3.5 Loyalist's page

auerstalt wrote:

I've been gaming DnD since chainmail and am saddened to see Paizo feel the need to inject real life issues into their products. DnD was a fantasy game of Dragons and Wizards that offered an escape from the real world. Adding LGBT issues has done nothing but remove the fantasy element and create the same 'real life' conflicts we see in the world today.

It may not have occurred to you, but for the many LGBT gamers out there, "the real world" includes prejudice for us, and it actually hinders our escapism to be confronted with exclusion or derision in the fantasy worlds we play in; it yanks us out of the fun to suddenly be confronted with the quotidian prejudices that bedevil our less-enchanted real lives.

The conflict, such as it is, only begins from people complaining as you do, who find it intolerably and inexplicably offensive to be confronted with any cultural evidence of our existence as something other than a joke. What this means, practically, is that your views are not the moral equivalent of most everyone else here. If your fantasy rests on prejudice, and is so violently undone by less than one in every ten NPCs being some shade of LGBT, then it's not unreasonable to suggest the problem lies with you.

All cultural products are social tools; they transmit, shape, alter, and reinforce cultural norms and folkways. This is why one must have a sense of responsibility for what they create, and thankfully Paizo does-- they're expanding their market to include all nerds, what could be wrong with that? *winks*

You argue well. And progressive politics is very good at arguing against how things have been done before, and casting the past as a demonstration of prejudice, immorality or repression prior to the new enlightened ways that the new politics promise. Inclusiveness becomes the new sacred idea that cannot be challenged. Long may it rein here, but it does not rein everywhere in all the worlds of fantasy.

Auerstalt is therefore not wrong. Paizo has "decided to push their personal feelings, beliefs and agenda on the subject." You are left pleased and placated and made into a supporter for them, because your interests are aligned, but others don't want such political causes in dnd or its settings. They want new and interesting settings and conflicts, not the everyday rehashed in a lazy placating fashion.

By making dnd more about political representations from our world, you are confining it to your identities and experiences to get what you want. It is unimaginative, and I've called it porting (here is some more from our world for you, fantasy setting, get that into you!).

When I want to focus on relationships and gender, I don't copy and paste from our world. I locate the relationships firmly in the context of the setting. So it isn't about LGBT (as LGBT movements do not exist in a fantasy setting not at all like our own world), but relationships between sentient races of great variety do occur. Some between more human-like (or humans and demihumans) actors, some far less.

That is working with the setting, and not trying to replicate our world to this other world (created by some influences yes, but also as a deliberate escape). I find the Culture novels of Iain Banks very inspiring in this regard. Far beyond our over-used labels as they often are, being far-future fantasy and at times very alien with only the slightest residue of our own.

Those of us dragged along for a political ride we do not desire, get a bit tired of it. Escapism and representative inclusion can be quite far apart. The latter doesn't escape very well from the present, as it cannot even detach itself from terms, such as LGBT, and the demands that these movements be included or else... shaming. Which is of course just another over-used tactic to try and seize the moral high ground.

If I were to summarise I would say there is no moral high ground. The great potential of dnd to escape and have fun can avoid the ideoterritorial mire of an inclusive agenda, or any political cause trying to worm its way into a fantasy setting. If that distance is lost though, the games become restrained by the here and now. It is less truly free fantasy and more akin to simulation and representation of what we have here (which is pretty dull folks compared to the potential of fantasy). Keep the politics out thanks, or you are just attacking the escapism long within the hobby.

Thanks for reading.

James Jacobs wrote:

Fair enough. And I hope you respect the fact that I view your views on this subject as outright disgusting as well. If it's that big of a deal to you, you should vote with your wallet.

I edited some stuff for the sake of space, , but this post from the first page of this thread, just like the other one I linked.

Just to clarify: five years ago, the creative director of Paizo made it completely clear that he would rather loose customers who take issue with LBGT characters than change their products.

Personally, I support this, but no matter how much you're bothered by said inclusion, the subject's pretty well closed.

To me that just proves the politics and cause is more important than the fantasy and the games actually getting away from our world.

...
Not if the Quah are not inclusive, and do not want a half orc in their clan.

Great possibilities, not just for typical line troops, skirmishers and cavalry, but also for crack elites, which could be based on OP builds.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Alice,

That is a insult to Aboriginal culture, to attempt to compare the Aboriginal Dreamtime and its rich tapestry of stories as being represented in the scant detail of a fantasy setting. :'(

Oh, give me a break. We do it to every nationality in Europe, and I don't see anyone complaining about that.

Er, actually Asians did complain about Tian. Mainly the messed up but obviously borrowed names, the skewed and partial history, the confused and jumbled up countries of the regions and blending all manner of Asian peoples from our world into Tian xia. Valid complaints about the lazy borrowing.

This is why you don't just copy paste, people. Invent and create.

Letting the tribe down in a massive way, cowardice, a mistake during a key ritual, not killing their progeny when it was foretold by shamans to be the cause of great evil.

Mmm, they are highly curious and influenced by what they torture out of people.

Like ropers.

Some perhaps some perhaps eh?

If it is a short adventure with pcs vs a dungeon and almost no npcs, there isn't much room to tick the LGBT box. That seems fine to me. What if LGBT has nothing to do with the adventure or the few npcs that are there?

Dungeons with spikes and rock traps are phallic, so they are male. ;)
Whips and nets are female, so oglaf said. :O

You're free to write whatever you want, but if you want a job: you follow guidelines.

free·lance

Being a freelancer isn't about others forcing their politics upon you. You are an independent, and not committed to their politics by default.

Course, policing freelancers would be difficult.
---|═══════ ╰☻╮

By the way, to all those claiming that Paizo is taking every opportunity to remind people that LGBT characters exist, and is "shoving it down our throats" (good lord), have you ever considered how many LGBT NPCs are not identified?

An average AP book might contain 20 NPCs (conservatively). There are 12 complete adventure paths of six adventures each. That works out to nearly 1,500 NPCs described to some level of detail in Pathfinder Adventure Paths alone (between the adventures, the setting material, the fiction, and the bestiaries). I'd say it's reasonable to expect another 500 (which, given the fact that the NPC Codex exists, is really lowballing it) in non-AP material.

So let's say there are 2,000 Pathfinder NPCs out there described in some detail. The most reliable figure I've seen for incidence of homosexuality is 6% (likely larger once you include the B and T groups). Translating this to our stable of Pathfinder NPCs, we can expect 120 of them to identify as LGBT.

And yet we have, what, a dozen or so recognizable examples of LGBT NPCs? So maybe 10% of LGBT Pathfinder NPCs are actually described as LGBT. 10%. That's all. That's "shoving it down our throats"? Come the hell on.

I've heard 9-10% homosexual in societies such as the U.S and Australia. Seen no numbers on trans.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Quinnae wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.

Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.

Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.

Dude, this is an honestly creepy line to take. I know you're all about attempted shock value and self-impressed emoticons and s~#+, but really? "Not all people fit" in your fantasy world?

I'm glad I'm playing in Paizo's fantasy world and not in yours.

Didn't you get the memo? Golarion isn't Earth.

Could be a cool bit to add to Geb yeah.

Alice,

That is a insult to Aboriginal culture, to attempt to compare the Aboriginal Dreamtime and its rich tapestry of stories as being represented in the scant detail of a fantasy setting. :'(

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Quinnae wrote:

Joe M. wrote:

Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.

Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.

Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.

I cannot adjudicate on what characters you decide to use in your own games. I'd like to be clear about that. You do you. But if you're arguing that trans people cannot be in the printed source material of Pathfinder, then you'll have to make a stronger case than this just-so story you've been repeating.

Quote:

Not white, not anglo, don't consider myself heterosexual (it does seem rather bland doesn't it? It doesn't represent what I am exactly), you use cisgendered like an insult and I don't claim that either and I have changed a bit in regards to identity since birth, and I am not European. :D

None of those terms were insults, though it is interesting that you saw insults in those rorschach adjectives. Without getting distracted by the will o'the wisps of identity politics, it's more than safe to say that Tanith's point was that you are, in various ways, more than likely represented in various places throughout the source material. All fantasy draws from reality, and it is shaped by the various sociological textures of that reality. It is not created entirely sui generis. That was Tanith's point-- and they further suggest that you are taking this for granted whilst mocking trans people for desiring similar representation, which comes off as hypocritical.

And no, I don't think you quite rise to the level of mountebank. *winks*

I am not represented in fantasy, or any setting I have come across. Probably because of my strange background. I'm cool with that though, roleplaying is about playing different roles and characters to myself.

*wink wink nudge nudge*

If I was at your table, I would like to see what you were running and play in your games, I wouldn't be disrupting it, but contributing.

I am glad that you get that I am very much pro dm and designer choice.

"for this product represent the full range of biologically normal and possible human sex and gender orientations in the game."

Do you know how much work there would be, to put them all into an adventure path? You would have to make it like ticking boxes of everything that is out there.

As I said, not everything fits into a game, a setting or an adventure path. Sign up to represent them all, and you are agreeing to tedium.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.

I did say "credibly proposed" and that doesn't pass muster. (I was thinking more, fabulous gay & lesbian Paizo ninjas crashing through your skylight and disrupting your game. But go ahead, crush my dreams!)

((That was a joke))

Point being, however, nothing is being taken away from you. The source materials are authoritative, yes. I won't deny that. They set a tone, and they set the official canon, and version of events. But if you object to *that*, then you are objecting to the presence of LGBT (or in your case, just trans) people in that source material, and making a credible argument for *that* proposition requires more than you're giving (at least, if you don't want to be called all manner of "adjectives of vilification" ;) )

At any rate:

Quote:

Traditional Cheliax- Basically one should carry on the family name otherwise have at it.

Traditional Taldan- I see similiar to Cheliax but I see it much more commonplace to have same sex lovers as a mistress or consort.
Traditional Ulfen- I see most countries of Ulfen society as a meritocracy anyway, I therefore forsee that it if someone disapproves of my husband he will see my axe, sort of scenario :P
Traditional Varisian- Now in a nomadic setting I see it is very nonchalant same-sex relations even nonchalance toward transgendered folks, even mystical reverence toward it at times. In a kingdom setting I see it very close toward Taldor but with more openness in the legalities of inheritance.
Traditional Vudran- I see again fairly open homosexuality and mystical reverence toward transgendered folks in vudrani society.
Traditional Mwangi- as the Mwangi are not a unified group and have dozens of tribes varying belief systems, I will say it will vary between hostility toward homosexuality, to

...

Lesbian ninjas reminds me of Tenchu.

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention. :{D>

Joe M. wrote:

Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.

Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.

Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

As my posts were getting deleted some days ago, I was mid-post and saying I am not in Golarion, my identity and its many parts are not in, so I don't get why others want to be in Golarion. I will also not be backing a political entity that tries to copy itself across.

White, heterosexual, cisgendered European male is pretty much the default fantasy hero trope. Are you saying that you are none of those things? Or that you are all of them, plus some other things?

Folks who want to make basic biological facts disappear are usually the ones who can be most accurately described as political.

I wouldn't bet on any of your posts or replies to them surviving. Which you should probably take as a hint that what you are doing is not okay here.

Not white, not anglo, don't consider myself heterosexual (it does seem rather bland doesn't it? It doesn't represent what I am exactly), you use cisgendered like an insult and I don't claim that either and I have changed a bit in regards to identity since birth, and I am not European. :D

And Tanith, your posts on this got deleted before. You know I am not the topic yeah? So you can try to attach these labels which you are trying to use as some sort of insult (you are normal, you mountebank!), but they don't really fit for me and who I am; and who I am is not on topic. :P

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.

Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.

Clear? Reasoned out?

At what point has anyone at Paizo credibly proposed to take away your DM discretion?

I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Lol, well as I stated so far back, not against gay or bi characters, I've used them, thrown them in. My gripe is with trans in Golarion, and the movement and its ideas ported over directly (and the demand being that this happen, and anyone that opposes this is a... insert adjective of vilification. This is less on topic for this thread though).

In a strict sense, trans issues are certainly off topic for a thread putatively about "homosexual" characters, yes. But given the public perception of them as inextricably bound up (despite the difference between gender and sexual-preference), as well as the fact that trans people are part of the broader LGBT movement, it's-- perhaps-- germane.

I see no reason why people who transition gender should not be part of the setting. Historically there are countless examples of what are, from our perspective, people who change gender in one form or another. Why not in Golarion? As to your complaint that some of us impute unkind motives to the opposition, well, as I've said before, in the absence of a coherent argument that amounts to more than purely subjective opinionmaking, few other conclusions can be drawn, sadly. It's simply a matter of lacking data, you see.

Did you just say, well that's just like your opinion man, and try to gloss it up?

Of course I am talking opinion, we are discussing settings and what goes into our games and Golarion. As for the T movement and its members trying to get it more into Golarion, that is not opinion, it is happening. They think it is right (of course they do, it accords with their political cause).

Just out of curiosity, are there any antagonists in Golarion who are LGBT? Not as in "you are gay and therefore are evil" but a bad guy that just happens to be gay?

Or would that unintentionally reinforce the negative stereotype?

Yeah, have to be careful of that.

I still don't see why trans* people shouldn't be included, and why you feel that these people are a "movement" and not simply fellow human beings with a different gender identity.

I'm not challenging your preference, I'm challenging your reasoning.

But, I know that you're just arguing and arguing and arguing because your only hobby seems to be arguing over the internet and ruffling feathers.

It isn't all arguing, I also like agreeing, sharing stories and rolling dice.

*Evil enemy npc adds more background. Do you smite Y/N?*

I prefer psionics to magic

I refuse to play in a game that makes you roll stats. might as well roll race and gender too then.

You might need a lot of numbers for your gender chart.

I still don't see why trans* people shouldn't be included, and why you feel that these people are a "movement" and not simply fellow human beings with a different gender identity.

I'm not challenging your preference, I'm challenging your reasoning.

But, I know that you're just arguing and arguing and arguing because your only hobby seems to be arguing over the internet and ruffling feathers.

I'll put it succinctly this way, are you in Golarion? Your self and identity, all of it, are you in Golarion?

You are not.

Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.

Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.

Clear? Reasoned out?

Perpetually uncertain shopkeeper?

Faceless npc!?

XPathfinder wrote:

I think your points on child PCs are all valid.

The issue falls under the "don't make participants uncomfortable" rule for gaming.

It seems like your fellow players were inconsiderate (or maybe immature?) to insist on portraying something that made you uncomfortable.

Hopefully you can get your message across.

While I'm definitely not comfortable with child PCs, that's mainly because being okay with it in-character can only be justified by "Well she's a PC so we have to allow her to come", and I tried to demonstrate that. The next time we make character for the game I will bring it up outright before we start, and see what happens.

Character creation was also unintentionally (but considerably) racist for the first wave of characters (different racial abilities for humans from different regions) and that was nixed after it was brought up, so the creator is not stubborn about this sort of thing.

Tying feats and abilities to regions isn't exactly racism. It can be more about province specialisation and what the people of that region, or yes, the tribes, have mastered.

Golarion does it. Regional feats are something that actually makes a lot of sense.

On child pcs, don't feel constrained to let the child pc join. If your char would really not want to adventure with children and expose them to likely death, roleplay this up. See where the party goes. A united party is far stronger than a dm.

To Ellis,

One dm threw a child kobold at us. As we went to move past them, this kobold child turned out to be a sorcerer, at which point he roasted us up. I congratulated the dm and expressed puzzlement at the choice, and asked how the child could cast a level 1 spell before being able to learn it.

Then my pc cut the child sorcerer down.

So I don't get why he did it.

This is actually two different questions/thoughts that came up in the same game I play in the other day, with a system that a friend of mine was playtesting (not PF, so it's in Gamer Talk).

I won't go into the finer details of the system or setting beyond what's necessary, but suffice to say it was a fantasy game that was trying for a more detailed system for combat than d20.

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **...

Some people really want to throw in child pcs. I've known a dm like that, he was all over it. I don't get it, I don't want child heroes, it seems ridiculous, and I blame Harry Potter.

:/
For gay, lesbian or bi characters, sometimes a dm can make it obvious, and sometimes it can be so hidden that the players are really unlikely to find out.

Shopkeeper 543 might be gay, but it also may be hard to determine, or not come up.

I mean, they could check out the barbarian's loincloth and exclaim "those are some large onions you are carrying around in your sack", but it won't be that frank all the time. :)

A more serious confession of the day, I think holding onto legacies can hurt the game more than help it and that 'I was here first!' or 'I've been playing since 37' attitudes remind me of old men waving their cane around.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

All of the solutions for the monk problems, can be found in 3.5 material. Truly, it has already been solved guys, do some research and make some changes, add more feats, edit the class if need be.

Is it something like "play a swordsage!"?

Rynjin wrote:

The issue I have is that if you're adapting from source material that's GOOD, there's no EXCUSE for your movie to be bad.

What really hurts is that you bring down peoples careers, franchises, and do harm to everyone around you when you make movies like Uwe Boll did. I like a bad movie now and then, but I don't like my childhood franchises being driven into the ground.

Not exactly swordsage, but there are a lot of feats, even down to shooting touch attack energy balls with stunning fist uses. For class variants and prestige classes there are the two types of drunken masters, and in a new book I reviewed there was a pretty cool war monk variant as well (bonus to hit and damage for those crying for more monk combat crunch). That is more recent, but there is so much back a bit, a friend even broke out some 3.0 material, that can solve all concerns related to the monk.

I enjoyed the Twilight movies.

And I wrote some (well-received) fanfic for them.

-creeps away to hide in a place where the sun will never touch sparkly skin-

Wow... just wow.

I thought you were cool! :''D

Mmmm yeah, sometimes you want it to be obvious, sometimes it can be so hidden they are really unlikely to find out.

I'm running a game set in a game at the moment, with a range of people in it from over ten years in the future, so yeah, some are gay. Some are very clear about that fact, especially when there are no moral police in the server (Sword art game). One lost a gay love interest recently to a foe, and then the pc died to a trap. Really tragic.

I threw in a bi village tyrant in one game. They spent so much time messing with her, burning down her holdings and killing her zombies they never found the rest of her details out. She was so furious at them, and was also maneuvered into losing a political struggle, that she was never going to sleep with this or that from the party, lol.

Confessions, hmmm.

1)I do not want trans characters in Golarion.

2) Don't alter or emphasise new directions to be political, or side with an interest group. Keep the game fun, but detached from identity movements of our world. Or the setting will have to follow the whims of fancy. :)

3) All of the solutions for the monk problems, can be found in 3.5 material. Truly, it has already been solved guys, do some research and make some changes, add more feats, edit the class if need be.

4) Your character's obscenely high modifier or stat array, does not make you cool.

Cheers all.

I adore reach weapons (the rest of the players in my local community sneer at me for using them) - the Dorn Dergar has a special place in my heart.

I refuse to allow my players to min-max/'optimize'. They'd better have a fairly convincing reason for why those stats've dipped into the negatives.

I die a little inside every time I see a character who's parents died tragically at a young age.

Hi me, I am you.

I like your summations, "We're playing in variations of our cultural myths. They resonate in ways that a more realistic fantasy doesn't".

Which explains why there is so much argument--competing and clashing cultural myths in a setting, or the mythic meeting more of the modern (I have never got on board with steampunk fantasy, but I don't mind mecha and pacific rim).

Whose myth is it anyway (or whose myth is this mythic place being made into) is always going to lead to a lot of argument. Sometimes fun, sometimes infuriating.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important?

Have you read anything Paizo has printed since the start of the Pathfinder AP line? Seriously 90% or more of the NPCs in their material never mention sexual orientation. Why do they not qualify for your request?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation).

Seriously read their stuff. If you honestly feel that this is not in Paizo's material then you can't possibly have read it.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

Since when has anyone here said everything must represent their group? The answer here is never until you. You are the only one who seems to think that only your interest group should be represented.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue),

...

If 90% of paizo npcs don't mention sexual orientation, and paizo npcs are great with plenty of depth, why does the sexual orientation of new npcs need to be mentioned or focused upon when they are LGBT?

It doesn't.
It isn't really that important, as it is missing from (your approximate) 90% of paizo npcs.

Thank you for making that useful point in the way you did. :}

In regards to the "must" it comes from Jacobs "make sure" in this quote:

"GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least."

Make sure they are included. Not put them in if you like, or think they fit, or if your group wants them. Make sure they are included. We are putting them in and will continue to do so, tow the line and make sure they are included. Sounds like Jacobs is saying they must be in. Funny stuff really, reminds me of the phrase the tyranny of the progressive. I know players that would not like the whole gamut of LGBT in game, and I respect their wishes not to be bothered with this. Jacobs clearly does not.

RJGrady said a bisexual male human paladin would float his boat.

The character's bisexuality seemed the most important and emphasised factor. Ha ha!

I said my character was homosexual so that the GM's Succubus couldn't seduce him.

"You never said he was gay during the entire campaign!"

"YOU NEVER ASKED"

They are a crack anti-succubus team. Who have never been seduced. :)

If no one else can help, and you can find them, maybe you can hire, the G-team!

RJGrady wrote:

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

We may well have had one. The thing is, though, the bios for most characters don't talk about their orientations -- they just talk about with whom the characters are in relationships. So the only way you'd find out if a particular character is bi is if something happened along the lines of Character is in relationship, ex shows up, ex is of different gender than current partner.

Sounds good, excellent. Great to hear!

There are a lot more important and varied things that can go into the bios. A fully formed character isn't an orientation or list of relationships. :)

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important? With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation). With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue), and it was faith heavy, paladins very superheroes, and everyone else was a bit inferior to clerics or pallies.

The best games, are where you leave your politics and your identity at the door. Roleplaying isn't just about playing you or someone similar to you, or always making sure your political group is in a world far different to our own.

blashimov wrote:

Why do you think the prince didn't stop the war between Ardeal and Barstoi?

Trinite has it right. One only needs to look at a country like Medieval France, which for the longest time was relatively disunited. Although all the powerful Noble families in France owed their allegiance to the King, the King had very little temporal power outside his families personal holdings. French nobles would go to war with one another frequently with little fear of intervention from the Crown.

The idea of a ruler having near or total undisputed control over his/her country was pretty uncommon in places like Europe up until the 1600s through 1800s and the advent of the principle of Absolute Monarchy. There were a few notable exceptions (like Charlemagne), but they tended to be the exception rather than the rule.

Also Vlad Tepes "the impaler", because he killed off the competing nobility en masse.

One dm I know sort of started with languages, then trade, rivers and seas, then peoples.

I've got to say, do not go for that game. It is awful.

Huge amount locked as dlc, boring medieval combat, no battlefield control and the clunkiest control system I've yet encountered. There is some depth in the intrigue and dynasty side, but learning the unintuitive system and its many parts is a chore.

Better to create your own pen and paper politics games, get together some friends and see how it goes. CK2 was abysmally bad comparing it to the years of politics games I ran (called the Lord's game I-V).

I am also eager to see how it goes.

:{D>

I took a look at Ustalav and for a political game set their some years ago, divided it between vamps and non vamp nobility (some were holding out), with parts of the country so dangerous (ghouls) that travel was near suicide. Then I threw in Ghoul Ogre mountain tribes.

It was pretty cool.

For my own world building, I have a lot of fun considering linguistics and the spread of languages, because of course, language is also culture and can assist or hinder the expansion of ideologies and religions.

No linguistics training here, so I am in a similar boat to you Zousha (but does everyone in the boat speak the same language?), but I am a sociologist, so I find culture and the movement of ideas and language fascinating.

http://t.qkme.me/3uuycx.jpg

As a DM, I have rewarded players that have invested in linguistics even when they don't have the perfectly suited language: "Okay, so you don't speak their tongue, but you work out some similarities to this other language which you have, so by mixing that with this and a touch of that, and some gestures, you can communicate meaning".

And you can emphasise how alien a culture is, by the players not being able to understand even a single word.

Awesome.
What a coincidence I chose a CE cavalier as my new long term pic.

Good find Mark.

Ahh, I see you are the other person who has used this avatar. Hello! :D

As expected of a pure quality Junker. Shame he was so belligerent.

Guess he will have to breed or that is that. :)