| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it would have needed to come through Harry's eyes, since the whole thing was Harry POV.
So, not only would she have needed an excuse for Harry to know about it, but she'd also have to include a tract about what the Wizarding world thought about homosexuality.It's not quite as simple as it seems.
Now I'm going to spend at least half an hour thinking up hilarious ways for Harry to walk in on Dumbledore and a boyfriend I'm tentatively casting as Ian McKellen. Or maybe he uses a pensieve loaded with Dumbledore's memories and gets a really hot time from back in the day.
|
Now I'm going to spend at least half an hour thinking up hilarious ways for Harry to walk in on Dumbledore and a boyfriend I'm tentatively casting as Ian McKellen. Or maybe he uses a pensieve loaded with Dumbledore's memories and gets a really hot time from back in the day.Except that it would have needed to come through Harry's eyes, since the whole thing was Harry POV.
So, not only would she have needed an excuse for Harry to know about it, but she'd also have to include a tract about what the Wizarding world thought about homosexuality.It's not quite as simple as it seems.
You know, if I looked I bet I could find at least a half-dozen fanfics on this theme...
|
Sorry for the delay, but I probably could have worded that better.
When I said he has to have at least one redeeming feature I meant being in a loving relationship and he hides all that with how acts, his extremely over the top boisterous attitude came off to me as closeted.
As an aside note I do view sexuality as a good thing, regardless of orientation or gender, whatever helps a person find happiness is a good thing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... Something about her bone structure never really sat right with me for a female.
Please reconsider basing your idea of someone's gender on what you think a specific gender's "bone structure" should look like. Not being "xgendered looking enough" is a common point of insecurity for many people, both trans and CIS-gendered.
I seriously do not even know what to think or how to respond to this? This is exactly why the "rational person" was mentioned earlier. It isn't an idea, it's an observation. And in my opinion, did not seem feminine. I am not saying that to somehow hurt trans people, but because it is something I noticed. Her facial features, to me, appear more masculine than feminine, leading me to believe that she might be one of the tans iconics. Seriously, if that ruffles your feathers and the other 8 to favorite the post, I really gotta suggest professional help.
Now I'm going to spend at least half an hour thinking up hilarious ways for Harry to walk in on Dumbledore and a boyfriend I'm tentatively casting as Ian McKellen. Or maybe he uses a pensieve loaded with Dumbledore's memories and gets a really hot time from back in the day.Except that it would have needed to come through Harry's eyes, since the whole thing was Harry POV.
So, not only would she have needed an excuse for Harry to know about it, but she'd also have to include a tract about what the Wizarding world thought about homosexuality.It's not quite as simple as it seems.
Hubba hubba!
Samnell, have you ever read anything by Samuel R Delany? Stars in My Pocket like Grains of Sand would totally fulfill your needs.
Edit: Not on the "Hubba hubba" side so much as the emotional side of the story.
Also, Doodlebug, The Jewels of Aptor is early work, so, just, whatever, man. (Wait, that was a different thread, huh?)
Just don't come back here and tell me about it.
Haven't you guys yet learned what happens when you tell me not to do something?
--
Finally picked up a Delany book, Dicey, The Jewels of Aptor. Any hawtness in there?
--
Woah, Dicey is psychic!
Just don't come back here and tell me about it.Haven't you guys yet learned what happens when you tell me not to do something?
--
Finally picked up a Delany book, Dicey, The Jewels of Aptor. Any hawtness in there?
You don't even read my edits, do you Doodles? (I'm calling you Doodles from now on.) No hotness whatsoever, but a fair amount of weirdness quotient in that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got an edit of my own, Dicey.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously do not even know what to think or how to respond to this? This is exactly why the "rational person" was mentioned earlier. It isn't an idea, it's an observation. And in my opinion, did not seem feminine. I am not saying that to somehow hurt trans people, but because it is something I noticed. Her facial features, to me, appear more masculine than feminine, leading me to believe that she might be one of the tans iconics. Seriously, if that ruffles your feathers and the other 8 to favorite the post, I really gotta suggest professional help.... Something about her bone structure never really sat right with me for a female.
Please reconsider basing your idea of someone's gender on what you think a specific gender's "bone structure" should look like. Not being "xgendered looking enough" is a common point of insecurity for many people, both trans and CIS-gendered.
I can't remember if I favorited this or not in the first place, but:
On a given day, about one in every ten women I see has facial or body features that could be interpreted as belonging to a trans woman (and this is in terms of walking around the Mall of America, not going into queer spaces). Now, it's very likely that 10% of women are not actually trans (a near certainty, actually), but yeah, be aware that in the real world making assumptions about what a woman is "supposed to" look like is very problematic, and it is NOT oversensitive to point that out. It IS, however, oversensitive to not be able to take constructive criticism without snapping back.
On this particular I can say that I have put my foot in it big time. I encountered a nice young lady over a decade ago at a gaming con who's features were as some put it, less classically feminine. I made the mistake of referring to her as 'sir', only to realize, after she fled the room red-faced, that I should have been paying closer attention.
Regarding Seelah, I've taken an up-close look at her multiple times, I play Paladins a lot, and I can't really say I see her as being much outside the 'norm' for Femininity. Her features are outside my norm, but I'm Caucasian & every woman I have ever had a relationship with was also Caucasian...
That doesn't mean she looks any less like a feminine woman than my ex-wife.
|
|
First off, you are implying a tone to the response that was not there, or adding to what wasn't.
How is it problematic? Males and females, in general, do have different builds, bone and muscular structures, and other physical differences in appearance. There are obviously exceptions, but, which should have gone without saying. We make judgment calls on what is based on how it compares to "what it is supposed to be". Disagreeing with this would mean that we have no right to call her a "her" at all. Despite having breasts, and one would assume other female parts, a rather feminine build, and all of the other objective observations we can use to come to the conclusion that she is actually a female, lets just ignore all that, right.
It's not at all a case of anyone "snapping back".
I wouldn't take it as a personal attack, Beckett - she was just letting you know that the way you voiced your observation could be considered insensitive and/or offensive, which is just as valid.
Well, we do know that we encounter both a Half-Succubus & the Demon Lord/Lady of Succubi...
The odds are good they are bi & they're definitely evil...
|
|
Only 2 parts in and WoTR is shaping up to steal my favored AP from LoF :3I mean I think I'm the only one in my group who really cares about this sorta thing (the gm has been dropping this so I don't know if he's excited or if he's just being his usual self and knows I get hyped for this sorta stuff) but it gives me warm fuzzies, even if it's nothing big.
But it makes me wonder, are there evil lgbtq characters in this? I mean hell I would love that, having good and evil homosexual, bisexual, transexual, etc etc in this. That way it would make them seem more human, if that makes any sense, y'know?
Back in Curse of the Crimson Throne, Ileosa was probably bi and definitely evil.
Also, several evil lesbians in Reign of Winter.
Not sure about the evil gay d00ds, but yeah.
|
|
Only 2 parts in and WoTR is shaping up to steal my favored AP from LoF :3I mean I think I'm the only one in my group who really cares about this sorta thing (the gm has been dropping this so I don't know if he's excited or if he's just being his usual self and knows I get hyped for this sorta stuff) but it gives me warm fuzzies, even if it's nothing big.
But it makes me wonder, are there evil lgbtq characters in this? I mean hell I would love that, having good and evil homosexual, bisexual, transexual, etc etc in this. That way it would make them seem more human, if that makes any sense, y'know?
Back in Curse of the Crimson Throne, Ileosa was probably bi and definitely evil.
Also, several evil lesbians in Reign of Winter.
Not sure about the evil gay d00ds, but yeah.
Hmm perhaps Kotschie?
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how my Golarion handles it - I don't have them.
It's simple to me: introducing homosexuality to a medieval fantasy world does not add value.
But Golarion is not our Earth medieval history. And homosexuals existed in our medieval history anyway.
All it does is make a real-world declaration of, "See? LBTQX is normal."
LGBT folks are people that deserve to be treated as people?!
Characters do not gain depth because they like others who have the same parts. They could have depth anyway, but the homosexuality, at best, does not change anything. At worst, it becomes a crutch.
By that same token, they don't lose depth. See below.
A character with homosexuality coming into play with their characerization is just as valid and interesting as a character whose heterosexuality comes into play. No more, no less.
But it's definitely a nice thing for folks that can relate to that element of those characters. And homosexual gamers get far fewer of those characters than we heterosexual gamers do.
I see no value in begrudging others those characters. What if you had a gay player at your table? Or any player that wanted to play a LGBT character?
However, for example, the relationship between CRIMSON THRONE SPOILERS EDITED OUT
That's peculiar, because as written
What is not there is Sabina merely seeing Ileosa as a "chance to get some nookie".
I've made the mistake of reading some comments threads on MRA articles today so I'm all out of outrage for the day.
However, I will respond to this one:
All it does is make a real-world declaration of, "See? LBTQX is normal."
You're right, because being queer is normal, and it isn't anything new - we've been around for a while now, thanks for noticing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fergurg, ignore the liberal rage and run the game as you see fit for your group and yourself. Everyone else, worry about your own games, and quit trying to tell people that they're playing their own games wrong.
Oh, you.
I'm not a "liberal", so it isn't "liberal rage" from my end - its irritation at being told that I'm not "normal" :)
How odd. I'm not entirely in disagreement with both Sara and Beckett.
On the tact front, I sorta see why Sara'd have a 'dood not cool' about the appearance thing - mind, I also know many women who would fall more into the handsome category than conventionally beautiful. I know far less men who are more pretty than handsome, but that's mostly due to the circles I travel in. I also know a few transpeoples whom with I am either friendly or acquainted, who either completely avoid the stereotypes or are ears-deep in them, from the clearly displayed traits of the ex-gender-identity to being in the lead-up to the reassignment, and are so far from my personal thing that I can't think of a more tactful way of expressing my views than as I had before, faulting the limitations of science and being clearly cisgendered and of a more binary viewpoint. I can see where Beckett's observation comes from, though it is, to say the very least, gauche to point them out...especially since there's a good chance that, in context of Golarion, such by-products are likely to be a non-issue. Also, having seen Seelah as a child, she's clearly been a girl from birth, and I don't see her as having issues with being who and what she is in any form aside from atoning from the character defining trauma of her youth. As always, I could be wrong.
Is it so bizarre that I find the way some people focus on the implicit inclusions of homosexuality as somehow a failing or antagonistic insertion as slightly weird and amusing? I ask this out of the somewhat skewed assumption that, orientation assumptions are the responsibility, province, and 'problem' of the observer, and not the observed. To wit, if someone asks me, all indignantly, 'ZOMG WHAR R UR GAYS?' I can just say, 'well, they've always been there, but you've not asked, and most haven't had any interest in you. There's a ton of NPCs for me to play, and where it isn't relevant, why would it matter who they're schtupping, unless you're planning to either seduce them, or try to do something to their significant other?' Some have already voiced it as a cop-out, but I respectfully disagree, much as I don't expend unnecessary energy expecting Garundi to show up in the Lands of the Linnorn Kings without plot-driven cause.
That being said, just as in the Real World, just because it exists doesn't mean it is drawing attention to itself all the time. Like Luxembourgers, or people from Rhode Island! :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That being said, just as in the Real World, just because it exists doesn't mean it is drawing attention to itself all the time. Like Luxembourgers, or people from Rhode Island! :D
My deep respect for European solidarity demands me to take offense on behalf of our valiant yet territory-challenged friends! Comparing them to Rhode Island! PREPOSTEROUS!
That being said, just as in the Real World, just because it exists doesn't mean it is drawing attention to itself all the time. Like Luxembourgers, or people from Rhode Island! :DMy deep respect for European solidarity demands me to take offense on behalf of our valiant yet territory-challenged friends! Comparing them to Rhode Island! PREPOSTEROUS!
Would you rather I compare them to Wyoming, also known to fans of Garfield and Friends as 'The State that Isn't There?'
Though I tend to recall it more as being the Dark and Forbidding Realm of Cheneys; however, that's political, and I shan't address that in THIS thread...
There's a town in Rhode Island called Wyoming, true story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it so bizarre that I find the way some people focus on the implicit inclusions of homosexuality as somehow a failing or antagonistic insertion as slightly weird and amusing? I ask this out of the somewhat skewed assumption that, orientation assumptions are the responsibility, province, and 'problem' of the observer, and not the observed. To wit, if someone asks me, all indignantly, 'ZOMG WHAR R UR GAYS?' I can just say, 'well, they've always been there, but you've not asked, and most haven't had any interest in you. There's a ton of NPCs for me to play, and where it isn't relevant, why would it matter who they're schtupping, unless you're planning to either seduce them, or try to do...
Its been expounded on to death here, but I'll go back over it one more time:
1) What your NPCs do on their own time is up to you - you aren't required to have your NPCs announce their sexuality to the table.
What I find wrong is when people say that they won't add the LGBT characters in their campaign because they're "not normal", yucky, or that they "don't include sex in their games" (if I mention LGBT relationships to a homophobe and they immediately think of gay sex, I can't really help them).
This is, to me, the same as folks removing non-whites from their campaign setting because they find them repulsive - and that's offensive! We exist, and no amount of scrubbing a campaign setting clean in the name of "realism of the medieval era" is going to make you not look like a jerk. Surprise! Golarion isn't medieval England, and even if it was, we were there too!
2) Golarion isn't your campaign setting until you sit down with your players - before that, it belongs to Paizo, and they have every right to add in LGBT characters as anyone else does in excluding them. Here's the difference: Paizo's campaign setting is global, and it is the right thing to do to add people of all types and walks into that world of heroes.
Growing up, I wanted to be a hero, but I only saw heroes who where the opposite of me. Heroes in the 80s and 90s were always mega masculine, sometimes outwardly homophobic, and about 90% of the time some shade of misogynistic.
I don't identify with that guy.
Sometimes its nice to see a hero who's like you when you're growing up. If all you're shown about "people like you" is that they're criminals, or creepers, weirdos, or the butt of the joke, you tend to withdraw a little and feel like you can't belong anywhere.
So I appreciate it when companies like Paizo step up and say "hey, there are these people who've been playing our hobby with us for decades, and no one wants to include them - let's fix that".
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So let me explicitly declare what I was implying - Pathfinder is not the place to make real-world declarations, especially ones with the potential to be divisive, as clearly this one is.
You cannot escape making real-world declarations when you play Pathfinder. Whenever you mention a character who happens to be married or have children or have romantic feelings for someone of the opposite sex, you are declaring "Hetero relationships are normal." The fact that you don't consider that a declaration just means that you have internalized it to such a degree that it never occurs to you to question it, or think of it as something that is even appropriate to question. That is precisely what people mean when they talk about "privilege", incidentally.
You might respond, "Well, yes, but hetero relationships are normal," and you would be right. But LGBT relationships are normal, too. And so it begs the question of why it is okay to make real-world declarations about one (which you are, all the time, whether you realize it or not), but not the other.