| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder about the potentiality of this.
On the one hand: While I am not a non-binary person myself, I have friends that are, and a lot of them play TRPGs. These days there are close to as many nb folks as there are trans folks, and it'd be great to se nb representation in the iconics just as we now have a trans one.
On the Other: There are still no "rules" for how to address this in the English language. Different nb people use different words to refer to themselves, and plenty of people just have no knowledge of this issue at all, and encountering alternate pronouns (like, say, if the rules text for a new class used "they" in the singular) could be confusing.
But then, at the same time, I remember a lot of readers that had no experience with gender issues being confused by Shardra Geltl's Meet the Iconics entry which describes her experience of being raised male without a preface saying "this is a trans woman".
So, it wouldn't be the first time that Paizo took a progressive approach that resulted in some short-term confusion in readers... but the Meet the Iconics entries are also not in the rulebooks, so it's perhaps not as significant as using agender pronouns (or some other solution) in a rulebook would be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I don't know anything about iconics, but Arshea exists. And since he/she is a deity (with a REALLY good Celestial Obedience,) he/she has rules in a rulebook.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your gender is not the same thing as your mood.
Well, I don't know anything about iconics, but Arshea exists. And since he/she is a deity (with a REALLY good Celestial Obedience,) he/she has rules in a rulebook.
True (i have that book, it's awesome!), so there IS precedent, but the solution in Arshea's entry is mostly to use a different monickers instead of pronouns, which would not be a good fit.
Your gender is not the same thing as your mood.
I think I know what you mean by this but I want to give you a chance to explain yourself first.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your gender is not the same thing as your mood.
Can of worms here. Don't do it.
I can't speak for Iconics, mostly because I have... feelings about the Iconic Shaman from a writing perspective- HOWEVER
I think a non-binary deity is well within the realms of possibility and would be actively interesting. Take the Dofus/Wakfu universe's gods: though they have accepted forms in religious iconography, the reality is that because they're deities they can do whatever they want and take any form that they wish. See also: Zeus.
As far as mortal characters though, I must ask what you think mentioning an iconic being non-binary would accomplish from a writing perspective? If the individual's gender is based on... whatever criteria NB folks judge it on (I honestly have no idea), it begs the question how this would really effect their character.
"I identify as male now"
Ok, so? Does that effect your actions? Does it intrinsically change the way you approach scenarios and problems? And if it does, what distinguishes being NB from split-personality? It doesn't seem to me like it matters that much that an iconic be NB if it's just representation for representation's sake. What someone's gender is shouldn't be a footnote- it's an important part about who they are and why they do the things that they do. Especially so if they're in an outlier group like transgendered and Non-Binary individuals.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
time to go look up non-binary
The iconics aren't necessarily designed to produce good stories, though they usually do (honestly, I always found Arshea's story weirdly bland). They're designed to represent basically whatever kind of adventurer might exist. That's my understanding of it. Showing an agendered iconic (for instance) would help continue the trend of general diversity.
That said, I think there could be a lot of character exploration with a genderfluid character. If you wanted to lean upon it heavily—more heavily than I expect Paizo would—you could have the genderfluid character be focused on shapeshifting or disguises*, or be otherwise associated with states of flux, like a Master Chymist or a priest of Nethys or Gozreh. Actually, a priest of Gozreh or Nethys seems like a natural choice for a character to make genderfluid. Symmetry between god and cleric is always fun, whether it be overt (Gozreh is pretty much literally genderfluid, isn't s/he?) or subtle (Nethys is male, but he seems to be the Pathfinder equivalent of Sollux—constantly shifting between states and emotions).
Or you could be more subtle about it, but that's harder and I want to get this post out before this thread gets wacky.
*Though if we have to play the "Are there connotations?" Game, this has connotations thanks to the stereotype that non-cisgendered people are "tricksters".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for Iconics, mostly because I have... feelings about the Iconic Shaman from a writing perspective- HOWEVER
I think a non-binary deity is well within the realms of possibility and would be actively interesting. Take the Dofus/Wakfu universe's gods: though they have accepted forms in religious iconography, the reality is that because they're deities they can do whatever they want and take any form that they wish. See also: Zeus.
As far as mortal characters though, I must ask what you think mentioning an iconic being non-binary would accomplish from a writing perspective? If the individual's gender is based on... whatever criteria NB folks judge it on (I honestly have no idea), it begs the question how this would really effect their character.
"I identify as male now"
Ok, so? Does that effect your actions? Does it intrinsically change the way you approach scenarios and problems? And if it does, what distinguishes being NB from split-personality? It doesn't seem to me like it matters that much that an iconic be NB if it's just representation for representation's sake. What someone's gender is shouldn't be a footnote- it's an important part about who they are and why they do the things that they do. Especially so if they're in an outlier group like transgendered and Non-Binary individuals.
NB deities exist already... well, a non-binary demigod, at least (the previously mentioned Arshea).
Also, identifyign as non-binary does not mean someone "flip-flips" between genders on a day to day basis. Generally, it means they don't feel particularly masculine or feminine.
Those that I know personally prefer to be referred to with gender-neutral pronouns, though of the course the problem is that there hasn't been a precedent for that for very long in the English language. Most that I know liek to be referred to as "they/them/their" as a singular, which has been used enough now that it's starting to be an accepted practice, but it's not universal. Some people use new or variated words (like "e" instead of her or she, or "zhey", etc.), which, naturally, would also be difficult to work into a book.
Ok, so? Does that effect your actions? Does it intrinsically change the way you approach scenarios and problems? And if it does, what distinguishes being NB from split-personality? It doesn't seem to me like it matters that much that an iconic be NB if it's just representation for representation's sake. What someone's gender is shouldn't be a footnote- it's an important part about who they are and why they do the things that they do. Especially so if they're in an outlier group like transgendered and Non-Binary individuals.
I have a problem with statements like these, because people generally only say this in regard to "outliers" like people that are trans, genderfluid, or asexual (which I am). If we can have cisgender male and cisgender female characters who's gender identity is not the focus of their personal story... why can't we have transgender or nonbinary ones that get stories that aren't just about their gender-identity?
It's akin to only casting African American men as leading roles in "Black Movies" like Tyler Perry's stuff. It's okay to have a character just be black. It's okay to have a character just be trans.
If this wasn't what you meant, then I apologize, but regardless, it should be brought up.
The iconics aren't necessarily designed to produce good stories, though they usually do (honestly, I always found Arshea's story weirdly bland). They're designed to represent basically whatever kind of adventurer might exist. That's my understanding of it. Showing an agendered iconic (for instance) would help continue the trend of general diversity.
That said, I think there could be a lot of character exploration with a genderfluid character. If you wanted to lean upon it heavily—more heavily than I expect Paizo would—you could have the genderfluid character be focused on shapeshifting or disguises*, or be otherwise associated with states of flux, like a Master Chymist or a priest of Nethys or Gozreh. Actually, a priest of Gozreh or Nethys seems like a natural choice for a character to make genderfluid. Symmetry between god and cleric is always fun, whether it be overt (Gozreh is pretty much literally genderfluid, isn't s/he?) or subtle (Nethys is male, but he seems to be the Pathfinder equivalent of Sollux—constantly shifting between states and emotions).
Or you could be more subtle about it, but that's harder and I want to get this post out before this thread gets wacky.
*Though if we have to play the "Are there connotations?" Game, this has connotations thanks to the stereotype that non-cisgendered people are "tricksters".
I don't think they would want to lean on the gender identity heavily. They didn't with Shardra (it's a significant part of her past, but has nothing intrisictly to do with the fact that she became a Stone shaman).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoops, I meant Shardra, not Arshea (not relevant here, just for the record).
Yeah, like I said, I doubt Paizo would want to use it as a real device. They're very PC. Not saying that derisively, just saying, they won't want to risk implying anything questionable. If they use it, it'll likely be a footnote.
I can kinda see where JamesCooke is coming from. Like it or not, uncommon things derive reactions from us, and non-cisgenderedness is definitely not that common. It stands out, and when something stands out, the audience expects it to matter. Even once our culture is fully tolerant, that expectation will linger. Like a character with a big mohawk or who has a face covered in tattoos or who hails from Antarctica, we always expect unusual things to have a payoff.
That said, it's not exactly fair that we expect that. And hopefully we'll get to the point where a trans* character is noticed, noted, then mostly remembered for what they do or who they're acted by.
Though I could definitely see people referring to a character as "the mohawk guy", so odds are it'll depend on the viewer's attention span, too.
I'm a bit conflicted I like what paizo is doing with the iconics so that they are inclusive as much as possible. There is also the fact that this is a role-playing game which means it can be what ever you want. If you want to play a trans character or a gender fluid character you can.
On the other hand I also see some of the people that come out of tumblr, and I worry that the more paizo does this the more and more we are going to see people asking for and getting upset when their specific gender, orientation, body type, age group, or way of thinking isn't represented. This realistically is probably just the pessimist in me seeing the worst possible outcome.
I'm not sure how this non binary thing works. Is the dwarf not [non binary] because she's a girl?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a problem with statements like these, because people generally only say this in regard to "outliers" like people that are trans, genderfluid, or asexual (which I am). If we can have cisgender male and cisgender female characters who's gender identity is not the focus of their personal story... why can't we have transgender or nonbinary ones that get stories that aren't just about their gender-identity?
It's akin to only casting African American men as leading roles in "Black Movies" like Tyler Perry's stuff. It's okay to have a character just be black. It's okay to have a character just be trans.
If this wasn't what you meant, then I apologize, but regardless, it should be brought up.
Well that's why I like talking about this kind of stuff- the more I don't know, the more of an opportunity I have to learn about both the subject and myself. In this case, I learned that I provided a faulty argument and, probably, won't make that same mistake twice.
Discourse for the purposes of edification ahoy!I can kinda see where JamesCooke is coming from. Like it or not, uncommon things derive reactions from us, and non-cisgenderedness is definitely not that common. It stands out, and when something stands out, the audience expects it to matter. Even once our culture is fully tolerant, that expectation will linger. Like a character with a big mohawk or who has a face covered in tattoos or who hails from Antarctica, we always expect unusual things to have a payoff.
That said, it's not exactly fair that we expect that. And hopefully we'll get to the point where a trans* character is noticed, noted, then mostly remembered for what they do or who they're acted by.
Wonderfully said, I think that puts it in perspective for me.
I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about.
I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
So, as I understand then, the desire is to have a person who doesn't specifically self identify as cis or trans or male or female but "shifts" between all these?
Now, I'm not opposed to being opened to stuff. But this seems overly foisting of PC-ness. To be honest, I can't even tell you who the gay or straight iconics are. The only 1 know to be different really is Shardra. I really don't want gender or sexuality to be the focus of any of these characters. So I guess I'm not that personally interested.
I don't know. I feel like this comes off rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just not sure we need to cover absolutely every combination of the sexuality and gender spectrum.
A Kitsune with realistic likeness can switch back and forth at will. (Which would be fluid?)
Tengu have almost no sexual dimorphism (which could be eschewing the concept entirely)
And I suppose any species could aim for androgyny (though cultural cues are probably going to go right over peoples heads) or go back and forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
itt I find out I am a standard man
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
Tribal geek pretty much hit the nail on the head.
Gender is a psycho-social construct (what one "feels") and sex is physical sex.
It's worth noting that not even physical sense is purely binary in the human race; approximately 2% of people born are some manner of intersex; i.e. having functioning male genitals, but having an XX chromosome and internal female organs (people used to call this being a "hermaphoridte" but that term is considered very derogatory these days).
Non-human races in fantasy literature, when you get down to it, are always allegories for types of human beings. Terry Pratchett—gods bless him—was one example of this done very well. Because all dwarves in the Discworld had bears and wore multiple layers of clothing and armor, gender was "more or less optional", but what that actually meant was every dwarf was supposed to act like a male dwarf, and whether or not one was female was just "not talked about", which is a problem when the lady dwarf Cheery decides to start wearing earings and lipstick to work. While written comically, those parts of Discworld have a lot to say about real life, too.
The relatively new CN series Steven Universe (though it's a different kind of fantasy fiction that draws more on scifi) is another great example, as most of the main characters are members of an inorganic magical race that has no real gender or sex, but more or less adopts female pronouns because they look female to humans. Despite that, they still form romantic relationships with each other and with humans, which really spoke to me as a romantic asexual.
There is a catch to saying, "There are plenty of characters that do not rely on being cis to be good characters, why can't we do that with outlying genders?" is that, when we do add such outliers subtly, it becomes difficult to prove they are not cisgendered. The transgender dwarf iconic doesn't have a terrible backstory, but it puts a lot of emphasis on her transgender identity. Otherwise by the artwork we might just as well assume the shaman is a burly lady, or a shaven male. In fantasy especially, the invisibility of subtle gender cues is multiplied, because we willingly introduce new, fantastical cultures that may not share our telltale signs. Even if we agreed the shaman was of a male sex, we might still argue about whether their outfit is a "woman's robe" or not.
When gender identity and sexuality are not center stage, we are free to make assumptions about it, which used to be advantageous to the developers. Even the definition between "male" and "female" in most games is out of obligation to our sexual dimorphism as a race--it's part of your visual description. If most developers could get away with not mentioning a character's sex at all and still tell a story with good imagery, I think that most would. There are certainly plenty of races in other mediums that don't even bother using gendered pronouns on any race that looks identical in either gender. Even Paizo will default to "it" for animals and nonhumanoid creatures that do not show any diversity between sexes, even though they must certainly have genders.
There is not much, iconic-wise, that gender or sexuality do to distinguish between characters in the mind's eye. It's why we have arguments in fan communities whether some character or another is "gay," "trans," or "straight effeminate." At best, we could use gender-neutral pronouns, but that still doesn't tell anyone but the devoted gender identity fans much other than "not man or woman, probably, sometimes." If you want a character to be definitively third-gender, you do kind of have to put it out there. And when you put it out there, people will wonder why it's so important because of Chekov's Six-Inch Pistol.
Why does that matter? Because Paizo wants the iconics to have broad appeal. That's why they say each iconic is "presumed bisexual until proven otherwise" instead of "bisexual." Locking down a character's sexuality is exclusive. You can't make every character's race or sex too vague and still make a barrage of evocative artwork (unless you run a campaign where toxic gas requires everyone to be fully suited up at all times), but you can keep details about sexuality and gender identity more open, and thereby allow the fans their own interpretations. We all assume Valeros and Seoni identity as man and woman, but do we really know?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
So, as I understand then, the desire is to have a person who doesn't specifically self identify as cis or trans or male or female but "shifts" between all these?
Now, I'm not opposed to being opened to stuff. But this seems overly foisting of PC-ness. To be honest, I can't even tell you who the gay or straight iconics are. The only 1 know to be different really is Shardra. I really don't want gender or sexuality to be the focus of any of these characters. So I guess I'm not that personally interested.
I don't know. I feel like this comes off rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just not sure we need to cover absolutely every combination of the sexuality and gender spectrum.
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 makes me feel it's more necessary.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love gay stories. They are so happy!
Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
So, as I understand then, the desire is to have a person who doesn't specifically self identify as cis or trans or male or female but "shifts" between all these?
Now, I'm not opposed to being opened to stuff. But this seems overly foisting of PC-ness. To be honest, I can't even tell you who the gay or straight iconics are. The only 1 know to be different really is Shardra. I really don't want gender or sexuality to be the focus of any of these characters. So I guess I'm not that personally interested.
I don't know. I feel like this comes off rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just not sure we need to cover absolutely every combination of the sexuality and gender spectrum.
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...
People turn it into the focus though, whether they be for it or against it. It sucks, that it's going to be what that iconic would be boiled down to, but people on both sides of the fence are going to do it.
Every time something is done if something stands out as not average about that person it's going to be the focus, whether it be religion, gender, orientation. We as a species like putting labels on things, and when the label is what stands out that is quickly what something becomes just the label.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
My experience as an asexual pales in comparison to the hardship that my homosexual and transgender friends have had to deal with, but I can tell you this: before I knew what being "Asexual" was—before I had a label for myself—I felt broken. I thought there was something wrong with me. What's worse, I had no idea how to describe the way I was without someone assuming that some sort of erectile disfunction or was in denial about being gay. They fit whatever I describes into whatever little box they already had that seemed right to them—not to me.
That confusion went away when a partner said "Hey, have you ever considered that you might be asexual?". I looked it up online. I found forums. I found people that were experiencing what I was experiencing, and suddenly I had tools to explain this part of myself to other people. Sure, sometimes I have to explain was "heteroromantic asexual" means, but every time I do that, asexuality becomes a little more "normal" in the collective consciousness, and the box starts to feel less small.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Nonbinary are like trans in the way that the body they were born with doesn't represent their gender. For some they see themselves as both male and female at different times. So a new race wouldn't need to be built.I'm confused about this situation.
From what I understand in order to have genderless or mutable gender wouldn't we need new races that have a backstory that supports such?
I mean we have cis, and we have trans. We have male, female, hermaphroditic.
So I'm not sure what exactly your talking about.
So, as I understand then, the desire is to have a person who doesn't specifically self identify as cis or trans or male or female but "shifts" between all these?
Now, I'm not opposed to being opened to stuff. But this seems overly foisting of PC-ness. To be honest, I can't even tell you who the gay or straight iconics are. The only 1 know to be different really is Shardra. I really don't want gender or sexuality to be the focus of any of these characters. So I guess I'm not that personally interested.
I don't know. I feel like this comes off rude, but I'm not trying to be. I'm just not sure we need to cover absolutely every combination of the sexuality and gender spectrum.
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
People turn it into a focus now. Because it isn't done When it's done the second, third, fourth time... it won't be.
There was a time when letting a black man fight in the army was a huge deal. There was a time when electing a Catholic president was a big deal. It shouldn't have been. But it was. And now it isn't. Because people did it anyway. And did it again. And again.
I'm not saying we don't need labels, it's how we use them that is the problem, that we boil people down to just that label instead of person. People as a whole are more than just one thing, labels help inform us of who they are, but a person isn't just one label they are many.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a nonbinary, person, I'm super down for more gender variation among the iconics, and the fantasy genre generally.
Also, I can see that there are a lot of misconceptions flying around this thread. First things first: I would encourage you to do some research on your own, even just some preliminary Googling, if you come across unfamiliar vocabulary. Next, I'll try to address some major points:
- Any and all labels for gender and sexuality are most useful when used as self-identifying tools. Having these labels is useful for people who don't feel that the more common designations are accurate to describe their identities. They are less useful when used to try and definitively say "X is Y."
- 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.
- As a nonbinary person, what that means for me is that I don't identify as male or female, but somewhere along the spectrum. I'm not male, but my pronouns are he/him or they/them. I also prefer to present myself very femininely. I could tell you what I was "born as," but it would be incorrect, which is where you encounter terms that explain that someone was assigned their gender at birth based on their genitals (this is often written as something like amab for "assigned male at birth" or dfab for "designated female at birth"). Nonbinary is a fairly broad term, so not everyone who is nonbinary will experience or portray or relate to their gender in exactly the same way I do. Almost like how not all men and women are exactly the same just because they share gender labels
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm quite understanding what the problem here is
You want an inclusive iconic, that much I get
But why, exactly, when you can:
A) Take an iconic's statblock, and just rewrite their name and backstory to something you want
B) Headcanon that iconic as being whatever you like
C) Make your own character and make them whatever you want them to be
I'm not saying we don't need labels, it's how we use them that is the problem, that we boil people down to just that label instead of person. People as a whole are more than just one thing, labels help inform us of who they are, but a person isn't just one label they are many.
I agree with Tribalgeek on this. While having a label on something allows others of a like mind to create sub-communities within the community as a whole, it also allows those who are opposed to such things to redirect negativity towards a label.
I, personally, would be totally fine with such a character. I evaluate people based on who they are and not by whatever label that has been applied to them, by it self-imposed or societal-imposed. I would just like to see it done in such a way as that it is not the defining characteristic of the character... much like they did with the shaman iconic. While it was part of the character's backstory, I do not feel that was the dominating feature of that iconic and therefore gimmicky. I believe Paizo does an excellent job along those lines.
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm quite understanding what the problem here is
You want an inclusive iconic, that much I get
But why, exactly, when you can:
A) Take an iconic's statblock, and just rewrite their name and backstory to something you want
B) Headcanon that iconic as being whatever you like
C) Make your own character and make them whatever you want them to be
Paizo writes stories about their iconics. You might not read them or care about them, but a lot of people do. They are actual characters in actual stories. What's more, they're supposed to represent, as a previous commentor put it, "all the types of adventurers there could be". I mean, yeah, I can watch any movie/play any game/read any book and just pretend that there's an asexual character in it, but that's not even close to the same thing as someone actually writing on into their story.
If X% of people are trans but 0% of the adventurers in this world are, it's an erasure.
I didn't mean to suggest I had a problem with what Pizo has been doing. Paizo has been doign exemplary work on this front and gone above and beyond what many other publishers in their field have done in terms of progressiveness. My questions are: is this a practical next step? When will it be feasable? How might it be done?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would very much like to see the non-binary represention expand from the minor NPCs we've had so far to an iconic.
Non-binary to me is a general term for anyone who doesn't identify as male or female.
I'm sorry, I don't think I'm quite understanding what the problem here is
You want an inclusive iconic, that much I get
But why, exactly, when you can:
A) Take an iconic's statblock, and just rewrite their name and backstory to something you want
B) Headcanon that iconic as being whatever you like
C) Make your own character and make them whatever you want them to be
Why have any names and backstories for the iconics at all, if that's the approach you want? Just have the statblocks. No names or pictures or character or stories.
Or just make them all straight white males, since that's the default, but let anyone who wants anything different change them for their own use, while the rest of us can just use the comforting normal straight white guys. That should be inclusive enough, right?
Making inclusive iconics (and other characters - like NPCs used in adventures) sends a welcoming message to people who often don't feel like there's a place for them. Unlike those of us who are straight white males and get included in everything. Changing things for yourself doesn't do the same.
Well said.