BigNorseWolf |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, I can see that there are a lot of misconceptions flying around this thread
If you don't know what a word means, Google it! You can also ask others who use that identifying label; however, don't demand that someone educate you on the subject, because people with genders or sexualities you don't understand are not there to be your educational after-school special. Be polite, is what I'm saying
Do you see a bit of a contradiction there? You want people to get their information from google, but you want people to have the RIGHT information. That... doesn't work.
VERY frequently on this topic you google something and immediately get told that information is wrong, out of date, incomplete, not the full picture three full waves behind the times, full of harmful implications, why are you googling hateful websites etc. There's no one true answer, overarching authority on the matter, and the english language itself hasn't really caught up on the subject. I really don't see the subject come up outside of these boards.
Its still incredibly subjective depending on who you're talking to , so asking the people you're talking to 'how does this work?' is the only way to avoid the very misconceptions you want us to avoid.
Kazaan |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rhedyn wrote:At some point you realize that expanding the nomenclature is pointless and you just default to relatively simple naming conventions with the awareness that the names do not fully describe a person.
I think this need for lots of labels comes from a human learning pattern of stereotyping. Maybe instead of embracing stereotyping with progressively more and more extensive labels we can just realize that people are very unique and important parts about them cannot be precisely represented with a single word.
Right! We should stop using labels that don't accurately represent individuals! Words like
Gay.
White.
Transgender.
Christian.
Doctor.
Lawyer....
Why is it that I never see this need to "stop using labels to describe people!" when the subject of including a queer character in fiction, or when a group of outliers want to give themselves a label instead of being given one by the majority?
The need for labels comes from the learning pattern of succinct communication and "creating communities. The only people that benefit from a lack of them are the perceived majority. Those unlucky few of us outside that are at best lost and confused without a way of communicating who we are or coming together for support. At worst—and this is, more the most part, how it has worked historically—they are labelled deviants, mentally sick and/or sinful. They are now a "them" because the only "us" is the majority.
** spoiler omitted **...
The problem isn't the use of labels. No one is saying we should tear the labels off all the chemical reagents in the lab. What we're saying is that if the reagents are just labeled "acid" and "base", that doesn't determine what kind of acid or base and it doesn't mean that acids and bases are the only chemical reagents that exist. Each person is a unique individual and we use language to facilitate communication. But when language ceases to facilitate and instead hinders due to being overly concise or overly general, there's a problem. Also, keep in mind that maybe the writers don't have as much experience with this kind of character and don't want to butcher and offend an entire demographic by representing them incorrectly (coughfiftyshadesofgreyunconvincingcough) in their product. Iconics are supposed to be highly generalized characters so that you can modify and manipulate them to suit your purposes. As such, they should encompass labels of a more general nature, again for the facilitation of their intended purpose. There's no need to specify that an Iconic is asexual and there's equally no need to specify that they aren't; they are whatever suits the player.
Regarding your personal experience, I'll respond with a passage from the Tao Te Ching:
knowing that we can never share most people's way of life, nor can they share ours.
Schooling stuffs the brains of our children with trivia.
The more the trivia, the more their anxieties.
They indoctrinate the children to believe that the consequences are grave
when they fail to distinguish "good" from "evil", and agreement from disagreement.
What gross nonsense!
To escape the rubbish of all this so-called knowledge,
in the winter people run to the great feasts of lamb, pork, and ox,
and they climb high in the mountains to view the first signs of spring.
We are so different! Having no desire for the trivialities,
nor for their compensations, we are like infants not yet knowing how to laugh!
Ever wandering, and having no home to which we may return.
While most people are obsessed with superficialities, we feel empty.
While most people feel they know so much, we feel simple-minded.
While most people believe they live happily in the best of all possible worlds,
we are despaired to witness this world!
It is so painful to know that we will always be outsiders,
endlessly moving like the ocean, aimlessly blowing like the wind.
While we fear what others fear, we don't treasure what others treasure.
Our treasure is the Great Integrity (Tao).
However, until it is shared, it will not be the Universal Integrity,
for we are part of them, and they are part of us.
Chris Lambertz Community & Digital Content Manager |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed a few posts that could easily turn the discussion in the wrong direction. Let's keep assumptions and comments about other online communities (in this case, Tumblr) off of paizo.com. Also a reminder that this discussion is within the context of our line of products, and comments speaking to real world issues likely belong in a different forum.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
mechaPoet wrote:Also, I can see that there are a lot of misconceptions flying around this thread
Quote:If you don't know what a word means, Google it! You can also ask others who use that identifying label; however, don't demand that someone educate you on the subject, because people with genders or sexualities you don't understand are not there to be your educational after-school special. Be polite, is what I'm saying Do you see a bit of a contradiction there? You want people to get their information from google, but you want people to have the RIGHT information. That... doesn't work.
VERY frequently on this topic you google something and immediately get told that information is wrong, out of date, incomplete, not the full picture three full waves behind the times, full of harmful implications, why are you googling hateful websites etc. There's no one true answer, overarching authority on the matter, and the english language itself hasn't really caught up on the subject. I really don't see the subject come up outside of these boards.
Its still incredibly subjective depending on who you're talking to , so asking the people you're talking to 'how does this work?' is the only way to avoid the very misconceptions you want us to avoid.
I want to encourage people to research things they don't understand before making assumptions. Some very basic Googling is the start of that, but obviously I'd be delighted if people did more thorough research to confirm or expand or provide nuance to their initial findings. There are a good amount of resources for this kind of information, if you make the effort of researching it.
And yeah, there is no "one true answer," but having a nuanced understanding of gender, open to correction and expansion, informed by multiple sources is basically the ideal. It sounds pretty good to me. The English language has plenty of ways to deal with this, because there are lots of English-speaking people who who have created and adapted and borrowed English terms to describe their experiences.
Asking people about their subjective experiences, and listening to what they have to say, is a great idea. More education on the subject is good, and providing you ask people politely and respect their answers (including the answer of "I don't have the time/energy/desire to explain this to you right now"), that's great.
Do thorough research if you can, and don't be demanding. If someone wants to help educate you, that's great, but they don't owe it to you. That's what I'm saying.
If there was more positive and accurate media representation of people who don't fall into the narrow confines of "normal" or "default," then there would just be more resources for education and chances for people outside the specific categories to identify with characters' experiences.
Arnakalar |
BigNorseWolf wrote:mechaPoet wrote:Also, I can see that there are a lot of misconceptions flying around this thread
Quote:If you don't know what a word means, Google it! You can also ask others who use that identifying label; however, don't demand that someone educate you on the subject, because people with genders or sexualities you don't understand are not there to be your educational after-school special. Be polite, is what I'm saying Do you see a bit of a contradiction there? You want people to get their information from google, but you want people to have the RIGHT information. That... doesn't work.
VERY frequently on this topic you google something and immediately get told that information is wrong, out of date, incomplete, not the full picture three full waves behind the times, full of harmful implications, why are you googling hateful websites etc. There's no one true answer, overarching authority on the matter, and the english language itself hasn't really caught up on the subject. I really don't see the subject come up outside of these boards.
Its still incredibly subjective depending on who you're talking to , so asking the people you're talking to 'how does this work?' is the only way to avoid the very misconceptions you want us to avoid.
I want to encourage people to research things they don't understand before making assumptions. Some very basic Googling is the start of that, but obviously I'd be delighted if people did more thorough research to confirm or expand or provide nuance to their initial findings. There are a good amount of resources for this kind of information, if you make the effort of researching it.
And yeah, there is no "one true answer," but having a nuanced understanding of gender, open to correction and expansion, informed by multiple sources is basically the ideal. It sounds pretty good to me. The English language has plenty of ways to deal with this, because there are lots of English-speaking people who who...
Word.
To say "do your own research", wanting people to have a complex understanding of the issue, and "respectfully ask people for help/info, but don't act entitled to that help" aren't mututally exclusive.
Faelyn |
Agreed, I do not believe anyone here demanded to be enlightened, but were curious as to the terms being used. I will admit I did not know what non-binary was when I first started reading this read until I saw it being used in context.
In my humble opinion, I find the people best suited to educate those who are uneducated on a subject, as those people that identify with said subject. Back when I was in college, many years ago, I was woefully ignorant to the LBGTQ community. I wanted to learn more so I attended a few meetings of a LBGTQ group that was sponsored through our university. I learned an enormous amount of information from those wonderful people (most of them). I also received my first bout of discrimination as well, and learned that I did not like it. That was my first introduction to what many people in the world deal with everyday simply by being who there are and no more.
*EDIT*
Sorry, I realized I went off on a side-rail... Back to the topic at hand!
knightnday |
BigNorseWolf wrote:mechaPoet wrote:Also, I can see that there are a lot of misconceptions flying around this thread
Quote:If you don't know what a word means, Google it! You can also ask others who use that identifying label; however, don't demand that someone educate you on the subject, because people with genders or sexualities you don't understand are not there to be your educational after-school special. Be polite, is what I'm saying Do you see a bit of a contradiction there? You want people to get their information from google, but you want people to have the RIGHT information. That... doesn't work.
VERY frequently on this topic you google something and immediately get told that information is wrong, out of date, incomplete, not the full picture three full waves behind the times, full of harmful implications, why are you googling hateful websites etc. There's no one true answer, overarching authority on the matter, and the english language itself hasn't really caught up on the subject. I really don't see the subject come up outside of these boards.
Its still incredibly subjective depending on who you're talking to , so asking the people you're talking to 'how does this work?' is the only way to avoid the very misconceptions you want us to avoid.
I want to encourage people to research things they don't understand before making assumptions. Some very basic Googling is the start of that, but obviously I'd be delighted if people did more thorough research to confirm or expand or provide nuance to their initial findings. There are a good amount of resources for this kind of information, if you make the effort of researching it.
And yeah, there is no "one true answer," but having a nuanced understanding of gender, open to correction and expansion, informed by multiple sources is basically the ideal. It sounds pretty good to me. The English language has plenty of ways to deal with this, because there are lots of English-speaking people who who...
Yes and no. Googling is great, but to play off what the BigNorseWolf said, and what I have observed in a number of threads here and elsewhere, not everyone agrees with the definitions of the term or has their own interpretation.
By all means do research and educate yourself; that said, the speaker should at least make a marginal effort to give some context to their spin on things. As an example, we had several hundred posts on "cis" and how people thought of it.
To drag this back to the topic, I'd say that Paizo is making a very good effort to be inclusive in their products and are moving at a pretty fast clip to expand what is being displayed in their work. They have a fine line to walk between answering the call for such characters while not, for lack of a better term, upsetting some of their more conservative fans.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Anyway, here's one of the biggest factors in creating a gender-variant iconic or major visible character:
Almost all popular media portrays cisgender people (people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth) who are heterosexual. Sometimes there are people who are gay. This misses out on the MULTITUDES of people who exist along and outside of the narrow confines of male/female and gay/straight. The people who aren't well represented, or not represented at all, feel like outsiders as a consequence. And for all the messages you can seek out that tell you to embrace your individuality, and be yourself, etc., without specifying WHAT you're allowed to be, some people feel excluded, and broken, and monstrous. Seeing people like yourself, portrayed as normal and extant people, and finding a word for yourself, do a great deal to remove that feeling of being a broken, monstrous outsider. There are TONS of people who don't fall into the narrow configurations of gender and sexuality that are assumed to be the norm, and there always have been. Including a more diverse line of characters is both helpful to those people, educational to everyone, and more accurate as far as representing a complete world goes.
Claxon |
They exist in the real world, why is making them exist in a fictional one "over-fostering PC-ness"?
You are making a pretty big jump from "have a character that is genderless" to "genderless is the focus of their character". Valeros being a cisgender male certainly isn't the "focus of his character". My ex-partner's genderfluidness certainly isn't the "focus of their life".
This underlying assumption that including an important a character that is not heterosexual/not cisgender suddenly makes it a "gay story" is far more more dangerous than those people that picket funerals because it is insidious: you say you're not "opposed" to the idea and immediately follow that by saying that "It isn't necessary".
That just...
My issue isn't over-fostering. But To be honest I really just don't give a damn about other people's (especially made up one's) sexual preference or whether or no their body matches what they identify as. Not because it's not a challenge for people in real life, but because that's not what I want the story to be about. I'm here for crazy fantasy stories about what these people have done in the land of magic make believe. I don't care who they have sex with or why they're wearing a dress? They like it, and that's good enough for me.
If I wanted to hear more about the challenges of gender identify and so forth I'd go read books about it. It's not that I'm opposed to people being included in things, I just don't really care about gender and sex in the land of make believe. Get to the dragon killing.
I'd actually be 100% okay if they removed all references to gender, sexuality, etc from the stories because that's not what I'm interested in.
Sorry if this offends you, I'm just trying to help you understand my perspective.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes and no. Googling is great, but to play off what the BigNorseWolf said, and what I have observed in a number of threads here and elsewhere, not everyone agrees with the definitions of the term or has their own interpretation.
And it's cool to have a nuanced understanding of things with multiple viewpoints. First, value most highly the opinions of the people who can act as primary sources. People who can explain how they relate to their own identity. If there's a contradiction, well, that's fine because people relate to their identities differently and have different experiences. Do some research, use your best judgment; don't expect everything to be cut-and-dry. Very little in this world ever is.
By all means do research and educate yourself; that said, the speaker should at least make a marginal effort to give some context to their spin on things. As an example, we had several hundred posts on "cis" and how people thought of it.
If someone makes a thread about the inclusion of more gender and sexuality variance in the creation of iconics, and you have NO IDEA what any of that means, then you can feel free to ask or research. If someone made a thread asking for help in understanding how a certain Pathfinder class feature in a certain context worked, and you had NO IDEA how that class functioned because you hadn't read it, would you ask for the same context? Would you look up the text first to try and gain some understanding before commenting, or would you ask the OP to explain how the class worked to you first? Same general principle.
To drag this back to the topic, I'd say that Paizo is making a very good effort to be inclusive in their products and are moving at a pretty fast clip to expand what is being displayed in their work. They have a fine line to walk between answering the call for such characters while not, for lack of a better term, upsetting some of their more conservative fans.
If conservative fans are upset by the inclusion of non-cis characters, I feel like they would have left already upon hearing anything about Shardra. If someone doesn't want to play Pathfinder anymore because they published an iconic character whose gender I can relate to, then I'm honestly glad they're going to find another game.
BigNorseWolf |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its tricky trying to balance trying to include something for everyone off of an increasingly long list of different views on the subject with a limited cast of characters and screen-time.
Adventurers don't need to be an exact proportional representation of the population (they're exceptional by definition) but at the same time they're the readers view of the world and if they look TOO far removed from the population it starts to seem a bit contrived.
Arnakalar |
Arnakalar wrote:
Rynjin wrote:"Manly guys doing manly things" might be homogenous but it's certainly better than "I sexually identify as a helicopter and my pronouns are soi soi soi".Reductio ad absurdum. What a pointless argument.
The entire point was to be absurd. The discussion was about what was the "Worst Case Scenario" between over-inclusivity, and over-exclusivity.
Absurd homogeneity vs Abdsurd, um...differentiality?
(Warning, the second link automatically begins playing "Fortunate Son" loudly when you go to it, so if there's a need to keep quiet, don't click.)
Basically: Which do you find sillier?
I didn't see it as a discussion of worst case, but maybe I missed that part. Nonetheless, I don't think your argument holds water even as 'extreme worst case' - because we are talking about increasing representation of people who actually exist.
If you want to draw absurd parallels, imo you're better off going to the tried and true - "what, are we supposed to have diversity quotas? Like some kind of PC-nazi?"
To which I say, yes.
My issue isn't over-fostering. But To be honest I really just don't give a damn about other people's (especially made up one's) sexual preference or whether or no their body matches what they identify as. Not because it's not a challenge for people in real life, but because that's not what I want the story to be about. I'm here for crazy fantasy stories about what these people have done in the land of magic make believe. I don't care who they have sex with or why they're wearing a dress? They like it, and that's good enough for me.
If I wanted to hear more about the challenges of gender identify and so forth I'd go read books about it. It's not that I'm opposed to people being included in things, I just don't really care about gender and sex in the land of make believe. Get to the dragon killing.
I'd actually be 100% okay if they removed all references to gender, sexuality, etc from the stories because that's not what I'm interested in.
Sorry if this offends you, I'm just trying to help you understand my perspective.
The issue here is that you and I have the privilege to say "I don't want to hear about it, I just want to sword things", because we ALREADY have representation. Marginalized groups do not already have abundant opportunities to see themselves, to see themselves portrayed as heroes, as villains, as monsters, as saints, as badasses, and everything else.
Real people who are dealing with these issues DO have to hear about it, at length, frequently every day of their lives, yet simultaneously lack the opportunity to see themselves portrayed as badass heroes that you and I are able to take for granted.
To this argument, what I would say is - if you don't care at all, why voice any sort of objection when people try to see themselves represented in media? If you honestly do not care about anyone's identity in your media and RPGs (which is odd, but more power to you), you have absolutely no reason to silence people and say you don't want to see representation - that is like saying "you're doing something that's good for you and doesn't effect me at all - I don't like it".
As has already been stated, we aren't talking about making stories 'about' gender and sexuality, but allowing people of diverese identities *participate* in the same heroic stories you love.
Representation matters - a few additional resources:
"I need diverse games": http://ineeddivgms.info/
http://powderroom.jezebel.com/why-media-representation-matters-1592446434
http://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2013/nov/12/media-representa tion-matters
http://weneeddiversebooks.org/
Big Lemon |
But when language ceases to facilitate and instead hinders due to being overly concise or overly general, there's a problem.
Where is this "problem" you speak of? You meet someone that hasn't already made their gender clear, you ask them "Do you have a preference of pronouns?" and then you remember what they say. That's it. I'm skeptical that anyone who considers this difficult is even trying.
Iconics are supposed to be highly generalized characters so that you can modify and manipulate them to suit your purposes. As such, they should encompass labels of a more general nature, again for the facilitation of their intended purpose.
Are you aware that Paizo writes official backstories for the iconics, as well as publishing novels, comics, and audio-dramas featuring them? They are actual, established characters in fiction. Shardra is specifically a trans woman just as she is specifically a dwarf. It seem like you're the only one who's "manipulating them to suit your purposes" here.
I have no idea what you mean by "a more general nature", because being cisgendered is not "general". It is something specific. Really, if they wanted them to be "more general" they would use "they" instead of he/she in all of the core rulebooks so that they don't denote paladins, fighters, etc as a specific gender. They don't do that now, but if a new iconic was nonbinary, "they" would probably be used then.
Serisan |
My issue isn't over-fostering. But To be honest I really just don't give a damn about other people's (especially made up one's) sexual preference or whether or no their body matches what they identify as. Not because it's not a challenge for people in real life, but because that's not what I want the story to be about. I'm here for crazy fantasy stories about what these people have done in the land of magic make believe. I don't care who they have sex with or why they're wearing a dress? They like it, and that's good enough for me.If I wanted to hear more about the challenges of gender identify and so forth I'd go read books about it. It's not that I'm opposed to people being included in things, I just don't really care about gender and sex in the land of make believe. Get to the dragon killing.
I'd actually be 100% okay if they removed all references to gender, sexuality, etc from the stories because that's not what I'm interested in.
Sorry if this offends you, I'm just trying to help you understand my perspective.
Just a couple of thoughts in no particular order.
- I completely understand and appreciate how you want to play. The game is different for everyone. Inclusiveness doesn't require you to play with gender/sex/sexuality in the rules.
- Do your games regularly include Harsk, Seoni, or any of the other iconics? If not, what the OP requested has little to no impact on you.
- Not including an example of things leads to erasure or the suspicion of it. Neither of those is good.
Ultimately, I think that what the OP (and subsequent posters) requested is very reasonable.
knightnday |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If conservative fans are upset by the inclusion of non-cis characters, I feel like they would have left already upon hearing anything about Shardra. If someone doesn't want to play Pathfinder anymore because they published an iconic character whose gender I can relate to, then I'm honestly glad they're going to find another game.
See, comments like that make me wince, the same as I would if someone were to say that if you aren't happy that they aren't publishing an iconic with a gender that you can relate to that they are glad you might find another game.
It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. All sides should be a little more considerate of the other. It ain't happening, but it would be nice.
In any case, Paizo is moving to be more inclusive. Faster than some would like, not as fast as others would hope. But in the grand scheme of things they are racing down the road -- it might not be tomorrow, but I'd wager this won't be an issue very soon.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Big Lemon wrote:They exist in the real world, why is making them exist in a fictional one "over-fostering PC-ness"?
You are making a pretty big jump from "have a character that is genderless" to "genderless is the focus of their character". Valeros being a cisgender male certainly isn't the "focus of his character". My ex-partner's genderfluidness certainly isn't the "focus of their life".
This underlying assumption that including an important a character that is not heterosexual/not cisgender suddenly makes it a "gay story" is far more more dangerous than those people that picket funerals because it is insidious: you say you're not "opposed" to the idea and immediately follow that by saying that "It isn't necessary".
That just...
My issue isn't over-fostering. But To be honest I really just don't give a damn about other people's (especially made up one's) sexual preference or whether or no their body matches what they identify as. Not because it's not a challenge for people in real life, but because that's not what I want the story to be about. I'm here for crazy fantasy stories about what these people have done in the land of magic make believe. I don't care who they have sex with or why they're wearing a dress? They like it, and that's good enough for me.
If I wanted to hear more about the challenges of gender identify and so forth I'd go read books about it. It's not that I'm opposed to people being included in things, I just don't really care about gender and sex in the land of make believe. Get to the dragon killing.
I'd actually be 100% okay if they removed all references to gender, sexuality, etc from the stories because that's not what I'm interested in.
Sorry if this offends you, I'm just trying to help you understand my perspective.
I can understand that you're interested in games where the challenges are things like "What do we do about the dragon attacking our town?" and not as interested in games where the challenges are "How do we fight gender and sexuality oppression in the kingdom?" But erasing all mention of gender and sex in a game isn't the answer, I think. Some people's gender identities are important to them, and if they're non-standard, they often have to fight just to be recognized as such.
The issue isn't one that's in the game world. The issue is that far more genders and sexualities exist outside of what is often portrayed by games (or any media for that matter), and including gay elves and agender halflings and nonbinary half-orcs is uplifting and encouraging and exciting to those people who are underrepresented in EVERYTHING. Not to mention more equitable and accurate.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't realize my post was scrubbed before, because there are like 3 quotes of it that are still around.
I didn't see it as a discussion of worst case, but maybe I missed that part. Nonetheless, I don't think your argument holds water even as 'extreme worst case' - because we are talking about increasing representation of people who actually exist.
If you want to draw absurd parallels, imo you're better off going to the tried and true - "what, are we supposed to have diversity quotas? Like some kind of PC-nazi?"
To which I say, yes.
Nah, because that argument isn't actually absurd. It's wrong, but not absurd.
Diversity quotas/affirmative action are meant for protection of "outliers" as one poster put it earlier, and minorities.
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
There's a lot of different people out there. If you want Paizo to represent everybody at every stage along every spectrum (sexuality, gender identity, race, and so on) then you're basically asking them to stop making an RPG and have everybody work full time writing backstories for Iconics, because that is a LOT of ground to cover.
knightnday |
I think he's mainly just pointing out that any conservatives that would have been offended have been offended. The ship has sailed.
I'm sure. Of course, people are being offended all over the place about things Paizo is doing, isn't doing, isn't doing fast enough, didn't do right, and so on. You need a machete to cut through the offense some days. I'm utterly surprised that people that work for this company log on every day.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Arnakalar |
I don't *think* I'm being off topic - in my understanding we're discussing the role of representation in media and rpgs, and in PF and paizo in particular. I do think it's important to try to keep it on topic though.
For what it's worth - I've been playing d&d-esque games for many years, and PF in particular for several. I've spent some money on first and third party products, but not a lot, and a MAJOR reason for this is that I find the lack of representation, as well as some representation which is done extremely poorly distasteful, and don't enjoy it.
For example: I really like curse of the crimson throne, however literally every 'mod'/scenario/ecounter/whatever in the first book has at least one major component I personally find very distasteful and poorly done - it may not break the game, but I don't even want to *read* it, much less buy it and run it.
I know that speaking from personal experience, my network of RPers mostly has no interested in pathfinder, and I don't recommend it because I know they would find it worse than I do.
If paizo made a commitment to systematically, meaningfully, and progressively increasing representation I would buy 10x the amount of paizo I do, I would probably become a subscriber, and I would recommend it to my friends and tell them what Paizo was doing.
I and many people I know went out and bought the whole core D&d 5e set when I saw the increased representation explictly discussed in the book, including the page on gender and identity differences. I went back to MTG a bit because a friend told me about about the new Legend/mtg narrative character who is trans.
Which is the bigger market share for paizo?
Arnakalar |
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
There's a lot of different people out there. If you want Paizo to represent everybody at every stage along every spectrum (sexuality, gender identity, race, and so on) then you're basically asking them to stop making an RPG and have everybody work full time writing backstories for Iconics, because that is a LOT of ground to cover.
How much representation is too much, do you think?
To your second point, I don't think this is likely to be a real problem - what we're saying is all people deserve to be considered and represented, NOT that paizo needs to become a company that sells backstories of iconics.
Every time a designer writes another straight white guy, they have made a *choice*. I am saying that they should practice being more deliberate in their approach to representing diverse characters - it seems like paizo already has guildelines for including more women, for example. Do you think when they write iconics they don't look at the demographics of their characters?
My assumption is they do. There is no harm in saying 'ok, 80% of our characters are male, let's make a change to that' - there's no harm in saying "we have 5 new iconics, let's make some of them trans, or genderqueer, or something else."
Addendum - ALSO I don't know if the OP was thinking about this but today is the international trans day of visibility - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transgender_Day_of_Visibility
Maybe today's the time for them to start a conversation at Paizo about how to make this change and get all of my money. =P
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Didn't realize my post was scrubbed before, because there are like 3 quotes of it that are still around.
Arnkalar wrote:I didn't see it as a discussion of worst case, but maybe I missed that part. Nonetheless, I don't think your argument holds water even as 'extreme worst case' - because we are talking about increasing representation of people who actually exist.
If you want to draw absurd parallels, imo you're better off going to the tried and true - "what, are we supposed to have diversity quotas? Like some kind of PC-nazi?"
To which I say, yes.
Nah, because that argument isn't actually absurd. It's wrong, but not absurd.
Diversity quotas/affirmative action are meant for protection of "outliers" as one poster put it earlier, and minorities.
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
There's a lot of different people out there. If you want Paizo to represent everybody at every stage along every spectrum (sexuality, gender identity, race, and so on) then you're basically asking them to stop making an RPG and have everybody work full time writing backstories for Iconics, because that is a LOT of ground to cover.
As long as they keep making new iconics, they will keep writing those back stories. Voicing the opinion that it would be nice to see some of those iconics portray people who haven't been portrayed well, or at all, seems very reasonable to me.
And I disagree that there should be any limits to diverse representation. If the next six iconics in the upcoming Occult Adventures contained not a single cisgender or straight person, that'd be great IMO. I could put together a full table of six of my friends and ask them to play characters with their own gender and sexuality, and achieve the same result. I don't pretend to know what factors make up your identity, but I'm guessing you don't have to deal with finding adequate representation of people of your gender, based on your attitude toward this.
But I mean, if we don't NEED representation, then I propose that all future published Pathfinder materials contain no white, straight, cisgender men. No more. Not a one. Because, like, representation doesn't REALLY matter, right?
Liz Courts Community Manager |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm triggered that we don't have an FAQ on splash weapons vs. swarms yet. Where do I go to flame a staffmember about that?
Flaming a staff member is not necessary. At all. If this is a topic that you feel needs to be discussed, post in the appropriate forum and flag it as needing to be FAQed. It is not a relevant topic for this thread.
Rynjin |
Rynjin wrote:How much representation is too much, do you think?But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
There's a lot of different people out there. If you want Paizo to represent everybody at every stage along every spectrum (sexuality, gender identity, race, and so on) then you're basically asking them to stop making an RPG and have everybody work full time writing backstories for Iconics, because that is a LOT of ground to cover.
Snarky answer: When Otherkin start being represented.
Slightly more thoughtful answer: There's not really a hard line, but IMO at some point you really have to debate "How many people even know what this IS, much less identify as it?".
Most people know people of other races exist. Most people know that gays and lesbians exist. Most people know about trans people, at least at a surface level.
Less people (as shown in this thread) are even aware there is a "non-binary" gender system. Most of those are people who browse the internet, where it's easy to very quickly get a bad impression of this. But that's beside the point.
Of those, Genderfluid and Asexual are the MOST prominent of these. I honestly couldn't tell you any of the labels for most other things along the "gender spectrum" or "sexuality spectrum" and have them accurately line up with the meaning (frex, I have heard the term "demiqueer" once or twice, but f**! if I know what it MEANS).
There's a point of diminishing returns from a financial perspective. You get into those and you have most people being confused as to what that even MEANS, and then at best 1 or 2 people (the RPG market is SMALL) who plays Tabletop games, also plays Pathfinder, and pays attention to the Pathfinder Iconics for each class (I STILL don't know who the iconic Witch and Summoner are and I spend way too much time on these boards and doing Pathfinder stuff) know what it is, identify with it, and are gratified by it enough to purchase products.
To your second point, I don't think this is likely to be a real problem - what we're saying is all people deserve to be considered and represented, NOT that paizo needs to become a company that sells backstories of iconics.
Every time a designer writes another straight white guy, they have made a *choice*. I am saying that they should practice being more deliberate in their approach to representing diverse characters - it seems like paizo already has guildelines for including more women, for example. Do you think when they write iconics they don't look at the demographics of their characters?
My assumption is they do. There is no harm in saying 'ok, 80% of our characters are male, let's make a change to that' - there's no harm in saying "we have 5 new iconics, let's make some of them trans, or genderqueer, or something else."
Paizo doesn't write a bunch of "straight white guys" in any case. But it really is a matter of demographics, in a sense. Hit a wide audience without alienating a separate smaller one.
Meaning, most of the characters are (counting Elves/Half-Elves as "white" and Half-Orcs as "black" for lack of better classifications) straight white dudes, white chicks, black dudes, and black chicks of varying backgrounds, professions, and interests. Toss in a few of vaguely Middle Eastern and Asian descent.
Of these, several are gay or lesbian, and one is Trans.
Those are the BIG demographics to hit.
Diversity is great, but i don't think it needs to be forced, really. There doesn't need to be a representative for each person who might be playing the game. As long as the game makes an effort to hit the big notes, I don't think there's an issue with making a smaller effort to hit the smaller notes that, frankly, less people are even AWARE OF, much less identify with.
Big Lemon |
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
Are you saying they should not have a nonbinary iconic?
Because if you are, it would be better for you to admit that bluntly rather than trying to sugar-coat your feelings. If you are not, then since we are clearly nowhere near this hypothetical future of yours, that statement is completely off-topic.
The job is not done until every child/young adult has a role model to look at that is dealing with the same issue they are and say "They got through, I can get through it do". Everyone deserves that. Every creator is responsible for working toward making that happen. Paizo is doing a wonderful job of it, and I believe they will continue to do so.
Claxon |
The issue here is that you and I have the privilege to say "I don't want to hear about it, I just want to sword things", because we ALREADY have representation. Marginalized groups do not already have abundant opportunities to see themselves, to see themselves portrayed as heroes, as villains, as monsters, as saints, as badasses, and everything else.
Real people who are dealing with these issues DO have to hear about it, at length, frequently every day of their lives, yet simultaneously lack the opportunity to see themselves portrayed as badass heroes that you and I are able to take for granted.
To this argument, what I would say is - if you don't care at all, why voice any sort of objection when people try to see themselves represented in media? If you honestly do not care about anyone's identity in your media and RPGs (which is odd, but more power to you), you have absolutely no reason to silence people and say you don't want to see representation - that is like saying "you're doing something that's good for you and doesn't effect me at all - I don't like it".
As has already been stated, we aren't talking about making stories 'about' gender and sexuality, but allowing people of diverese identities *participate* in the same heroic stories you love.
Where did I say I objected? I'm pretty sure I didn't. All I said was I felt like this was overly politically correct, to the point of foisting it. Not because someone is different, but because I feel like...at a certain point it's just too much. And by that I mean, and per someone else's post in this thread, there are like 36,000 combinations of gender, gender identity, sexuality, etc. At a certain point you can't do it all without it getting ridiculous.
Worse, I feel like the "iconic" part gets diluted more and more with every set of iconics. Heck, I can barely remember the core iconics. I dunno, I feel like I'm doing a terrible job of explaining and also feel like I'm a target simply because my position basically amounts to "Why?".
If someone wants to write a fantasy novel about it, I don't care. But how are we going to include stuff about gender identity into something that's supposed to be a "board game". I dunno. Are we trying to write big preface about gender identity and the world into our rule books?
I guess ultimately I just don't feel like RPGs are the appropriate forum for this sort of thing in and of itself. It's far too nuanced and complicated a subject to be adequately handled I think. Either it's a single line that it's just a brief description and then we continue about our business or we have a 6 page primer on sexuality and gender? I dunno, it just seems like the wrong place. It feels a bit like Starbucks and their #RaceTogether thing.
Just a couple of thoughts in no particular order.
- Not including an example of things leads to erasure or the suspicion of it. Neither of those is good.
I don't think that's fair. Just because something isn't included doesn't mean there has to be a negative opinion of it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes not being included just means that the storyline didn't have a reason to include it. And that's the sort of overly PC thing I was talking about. Where now I'm a jerk just because I don't make sure every possibility is included.
Rynjin |
Rynjin wrote:
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
Are you saying they should not have a nonbinary iconic?
Because if you are, it would be better for you to admit that bluntly rather than trying to sugar-coat your feelings. If you are not, then since we are clearly nowhere near this hypothetical future of yours, that statement is completely off-topic.
The job is not done until every child/young adult has a role model to look at that is dealing with the same issue they are and say "They got through, I can get through it do". Everyone deserves that. Every creator is responsible for working toward making that happen. Paizo is doing a wonderful job of it, and I believe they will continue to do so.
If you've ever seen me post before, you know I'm not the type to sugarcoat my feelings. I don't particularly care one way or another whether they do or do not include a nonbinary character, and if I did what I would be likely to say is simply "I don't think they should bother".
I DO, however, feel it really isn't, and shouldn't be a PRIORITY for them to seek out less common gender and sexual identities to represent.
If they do, neat. If they don't, so what?
Vagabond? |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why, but at the same time, I don't really see why not. If they make a class that makes sense for it to be genderfluid, it would make complete sense. A genderfluid or genderless shapeshifter for a class based on changing into various creatures would make complete sense. However, as I said before, I don't really see the reason why unless it makes sense for a character- If it's just there to be there, then It'll just feel tacked on.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
@ Rynjin: Look, I get that you're going for a "moderation in all things" approach, at least with respects to a "what demographics is it important for a company to reach out to" angle.
But arguing that it makes financial sense not to be "too diverse" or whatever is a gross idea. I doubt that Paizo got Crystal Frasier to write a trans woman iconic to increase their visible diversity for their bottom line. And I don't have to identify with Shardra's gender to appreciate Paizo's efforts.
But I'm just trying to get down to core of your argument. Are you saying "please don't expand your diverse representation too much"? Do you have a better reason than marketing demos? Because that's a pretty bad reason not to include diverse people in your published works. Are you saying "there's enough diversity"? Do you want to guess how many characters across ALL MEDIA I've ever consumed share a gender identity with me? It's one. And it's an iffy one. More like "used to be one before I realized I wasn't cisgender." Do you think I don't deserve any representation?
knightnday |
Rynjin wrote:
But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
Are you saying they should not have a nonbinary iconic?
Because if you are, it would be better for you to admit that bluntly rather than trying to sugar-coat your feelings. If you are not, then since we are clearly nowhere near this hypothetical future of yours, that statement is completely off-topic.
The job is not done until every child/young adult has a role model to look at that is dealing with the same issue they are and say "They got through, I can get through it do". Everyone deserves that. Every creator is responsible for working toward making that happen. Paizo is doing a wonderful job of it, and I believe they will continue to do so.
I'm not Rynjin, but I'll weigh in here. No, they don't NEED to have a nonbinary iconic. It would be nice and garner them some good will, but it is not a necessity.
I'm reminded of a commercial from many years ago with Charles Barkley that said something to the effect of "I am not a role model." These iconics aren't meant to be a role model, although they can certainly have a positive effect for some.
I think that is where the disconnect is coming for many of us, or perhaps just me. I am not looking for Paizo to make something that represents every facet of the real world, create role models or imparting upon them the responsibility to shape lives. I think that is asking a lot of the company and the people that work there.
That isn't to say that if they want to take up that mantle that it would be unwelcome. But that isn't what I come to my game company, basketball player, musician or whatever for, nor do I consider it their job.
mechaPoet RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Arnakalar wrote:Where did I say I objected? I'm pretty sure I didn't. All I said was I felt like this was overly politically correct, to the point of foisting it. Not because someone is different, but because I feel like...at a certain point it's just too much. And by that I mean, and per someone else's post in this thread, there are like 36,000 combinations of gender, gender identity, sexuality, etc. At a certain point you can't do it all without it getting ridiculous.The issue here is that you and I have the privilege to say "I don't want to hear about it, I just want to sword things", because we ALREADY have representation. Marginalized groups do not already have abundant opportunities to see themselves, to see themselves portrayed as heroes, as villains, as monsters, as saints, as badasses, and everything else.
Real people who are dealing with these issues DO have to hear about it, at length, frequently every day of their lives, yet simultaneously lack the opportunity to see themselves portrayed as badass heroes that you and I are able to take for granted.
To this argument, what I would say is - if you don't care at all, why voice any sort of objection when people try to see themselves represented in media? If you honestly do not care about anyone's identity in your media and RPGs (which is odd, but more power to you), you have absolutely no reason to silence people and say you don't want to see representation - that is like saying "you're doing something that's good for you and doesn't effect me at all - I don't like it".
As has already been stated, we aren't talking about making stories 'about' gender and sexuality, but allowing people of diverese identities *participate* in the same heroic stories you love.
While there is conceivably an infinite spectrum of gender, just because of the nature of what a spectrum is, that number was somebody referencing the recorded number of different sexes of mushrooms.
Rynjin |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Rynjin: Look, I get that you're going for a "moderation in all things" approach, at least with respects to a "what demographics is it important for a company to reach out to" angle.
But arguing that it makes financial sense not to be "too diverse" or whatever is a gross idea. I doubt that Paizo got Crystal Frasier to write a trans woman iconic to increase their visible diversity for their bottom line. And I don't have to identify with Shardra's gender to appreciate Paizo's efforts.
But I'm just trying to get down to core of your argument. Are you saying "please don't expand your diverse representation too much"? Do you have a better reason than marketing demos? Because that's a pretty bad reason not to include diverse people in your published works. Are you saying "there's enough diversity"? Do you want to guess how many characters across ALL MEDIA I've ever consumed share a gender identity with me? It's one. And it's an iffy one. More like "used to be one before I realized I wasn't cisgender." Do you think I don't deserve any representation?
I'm saying I don't think it needs to be a priority, and honestly trying to make a character that appeals to everyone in the world is a fool's errand.
Like I said, I'm not against it. If there were a generfluid iconic I honestly would find that pretty cool.
But I also honestly, really don't think it's that important. The most important thing for a story is well-written characters. And the most important thing for an RPG is the, well...RPG stuff.
In neither case does promoting diversity become a driving goal.
I guess what I'm saying is it should be organic. Something that fits the character and is an actual part of their identity rather than something tacked on to appease the people who want it by saying "Here, see, we made you one, are you happy?"
Which seems like the likely outcome if an incredibly diverse cast becomes an actual priority, rather than something that occasionally makes a great character, with an interesting background, who represents some minority or outlier, like Shardra.
Kazaan |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kazaan wrote:But when language ceases to facilitate and instead hinders due to being overly concise or overly general, there's a problem.Where is this "problem" you speak of? You meet someone that hasn't already made their gender clear, you ask them "Do you have a preference of pronouns?" and then you remember what they say. That's it. I'm skeptical that anyone who considers this difficult is even trying.
The problem is with people wanting upteen billion different pronouns of only personal significance. Ideally, even the masculine/feminine pronoun dichotomy we have now should be boiled down to something more unified. Personally, I like using 'one' as a non-gendered pronoun. What utility is there in specifying one's gender as a pronoun when it has no bearing on the conversation at hand? None. It'd be like having different pronouns for different race or religion. Nothing wrong with a label to summarize, but when people want to include a whole book of information, the label becomes more confusing and the pertinent information becomes harder to see.Kazaan wrote:Iconics are supposed to be highly generalized characters so that you can modify and manipulate them to suit your purposes. As such, they should encompass labels of a more general nature, again for the facilitation of their intended purpose.Are you aware that Paizo writes official backstories for the iconics, as well as publishing novels, comics, and audio-dramas featuring them? They are actual, established characters in fiction. Shardra is specifically a trans woman just as she is specifically a dwarf. It seem like you're the only one who's "manipulating them to suit your purposes" here.
Ok, well, Bungie also has an official backstory for John-117, aka. Master Chief, from the Halo games. There are books and comics and yadda yadda. But it's really a rather plain story; purposefully so you can "get into" the character. Other games try to over-complicate the backstory and the character becomes unrelateable except to a small margin of players. The point is that if they make the Iconics backstory too reliant on these nitty gritty details, they become less customizable and, thus, less able to fulfill their specific function in the game.I have no idea what you mean by "a more general nature", because being cisgendered is not "general". It is something specific. Really, if they wanted them to be "more general" they would use "they" instead of he/she in all of the core rulebooks so that they don't denote paladins, fighters, etc as a specific gender. They don't do that now, but if a new iconic was nonbinary, "they" would probably be used then.
Where does it say the other iconics are cisgender? Where did I suggest that they should be? That's what I meant when I said they should avoid setting any such specification for gender roles or sexuality. Don't say that they are cis- but also don't say they are trans-, bi-, homo-, hetero-, a-, or any other moniker because it fails to contribute anything meaningful to their role as a general go-to character with a pre-set backstory. Also, "they" as a pronoun in place of he or she is a cumbersome construction because "they" is, technically, plural rather than singular. We have no third person singular pronouns that are gender-agnostic. We should, the aforementioned "one" would do nicely. Throwing in a specifically non-binary iconic wouldn't make the issue better. It would make it more convoluted because it introduces yet another dynamic when we should be moving in the opposite direction; towards a human experience of inclusion where unnecessary distinctions are simply not made to begin with.
Comments now with 100% more bold flavor.
Atarlost |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An agender adventurer is pretty much indistinguishable from a gendered adventurer who can keep it in his or her pants. This should include, at least, paladins, clerics of the more staid deities, and the more monkish monks.
Accordingly, it should be impossible to determine the gender identities of Seelah, Sajan, and possibly Kyra until they retire. Well, okay. Sajan doesn't wear a shirt so he probably isn't transgender, but he could be asexual and nobody would know.
Ipslore the Red |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arnakalar wrote:Snarky answer: When Otherkin start being represented.Rynjin wrote:How much representation is too much, do you think?But IMO there really is a limit to how much representation a Fantasy game actually NEEDS to put in. Don't get me wrong, I don't object to the idea of Asexual, Genderfluid, or what have you characters, but there's a certain point where clamoring for more, more, more gets absurd in and of itself.
There's a lot of different people out there. If you want Paizo to represent everybody at every stage along every spectrum (sexuality, gender identity, race, and so on) then you're basically asking them to stop making an RPG and have everybody work full time writing backstories for Iconics, because that is a LOT of ground to cover.
You mean like druids or beast totem barbarians?
On a serious note, because someone asked earlier what I meant by my original post: I've seen many people claim they self-identify as being genderfluid, agender, bigender, or so on with a gender(s) of "train", "dog", "void", "this one fictional character from my favorite anime", and so on. I've also seen a majority of trans people be horribly offended by people who do this, since they feel it's degrading them. The term used is "transtrender", I think.
I'll admit I don't know everything, but this seems to be requesting that one of the iconics be a transtrender. Am I missing something?
Big Lemon |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you've ever seen me post before, you know I'm not the type to sugarcoat my feelings. I don't particularly care one way or another whether they do or do not include a nonbinary character, and if I did what I would be likely to say is simply "I don't think they should bother".
I DO, however, feel it really isn't, and shouldn't be a PRIORITY for them to seek out less common gender and sexual identities to represent.
If they do, neat. If they don't, so what?
I say here retyping this several times because I was genuinely at a loss form your total and utter lack of empathy.
I don't know much about you, Rynjin, but I'm going to wager a guess that you've never been the victim of widespread erasure or had any shortage of role-models or character to associate with in your media. If I'm correct, that means you have no idea what it's like to not have that, and how confusing and infuriating it can be.
The more these marginalized, struggling people can see themselves in stories growing up, the less they feel like they're broken. The more that people "in the norm" see these characters in media, the less deviant it will seem to them, and subsequently the more likely they are to understand when they encounter it in real life.
I really don't know what else to say. Am I coming across clearly? Because this is really, really important.
Big Lemon |
I'll admit I don't know everything, but this seems to be requesting that one of the iconics be a transtrender. Am I missing something?
Close. One of the iconics (Shardra) IS transgender. What this thread was initially about was thep ossibliy of adding a nonbinary iconic—one that is neither strongly male or strongly female.
The difference is that this would require the rules text for the class to use the gender-neutral "they" instead of he or she (and every iconic has either been a "he" or "she" up until this point".
As far as I am aware, the only genderfluid character in Pathfinder is Arshea, the Spirit of Abandon, but as Arshea is an immortal deity, this isn't quite the same.