kind of prefer more mature games that do touch a bit on these issues. I wanted to have it take place in the Middle East and have the players deal with some of the religious and cultural themes of the area. However, my players... really didn't want to do that. They just wanted to save the world from Dr. Destroyer and not really delve into that. Especially one player, who was Jewish, expressed concern over that. So I switched my game to something much more light-hearted and while I was a little disappointed, we still had a great deal of fun playing the game.
Of course, I hope Paizo continues to publish adventures with all kinds of people in it, no matter the gender, race, sexuality, handedness (left-handers UNITE!!! ;) ) or whatever. And I hope that it allows for players and GM to have games that fit how they play. I personally run games that do delve into concepts like prejudice, extremism, and pure evil. But I also understand sometimes people get exhausted with dealing with that and so I also throw in plenty of chances for them to feel like Big Damn Heroes.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
...However, before we dogpile any further, let me say that there is a small bit of truth in what loyalist has said. Bear with me here.
There are some people that like to game simple games of high adventure, without some of the cultural baggage you see in real life. Things like racism, sexism, prejudice, etc. Some people just want to play big damn heroes fighting villains without some of the real-world issues we deal with...
But, as has been mentioned before, there are no sexual acts written in any Pathfinder module or AP. Heck, there's barely any flirting mentioned. All Paizo has included is the occasional LGBT NPC that dares to be open (to the players and GMs at least) about who they are and their relationships. Relationships, not sex. Which all the hetero NPCs have been doing since day one in the game. If the opposed don't want LGBT NPCs simply existing in the adventures, then they should strip out all the hetero NPCs and their relationships too... that means no marrying the prince or princess, no husband and wife tavern owners or famous retired adventurers, no kidnapping the daughter or son apprentice of the high wizard or merchant lord. But wow, does that kind of a setting seem no fun at all.
LGBT inclusiveness simply means an occasional NPC here or there that has the same agency, the same capacity to do good and not just evil or deviancy, the same random shot at love and happiness and slaying the dragon as the hetero NPCs.
That's f$+@ing it. The horrible bridge-too-far-agenda is that LGBT people are normal imperfect full-of-potential people too.
If that is too much, then they should just go play a game that makes them happy. If they want to stay and try to shame LGBT characters (and LGBT players and GMs, and their LGBT family and friends) back into the closet, well then they can f+~% right off.
...However, before we dogpile any further, let me say that there is a small bit of truth in what loyalist has said. Bear with me here.
There are some people that like to game simple games of high adventure, without some of the cultural baggage you see in real life. Things like racism, sexism, prejudice, etc. Some people just want to play big damn heroes fighting villains without some of the real-world issues we deal with...
But, as has been mentioned before, there is no sex written in any pathfinder module. Heck, there's barely any flirting mentioned. All Paizo has included is the occasional LGBT NPC that dares to be open (to the players and GMs at least) about who they are and their relationships. Relationships, not sex. Which all the hetero NPCs have been doing since day one in the game. If the opposed don't want LGBT NPCs simply existing in the adventures, then they should strip out all the hetero NPCs and their relationships too... that means no marrying the prince or princess, no husband and wife tavern owners or famous retired adventurers, no kidnapping the daughter or son apprentice of the high wizard or merchant lord. But wow, does that kind of a setting seem no fun at all.
LGBT inclusiveness simply means an occasional NPC here or there that has the same agency, the same capacity to do good and not just evil or deviant, the same random shot at love and happiness as the hetero NPCs.
That's f$**ing it. The horrible bridge-too-far-agenda is that LGBT people are normal imperfect full-of-potential people too.
If that is too much, then they should just go play a game that makes them happy. If they want to stay and try to shame LGBT characters (and LGBT players and GMs, and their LGBT family and friends) back into the closet, well then they can f+%$ right off.
I understand that and frankly, I honestly and whole-heartedly agree with you. I was just pointing out some people's trepidation on why they may not include them, which has less to do with the sex aspect and more with the cultural baggage that sometimes comes with it. It's not about shaming LGBT, but not wanting to get into the prejudice and social commentary that comes with it. Same with, say sexism or racism or religious extremism. Some people really just don't want to deal with that in game and unfortunately, some people feel that when you add alternative sexuality in game, you have to add the social injustice baggage. It is, in my opinion, a misplaced but understandable worry.
But again, Golarion does a good job of including people of all types with and without the social prejudice. Sexism, human ethnic hate, and homophobia is fairly downplayed unless it serves the story. Paizo has shown that you can have diversity without the cultural baggage of prejudice that can come with it. Or have it, if that's how you like to run. I think they are doing the right thing with their setting and hope that they continue to do treat alternative sexualities, different genders, and different ethnicities without being shamed or forced into a trope or caricature. But again, I'm a fan of having more diversity.
I understand that and frankly, I honestly and whole-heartedly agree with you. I was just pointing out some people's trepidation on why they may not include them, which has...
Yeah, I know you are. I'm just frustrated the same limp shallow arguments keep coming up even though they've been repeatedly exposed as inconsistent and ignorant.
I understand that and frankly, I honestly and whole-heartedly agree with you. I was just pointing out some people's trepidation on why they may not include them, which has...Yeah, I know you are. I'm just frustrated the same limp shallow arguments keep coming up even though they've been repeatedly exposed as inconsistent and ignorant.
Yeah I definitely agree. One argument that I always hated is the "only bring out such NPCs when appropriate to keep them from being special" argument. I think that's a pretty flimsy and moronic idea. First off, when IS the appropriate time to bring them out? Chances are, the person saying that really means never. Secondly, it does the opposite and continues to make them feel "special" if you continuously treat them as different. I'm of the opinion that if you really want to make anyone of alternate gender, sexuality, or ethnicity not feel "different" or "forced", you need to continue to have well-made diverse characters. The more diversity you have, the less anyone will bat an eye about inserting anyone into an adventure and it'll stop feeling "forced". I want people to feel that anyone can be an adventurer or villain, no matter who they are. Any ethnicity, any gender, any sexuality, any handedness, any body type, it doesn't matter to me.
For the record, I've never felt that the NPCs Paizo adds were forced. I applaud them for adding NPCs of all types in their adventures and I've always liked the diverse artwork we see. The fact that they have different ethnicities for the Mwangi, Garund, and Tian peoples really made me happy. I hope to see more and can't wait to see what they do with Arcadia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, and that implanted diversity is what pisses off some players and dms that don't want that in their games, or they want adventures to be of the old style (hetero if it comes up, no-homo).Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
Well, if they want to be bigots, they can gender switch or sanitize relationships into platonic affection as they prefer.
Their money spends the same. Don't expect Paizo to change to accommodate them though.
I had a comment in mind for views on homosexuality and the views of some people about Always Chaotic Evil Orcs, but I get the nagging impression that some people might get offended by their pet causes being compared to someone else's, 'cause fantasy bigotry is always okay when it's racial.
No, I'm not being serious. But I've played games with no darker folk, so my views may be skewed. I've had games with no overt intimacy, but the biological impetus does make certain aspects mostly-unavoidable unless the heroes are literally created whole-cloth from non-standard material, which I've played in a couple of games that did that too.
I've long been on the record as agreeing with my Alphabet Soup Brethren - I just don't have the same impetus and urgency for certain matters of inclusion in my games, either because they're already present, or it is not something that generates the desired conflict.
In my current game, the setting is a psuedo-Caribbean, Age of Sail/Discovery, Renaissance game, which picks up at the end of a large island war between the native nations and the colonists. So, there are certain themes that go with a setting like that. The rise of black powder firearms is a big one, as is exploration and colonization. Religion vs Secularism as well as Nationalism is another large one (mainly from the aftermath of the war). All the island nations, native or colonist, are on edge. Think "End of WWI" or Eberron after The Last War.
Slavery is also in this setting, and there are abolitionists, racists, and jingoists that the players do deal with, both with other races (drow, half-orcs, etc.) and other human ethnicities. One of the players plays an elf that hates drow (with them being established that drow aren't all evil), while another player's character is a bit more of a "bring civilization to savages" type of nobleman that has slowly turned away from this idea of thinking. My players and I are alright with this style of gaming, as it allows for interesting conflicts and plot hooks. I make sure not to go too far with this, obviously, and anyone that feels uncomfortable with the setting can always speak to me and I will tone things down.
There is room in a setting for that kind of conflict. And there is room in a setting for conflicts like sexism or homophobia, so long as your players are okay with it. That said, I believe that you can have alternative gender, ethnicity, sexuality, and body typed characters without bringing in the conflict of prejudice. One does not beget the other. If we can have different human ethnicities in a game and not have racism, or women in a game without sexism, then I believe we can have alternative sexuality in a game and not have homophobia. I still believe there is room for all types of people in any game, whether it be a story telling game or dungeon delving game. All people can be adventurers and kill orcs and take their pie in a 20x20 room :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That kind of players guide is unappealing both as an egalitarian and as a pervert.
No girls allowed! Girls have cooties.
And admittedly, with what's going on in our present time, it can be difficult to divorce adding a homosexual character from the social injustice aspect. I call this the Half Orc Syndrome. It's hard to have a half-orc (or tiefling or drow) in the game without everyone in town hating them. Likewise, it can be difficult to have homosexual characters in a game without having people in town hate them. Because that's conflict and conflict tends to make interesting stories and plot hooksWhat does our present time have to do with cultural norms on Golarion? Seriously?
It is canon that there is racial tension on Golarion. It is NOT canon that any of these fantasy cultures are irrationally prejudiced against homosexuals. Why would they be? Because of Judeo-Christian norms that don't exist on Golarion and have never existed there?
This is silly on a pretty epic scale, comparable to folks who think that a paladin of a fertility goddess in a fantasy world should automatically be chaste because their real world religion says so.
If you really want to play cheesy faux-medieval Europe with magic as a setting, go ahead and do that, but don't call it Golarion.
Pretty much what thejeff said above me. Golarion does not have Medieval/Renaissance morals. It is based on a wide variety of fantasy themes and tropes, both modern and past. There is racism (both of races and human ethnicity) in the setting, just like there is also sexism and, yes, homophobia in Golarion (see the Sandpoint couple). Obviously, Golarion isn't rampant with all of this. It is a setting tempered by modern-day morals because they are selling to people of the modern day and a setting rife with racism, sexism and such will not sell to a modern-day society. A good example is Erastil and how people reacted negatively to a Good deity that was also a bit misogynistic. Now, that has been retconned because people did not like it. Mind you, this is just Golarion. Not everyone runs Golarion or all of Golarion, so a GM's setting will be painted by a mixture of themes from fiction and modern day culture.
So yes, our present times and culture do influence Golarion. In Golarion, sexism is bad but exists, slavery is bad but exists, and racism is bad but exists.
Also, it's clear you missed my point, as I DISAGREED with the notion that in order to have diversity in a setting, you need to have social strife and prejudice as well. Please, read my posts more before calling me out for something we essentially agree with.
As a note for modern morals in the setting, look at anything Lovecraftian in Golarion. I love Lovecraft and his stories, but he was a racist and quite the Anglophile. His books were filled with dark-skinned cultists treated as savages and some "Yellow Peril" ideology bled out in the book He. Some pulp tropes unfortunately play off of similar themes. If Paizo and Chaosium didn't remove those from the Lovecraftian elements they use, I'm sure that there would be a good amount of people up in arms about it.
So again, modern day culture and morals play a larger part in selling the overall setting. Hell, the fact we are all arguing this and that this thread even exists only proves that modern day morals and culture play a big deal in the setting we play in.
Come again?yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.
average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbs
unfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.
encumbrance rules favor a female
Has Paizo explored hiring Janelle Jaqueys to write something?While there certainly wouldn't be any problem with doing that, other than the fact that she appears to be busy with other projects, a good chunk of Paizo's staff are already LGBT. And there are at least two Paizo freelancers in this thread who are out as being on the trans spectrum. There isn't so much a shortage of us here.
That and hiring folks should probably be based on how well they write rather than their orientation or gender status, no matter what orientation or gender status we're talking about. I understand Ms. Jacquays is a pretty awesome RPG writer so I'm sure anything she submitted would be happily considered, but I don't see it being entirely reasonable to solicit RPG writers based solely on their gender.
I actually just finished teh Know Direction cast about Diversity in Golarion and James Sutter touches on that a bit.
Contributor
|
Has Paizo explored hiring Janelle Jaqueys to write something?While there certainly wouldn't be any problem with doing that, other than the fact that she appears to be busy with other projects, a good chunk of Paizo's staff are already LGBT. And there are at least two Paizo freelancers in this thread who are out as being on the trans spectrum. There isn't so much a shortage of us here.
That and hiring folks should probably be based on how well they write rather than their orientation or gender status, no matter what orientation or gender status we're talking about. I understand Ms. Jacquays is a pretty awesome RPG writer so I'm sure anything she submitted would be happily considered, but I don't see it being entirely reasonable to solicit RPG writers based solely on their gender.
Nah, I was just thinking her history in the game is pretty way back. I have stuff she wrote that's nearly as old as I am; and good.
|
|
Come again?yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.
average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbsunfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.
encumbrance rules favor a female
... This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen and I have no idea how to respond to it.
There are GMs out there that make you roll for height and weight? That is awful.
Come again?yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.
average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbsunfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.
encumbrance rules favor a female
... This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen and I have no idea how to respond to it.
There are GMs out there that make you roll for height and weight? That is awful.
Unfortunately, in a twisted way, he is kind of right. Of course, the same could be said about having everyone just play wayangs, as they are A) light and B) have no Strength penalty. So, they can have an 18 Strength and really "abuse" these rules.
So I guess the question is, what is more important? Making sure the encumbrance rules that people rarely use are fair, or allowing character concepts of high strength females (like Bryndine of Scriber) to players? I personally think the latter is more important overall. Especially since encumbrance rarely comes up in games, unless players are trying to carry a lot of treasure with them. To me, this is about as much of an issue as venerable people having better Will saves and being better casters. Which, to say, is a non issue.
|
|
Come again?yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.
average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbsunfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.
encumbrance rules favor a female
... This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen and I have no idea how to respond to it.
There are GMs out there that make you roll for height and weight? That is awful.
Unfortunately, in a twisted way, he is kind of right. Of course, the same could be said about having everyone just play wayangs, as they are A) light and B) have no Strength penalty. So, they can have an 18 Strength and really "abuse" these rules.
So I guess the question is, what is more important? Making sure the encumbrance rules that people rarely use are fair, or allowing character concepts of high strength females (like Bryndine of Scriber) to players? I personally think the latter is more important overall. Especially since encumbrance rarely comes up in games, unless players are trying to carry a lot of treasure with them. To me, this is about as much of an issue as venerable people having better Will saves and being better casters. Which, to say, is a non issue.
Basically, he just stumbled onto why elite-class horse racing only uses the smallest and lightest jockeys it can find. ;)
Basically, he just stumbled onto why elite-class horse racing only uses the smallest and lightest jockeys it can find.
Is there any other kind?
Tbh I really dont think it really needs to be addressed. Imo it should only come up weither someone is straight or gay ONLY if its to add flavor or to describe the personality of someone. Like for ex straight really should come up if its describing someone whos a leacher of a certain sex or if someone saves fair damsels in distress so that he can find a wife. Flipside should only come up for ex if someone was a leacher of the same sex or if he/shes overly flamboyant etc.
Tbh as far as most personalities goes, u wouod really notice a difference in most sexes as far as the orientation. So no, I dont believe its needs to be broadcasted as far as EVERY or even MOST npcs are straight or gay....bc seriously unless it adds flavor to their character, there's really no reason to know and so that every npc can be played as we the dms want them to be played.
Bc seriously not every straight male is gonna be macho oozing with manlyness and on the flipside not every gay person is gonna be flamboyant or male haters. Most of ur npcs wouodnt act any different not knowing what their orientation was than if u did. So no, I dont believe there needs to be a shoving down ourbthroats of HERES npcs who are Straight and HERES npcs who are Gay! Because really, if it doesnt add flavor, it doesnt change a thing and actually restricts us in portraying characters the way we want to be by doing so.
Also quick question. I had a player who ONLY wanted to play elves until someone told him in 3.5 they were basically all gay because they didnt view race or sex as an issue, they wouod be attracted to people jo matter what their race or sex was and wanted to know if that carried over to pathfinder. Doesnt really matter bc I told him it didnt matter thatbhe played his character and if he was only attracted to females then by all means thats what it was and ur elf wasnt abnorm which basically solved the problem after I showed him it was silly to have reservations about that. Its more outta curiousity.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imo it should only come up weither someone is straight or gay ONLY if its to add flavor or to describe the personality of someone.
So, the fact that an NPC is black/white/asian/etc. or ginger/albino/bald or tall/short should come up ONLY if it adds flavor or describes personality? Because that's where your logic leads to :)
Heck, that means you can't put any artwork of NPCs *unless* their race/hair color/height/weight adds to the story.
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
How 'bout that Rise of the Runelords pushing that subversive and squicky heterosexual agenda? First week there, we had Shayliss (sp?) trying to get all down on one of our male PCs bidness, and then there was that fight between Ameiko and her dad, in which he brings up her mother, and then there's that heterosexual couple and their kids, with the goblin problem.
Straight agenda, all ham-fisted and anvilicious, 1, 2, 3, right up in your face! Why's everybody got to be talkin' about their opposite sex partners and children and all that political stuff that gives us simple folk an uncomfortableness?
Instead of shoving some conformist hetero-normative agenda down our throats, every NPC should exist in a vacuum, and have no parents ('cause that implies het sex happened) or love interests (moar seks) or children (again with the sex! Get off each other for a moment people, we're trying to kill goblins here!).
Or... maybe one in many dozens of NPC relationships being queer as a three dollar bill is actually not totally some sort of creeping tokenism or gay mafia agenda to en-gayify the chiluns?
Maybe in your game...shayliss totally hit on a female character when I ran RotR :)
I tend to run NPC's with Schrodinger's sexuality. Their sexuality is only fixed when it's relevant. If an AP or module calls for flirting/seduction of a PC by an NPC, sometimes the only player character that works for the scenario is the same sex as the NPC. In which case...surprise, the NPC is now Bi/Gay/Lesbian.
The alternative is to shoehorn it with weirder characters...I would much rather have a male human NPC chat up another male human NPC, than have to roleplay a human NPC attempting to seduce a kobold. Because....no...just no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bc seriously not every straight male is gonna be macho oozing with manlyness and on the flipside not every gay person is gonna be flamboyant or male haters. Most of ur npcs wouodnt act any different not knowing what their orientation was than if u did. So no, I dont believe there needs to be a shoving down ourbthroats of HERES npcs who are Straight and HERES npcs who are Gay! Because really, if it doesnt add flavor, it doesnt change a thing and actually restricts us in portraying characters the way we want to be by doing so.
A) This is already how it's done, so yay I guess?
B) Adding descriptive characteristics regarding NPCs isn't about restricting you. It's about creating a more complete, more engaging world.
Also quick question. I had a player who ONLY wanted to play elves until someone told him in 3.5 they were basically all gay because they didnt view race or sex as an issue,
That's not what gay means.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2. Admittedly the first thing that comes to mind when reading "rad lesbian crusaders" is a Joan of Arc/Iomedae-looking woman in full plate doing sick ollies on the skate ramp.
Alternately, Kyra jumping a bike over five slave-filled wagons while dropping flame strikes on the gnolls driving them.
[/childofthe80's-90's]
How 'bout that Rise of the Runelords pushing that subversive and squicky heterosexual agenda? First week there, we had Shayliss (sp?) trying to get all down on one of our male PCs bidness,
Man, she was a good time.
Anyway, I was reading the Anniverary Edition (before it was stolen at Socialist Summer Camp!! Die, theives, die!!!) and, IIRC, Shayliss could've gone either way. Which is hawt.
Ninja'ed by an Axe beak.
Come again?yet now the same woman has the same strength when she weighs 110 lbs and the male weighs 180 lbs.
2) Yep, the good old days, where all women warriors had a penalty to Strength,
a horse has a strength of 16. as a large quadruped it can carry 228 lbs before hitting a medium load.
average male human 120 + 2d10X5 average of 5.5 on roll is 11--so 175 lbs
average female human 85 + 2d10X5 average of 5.6 on roll is 11 so 140 lbsunfortunately if you have a gm who has you roll--there is a difference of the man only carrying 53 lbs before his horse slows down vs 88 for the female. that is a lot more gear--or armor.
encumbrance rules favor a female
... This is quite possibly the most ridiculous argument I've ever seen and I have no idea how to respond to it.
There are GMs out there that make you roll for height and weight? That is awful.
I agree. Hate having to random roll when i have a concept in mind. I have actually had a gm make you roll the stats in order----got rolls totally unplayable for the character I had in mind.
I would rather they do something like other games. Gender neutral.
humans weight would equal (strength + constitution)X6
so 10 str and 10 con would be 120 lbs
20 str and 20 con would be 240
your low str/low con wizards would weight less and your high str/high con fighters/barbarians would weigh more.
as for the encumbrance----almost every gm I play with uses that.
how many of you on the rope---how much do you weight--I need to check to see if it breaks
how much gear do you have? is your horse encumbered enough to slow it in the charge
ok-they are trying to haul you up on the rope-how much do you weigh for strength checks (instead of just letting characters automatically lift their max)
how much can the flying creature carry and stay aloft---how much do you weigh with all your gear. The same with featherfall if you try to grab someone falling. We JUST had this happen about 3 days ago. the 13 strength magus could not support the barbarians weight to featherfall them both.
weight and encumbrance come up with most gms. That is why most people take lightweight gnomes and halflings for charging on dogs. It is a delicate balance to not encumber the mount. I have seen characters have to take an action to take their backpack off once combat starts because its weight takes them up to the medium encumbrance. I have also seen them throw it off because its weight tipped the mount they were on to medium encumbrance.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How 'bout that Rise of the Runelords pushing that subversive and squicky heterosexual agenda? First week there, we had Shayliss (sp?) trying to get all down on one of our male PCs bidness, and then there was that fight between Ameiko and her dad, in which he brings up her mother, and then there's that heterosexual couple and their kids, with the goblin problem.
Straight agenda, all ham-fisted and anvilicious, 1, 2, 3, right up in your face! Why's everybody got to be talkin' about their opposite sex partners and children and all that political stuff that gives us simple folk an uncomfortableness?
Instead of shoving some conformist hetero-normative agenda down our throats, every NPC should exist in a vacuum, and have no parents ('cause that implies het sex happened) or love interests (moar seks) or children (again with the sex! Get off each other for a moment people, we're trying to kill goblins here!).
Or... maybe one in many dozens of NPC relationships being queer as a three dollar bill is actually not totally some sort of creeping tokenism or gay mafia agenda to en-gayify the chiluns?
Or we could go with the Stork theory and no one actually ever has sex, or at least if they do it has nothing to do with procreation. Have you ever seen a pregnant character in Golarion, excepting Lamashtu, who's always pregnant?
And since She has dominion over animals, She could use the Stork as one of Her heralds, so every sentient being on Golarion, even little human paladins, was spawned by Lamashtu and delivered by Her Stork.
This theory also lets gay couples have children without resorting to additional magic or adoption.