Pathfinder Adventure Path #73: The Worldwound Incursion (Wrath of the Righteous 1 of 6) (PFRPG)

Anevia's backstory could well be mine (except my wife's not half-orc. Going by her stats she's clearly a dwarf).

Hi. I'm transgender, AND lesbian, AND married. We exist.

Pleasure to meet you, Kittyburger.

Actually, you would only be half of Anevia's story. And that's my point.

Anevia's story pushes inclusion so far, with one character, that it draws the focus of the story.

Huh? The issue is that there's too many types of queer characters? Would it be somehow better if Irabeth was married to a cisgendered woman?

I wanted to put my two cents in because, quite frankly, I kinda felt Irabeth and Anevia felt 'forced' but NOT in the way everyone else here has been discussing. Let me see if I can explain. Okay.

I think the problem I had was the scenario of Irabeth and Anevia as a couple was that the odds of having so many 'minorities' found in just two characters was bordering on unbelievable. Let me demonstrate.

Hey, here's a new NPC paladin for you!
Okay, cool!
She's a half-orc!
Nice! Switch it up a bit! I like it!
And she comes from a loving home where her human and orc parents actually love each other!
Oh, cool! Because you said that orcs are always insane chaotic evil monsters so that never hap-
And she's a lesbian!
And....she's....well, okay. Yeah, cool. Because in the past, no offense, alot of times the gay NPCs were kinda stereotypical, y'know? Like the queen in the Crimson Throne was gay and she was a nutjob, and that gay couple...the wizard husband was kinda stereotypical because he came off as over emotional and clingy and that's kinda insulting....
And her wife is a transgendered woman!
I.....wait, what? Come on now, this kinda getting a little out there...

I hope I'm getting my point across. I dunno. Maybe it's just me but it's just....how do I put this? I think it would've been better if Irabeth had been male. Because I think it would've been ....better odds? Yeah, of finding a couple where a transgendered woman was married to a man. Hell, even if it had been a human. Or if Irabeth had been a half orc that came from the more likely scenario where the union was violent rather than loving. It's just....finding so many relative 'rarities' in two people, I mean....the odds seem off.

Now please understand, I sure as heck am not complaining. I applaud Paizo for doing this. I myself am crippled. I have a birth defect called Spina Biffida and it's really nice seeing NPCs of different backgrounds getting a little love, because I can kinda relate.

Not in exactly the same way obviously, but I'm definitely in the minority.

So, anyway, sorry for the rambling. I hope I got what I was trying to say across.

I really love such diverse and strange mix-up in characters, much better than the o so common Me-Big-Male-Hero Me-Smash-You-without-thinking type of real world soccer hooligan stereotype or the pretty-blond-girl-everybody-wants-her characters.

The crazier they get and the more they brainkill a psychologist with their bizar way of thinking or acting, the more I like them.

Hope to see a lot more of such characters in the future, but I know already we will get much more.

Huh? The issue is that there's too many types of queer characters? Would it be somehow better if Irabeth was married to a cisgendered woman?

No. The problem is too many types of people (queer or otherwise) in a single character.

The problem isn't (in my opinion) who Irabeth is married too. Its how much ground is covered by Anevia's back story.

Mead said it right, the problem was moderation.

There is no problem with a L,B,G or T character. The problem with this story is there is a LBG&T character (with a bi-racial relationship to boot).

In my opinion, the back story seems overboard with this character. Sure, there are gay, lesbian and trans people in the world, but how many individuals are every lifestyle at once?

That gives the feeling that the story is being driven by the agenda of inclusion. It would have just fine to leave it as the two characters being lesbian (or gay), it would have felt more natural.

If that was the case, then I think there would not be so many people be focused on this.

Just my 2cp.

Except Anevia is NOT L G B & T, and in fact it is impossible to be all four letters. You can Lesbian and Trans* if you're Male to Female. You can be Gay and Trans* if you're Female to Male. You can be Bi and Trans* if you're either. You can be heterosexual and trans* if you're either. If you're an MTF trans* person and you like men, that does not make you gay, that makes you straight. Even if you liked men before your transition. So I don't get where you're saying she fits all four letters, because she doesn't, and it's literally impossible for her to.

Something that just occurred to me is that it probably seems a lot more uncommon/strange/tokenistic to people who are not in the LGBT community than to people that are.

I don't want to speak for trans* people here as I am most certainly not one, but I've heard stories from some people that they can sometimes find more acceptance from gays or lesbians... people are less likely to judge them or care about what "bits" they have, or who have more understanding of gender/sexuality spectrums and so forth than the typical heterosexual person does. (Of course, there's still a craptonne of transphobia in the LGBT community, but that's another topic entirely.) In any case, it seems like it's really not that uncommon for trans men and women to date people of the same gender, or at least to otherwise be in the same circles of friends as other LGBT people, as far as I've seen.

I have also read surveys that seem to imply that there's a higher ratio of bisexual, homosexual, queer, or otherwise non-heterosexual trans* men and women than the ratio of LGB-etc cisgendered men and women. Although I have no idea how correct that is.

Anyway... I'm probably not getting my point across here. But I just want to express that it's really not that strange to have couples like that.

But the bigger issue in hitting every single one of your customers over the head with the LGBT hammer is that you alienate others.

That's how I took it and Jacobs saying I'm gonna throw it in your face until comply with inclusion. Sorry I support traditional marriage and Christian values you can throw it at me all you want I don't have to agree with or support it. I made the choice last night of take my money elsewhere after the monitors decided to delete my posts against the LBGT agenda. I know I'm only one customer that even though I've spent humdreds of dollars it's a drop in the bucket for them. But I'm not going to have something forced on me. What happens behind closed doors needs to stay there.

Except Anevia is NOT L G B & T, and in fact it is impossible to be all four letters. You can Lesbian and Trans* if you're Male to Female. You can be Gay and Trans* if you're Female to Male. You can be Bi and Trans* if you're either. You can be heterosexual and trans* if you're either. If you're an MTF trans* person and you like men, that does not make you gay, that makes you straight. Even if you liked men before your transition. So I don't get where you're saying she fits all four letters, because she doesn't, and it's literally impossible for her to.

I would totally agree with you and that is why the character is difficult to believe.

At the risk of stepping into this whole debate, I do think characters should be well-written. If a LGBT-related example is necessary, compare Willow on Buffy and Agent Jinx on Warehouse 13 with, say, Kurt on Glee. The first two are well-rounded characters (pistols at dawn if anybody disagrees), and I very much like them both. The last one, on the other hand, is not (no offense intended to Glee watchers; I stopped watching after the first season, so things may have changed).

If we need a species-related example instead, then maybe Belgarath and Poledra in the Belgariad novels? One of them was born a wolf. The two were married and had children. (Also, it's an amazing series and I'd recommend it to anybody looking for a fun heroic fantasy romp.)

I don't have WotR yet because money is tight and I'm holding off to see how subsequent volumes do, so I can't - and won't - give any opinion on whether these specific NPCs are well-written or not until I do have it. But I do see an engaging story as fundamental. At its core, after all, the GM and players are telling a collective story, and the story needs to both work and interest them. Characters included.

@Grayn,

Mead wrote:

But the bigger issue in hitting every single one of your customers over the head with the LGBT hammer is that you alienate others.

That's how I took it and Jacobs saying I'm gonna throw it in your face until comply with inclusion. Sorry I support traditional marriage and Christian values you can throw it at me all you want I don't have to agree with or support it. I made the choice last night of take my money elsewhere after the monitors decided to delete my posts against the LBGT agenda. I know I'm only one customer that even though I've spent humdreds of dollars it's a drop in the bucket for them. But I'm not going to have something forced on me. What happens behind closed doors needs to stay there.

Couldn't agree more. Paizo's blatant attempts to shove heterosexuality down our throats with these cisgendered freaks, such as the shopkeeper's daughter in Runelords, Ameiko in Jade Regent, really are just pandering to a segment of their customers who should shut up and get back to hiding their disgusting sexual identity. /snark

Sorry, but if the price of including others is to alienate someone, I'll take that trade. It sucks a person's prejudices against fictional people are more important to them than their compassion for real people, but, you know, we'll suffer the loss as best we can.

Just throwing a little bit of perspective back up and into the mix... the first and only mentions of Anevia's past life as Anvenn are on pages 56 and 57 in her backstory. It plays no direct part in the adventure, nor in the Campaign Role section.

I didn't even know she was transgender until after I read this thread and went looking.

@Grayn,

** spoiler omitted **

Isn't this constant discussion of every little aspect of Anevia's sexuality an example of the overall problem with making a character's back story to fit an agenda?

We are focused on the individual aspects of the back story and not on the total story. (And there really is a lot of good story in this book.)

Good intentions can be counter-productive at times.

The people who are most focused on Anevia and Irabeth's sexuality seem to be those who have the most against it.

I dunno. I read their bios, went "Oh hey, that's cool! Irabeth is an awesome badass and Anevia is really pretty!" and moved on.

I'd be more than happy to talk more about the adventure as a whole. :P

Grayn,
Really?! Really? One of the people who is harping on about her sexuality is now compalining that we're spending too much time on her sexuality? Really?
Anyone know the number of a good irony meter shop? Mine's just overloaded.

EDIT: Blasted dragon ninjas. How do they get such high stealth bonuses?

EDIT: Blasted dragon ninjas. How do they get such high stealth bonuses?

What they lack in dextrous manipulation, they make up for by stacking on skill ranks with their high HD.

As a trans* woman, who almost never sees herself in media she enjoys, I am absolutely, unbelievably thankful for a true trans* character in Pathfinder. I say that I don't see myself represented in media, but that too is changing. With well written Trans* characters in Elementary, Orange is the New Black, and Batgirl, it's becoming less and less rare, and I'm immensely happy that I can add Patfhinder to the list, as it is by far my favorite hobby and the one I spend the most money on.

The NPC's backstory is interesting and makes for some good roleplaying opportunities. It doesn't appear more complex than many of the other backgrounds I've seen from Paizo.

Removed some posts and their replies. The train of discussion of LGBT characters in Golarion is probably better suited to the Campaign Setting general discussion (if you'd like to continue discussing these specific characters, a thread in the Wrath of the Righteous forum), rather than the product discussion thread.

The people who are most focused on Anevia and Irabeth's sexuality seem to be those who have the most against it.

I dunno. I read their bios, went "Oh hey, that's cool! Irabeth is an awesome badass and Anevia is really pretty!" and moved on.

I'd be more than happy to talk more about the adventure as a whole. :P

That was pretty much my reaction as well.

I finally got around to reading said back stories which were so sweet I'm not ashamed to admit I rolled a tear. Beautiful.

I think the problem I had was the scenario of Irabeth and Anevia as a couple was that the odds of having so many 'minorities' found in just two characters was bordering on unbelievable. Let me demonstrate.

Still more believeble than old men throwing fireballs at owlbears because at least spectrums of queerness exist in real life

Removed some posts and their replies. The train of discussion of LGBT characters in Golarion is probably better suited to the Campaign Setting general discussion (if you'd like to continue discussing these specific characters, a thread in the Wrath of the Righteous forum), rather than the product discussion thread.

Is there a particular reason you decided to delete my post? It deals directly with the writing and content of the product. It doesn't break any TOS, as far as I can see.

If you don't think this is the correct thread, these posts should have been moved (and if they were, then please provide a link), not deleted. It gives the impression that the inclusion Paizo is looking for is only for people that agree with their statements.

Paizo decided to use this product to further their opinions(as said by many Paizo officials on this thread). It is poor form to delete posts just because you don't approve of the discussion, especially when you take actions to illicit a discussion.

Chris Lambertz wrote:

Removed some posts and their replies. The train of discussion of LGBT characters in Golarion is probably better suited to the Campaign Setting general discussion (if you'd like to continue discussing these specific characters, a thread in the Wrath of the Righteous forum), rather than the product discussion thread.

Is there a particular reason you decided to delete my post? It deals directly with the writing and content of the product. It doesn't break any TOS, as far as I can see.

If you don't think this is the correct thread, these posts should have been moved (and if they were, then please provide a link), not deleted. It gives the impression that the inclusion Paizo is looking for is only for people that agree with their statements.

Paizo decided to use this product to further their opinions(as said by many Paizo officials on this thread). It is poor form to delete posts just because you don't approve of the discussion, especially when you take actions to illicit a discussion.

Not poor form when Paizo has said on multiple occasions that the discussion should continue elsewhere, and everyone ignores those remarks

We can't move individual posts.

Not poor form when Paizo has said on multiple occasions that the discussion should continue elsewhere, and everyone ignores those remarks

Um, No.

Anyway... keep on topic. And since there are LBGT characters in the adventure, that part of the discussion IS on topic... but keep it civil, please!

As well as, the discussion being continued by many different members of Paizo's staff this very day.

We can't move individual posts

Fair enough, but opening another thread and directing the conversation there would be much more productive, then deleting posts and throwing gas on the fire.

In short, you started the conversation, you encouraged it (which I agree with), don't start censoring posts when you don't like what you are reading, because nothing good will come out of that course of action.

I'm not big fan of the start of this AP. It has potential though. I just never like starting a game off like this. Been done too may times to my group.

I think we addressed the "we don't like that there are LGBT characters in this adventure!" part of the conversation pretty conclusively. We heard the feedback of people who don't like our inclusiveness, and we disagreed with it, and have no plans to expunge LGBT characters from this adventure. There's really not much more to say about it in regards to this specific product.

If you want to talk about Paizo's stance toward orientation inclusiveness, we've linked to the appropriate thread several times. Here it is again.

Fair enough, but opening another thread and directing the conversation there would be much more productive, then deleting posts and throwing gas on the fire.

We did. I linked it above. Go there.

Sorry, but if the price of including others is to alienate someone, I'll take that trade. It sucks a person's prejudices against fictional people are more important to them than their compassion for real people, but, you know, we'll suffer the loss as best we can.

Here here.

It's Two people in a story featuring dozens. How is that forced? How is that pushy? Really?

As for the LGBT "agenda" - warning to anyone who uses such terms (be it the LGBT, straight, liberal, or conservative "agenda")- it invalidates your argument by making you look like a conspiracy nutter.

I think we addressed the "we don't like that there are LGBT characters in this adventure!" part of the conversation pretty conclusively. We heard the feedback of people who don't like our inclusiveness, and we disagreed with it, and have no plans to expunge LGBT characters from this adventure. There's really not much more to say about it in regards to this specific product.

If that is what you think myself (and most of the similar posts I've read) are talking about, you need to go back and re-read them. I've not asked to have LGBT characters expunged. I didn't said we don't like LGBT characters.

And since Paizo staff continues to post on the subject and people want to talk about it, there does seem to be more to be said.

If you want to talk about Paizo's stance toward orientation inclusiveness, we've linked to the appropriate thread several times. Here it is again.

I don't want to talk about Paizo's stance toward inclusiveness. I wan't to talk about how this product seems to put out an agenda. That is relevant to this product, the storytelling and the interested players.

We did. I linked it above. Go there.

Thanks for the link. Interesting enough, I could not find where you linked that in this thread with any search. When and if I am interested in talking about homosexuality in Golarion, I will go there.

Hoping this doesn't get lost in all the bru ha ha, but!

As someone who is subscribed, but wishes to play in the AP, would there by many spoilers if I were to peak at the Kenebres article?

Thanks! :3

Jessica Price wrote:

I think we addressed the "we don't like that there are LGBT characters in this adventure!" part of the conversation pretty conclusively. We heard the feedback of people who don't like our inclusiveness, and we disagreed with it, and have no plans to expunge LGBT characters from this adventure. There's really not much more to say about it in regards to this specific product.

If that is what you think myself (and most of the similar posts I've read) are talking about, you need to go back and re-read them. I've not asked to have LGBT characters expunged. I didn't said we don't like LGBT characters.

And since Paizo staff continues to post on the subject and people want to talk about it, there does seem to be more to be said.

Jessica Price wrote:

If you want to talk about Paizo's stance toward orientation inclusiveness, we've linked to the appropriate thread several times. Here it is again.

I don't want to talk about Paizo's stance toward inclusiveness. I wan't to talk about how this product seems to put out an agenda. That is relevant to this product, the storytelling and the interested players.

Jessica Price wrote:

We did. I linked it above. Go there.

Thanks for the link. Interesting enough, I could not find where you linked that in this thread with any search. When and if I am interested in talking about homosexuality in Golarion, I will go there.

Agenda, what agenda? As far as I can tell the agenda of this volume is to introduce the plot of WotR and make the characters mythic.

Including gay characters doesn't make for a gay agenda any more than including demons in the volume makes for a satanic agenda (and people have made that assertion before as well).

Agenda, what agenda? As far as I can tell the agenda of this volume is to introduce the plot of WotR and make the characters mythic.

Including gay characters doesn't make for a gay agenda any more than including demons in the volume makes for a satanic agenda (and people have made that assertion before as well).

From just earlier this morning:

With regards to the larger idea of anything being "forced" by Paizo, I think it's clear (for many of the reasons others have given already) that Paizo is attempting to demonstrate a greater sense of inclusion by taking the time to create, explain, and involve such characters in their products, because there's an entire segment (no matter how small) of their customer base who can more readily identify with them. If you haven't attended or read about Wes Schneider's efforts to hold the ongoing panels for "Queer as a Three-Sided Die" wherein he and others among the LGBT community in the gaming industry take the time to discuss this topic at length, you probably should. Up until now, there had been no character (not a single one) in any gaming product whatsoever that anyone on that panel could recall which depicted a transgendered NPC. I think Anevia/Anvenn was purposefully crafted to reconcile that oversight. Is that "forcing" the inclusion or finally addressing an extreme deficiency? To me, it's more the latter. And, what's more, I'm appreciative of how Paizo took the time and effort to layer it into the NPC backgrounds in a way that better serves their characterization and their individual stories. Meanwhile, if it seems forced...or like a token effort...hopefully, another dose of LGBT characters in Sword of Valor will demonstrate it was no fluke.

For better or worse, that's pretty much the textbook definition of agenda.

To be fair my post was in support of Paizo's inclusiveness and was a non combative post talking about interesting and what some may perceive as over the top backgrounds of the seemingly controversial NPCs. It was also deleted, most likely due to responses to it, as opposed to the post itself being the reason it was terminated. Instead of butting heads with staff over the deletion, it may be best to take it to PMs where you can hopefully get feedback and answers without cluttering the product thread. Not trying to pick a fight or offend you, just a friendly suggestion.

No, this is the textbook definition of agenda.

Agenda

noun formally a plural of , agendum but usually used as a singular with plural , a·gen·das or a·gen·da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.

Again, where is the agenda? I think you only find a gay agenda because you are looking for it.

No, this is the textbook definition of agenda.

dictionary.com wrote:

Agenda

noun formally a plural of , agendum but usually used as a singular with plural , a·gen·das or a·gen·da.
a list, plan, outline, or the like, of things to be done, matters to be acted or voted upon, etc.: The chairman says we have a lengthy agenda this afternoon.

Again, where is the agenda? I think you only find a gay agenda because you are looking for it.

You'd THINK I'd have a copy of the Gay Agenda around here somewhere...

/sigh

From Websters, second definition:

2. an underlying often ideological plan or program

If you cant see Mr. Spicer (as well as other Paizo staff) is outlining a plan for present and future products, I don't know what to do. And this isn't necessarily bad.

Look, I'm not bashing or hating or anything of the sort. I just feel that this particular character seems stretched thin. And that seems to be because the agenda (as detailed in Mr. Spicer's description of Paizo's intentional plan) was put before the story.

The knee-jerk reaction to attack anyone that says anything even remotely critical of the LBGT community (even when in the best of interest) is as just as divisive as actual hate directed at the community.

Totally agree with you Grayan.

/sigh

From Websters, second definition:

Quote:

2. an underlying often ideological plan or program

If you cant see Mr. Spicer (as well as other Paizo staff) is outlining a plan for present and future products, I don't know what to do. And this isn't necessarily bad.

Look, I'm not bashing or hating or anything of the sort. I just feel that this particular character seems stretched thin. And that seems to be because the agenda (as detailed in Mr. Spicer's description of Paizo's intentional plan) was put before the story.

The knee-jerk reaction to attack anyone that says anything even remotely critical of the LBGT community (even when in the best of interest) is as just as divisive as actual hate directed at the community.

How exactly does it "impact" the story? It's just the background of two characters, you could go the entire adventure (in other words "story") without it ever being brought up.

All it does is add some depth to the characters, so again, where is the agenda?

To paraphrase what I wrote in another thread: They're here, they're queer - get used to it so we can discuss something that's actually important to the adventure.