| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that despite claiming other reasons to be the major issue they have with the subject, most people who complained are not fully aware of what bothered them. I'm basing this on the fact that most of the complaints Iv'e encountered were simply at odds with the facts. The best example is the complaint about the supposed wasted space in a product, which I think has been established as "clearly not the case here, and not what got people started at all" - so if they know what's bothering them, why complain about something else that isn't true?Again, I'm inclined to agree with you. But I'd also like to try and take people at their word. But that in turn leads to things not making sense. I'm about to give up trying to understand this.
Lord Snow has flat out said that 'he doesn't believe me' because, whatever my personal experiences may have been, they don't pass the litmus test of HIS personal experiences. He doesn't leave open the possibility that perhaps I have had more experiences in my life than the ones directly involved in gaming, doesn't leave open the possibility that perhaps it was HE who needed more shared experiences and that others in the world might need less... but mostly, he doesn't allow for the possibility that someone can have a problem with potential over-inclusion of socially or politically charged issues without having a problem with the subject itself. If you think that two out of two couples in the first two books being LBGT seems forced or gratuitous, well CLEARLY you have a problem with LGBT, even if you aren't as wise and experienced as he and can't see it for yourself.
Its an incredibly ego-centric way of looking at things, to suggest that if a person hasn't had your experiences they can't possibly have achieved your level of enlightenment, to suggest that a person's stated comfort level is either a lack of self-awareness or an outright lie simply because they haven't walked the same road as you. As I said earlier, that kind of close-minded thinking is exactly the kind of thing this 'inclusiveness' is suposed to combat, even if it is from the other side of the aisle.
I wouldn't have made the initial post if I wasn't prepared for some degree of backlash or judgement, and I'm quite comfortable with his believing whatever he chooses to believe as its his right - but I would caution others against sharing the same view point lest they fall victim to the same arrogance.
|
I'm saying that despite claiming other reasons to be the major issue they have with the subject, most people who complained are not fully aware of what bothered them. I'm basing this on the fact that most of the complaints Iv'e encountered were simply at odds with the facts. The best example is the complaint about the supposed wasted space in a product, which I think has been established as "clearly not the case here, and not what got people started at all" - so if they know what's bothering them, why complain about something else that isn't true?Again, I'm inclined to agree with you. But I'd also like to try and take people at their word. But that in turn leads to things not making sense. I'm about to give up trying to understand this.
Lord Snow has flat out said that 'he doesn't believe me' because, whatever my personal experiences may have been, they don't pass the litmus test of HIS personal experiences. He doesn't leave open the possibility that perhaps I have had more experiences in my life than the ones directly involved in gaming, doesn't leave open the possibility that perhaps it was HE who needed more shared experiences and that others in the world might need less... but mostly, he doesn't allow for the possibility that someone can have a problem with potential over-inclusion of socially or politically charged issues without having a problem with the subject itself. If you think that two out of two couples in the first two books being LBGT seems forced or gratuitous, well CLEARLY you have a problem with LGBT, even if you aren't as wise and experienced as he and can't see it for yourself.
Its an incredibly ego-centric way of looking at things, to suggest that if a person hasn't had your experiences they can't possibly have achieved your level of enlightenment, to suggest that a person's stated comfort level is either a lack of self-awareness or an outright lie simply because they haven't walked the same road as you. As I said earlier, that...
Well, let me take this chance to apologize - earlier, when I said I didn't believe you, I myself was a bit confused about what was going on. I knew what you said made little sense to me - I just couldn't quite figure out what exactly was bothering me.
I believe I have now figured that out - the thought process was:
1) What Story Archers and those agreeing with him are saying is not making sense to me
2) However, Story Archer is far from the only one who suddenly had a problem with the LGBT NPCs, and so many others suddenly have a problem too that this can't be a coincidence and there is a cause, somewhere.
3) So what is the cause? what is different? in Reign of Winter there were two gay couples in back to back adventures, and no one complained. So is there a distinguishing feature that makes the new couples different than the previous couples?
4) The only one I could come up with is that this time around, the "gayness" of the NPCs in question is a far more prominent part of their role in the AP. In previous cases, the LGBT NPCs were a more utilitarian parts of an adventure - "rebel boss who helps PCs", "villain who roams the dungeon", etc. In WotR, those NPCs are there to be interacted with. PCs are expected to talk with them and like them, and so their romance is much more flashed out. As far as I am able to discern, this is the only difference between these NPCs and previous ones of very similar sexuality.
So had I written that previous post after figuring this out, I would have said my piece in a far less offensive manner. I would have simply pointed out what I think the actual problem with, and asked you if that could possibly be the case. What I did say in that post was more offensive, and I do apologize for that.
Alas, during an internet discussion it is sometimes difficult to maintain a perfectly civil tone. I'd freely admit, for example, that part of the reason I was being harsher with you than I normally am is your using some specific expressions like a "gay pride parade", which I'm sure you didn't mean to sound quite the way it did. Plus, the passive aggressiveness of your previous post was not appreciated by me at all.
Point is, I lost it for a bit, it can happen to anyone, and I wish to find a truce where both of us come out of this less angry than we are now. I would also like to repeat my question - could the increase of focus on the intimacy of the LGBT relationships have really been the part about them that got you to notice them more?
Peace :)
Point is, I lost it for a bit, it can happen to anyone, and I wish to find a truce where both of us come out of this less angry than we are now. I would also like to repeat my question - could the increase of focus on the intimacy of the LGBT relationships have really been the part about them that got you to notice them more?
.
For the record, I'm not angry now nor was I then. I just learned to pick my battles a long time ago when it comes to trying to convince someone of something when they've already decided otherwise. Better by far to keep other who are more open-minded from falling sway to that pattern of thinking than to try and lock horns with someone who's mind was made up before you set foot in the door.An interesting scientific fact was pointed out to me once, one that has reverberations when someone points out the way something another says may have 'sounded'... things aren't heard when they leave the mouth, they're heard when they reach the ear. In other words we bring our prejudices with us and they color the things we hear, not the things being said. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and, in my experience, people who become offended are very often people looking for reasons to become offended.
At any rate, apology accepted and indeed, any other comments I made, such as the Gay Pride Parade comment, were in no way intended as offensive. In a Gay Pride parade, the primary intent is to celebrate homosexuality and to promote general awareness... that also seemed to be the primary reason for these couples inclusion, an assumption given creedence by JJ's post above. And this leads to one of my pet peeves - the presumption that if someone says the word 'black' followed by a fact or opinion you don't like, then they MUST be racist, or if someone draws a comparison to a Gay Pride Parade in any but the most glowing of terms, then they MUST be a homophobe. Its attitudes like that that prevent important discussions from taking place and causes people to hold inside whatever they might be feeling, be it curiosity or frustration, for fear of being cast as a villian. It divides people, unjustly forcing an otherwise open-minded middle ground silently away from what could be a greater understanding.
Something to keep in mind as well - not everyone has read every AP nor made an effort to conduct a statistical comparison. Some could be picking up WotR as their first AP ever and for better or worse this could be their introduction to Paizo as a company.
As I said in my original post, I was planning on not including Horgus or Aravashnial in my campaign during the second book (I had other plans for them and I like reunions). I was also seriously eyeballing the halfling in the second book for exclusion as well, replacing her role with an NPC of my own cmaking. It wasn't until then that it occurred to me that 4 of 5 or possibly even 4 of 4 of my party's NPC's were going to be GLBT. In turn, that got me thinking about the trend of a rather dense population of GLBT characters in the first two books (not knowing what might come after, of course) and thinking of the progressive mindset displayed by many here at Paizo, JJ in particular. That then prompted me to come onto these boards and question their deliberate inclusion above and beyond what was required for the story and to caution against pushing a social agenda too hard or too quickly in a medium intended for entertainment and escapism - as worthy a perspective as it might be, pushing inevitably results in getting pushed back, and that's not the road I wanted to see this game company (or this product line) go down.
That's my take and that's where I'm coming from, plain and simple.
|
|
Well if there's one thing I'm taking away from this thread it's just how useful it is to present one's thought process when one it trying to get his exact point across. The thought process you are describing here would have been a much stronger opening post for the discussion, I feel, than the one you used. Similarly, had I completed my own thought process and wrote it down prior to writing the "I don't believe you" message, I would never have come off quite as offensive.
What you are saying now is that having dwindled away every other major NPC from the campaign, you only had gay NPCs left, which of course calls attention and made you reflect back on the increasing density of such NPCs in Paizo adventures. It also seems from your tone in this post that you are more making an observation than passing actual criticism.
From your original post I got another image entirely - you described how you and your group valiantly accepted the presence of NPCs through previous APs, when you then arrived to WotR and just about had enough of this new trend. That, at least, was the vibe I was getting from that post. Still, reading your original post I encountered a nice little quote which kind of renforces my idea:
its good in my opinion to encounter such realities of life in the game for versimilitude at the very least, provided that their lifestyle doesn't become the focus of or a distraction from the rest of the adventure
This kind of seems like you, too, felt that the difference this time is that the "relationship" aspect of the LGBT people was more pronounced this time around - but since the relationships are a very integral part of each of the members of each of the couples so far, unlike in previous APs (admittedly I never played or read Skull and Shackles) where it was more like a minor detail.
Anyho, I think both of us got whatever we could out of the discussion.
What you are saying now is that having dwindled away every other major NPC from the campaign, you only had gay NPCs left, which of course calls attention and made you reflect back on the increasing density of such NPCs in Paizo adventures. It also seems from your tone in this post that you are more making an observation than passing actual criticism.
From your original post I got another image entirely - you described how you and your group valiantly accepted the presence of NPCs through previous APs, when you then arrived to WotR and just about had enough of this new trend. That, at least, was the vibe I was getting from that post. Still, reading your original post I encountered a nice little quote which kind of renforces my idea:
its good in my opinion to encounter such realities of life in the game for versimilitude at the very least, provided that their lifestyle doesn't become the focus of or a distraction from the rest of the adventure
This kind of seems like you, too, felt that the difference this time is that the "relationship" aspect of the LGBT people was more pronounced this time around - but since the relationships are a very integral part of each of the members of each of the couples so far, unlike in previous APs (admittedly I never played or read Skull and Shackles) where it was more like a minor detail.
Anyho, I think both of us got whatever we could out of the discussion.
.
Actually no, I didn't illustrate how 'valiantly we accepted the presence of LGBT NPCs through previous APs' as if it were something to be grudgingly endured... what I did was use specific examples of how the PC's in my group themselves actually engaged in play representative of alternate lifestyles. I even made direct mention of how pleased one of our GLBT players was when she discovered she could play the character true to her own nature.You must have missed that somehow when dissecting my original post looking for quotes.
What I am saying now is what I said then, just as what you are hearing now is what you heard then - in your case that being what you want to hear in order to prove your original point.
I very much appreciate your renewed efforts at civility, but it seems to me that the only thing you're getting out of this discussion is the continued opportunity to hear yourself pontificate and judge others because you know what they mean, what they think and what they feel better than they do. Fortunately for all of us, that simply isn't the case.
Maybe the gays are marching to the Worldwound because they just have more to prove. Or...
@Story Archer:
Thank you for the clarification of where you're coming from. Thank you for taking the time to revisit the thread and type that out.
If you think that two out of two couples in the first two books being LBGT seems forced or gratuitous, well CLEARLY you have a problem with LGBT, even if you aren't as wise and experienced as he and can't see it for yourself.
Well, as I think I've tried to say before, it seems like the tone in this thread, for the most part, has been more civil, and I haven't seen a lot of outright homophobia or transphobia going on. What I've been trying understand is what the alternative to those possibilities that makes these characters seem forced or gratuitous. Or rather, I've been trying to find an alternative that makes sense and corresponds to what is actually contained within the AP.
(And note that I'm not trying to tell anyone their own reactions were not the reactions they say they were, I'm just trying to understand what those reactions mean, and where they come from.)
In a Gay Pride parade, the primary intent is to celebrate homosexuality and to promote general awareness... that also seemed to be the primary reason for these couples inclusion, an assumption given creedence by JJ's post above.
As Jacobs has stated, this was a reason to include these characters, sure. However, it's clearly not their only function in the story. They don't just pop up say, "Hey, you know what, I'm gay. Isn't that great?" Their backstory may not even come up within play if either the GM or the players are uninterested.
And their stories tie into themes of sacrifice (Anevia and Irabeth) and redemption (Aron and Sosiel) which seem relevant, thematically, to the setting and overall action of the AP. (There are even redemption rules in the Player's Guide.) Irabeth's story could also be tied into the distrust of outsiders that pops up sometimes during the Mendevian Crusades.
Given that, are you saying that if one function of a character is to help create a space for LGBT characters within the game, that renders all other functions irrelevant from an evaluative standpoint? That is, if a character is included for reasons of LGBT inclusiveness, does the fact that the NPCs are designed to serve other additional functions in the AP matter at all? After all, when speaking about any artwork or text, any given element may serve multiple functions, and have multiple motivations for being there. Doesn't the care with which these characters were tailored for this specific AP reduce the sense of them being "forced"?
And this leads to one of my pet peeves - the presumption that if someone says the word 'black' followed by a fact or opinion you don't like, then they MUST be racist, or if someone draws a comparison to a Gay Pride Parade in any but the most glowing of terms, then they MUST be a homophobe.
Well, I'd observe that some of the tone in your original post did come across to me as passive aggressively homophobic ("It's like a gay pride parade in the middle of the Worldwound," your ironic use of the idea of pride in the thread title). I understand, from what you just posted, that such was not your intent. However, the apparent tone of your initial post might have shifted some people's reading of your initial post in the very direction you didn't want it to go, as Lord Snow's posts seem to indicate. Particularly given how some of the discussions regarding this AP on this board have gone previously. (When I first clicked on the thread and read your post, the thread title ended up coming across as kind of spiteful. I felt some mental whiplash from what I expected from the thread title and the content of your post.)
I also think a gay pride parade is a poor analogy for what's going on here. Here's why. A pride parade is about celebrating diversity, about making your presence known. About visibility. But that's pretty much all it does.
In the AP, however, the PCs are not simply placed on display, or placing themselves on display, in any kind of a "We're here, we're queer" sense. They're fully thought out, fleshed out characters (or at least as fleshed out as any non-LGBT PC) who have a reason to be in Kenabres (or in Mendev in general), and who eventually have a reason to travel with the party. They seem to me to be the very opposite of gratuitous or forced.
Now, in saying that, I'm not attempting to dictate what you or others feel. If your reaction is that they are indeed gratuitous or forced, okay, that's your reaction.
However, given the execution of the NPCs, given their appropriateness for the AP, given how they are completely in line with the approach taken for NPCs in other APs for a while now, given that LGBT NPCs are themselves nothing new in Paizo's products, including recently, given that LGBT couples are nothing new in Paizo products, including recently, given that you also get NPCs in the AP itself whose heterosexuality is indicated, and indicated to a similar degree, given that the LGBT NPCs can be removed or have their orientation changed if the GM sees fit to do so, given that Jacobs has said as much....
Given all of that, the perception of the LGBT NPCs as forced or gratuitous seems to me baffling. Particularly once you take homophobia, transphobia, or getting hung up on a strict view of demographics off of the table.
Maybe different definitions of "forced" or "gratuitous" are being used. Can you explain, in specific terms, the way in which they seem to you forced or gratuitous? (You can of course say you don't care to do so. At this point, for the moment, I'm content to remain baffled and saddened by the negative response the characters have gotten from non-homophobes.)
That then prompted me to come onto these boards and question their deliberate inclusion above and beyond what was required for the story and to caution against pushing a social agenda too hard or too quickly in a medium intended for entertainment and escapism - as worthy a perspective as it might be, pushing inevitably results in getting pushed back, and that's not the road I wanted to see this game company (or this product line) go down.
Well, again, I'll continue disagree about the "above and beyond what was required for the story" part of it, for all of the reasons I've stated in my too numerous, too long posts in this thread. Setting that aside for the moment...
Do you really think that's going to happen? That these characters, and future characters like them, are going to bring Paizo down? Don't you think that Paizo has probably considered that there may be pushback, and that they're okay with it? They've said as much in various posts ("Don't like our stuff, don't buy it," or words to that effect).
Also, isn't that their choice to make as a company?
And aren't worthy things worth fighting for, worth taking a risk for, worth taking a bit of crap for?
I'm sure Paizo will be fine. I'm sure whatever customers they might lose (and really, the only possible backlash or pushback is a loss of customers), they'll pick up from those who aren't bothered by or are supportive of LGBT-inclusivity. (That's certainly the case with me - I started picking up their stuff because I heard about their attempts to be more trans inclusive.)
Let's say they continue along this path for another few APs, for another year or two, and there's no significant negative impact on the company, and they continue to produce a great game in a great setting. Would you, at that point, continue to voice this complaint and this concern?
|
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.
I have to disagree. That's saying that someone no longer counts as a relevant trans* individual after they have had their sex corrected. Am I no longer T in August when I have my surgery?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.I have to disagree. That's saying that someone no longer counts as a relevant trans* individual after they have had their sex corrected. Am I no longer T in August when I have my surgery?
Honestly? Depends on who you ask.
One of the singles sites I'm on has options for male, female or trans. I see Trans profile in the trans section, trans MtF in the female section, crossdressers (who are otherwise comfortable in their gender, just not their fashion) in the trans section, etc. It's a bloody mess.
I had a friend (mentioned her in the past, died of a heart attack) who was about as liberal as I am conservative. She didn't like trans (pre or post) referring to themselves as 'female' if their bodies didn't start that way. She argued they couldn't be really female as they never went through having their first period as a teen, being heckled for breasts developing out of their control (or not developing for that matter). She had trans friends, but always felt this way.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.
Cordian, I respectfully disagree.
Arguably the players will no nothing of the background of the NPCs the GM chooses not to reveal. While they could be played as heterosexual life partners, for example, as I mentioned in the last post, there are things that Anevia didn't go through that a female born would of.* A GM who knows the situation might be able to emphasize those aspects to get the point across.
*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@KSF
Honestly, I'm done trying to explain my 'secret motivations'... I thought I was incredibly clear in my first post and all of those positions have been further clarified in the posts that followed. I honestly and sincerely believe that there is nothing I can say that will sway people who - like you - opened the very first post with their minds all but made up, and as such I expect this back and forth to continue until whatever answer is being fished for finally gets offered up. I've spoken my piece and I'm content to leave it at that.
I would like to suggest however, that another question should be troubling you more than my motivations for bringing up the number of LGBT in the first two installments of a RPG... your initial reaction, and I don't doubt that of some others. My analogy of sound taking form when it hits the ear rather than when it leaves the mouth remains true. Think about it - when you read my title line 'Get Your Pride On', you had had no contact with me before, had no reason to suspect anything of my nature or any position I might hold... yet your admitted presumption was spite. There was absolutely nothing in the context of that title line to suggest anything other than a literal appreciation for the inclusion of LGBT, yet you immediately saw hate. I'm quite certain those words have been spoken and typed by both homosexual and heterosexual individuals countless times with no trace of spiteful or hateful intent, but in your mind, the presumption was exactly that.
That should be concerning, far more than my ability to count to four. Its been my experience that people who actively seek hate tend to find it. People who look for racism and bigotry and homophobia invariably discover it everywhere they look, and often to the exclusion of all else. Conversations that should be about subjects which are deserving of discussion instead devolve into debates over the motivations for bringing up the subject at all and usually over the character of the individual who did so... which in turn lead to defensiveness, the drawing of lines, division and ultimately silence rather than discourse. We've seen that here where the focus has often been what's wrong with me rather than the subject at hand.
The 'mental whiplash' you experienced was not the result of the contents of my post but rather your pre-suppositions based purely on a title that was in no way in and of itself offensive. That reaction alone tells me that there is little ground to be made in this discussion since the entire premise of it has been colored more by the assumptions of certain readers than by the intentions of original post itself.
I wish you and Lord Snow and others whom may have taken my words other than as intended the very best, and I hope that one day the presumption of spitefulness in others is something you can free yourself of. Understanding one another is the only way we will ever have true tolerance and inclusion in the modern world, and understanding has always been a two-way street.
Take care.
@Story Archer:
You're doing the very thing you're cautioning against. I harbor you no ill will, and do not think you dislike LGBT people. I also believe what you've said in terms of your position. I believe you genuinely hold that position. It is a position I do not understand. Hence my questions.
If you don't wish to engage with them, that's fine. You're not obligated to. Like I said, I am at this point content to remain baffled.
Regarding my reaction to the thread title, please note what I actually said about it:
Note what I posted:
When I first clicked on the thread and read your post, the thread title ended up coming across as kind of spiteful. I felt some mental whiplash from what I expected from the thread title and the content of your post.
It was not to the title itself. My first reaction was not spite. My first reaction was happiness. Please do me the courtesy of believing me when I say this. It was to the title in combination to the slightly mocking, very negative tone of your post. The title implies a celebratory or supportive post in regards to the AP. Your post was the opposite. At the same time, you did not come across in your post as someone who hates LGBT people. You made your acceptance of us clear. Hence the whiplash. If the post had come across as outright homophobia, or outright trolling, I would have dismissed it and not bothered returning to this thread.
Even then, I did see hate. I assumed you were just being sarcastic in order to make a point (as people do), but it came across as kind of a nasty sarcasm.
As I have said multiple times, I am not assuming you're homophobic. I am taking you at your word. I wish that you would take your own advice and not make assumptions about what people are thinking like you're doing right now.
I am not the sort that goes out looking to be offended. I am not the sort that assumes the presence of hatred or goes looking for it. I think if you look at my various posts on LGBT issues on this board, you'll see, except for the occasional moment when I lose my temper (as we all do from time to time), that there is an attempt to engage with, understand, educate and persuade people with opposing, misinformed or negative views. I work under the assumption that most people, if they take the time to think about it, and take the time to listen to what LGBT people have to say, will find that they can step away from whatever prejudices they have. That's what I've been trying to do in this thread. Trying to understand the pushback against the characters given that they do not seem in any way forced or gratuitous, and understand why that pushback did not have as its source outright hatred of people like me.
If you want to actually read what I said without coming into it with your own presuppositions about what I'm thinking and what I think about you, I'd be up for having a conversation. If you'd rather to continue to make assumptions about me that are inaccurate, if you're not interested in helping someone out who is genuinely trying to understand your position (after having taken for granted that your stated position is your position), I'll wish you well.
About the AP itself, my position is that what Paizo is doing with these NPCs is a lovely thing. I've never had the experience of reading something like Anevia's backstory in an RPG before. Given that RPGs have shaped my imagination over the course of my life, I was deeply moved by Paizo's decision. I hope they continue to have characters like this, but of course, not only characters like this.
And I think there's nothing wrong with a little politics in one's entertainment. They are not inherently anathema to each other, particularly when the politics do not interfere with the other functions of the story being presented. I also think, even though it's "just entertainment," entertainment is important. Look at what Vice President Biden said when he came out in support of gay marriage, that his views changed partly as a result of watching "Will & Grace," a piece of light entertainment (in which 50% of the 4 main leads were gay). Biden's statement in turn led to Obama coming out in support of gay marriage.
Entertainment can influence people, whether to make it clear to people who have no contact with LGBT folk that we're just like them, or to provide to LGBT people a sense that they can be accepted, and can have fulfilling lives like everyone else.
That's my position on the AP, on this debate, on you, and on your post, as clearly stated as it can be. Again, if you don't feel like taking your own advice, and looking past your own presuppositions (that everyone is looking for a reason to be angry, and is assuming the presence of hate where there is no hate), I'd be more than happy to continue discussing this AP and the larger issues around it with you.
Otherwise, again, I wish you well.
|
|
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.I have to disagree. That's saying that someone no longer counts as a relevant trans* individual after they have had their sex corrected. Am I no longer T in August when I have my surgery?
Will you want people to think of you as a transgender, or as a person of the gender you are transitioning to? My point isn't so much that Anevia is no longer trans but that the way she is presented in the storyline is like a cross between "she is a strong character because she found love and a way to achieve her dream" and "this is a thing that happens in Golarion.
Both of those are fine things indeed, but as far as her role in the story I think she would be more interesting and more relevant if she was still transitioning. Perhaps leading to a PC wizard to do the gender switching for her later on in the path as an act of friendship. I would believe it to be more meaningful in general and especially to trans players if it played out that way, but if you disagree I admit I don't have your experience to draw on.
|
|
While I am a B and not a T and really can't speak for the T aspect, I feel like Anevia would have been a better representative if she hadn't already had the magical transformation. At that point she is simply a woman in a lesbian relationship and the T is rather irrelevant and unlikely to come up in the story unless the GM really stresses it, and if the players never know she was a he then the T players don't get quite the same joy as I would as a player seeing Aron and Sosiel.I have to disagree. That's saying that someone no longer counts as a relevant trans* individual after they have had their sex corrected. Am I no longer T in August when I have my surgery?Will you want people to think of you as a transgender, or as a person of the gender you are transitioning to? My point isn't so much that Anevia is no longer trans but that the way she is presented in the storyline is like a cross between "she is a strong character because she found love and a way to achieve her dream" and "this is a thing that happens in Golarion.
Both of those are fine things indeed, but as far as her role in the story I think she would be more interesting and more relevant if she was still transitioning. Perhaps leading to a PC wizard to do the gender switching for her later on in the path as an act of friendship. I would believe it to be more meaningful in general and especially to trans players if it played out that way, but if you disagree I admit I don't have your experience to draw on.
It doesn't matter what I want people to think of me as. I will be a post-operative transsexual at that point. I'll still be representative of transgender people. Transgender and female are not mutually exclusive. I'm both now, and will be both then. Anevia is an example of a transgender success story, and is just as important as showing someone who is still transitioning.
@Story Archer:
Very important typo in my reply, spotted it after the edit timer was up:
Even then, I did see hate.
That should read:
Even then, I did not see hate.
Sorry, had to type that very quickly this morning before work.
Also, to add one more thing:
People who look for racism and bigotry and homophobia invariably discover it everywhere they look, and often to the exclusion of all else. Conversations that should be about subjects which are deserving of discussion instead devolve into debates over the motivations for bringing up the subject at all and usually over the character of the individual who did so... which in turn lead to defensiveness, the drawing of lines, division and ultimately silence rather than discourse. We've seen that here where the focus has often been what's wrong with me rather than the subject at hand.
I actually agree with that, and that is generally part of my guiding philosophy when dealing with people on LGBT issues, including on this board, in this thread, and with you.
Anyways, you've probably written me off by now, which is your right. I do hope you take the time to read this post and my previous post, and grant me the same courtesy that I'm granting you. And if I have caused you any undue stress, I apologize. I have tried to be very clear in where I'm coming from, but apparently, I was not clear enough.
Once again, I wish you well. And I hope your group's run through WotR is an enjoyable one, and that you're not prevented from enjoying it as a result of active Paizo's pro-LGBT stance.
I had a friend (mentioned her in the past, died of a heart attack) who was about as liberal as I am conservative. She didn't like trans (pre or post) referring to themselves as 'female' if their bodies didn't start that way. She argued they couldn't be really female as they never went through having their first period as a teen, being heckled for breasts developing out of their control (or not developing for that matter). She had trans friends, but always felt this way.
That's a position similar to that held by trans-exclusive radical feminists. It's a divisive issue within some strands of feminism, but one which I think is finally starting to fade. Just an FYI.
(Also, trans women can get plenty of heckling about their bodies, actually.)
One idea would be to have her have more masculine body language or mannerisms.
That's actually something trans women tend to work on (or sometimes never had). Given that Anevia spent her adolescence presenting as a girl, she'd have had a lot of time to practice, and would have had less time for more masculine body language or mannerisms to become her default.
A character with a different history, yeah, I could see that, but not for all trans female NPCs, and most likely not for Anevia.
Both of those are fine things indeed, but as far as her role in the story I think she would be more interesting and more relevant if she was still transitioning. Perhaps leading to a PC wizard to do the gender switching for her later on in the path as an act of friendship. I would believe it to be more meaningful in general and especially to trans players if it played out that way, but if you disagree I admit I don't have your experience to draw on.
I get what you're saying, and I'd like to see stories like that told within Pathfinder, but I agree with both things Cori Marie is saying.
I agree that you're still trans after you transition, because that's the life experience that has shaped you. I'm partway through my own transition, and I might never be able to afford the surgery. But if I ever do, I'll still consider myself transgender. (Note that some people who go stealth after transition might argue the opposite. This can be one of those "how you choose to identify" things.)
And seeing stories of trans people who have achieved success, who are not still struggling with regards to their gender, I think that's useful and important for trans and non-trans people alike. (For non-trans people, it helps move past the supportive but restrictive notion of trans people as inherently tragic.)
Ideally, it'd be great to have both sorts of characters appear.
|
|
One good way to do it I may use, is that polymorph effects are dispellable, and a cruel demon type would certainly enjoy using that to his advantage (or it couod simply be a side effect of dispelling a buff). I just think that for it to have any meaningful impact on the AP the GM should not be the only person who knows about it. I know it is suggested Horus could bring it up, but I would rather he simply be a pompous entitled brat rather than someone that cruel.
One good way to do it I may use, is that polymorph effects are dispellable, and a cruel demon type would certainly enjoy using that to his advantage (or it couod simply be a side effect of dispelling a buff). I just think that for it to have any meaningful impact on the AP the GM should not be the only person who knows about it. I know it is suggested Horus could bring it up, but I would rather he simply be a pompous entitled brat rather than someone that cruel.
If you have any trans players in your group, you might want to run that scenario past them first. The idea of one's transition being undone is a distressing one. (Real world equivalent: having to stop your hormone intake for medical or financial reasons.) I agree it can produce drama, but make sure you're getting the type of drama you want.
Maybe an alternative would be to change the timeframe, so that Irabeth hasn't acquired the potion yet, or the attack on the city happened when she was squaring the deal to get the potion, something like that. If I was in your game, I'd rather engage with a story of Anevia pre-transition and trying to transition than seeing Anevia forcibly detransitioned, and then trying to re-transiiton, if that makes sense.
Yeah I am leaning toward Anevia still being in transition, I am running for six straight males, but I think they will all wanna be helpful towards Anevia, especially after learning her story. She is certainly the most likable of the three.
Cool. Hope it goes well.
When we get a ton of LGBT representation then I'll understand. Until then just let us be happy that we finally get some characters that look and love like us.
I don't begrudge you the other 99% of straight characters in RPG products.
I don't agree that 99% of the characters in an RPG are straight.
The vast majority of things a PC runs into (including humanoid NPCs and intelligent monsters) are not sexualized at all. We have no idea what their sexual orientation is. And sometimes with monsters, we don't even know gender, or they may not have a gender. Mostly because it doesn't matter. And even when we do know the NPC's sexual orientation (the blacksmith with a wife and kids for example), that NPC isn't a major part of the story most of the time.
If you look only at NPCs which are a significant part of the story, we still see that sexual orientation isn't defined for the majority of them. Of the ones that do have a sexual orientation, the ratio of hetero to LGBT is a LOT less than 99 to 1.
So it isn't just the number of LGBT NPCs that seems gratuitous, it's the number of LGBT NPCs who are a major part of the story and whose sexual orientation is specifically called out which seems gratuitous.
I haven't read many sourcebooks for the 3.5 campaing settings, but are you telling me that no NPC on those books was married, had children or had parents? Or L5R where every-freaking-one is married, and there are no LGBT people? Or in adventures, for who is the hand of the princess (the daughter of the King and the Queen), the female or the male adventurers?
It seems that people refuse to see that non-LGBT relationships are the norm in the media, so when they see some that are LGBT they freak out.
|
|
Or L5R where every-freaking-one is married, and there are no LGBT people?
While I don't disagree with your larger point, I feel I should point out that being married does not necessarily bar one from being LGBT, particularly not in a society where arranged marriages are common (as is the case in Rokugan). Also, with regard to your spoiler...
Or L5R where every-freaking-one is married, and there are no LGBT people?While I don't disagree with your larger point, I feel I should point out that being married does not necessarily bar one from being LGBT, particularly not in a society where arranged marriages are common (as is the case in Rokugan). Also, with regard to your spoiler...
** spoiler omitted **
Okay then, I'll rectify: to my understanding, none of the many NPC described in L5R books are LGBT.
As to Shayliss, I'd swear that in the original it was as I said, although I can't go look now.
Shayliss is indeed bisexual. No one in the party is safe!!!!
I thought at this point everyone in Golarion wsa bi, or bi unless otherwise stated. I mean there is Kofusachi who thinks everyone should be bi or omnisexual despite what an individual was born as.
It's not that I have a problem with LGBT relationships, either in real life or in the game (FAR weirder relationships have been role-played at my gaming table). It just seems like Paizo is trying a little to hard to seem inclusive. It's like they're making a special point of calling out the LGBT relationships for no real good reason.
I'm assuming you mean "no real good in-game reason." Apologies if that's not the case. (There are good real world, out-of-game reasons for what they're doing.)
If they are making a special point of calling out the LGBT relationships, if Paizo is trying to be inclusive (and I'd suggest they're less interested in seeming inclusive and more interested in being inclusive), could you explain why that might be a flaw, or worthy of critique, or something that gives you pause?
You're cool with LGBT relationships in general (which is great). So what is it about the presence or presentation of these relationships that supersedes your usual "no problem" view of LGBT relationships, and your more general acceptance of LGBT people?
(Note: Those are genuine questions, not a critique of you. Feel free to not answer, if you don't feel the need to.)
Edit to add: Is the fact that many people tend to assume characters are heterosexual as a default unless indicated otherwise worth taking into account here? I'm not saying you make such assumptions, but it's a common thing for many people to do. Does that play into this at all?
Or L5R where every-freaking-one is married, and there are no LGBT people?While I don't disagree with your larger point, I feel I should point out that being married does not necessarily bar one from being LGBT, particularly not in a society where arranged marriages are common (as is the case in Rokugan).
That's true, but in Golarion, at least, there's a lack of stigma agains homosexuality. There'd be no need for gays or lesbians to remain in the closet and marry someone of the opposite sex. And same-sex marriage is possible, as The Worldwound Incursion demonstrates, so if a lesbian or gay individual wanted to settle down with someone, they wouldn't be forced to go against their orientation. Also, if arranged marriages come into play here, you could just as easily have arranged same-sex marriages. So, in Golarion, opposite sex marriage would probably function as a good indicator that the characters are not homosexual (unless otherwise indicated).
It'd be different for bi folk, of course, since a bi person is going to marry a person they want to settle down with, regardless of that person's gender (and someone doesn't stop being bi if they're with someone of the opposite gender). So, you're correct, opposite sex marriages would not preclude someone being bi.
And trans people are out of the discussion entirely, since gender identity is separate from sexual orientation. The relevant characteristic would be if such a character is heterosexual, homosexual (like Anevia), or bi.
So in the Pathfinder campaign setting, marriage status does nothing to indicate B or T status, but does carry a strong implication about L or G status.
Molten Dragon,
Thanks for taking the time to think about my questions and to respond to them.
I have some follow-up questions, but you don't have to answer them if you don't want to.
Irabeth's sacrifice for Anevia is tied to a specifically LGBT aspect of Anevia's character (her transgender status). It can also be seen as thematically relevant to the overall AP (making a sacrifice for a loved on in the face of a massive battle between good and evil.) Would keeping that thematic hook in mind make Irabeth and Anevia less of a source of irritation?
Like Irabeth and Anevia, Aron and Sosiel's relationship ties into themes relevant to the AP, those of temptation and redemption. (The Player's Guide even includes a redemption mechanic.) Considered that way, as a thematic hook for the GM, does that make them less of a source of irritation?
If Irabeth and Anevia's status as a lesbian couple, and Aron and Sosiel's status as a gay couple has no direct impact on the plot or storyline, does keeping in mind the fact that their status has no negative impact on the storyline affect your level of irritation?
If there was no real world controversy or argument over the status of LGBT people in our culture, would Paizo's inclusion of the couples as LGBT couples (with or without in-game utility) still be irritating?
Would the presentation of additional explicitly (rather than implicitly) heterosexual characters and relationships affect your reaction? Does the inclusion of details that indicate Aravashniel's heterosexual orientation offset the negative feelings you have about the inclusion of LGBT-related details about Irabeth and Anevia?
Does the fact that several of Paizo's employees are LGBT themselves affect any of this? Would it be possible (and possibly less irritating) to view all of this as Paizo simply creating products which reflect the experiences and values of the very people who are creating the products?
I'm not really adding much here, but when I first gave the AP a glance, I wish the relationships of the characters tied more into the events. If I run the AP, I might tinker with a few events to make that more a possibility... But, this is no biggie to me. In fact, it's a trivial issue.
Honestly, I don't mind if James has an "agenda" or viewpoint or whatever that he wants to get across. I mean, Paizo itself has agendas too. In fact, everything has an agenda, whether it's intentional or not. Now, in order for games to be viewed as an art, we have to get past the notion of "don't shove your conflicting ideas into my game." We say games are art, but when someone has a different viewpoint, we say not to 'take it so seriously.' And thus, all we have a consumer product, nothing to discuss or innovate upon.
And, as long as the adventure's fun (which it looks like it is) and these characters are interesting/helpful enough (they certainly seem to be both), it's time to grab your character sheet and get ready for a trek into the Worldwound!
It's like with Golarion in general. You don't have to like APs with lasers, ninjas, steampunk, or what have you; but there should still be something for everybody. Back on topic, some of my former D&D Encounters players who are openly homosexual were pleasantly surprised when I told them that LGBT characters were canon in Golarion, so it is important. Needless to say, they've joined playing PF.
Them's pretty much my 2 cents.
Occupied with other issues I fell behind on reading the current AP and to catch up took them with me on vacation. I liked the Worldwound Incursion, and while I found the background was overly complex between Anevia and Irabeth I thought they were interesting NPCs. I started the Sword of Valor and upon noting Sosiel and Aron I thought, “Hmm, now a guy couple, seems a bit cliché after the other pair.” It was especially odd since the only couples in the AP were LGBT, no mention of any significant other for Horgus and Aravashnial broke up with his girlfriend. This however spoiled neither the AP nor my vacation. It wasn’t until several days after returning and addressing the usual post vacation minutia that out of curiosity I checked to see if there was a thread on the topic. Indeed there were, including some offended, “Cancel my subscription” posts. I’m certainly not offended, but having the only couples in the AP be LGBT seemed forced and diminished them, either pair would have be more interesting without the other. Paizo’s effort to be inclusive was clunky, they forgot that if a little is good more isn’t necessarily better.
Occupied with other issues I fell behind on reading the current AP and to catch up took them with me on vacation. I liked the Worldwound Incursion, and while I found the background was overly complex between Anevia and Irabeth I thought they were interesting NPCs. I started the Sword of Valor and upon noting Sosiel and Aron I thought, “Hmm, now a guy couple, seems a bit cliché after the other pair.” It was especially odd since the only couples in the AP were LGBT, no mention of any significant other for Horgus and Aravashnial broke up with his girlfriend. This however spoiled neither the AP nor my vacation. It wasn’t until several days after returning and addressing the usual post vacation minutia that out of curiosity I checked to see if there was a thread on the topic. Indeed there were, including some offended, “Cancel my subscription” posts. I’m certainly not offended, but having the only couples in the AP be LGBT seemed forced and diminished them, either pair would have be more interesting without the other. Paizo’s effort to be inclusive was clunky, they forgot that if a little is good more isn’t necessarily better.
Ah, but keep in mind the way that APs are actually written.
This is how, as some have complained, AP segments can end up feeling too similar - such as the flooded dungeons in Skull & Shackles.
The point being that each author was creating their NPCs with a desire to be inclusive, which resulted in what feels to you, "redundant" NPCs relationships.
|
|
Occupied with other issues I fell behind on reading the current AP and to catch up took them with me on vacation. I liked the Worldwound Incursion, and while I found the background was overly complex between Anevia and Irabeth I thought they were interesting NPCs. I started the Sword of Valor and upon noting Sosiel and Aron I thought, “Hmm, now a guy couple, seems a bit cliché after the other pair.” It was especially odd since the only couples in the AP were LGBT, no mention of any significant other for Horgus and Aravashnial broke up with his girlfriend. This however spoiled neither the AP nor my vacation. It wasn’t until several days after returning and addressing the usual post vacation minutia that out of curiosity I checked to see if there was a thread on the topic. Indeed there were, including some offended, “Cancel my subscription” posts. I’m certainly not offended, but having the only couples in the AP be LGBT seemed forced and diminished them, either pair would have be more interesting without the other. Paizo’s effort to be inclusive was clunky, they forgot that if a little is good more isn’t necessarily better.Ah, but keep in mind the way that APs are actually written.
Each author gets an general outline (taken from the meta-plot for the AP) as well as a few specific must include elements.
The writers then work in parallel, often with only limited communication between them.
This is how, as some have complained, AP segments can end up feeling too similar - such as the flooded dungeons in Skull & Shackles.The point being that each author was creating their NPCs with a desire to be inclusive, which resulted in what feels to you, "redundant" NPCs relationships.
I'm pretty sure that the two couples were gay by design, and not as a coincidence. This AP is an attempt to more deeply incorporate NPCs into the campaign, so the NPCs are a big deal. Having the two gay coupled is not a coincidence, it's a deliberate choice.
I will repeat my previous point from this thread - this is not at all the first time we had LGBT couples in back to back issues of an AP. People are only paying more attention this time around because this time the NPCs are more about being friends of the PCs than the utility focused NPCs of previous campaigns. So their "LGBTness" is felt more strongly. But having this amount of LGBT couples in Paizo adventures is nothing new and no one had any trouble with it previously.
But having this amount of LGBT couples in Paizo adventures is nothing new and no one had any trouble with it previously.
Indeed - but if people are actually having trouble with it this time around, then it could be because of this:
People are only paying more attention this time around because this time the NPCs are more about being friends of the PCs than the utility focused NPCs of previous campaigns.
Now they're 'in your face', so to speak, and people are "forced" to deal with them (some think it's "forced", others just use 'em and carry on). Previously, these relationships could just be ignored... now, they have to be 'dealt' with in some way. So the response isn't entirely surprising.
My only problem is that, IMO, Paizo is wasting large amounts of precious space and word-count on all this NPC relationship stuff (and that's for BOTH hetero and LGBT) when they really should just be getting on with the actual adventure - particularly noteworthy when Paizo themselves constantly complain amount limited word-count space. What can (and should, AFAIC) be done with a simple single 7-character word ("married" or "partner") is starting to take up too much space. And Paizo and NPCs have been... spotty at best (see complaints around Jade Regent). Now, if Paizo does the unthinkable and increases word- and page-count, come back and talk to me. [And finally - let's not do a gaming-Godwin with 'roleplay!' vs. 'rollplay!' responses, please. Yeah, I get it. NPCs. Blah blah blah.]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James stated earlier in the thread that it wasn’t a case of parallel design, but a purposeful decision. As I wrote, sometimes more isn’t better. Having 100% of the couples and 2/3 of the allied NPCS be LGBT strikes me strangely. I’d have the same criticism if 100% of the couples and 2/3 of the allied NPCs were ½ dragons. I recall James Jacobs lamenting that in Red Hand of Doom he was required to have a plethora of half dragons, something he felt had been overdone. He was right, in the early days of 3rd Ed they were the cool new kids and showed up far too enough. Dungeon magazine also had them on a list of items they didn’t want to see in submissions, along with necromancer and his undead army. I’m not suggesting that the two couples make LGBT inclusion overdone, but that for this AP it seemed clunky, artificial and that the pair ended up detracting from each other. I’ve read the passionate posts on the topic in a variety of threads and found some quite poignant, but to me it’s akin to ½ dragons.
Creative Director
|
In fact, ALL of the significant NPCs were initially created, named, and given their basic personalities and profiles by me during the outlining process of the Adventure Path. I gave each individual author the tools they needed to develop the stats and history further—in some cases, I went in and made some significant adjustments to make things fit with the other adventures.
Whether or not we're "wasting large amounts of precious space and word-count on all this NPC relationship stuff..." depends on the reader. But since making recurring NPCs on both the ally and enemy side of things was a BIG goal of mine for this Adventure Path... I wouldn't personally call it a waste at all. It's one of the primary goals for the entire AP, as primary as making a mythic AP that goes to 20th level or as primary as making an AP that works real well for paladins or as primary as making an AP that features strong redemption themes or as primary as the "Sometimes good is ugly and evil is beautiful" themes.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed this too, reading through the Adventure Path. I was like "woah, two same-sex couples featuring in prominent roles."
Then I realized that I wouldn't have had the same thought if they were opposite-sex couples.
It's like the first issue of Shattered Star, when I realized that almost every NPC is female. I, certainly, wouldn't have noticed if they were mostly or even exclusively male. Even a cursory reading would show that's normal in modules and at my table when ad libbing.
It's also like Burnt Offerings, when I realized that the NPCs care about sex. This enormous drive that defines so much of who we are and what we do... left out because I hadn't stopped to think about it enough.
For me at least, having a bunch of same-sex couples is important because it makes me take notice. Because if I don't notice that I've been screwing this up for decades, I can't even start fixing it.
So to Paizo I say "Keep challenging my privilege." I'll still be a middle-class college-educated white dude in an opposite-sex relationship. But I'm not going to grow as a person or a GM if my assumptions don't get rattled sometimes.
Cheers!
Landon
|
|
But having this amount of LGBT couples in Paizo adventures is nothing new and no one had any trouble with it previously.Indeed - but if people are actually having trouble with it this time around, then it could be because of this:
People are only paying more attention this time around because this time the NPCs are more about being friends of the PCs than the utility focused NPCs of previous campaigns.Now they're 'in your face', so to speak, and people are "forced" to deal with them (some think it's "forced", others just use 'em and carry on). Previously, these relationships could just be ignored... now, they have to be 'dealt' with in some way. So the response isn't entirely surprising.
My only problem is that, IMO, Paizo is wasting large amounts of precious space and word-count on all this NPC relationship stuff (and that's for BOTH hetero and LGBT) when they really should just be getting on with the actual adventure - particularly noteworthy when Paizo themselves constantly complain amount limited word-count space. What can (and should, AFAIC) be done with a simple single 7-character word ("married" or "partner") is starting to take up too much space. And Paizo and NPCs have been... spotty at best (see complaints around Jade Regent). Now, if Paizo does the unthinkable and increases word- and page-count, come back and talk to me. [And finally - let's not do a gaming-Godwin with 'roleplay!' vs. 'rollplay!' responses, please. Yeah, I get it. NPCs. Blah blah blah.]
Actually, the way I understand it people complained that they didn't have enough about the NPCs from Jade Regent (they were introduced in Brinewall Legacy and then promptly forgotten in later books of the AP, except for the occasional mention and a rather silly gifts mechanic). I believe one of the reasons James cared about doing an "NPCs matter" AP was the complaints about Jade Regent.
What can I say? I'm really glad you agree with me that people are only irked this time around because the LGBT relationships are more central to the plot (because the LGBT NPCs are more central to the plot) - and if many of the people who were bothered realize this, then Mr Jacobs actually achieved his goal of being inclusive while making his customers come to terms with that, which is awesome. About "too much space devoted to NPC and NPC relations" - here is a matter of taste, and I really enjoy the current amount of space devoted to NPCs. I think any adventure feels more meaningful if there are people you care about helping, and WotR does a better job of this than any AP Iv'e seen so far (though I do prefer the cast of Curse of the Crimson Throne... but honestly, even being on a comparable level to that AP as far as roleplaying goes is a major achievement Iv'e never seen done in years). To each their own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James stated earlier in the thread that it wasn’t a case of parallel design, but a purposeful decision. As I wrote, sometimes more isn’t better. Having 100% of the couples and 2/3 of the allied NPCS be LGBT strikes me strangely. I’d have the same criticism if 100% of the couples and 2/3 of the allied NPCs were ½ dragons. I recall James Jacobs lamenting that in Red Hand of Doom he was required to have a plethora of half dragons, something he felt had been overdone. He was right, in the early days of 3rd Ed they were the cool new kids and showed up far too enough. Dungeon magazine also had them on a list of items they didn’t want to see in submissions, along with necromancer and his undead army. I’m not suggesting that the two couples make LGBT inclusion overdone, but that for this AP it seemed clunky, artificial and that the pair ended up detracting from each other. I’ve read the passionate posts on the topic in a variety of threads and found some quite poignant, but to me it’s akin to ½ dragons.
.
Obviously the exact same story could have been told if Irabeth and Anevia had been a heterosexual couple and Anevia had needed magical aid for some other purpose, like a particularly powerful curse or exotic magical disease. It could have even been extortion money for some darker deed in Anevia's past (which would have made for a lot more interesting backstory for the characters to explore in my opinion, and would have fit better with the themes of redemption). Similarly, the circumstances between Sosiel and Aron would have worked just as well, would have been just as impactful or tragic had they been brothers - in fact, I personally think that would have worked even better. I'm not always tolerant of what people choose to put up with from their significant others, but family is family.But these decisions weren't made with the story of the Worldwound in mind. The Worldwound was simply a backdrop for this socially progressive message/political statement... and that's fine. Its Paizo's company and I think all companies should do more to responsibly to promote their beliefs whether its Paizo, Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby. Whether I agree with one message or the other is immaterial in this free society, its just up to me whether or not I choose to support those decisions with my dollar. Well, I still eat at Chik-Fil-A, I still shop at Hobby Lobby and I still have ongoing subscriptions at Paizo (the Great Golem sale nearly bank-rupted me).
As I said, nothing wrong with a company staying true to the core beliefs of its owners and employees - but we have got to stop pretending that this is something other than what it is.
And as an aside, with so many listings of all the different LGBT characters and couples that Paizo has included in the past, why weren't Sosiel and Aron brothers? It would seem by the examples given that NPC's who are siblings are much less well represented than those in the LGBT community despite there being more of them. Do we need to worry about whether this under-representation of those with brothers or sisters are causing people feeling excluded from the gaming community, or is it safe to simply 'assume' that people know these characters have family out there and get on with our gaming?
Shayliss is indeed bisexual. No one in the party is safe!!!!
And thank the Gods for that!