| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this thread is probably going to go so very wrong, but it's based on my own observations. To start, I'm bisexual and pretty much always play bisexual characters, another of our players is trans and plays lesbians with a soft spot for trans girls (when they occur). I love romance and always involve my characters in it. Without exception. I GM more often than any in our group, so I often have bisexual or gay NPCs that aren't written into the AP along with those that are. I decided to challenge myself, after playing and GMing through several Pathfinder APs. I was playing a heterosexual woman in Reign of Winter. My GM, after reading the AP, told me that there were next to no available, straight males that didn't want to do horrible things to my character and took one of the NPC romance options, Solveig, and made him male. Which was awesome, but then.... I took a look at all the in game couples and available NPC romance options and noticed that almost all of them were gay, a huge portion being lesbian. Which is awesome in many respects; Pathfinder has been one of the only companies or even written mediums that I've seen take lesbianism seriously and not having it be something that the poor girl recovers from once she is met with sufficient beefcake. I love Anevia and Irabeth, Sosiel and Arin, the paladin and the playwright in Sandpoint, Ileosa and her gf on the sly and may have even shipped Ameiko and Shalelu just a touch. Thank you, guys at Pathfinder for creating such enchanting couples. Buuut, then I look at the sheer amount of them vs straight couples and the fates of most of the straight couples. Natasha in Reign is a single mom (which was a bold move on Paizo's part) whose husband was murdered, Ameiko's love was murdered by hillbilly ogres, Vencarlo Orisini lost fingers to his ex ( I think?), the family of three in Sandpoint had the husband get devoured alive by a goblin in front of his young son, Ameiko's parents had a serious falling out (ha), Shalelu's mom was eaten by a green dragon, the witch and...
I’ll admit that I bristled when I first saw the thread title, but your post raised some points that I found interesting, though I think they could use some untangling. As a disclaimer, I’ve only read the Curse of the Crimson Throne in its entirety, because I’m running it for my home game, and what I know about other APs is confined to what I’ve learned from playing through the first volume, say, or from the Player’s Guides, or from discussions I’ve seen on the messageboards.
Like some of the other posters have suggested, I’d need to see or work out a more detailed breakdown of “in-game couples and available NPC romance options” to decide how queer those really are, and what they’re doing. In the first place, I would separate those categories more strictly, because I think they are doing different things. I see in-game couples as just being there, with their relationships possibly having an impact on their interactions with the PCs, and not suggesting anything about an AP’s romantic possibilities. After all, a couple is its own thing, self-contained, whether queer or not. I mean, when I think of Anevia and Irabeth, my first thought is not that they might be able to recommend a nice lesbian bar in Kenabres. :)
As to available NPC romance options, I’m not familiar enough with all of the APs to be sure as to how many APs do more than perhaps just mention a possibility in one volume or another. I know it was a thing for Jade Regent, but for the others? There’s Trinia in CotCT (and maybe Vencarlo, since he’s a bit flirty, though depending on just how old I end up deciding he is, he would be a more or less conventional option), and Samaritha in Second Darkness, I know. I’ve only just played through the first volume of Council of Thieves, which seemed aromantic. On the whole, I think I see what you mean. I can’t think of as many casual options (where the AP suggests an NPC just might form a romantic attachment with a PC, without it necessarily involving the larger plot) for straight women and gay men, and more of that in addition to the options for straight men and lesbian women would be a good thing.
Getting back to in-game NPC couples, I think there might be at least two things going on. In the actual plots of APs, as opposed to scene-setting, I would expect that most couples would be in trouble, because if they were happy and effective, they would get in the way of the PCs doing their hero business. They would either compete for attention, or they wouldn’t move the plot forward; in your Sandpoint example, if the family had fought off the goblin, that scene wouldn’t motivate the PCs by reinforcing that goblins are actually dangerous little monsters, it would just display what sorts of people live in the town. (Possibly interesting, but doing other narrative work.)
As to whether straight couples get into more trouble, again, I’d have to think about it some more, and possibly compare the APs to the campaign setting material. As to your examples from CotCT in particular, I’m really not sure. I thought the detail about Ileosa’s lover was mostly tragic, while Vencarlo was manipulated into a duel with a woman he was attracted to as part of a love (or rather, attraction) triangle, so I didn’t get the feeling that it was a straight relationship ending arbitrarily badly.
I wonder, though, whether there might be a particular problem with dead lesbians, if I might be nervously flippant. I can’t speak to the gay male side of things, but I know that there’s an unfortunate tradition of pulp and other fiction ending with lesbians being “converted,” going mad, or just dying, which might introduce an edge to the detail of a dead couple who just happened to be women that Paizo might want to avoid. I’m not sure how much of a problem this might be (personally, I liked The Well of Loneliness (I know, I know) and The Child Manuela despite their shortcomings, for example, and the latter especially made me really angry), or what solutions might be possible in an RPG context.
TL;DR: OK, we could probably use more romance options for straight women and gay men, though not at the expense of what we already have (that is often aimed at straight men and lesbian women.) I don’t think that the proportions of queer:straight in-game NPC couples have to change, though.
Also, more generally, what KSF said on the previous page. :)
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I don't want to sideline this thread, but I really don't get this argument in this conversation. If you want to see a gay hero, just be it. This is not fiction we are talking about but a roleplaying game and you are the protagonist. I don't need rolemodels at all in adventures because I want my players to be the rolemodels (if they are inclined of course and don't want to be play little cannibals).
This is true to some degree, but a little misleading. The PCs are indeed the protagonists of the story, but having heroic supporting cast is still a valid means of achieving all the goals I note. The mere fact that there's a gay Paladin in Sandpoint, or that one of the most friendly, helpful, and competent NPCs in the first chapter of Wrath of the Righteous is transgender support the idea that gay and transgender heroes exist in the setting...which again both potentially influences the straight cisgender people reading those entries, and gives additional support for gay and transgender people that they can play heroes who are like themselves, if they so desire. A fair number of people feel somewhat inhibited from playing such characters without such approval, not always to the extent that they won't, but to the extent that doing so makes them uncomfortable. This kind of tacit support and permission from the game setting itself can go a long way.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, think about it like this. Have you ever walked into a room or a place of business and been the only something there, wether that's the only guy in a room full of women or something like that? When you are gay or lesbian or bisexual or trans, most rooms are like that. You enter it, you look around and you're the only one there. You start to wonder if you're welcome there. Nobody says anything, but I guess maybe? Now, add on top of that, the possibility of violence. Now that room is potentially full of people who aren't like you and specifically may not like you for being you AND may get violent if you stick around and one of them gets bold. That has been life for many lgbt people, some have walked into a room and then found themselves in a hostile environment, many have good friends that have been in that situation. When you have people in your fiction or your roleplaying games or whatever and you can see this thing that you are where you often aren't represented and you wondered if you belonged, well suddenly, you belong and it's safe and it's fun. It's a simple thing that's hard to convey and, to an extent, it can be done without others like you if you have a reasonable assumption of safety. I would really suggest reading Unpacking the Invisible Backpack for further enlightenment if you are really interested in understanding that a little further.
As a transgender person, I've sort of been on both sides of that fence. I've always been afraid that someone would find out all through school but it's a different outsider feeling than being a minority and finding yourself suddenly possibly not wanted in a variety of places you need to go day to day. I was good actor, however, and was able to play the part good enough that very few would suspect anything without getting to know better than a casual glance. Having these people that I can identify with on a different level, makes me feel welcome by not just the people I was lucky enough to game with but the game company that makes those games as well. Feeling not only included but well represented(rather than a bad caricature), well, that's priceless to me.
Reaper Miniatures
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I live in Texas where it's not always easy to admit to being bisexual or to having gay or trans friends, because of the omnipresent risk of violence or scorn, to say nothing of the never-ending sermon.
Paizo's fiction represents a fantasy world - yes, but in this regard fantasy is as much "dream and hope" as make-believe. It is a world where LGBTQ characters do not have to afraid or ashamed, and the example it provides to the Heterosexual, CISgendered people of the world may be overlooked or missed (or worse, feared and reviled) but to the LGBTQ readers and gamers, the message is overwhelmingly positive and accepting, something that is really hard to find, and means a lot to us.
This is why LGBTQ role models are important.
|
|
TL;DR: OK, we could probably use more romance options for straight women and gay men
I'd say Mummy's Mask came through on this right out of the gate, but:
1. An interested PC is going to have to work for it.
2. The GM is going to have to put some effort into enabling that PC to make that connection.
3. If the PC is female, there could be some unfortunate implications for some, but the NPC in question could be bisexual.
But for any PC that pulls through, it has some serious potential for some emotionally rewarding roleplaying.
As opposed to the sexy red-headed women which litter the ground of every AP? Thanks, but no thanks. I'm already out of Golarion. I'm tired of playing in the fantasy world written by people who are attracted to women for people who are attracted to women. :P
Imagine if gay or lesbian romance options were relegated to "Well, the PC will have to work at it, and the GM will have to put some effort into cooperating, and the NPC is written as straight so all that will have to be changed ... but if you do all the work yourself, you can have a same-sex relationship in Golarion, so that proves we really care about our gay and lesbian customers!"
Could someone who's read most of the APs please answer this one for me?
In Wrath of the Righteous there is a gay male couple who's story is a prominent sub-plot of book two. That's the first and biggest one that comes to mind for me.
Their story is handled very well in my opinion, and has almost nothing to do with the fact that they are gay. It's more of an addiction story.
|
|
Sometimes a pattern doesn't become obvious until it's pointed out.
If paizo sees the criticism that there isn't enough romance options for heterosexual females, then I'll bet you'll see a change. Unfortunately the AP line is a slow moving beast, so we might not see it for two APs.
For what it's worth, I've also become tired of the endless parade of friendly red-heads. It's almost become code in Pathfinder APs: Red Hair Female NPC = Romance Option/Trust Immediately.
I was actually pretty relieved that Kelda from Jade Regent was a blonde.
|
|
As opposed to the sexy red-headed women which litter the ground of every AP? Thanks, but no thanks. I'm already out of Golarion. I'm tired of playing in the fantasy world written by people who are attracted to women for people who are attracted to women. :P
Imagine if gay or lesbian romance options were relegated to "Well, the PC will have to work at it, and the GM will have to put some effort into cooperating, and the NPC is written as straight so all that will have to be changed ... but if you do all the work yourself, you can have a same-sex relationship in Golarion, so that proves we really care about our gay and lesbian customers!"
Ouch. :(
I'm sorry if that's how my post came across. It wasn't meant to say "all's well, here ya go", but to point out a recent example I rather enjoyed(and would put effort into telegraphing as a GM). It struck me as an unusual example for the AP line as well, in that he's already in a relationship but it's one that both people involved would probably be better off with it ended, considering how one-sided it's become by the point the PCs show up.
In Wrath of the Righteous there is a gay male couple who's story is a prominent sub-plot of book two. That's the first and biggest one that comes to mind for me.Still, if we've seen only one male homosexual relationship even implied, while lesbian relationships are common, that seems ... noteworthy.
How many of the latter have there been?
Isn't there a gay male couple in the very first issue of Rise of the Runelords?
|
|
Isn't there a gay male couple in the very first issue of Rise of the Runelords?In Wrath of the Righteous there is a gay male couple who's story is a prominent sub-plot of book two. That's the first and biggest one that comes to mind for me.Still, if we've seen only one male homosexual relationship even implied, while lesbian relationships are common, that seems ... noteworthy.
How many of the latter have there been?
Yep, and there's also one in CotCT, forgot which issue though.
|
|
Isn't there a gay male couple in the very first issue of Rise of the Runelords?In Wrath of the Righteous there is a gay male couple who's story is a prominent sub-plot of book two. That's the first and biggest one that comes to mind for me.Still, if we've seen only one male homosexual relationship even implied, while lesbian relationships are common, that seems ... noteworthy.
How many of the latter have there been?
Yep, the famous paladin/playwright couple show up in the Sandpoint gazetteer.
They are more rare in the adventures proper though compared to prominent lesbian couples or single NPCs, by quite a bit I believe.
|
|
So at this point there's some of each. Lesbians may be more common and/or prominent, but it seems to me we're trying to read too much into the data. It's just not a large enough sample to draw any statistically significant conclusions.
I'm sure the developers have seen this concern by now and they can keep an eye out for more bias.
This isn't actually the problem that seems to have been spotted. The problem seems to be not enough male potential love interests for the PCs in APs. And frankly, this thread seems to have drifted into unpleasant or controversial territory enough times in ways that distract from that that I'm not sure anyone's gonna be listening...unless we make a thread about that.
So that's what I'm gonna do.
EDIT: Link.
In Skulls and Shackles, very little explicit romance options are available, other than Lady Smythee. However, there are plenty of options. While some of the crew are louts, others are certainly worth considering, and there are other captains such as the former Andoren officer.
In Skulls and Shackles, very little explicit romance options are available, other than Lady Smythee. However, there are plenty of options. While some of the crew are louts, others are certainly worth considering, and there are other captains such as the former Andoren officer.
Huh... Ya could have fooled me! But I wouldn't have wanted you to!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In Skulls and Shackles, very little explicit romance options are available, other than Lady Smythee. However, there are plenty of options. While some of the crew are louts, others are certainly worth considering, and there are other captains such as the former Andoren officer.
Why prey tell do the developers need to work in romantic options for every NPC in every AP?
isn't that something you can figure out yourself?
They don't "need" to work in any romantic options. But when they constantly do drop hot female NPCs in the party's lap, it definitely feels exclusionary to players who are attracted to men, particularly when they seem to go out of their way to make the male NPCs unattractive; e.g., in Souls for the Smuggler's Shiv, Sasha and Aerys are both described as being extraordinarily beautiful while Ishirou and Jask are explicitly described as looking "old" and "plain," respectively.
(Silly mode on) What kind of character is all too common? Goblins. Clearly there is a deficit of kobold npcs and that needs to change.
I don't think it's "shallow" to want attractive NPCs, of whichever kind float your boat. I love having romance options in the game for everyone. I admit it would be nice to have the "this NPC exists to be the party's ally" character to be someone other than Redhead Barbie every now and then: a gruff dwarf or a scarred male half-orc or a woman like Laurel from Falcon's Hollow who has some years on her. But I'm all in favor of eye-candy for everyone. This is a fantasy game, and it's supposed to be fun to play.
To put it another way, wouldn't it start to feel a little uncomfortable if the vast majority of pleasant women you worked with in a setting, campaign after campaign after campaign, were middle-aged and/or homely while most of the men you met in the course of your adventures were twenty-year-old bodybuilders with square jaws wearing tight pants and no shirt?
That's what Golarion has started to feel like to me. It may be a fantasy world, but it's certainly not my fantasy.
Joana is making a fair point that is both respectfully stated and is backed up with evidence supporting it, so why don't we scale back on the snark and bullying.
I am a straight white woman in my thirties and let me say, it is possible to have male heroes but I was always the one who latched onto any female character in a story and made them my favourite. I always assumed it was the same for everyone, male, gay/lesbian/trans, colored... Everyone. Its one of the reasons I love what Paizo is doing. That said, I do agree with the others here who have suggested that they would like more men offered up as relationship bait. I look for that in almost every game I play, and while Sandru is great and all, I was a bit put out that three of the four NPC's in that AP were female and that the other two were relatively young compared to him (okay, Shalelu is an elf but she looks like 20 years old whereas Sandru is definitely past that).
I don't want to see the exclusion of anything we've seen thus far, but yeah, attractive/intelligent single men would be a nice addition.
This thread has given me a lot to think about from all the many and varied points offered. A thought did occur to me from a publishing standpoint. How many NPC's does an installment of a given AP have? It probably varies, but if you subtract out the NPC's that are out right enemies, I'm sure it's fairly limited. How does one include "romance options" that satisfy the whole of the "gay/straight/bi" spectrum? Or for that matter, include simple NPC's that show proper diversity? Do you take the amount of NPC's and divy them up equally into different orientations? Because from what I read constantly, AP segments and modules are judged on an almost strictly individual basis.
I saw on another thread where someone said they wanted to see romance options for dwarves and orcs and halflings and on and on. I mean really? Not that the desire isn't sincere, but how do you do this?
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is what the core issue here is. Obviously, the job of the GM is to configure his/her campaign to suit the tastes of their players. I know many GM's purchase AP's because they have limited time to tweak things. Also, players like to the see the portrait of the NPC(s) they are dealing with. How do you quantify diversity.
STEVE HOLT!!!!!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 2 cents . . .
I can sympathize with the point of view that a social agenda being pushed too much and where it doesn't belong could be annoying. I mean, if every day during breakfast someone gave you lectures about how murder is not acceptable, you would find it pedantic and annoying because that is a commonly held belief. For some who find no problem with non-heterosexual pairing, this same effect could come into play.
Now, my example of murder-talk-during-breakfast differs a lot from the issue of homosexual/trans/etc people primarily because it is still a controversial topic in society and the "no murder" policy is much less so. Thus I feel the threshold of non-preachy "pushing" is a lot higher. However, it is still possible for reasonable people who embrace to get annoyed with the message, especially since for most of us, game time is "escape for reality" time; for me at least, this includes "I don't really want to feel like someone is lobbying for a political agenda" in game. Our society has enough of that in real life.
All that being said, I don't personally think Paizo is anywhere close to crossing into the "annoyingly preachy" territory with their message of acceptance via non-heterosexual NPC pairing. I think it would take an entire AP of only NPCs in homosexual relationships for me to really feel that way.
Just to add, I love Paizo as a company precisely because they are willing to insert their personal beliefs into Golarian and stand by them. It helps that I personally agree with 99% of the beliefs they express. Also, as a heterosexual white male, I don't know if I will ever completely understand what having Paizo-created NPCs that mirror my sexual preferences/identity means to a LGBT person. Some wonderful forum posters have explained what it means to them though, and I would be perfectly happy to endure a stretch of "Come on, I get it! LGBT is ok!" frustrations in exchange for the benefits they can get from it.
. . . hopefully this all makes sense. Generally, the longer my post, the less eloquent I am, especially with complex topics.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been watching this thread for some time and have been meaning to post. What I am going to post is going to ruffle most if not all the feathers here, but as a FORMER AP (and game, modules, campaign) subscriber I felt the need to chime in.....
For me personally I think it's too much.
All of it.
The LGTBQHetero romance angle and NPC showboating is part of what has driven me away from their AP line.
I don't want the focus on potential romantic NPCs or modern sensibilities in a fantasy game via the AP line, I want a good fantasy game (and content).
The fact that there is any kind of controversy over what goes on the cover/who is the featured NPC in the AP just tells me that this is all either a very poor distraction, a gimmick or misplaced focus (or all of the above).
I don't want modules that espouse a conservative agendas, LGBTQ or H agendas, liberal or progressive agendas, capitalist or communist agendas, vegan agendas or any other agenda than the agenda to be incredibly brilliant. I want adventures that my players are going to remember because they were challenging and unique. Not because there is some great new Beefcake/cheesecake potential story lines for players to explore or because Paizo bravely featured a Trans NPC hero on the cover. Sorry, that isn't me and I believe that isn't a majority of the people who subscribe to the AP line - the majority just puts up with this because "that's just the way it is".
I don't want APs that serve as a soap box for a cause - I get that from my right an left wing media sources every day, force fed to me even when I am trying to avoid it. I want good, challenging adventures with quality writing/plot hook or story.
I think the AP line is pretty much a lost cause and has been lost for some time. I may jump in on Iron Gods, but if I get one whiff of a Mary Sue pet NPC project from the creative staff then I will bail on that also.
It seems like the big focus from the (vocal fringe) fan base (which Paizo seems to encourage) is where the next relationship controversy/social justice issue is going to manifest. Paizo being what it is (and the composition of their staff) maybe think that's what everyone wants. We don't. Harder adventures, less filler, stories that make some sense and are supported by existing mechanics, etc. While the production quality (some of it, not the actual book binding) has gone up (artwork, maps, layout), the actual content and use value has gone down for me.
I understand their need and drive to be inclusive - I get it, it's their company, their chance to make a difference and their agenda...but for me it's overbearing and has become a distraction and the line has suffered for it. Focus should be (and should always be) on making the best product out there and I think they let their personal causes and crusades get in the way of that. If they could combine their agenda + brilliant content I could just ignore the relationship, beef/cheesecake romance and social message nonsense and run the damn things at their core - that isn't the case.
Again, this are just my take on it - I could be wrong.
gouge away...
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it helps put things in perspective, it might be good to remember that a fair amount of Paizo's employees, including us developers and editors and artists, are LGBT. So it's as much us writing and creating a world that WE want to game in as anything else, in that regard.
Sorry if it feels overbearing to some folks, but I really believe that the good it does to be inclusive with our NPCs vastly outweighs any impact to the financial bottom line.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it helps put things in perspective, it might be good to remember that a fair amount of Paizo's employees, including us developers and editors and artists, are LGBT. So it's as much us writing and creating a world that WE want to game in as anything else, in that regard.
Sorry if it feels overbearing to some folks, but I really believe that the good it does to be inclusive with our NPCs vastly outweighs any impact to the financial bottom line.
Just stating my view on the issue. I wasn't expecting anything to change.
And to clarify - I feel that the focus is a distraction towards quality content: writing a book with finite word count is a zero sum game, you need to crowd out something else. So all those NPCs written for the relationship crowd detract from somewhere else (encounters, detailed information).
The bottom line is just a potential consequence (either way it goes).
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to repeat a question that I have asked time and again, and I don't want it to be taken as an attack on anyone, just some food for thought.
What makes presenting a LGBT couple in an adventure "pushing an agenda", while presenting a straight couple is not "pushing an agenda"?
Stories will always and have always been about sex to some degree. The prince wants to save the princess from the dragon because he usually wants to marry her, because he's attracted to her - boom, there's gender politics in your story!
The king and queen are married - boom, there's gender politics in your story!
The Iliad and Odyssey, and pretty much every other story ever have included strong themes of gender at the core of the stories because stories of adventures and heroes are always about the human condition, and sex and gender "politics" will always be a part of the human condition. Yes, these stories are often about folks transcending humanity in ways that make them heroes and villains, but they still struggle with being human, and everybody wants to be loved.
Because there's your core right there - every story is a love story at some point in it's prose - whether it's the part where the guy plays Peter Gabriel from a boombox outside a woman's window, to the part where he chases her through the airport, to the part where the gal decides that maybe trying to trick this guy into dumping her isn't the way to go because she actually likes him, to the part where the guy fights evil Chinese sorcerers to save his jade-eyed paramour, every action movie where "the guy gets the girl", every comedy where the dysfunctional pair grow to care for each other, to the adventure story where the woman fights through hell and back to rescue the one she loves from the grips of an evil tyrant, everything is about love!
LGBT folks are real people with real lives and real hopes and yes, real love interests, and we should be involved in your story, and I cannot, for the life of me, ever ever EVER understand why encountering two women married to each other in an adventure breaks your fantasy story, while encountering a man and a woman married to each other doesn't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because as we all know, relationships, romance and even message have nothing to do with story. Are in fact all best avoided if you want good stories.
Not if they are a distraction. Who the hell cares about these NPCs and why do these Mary Sue’s need to be front and center in every AP holding the players hands?
And also - the players should be setting the message or the message (if the module infers one) should be somewhat interpreted by all associated vs. spoon fed to the players and DM. You know, much like what occurs in a memorable movie or book?I appreciate that you want less focus on controversial issues (Not that LGBTQ issues should be controversial, but it's true that in reality they are), but the idea that you could avoid any kind of controversy is ridiculous. No matter what they do and how hard they tried to stay with safe non-controversial topics, someone would carp. This is the Internet after all. Take the controversial BGLTQ characters out and there will be complaints about that. Put them in and there are obviously complaints about that. Cheesecake on the covers - Complaints. No cheesecake - complaints. Etc. Romance options - complaints. No romance options - complaints.
And considering that judging by some of the posts in the other thread romance options include pretty much every friendly non-paired off NPC (and those aren't strict limits), I'm not sure how you'd keep them out.
I don't care about controversial issues - your lefto-radar must have misdirected you thejeff. I don't want the focus of modern sensibilities to be the distraction: the gender role crusade and diverse representation is a current social issue in Western Society - yet the APs gloss over things like institutional racism, slavery and genocide since those are less prevalent in western society yet they are ugly things that would exist in a world where might makes right. The ugly things that make conflict which in turn sends out the call for Heroes.
So it isn't controversy that's an issue - bring on the Child Brides (LOL, they won't touch that with a 10 foot pole)! Their focus is very Pacific Northwest progressive - the fact that they telegraph that in their fantasy content is a little sad and limiting actually.
More importantly, if you don't find the adventures challenging, unique and memorable, isn't that the problem? Not the presence of controversial issues or interesting NPCs. Making them harder, which you seem to want, isn't for everyone. Some find them challenging enough already.
I believe (and I am apparently wrong on this subject) that the meta aspects (harder/easier) should trump concerns about making sure that there are suitable relationship NPC content in each module. Considering that this game has a very heavy mechanical bent and focus on beating most threats via violent combat I think most people buying this content are expecting the mechanical aspect to be criteria No#1.
Do you think they've gotten worse? In terms of challenge or uniqueness?
I'd say that RoW and Iron Gods at least had uniqueness, though it may not be the kind of uniqueness you're looking for.
RoW was bland - sans Rasputin and that just felt gimmicky, better than last several APs. I was (and still am) looking forward to see how they play Iron Gods - 5 bucks says there will be an Android love interest or some other claptrap filler - but who knows?
Challenge wise, I find that most if not all the encounters are a bit of a cake-walk or are poorly designed from a challenge perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it helps put things in perspective, it might be good to remember that a fair amount of Paizo's employees, including us developers and editors and artists, are LGBT. So it's as much us writing and creating a world that WE want to game in as anything else, in that regard.
Sorry if it feels overbearing to some folks, but I really believe that the good it does to be inclusive with our NPCs vastly outweighs any impact to the financial bottom line.
As long as you keep evolving as a company and putting out super great books and such you have my money:) also my daughter has asked for a pathfinder book for her birthday so the cycle continues on! (in fact this would her fourth Pathfinder book:)