Darwyn |
Darwyn wrote:...Lord Snow wrote:Darwyn wrote:Kittyburger wrote:Gancanagh wrote:I did too, and I'm getting a little tired of people who aren't, fussing over two NPCs, with the explicit agenda of trying to back Paizo off of including LGBT characters in their adventures.How can that blonde "super models" wish for mindless World Peace when even on something so small as an online forum the people can't find peace together about something so small.
I thought this AP was about Demons, not about rights and LGBT's btw...
Not everyone is fussing over including LGBT characters - some of us are fussing over how these two characters' backgrounds are pretty poorly written, which comes off as forced, even if unintentionally so. They include so many uncommon traits it strains suspension of disbelief.
It's a transgendered woman. AND she's gay. AND her wife is a half-orc paladin. AND the paladin's parents are together out of love, not violence - which, Paizo has told us in Orcs of Golarion, never happens.
Out of hundreds (if not thousands...) of NPCs that appeared in APs (I'm including very minor NPCs in this count - like, those three nameless thugs the PCs take out in encounter area B7, etc.), the ONLY one that has both an unusual sexuality and gender and who loves a halfbreed orc/human is the one in this adventure. Yes, indeed, such characters are exceedingly rare. That is well represented in the numbers here. Also, there ARE gay, transgendered women in our world. The "wife is a half orc paladin" thing really doesn't have to do with the rest. It's not even that odd - half orcs are not in any way inherently evil and so can become paladins just like any humans.
I just have a feeling you and the others who share your opinion would never have had a problem if the NPC was different in a way that didn't have to do with her sexuality - for example, if instead of being a gay transgender, the NPC was a straight male with a REALLY weird class
Um, I'm actually aware of the fact being transgendered has little to nothing to do with sexuality. It's about gender. It's been scientifically proven women and men have different brain chemistry. I get that. Transgendered women were born with female brain chemistry, and vice versa.
A friend of mine who I work with is a lesbian. She's never told anyone she has this feeling that she should be siring children instead of baring them.
Look, please understand, I'm not trying to be hostile, and if I was in my previous posts, I apologize. I just think in this instance in an attempt to be more inclusive to transgendered people who are into D&D they went overboard with putting all these specific traits, which, by themselves, are uncommon, into a single couple. It comes off as strained.
The Rural Juror |
I respect your opinion and can see the effective contrast of the loving couple in a world of hate. I just have a problem with the intentional insertion of the social commentary (by Paizo's admission, not my assumption) and not the organic development of the backstory. It feels false to me.
I guess I just fail to see, from your point of view, how this is a different sort of social commentary than the gay characters who have existed in previous Paizo products. These are far from the first gay characters who have been featured. The only real difference here is that one of the characters was born with a male anatomy.
Kittyburger |
Trying desperately to yank things onto a reasonable track...
I think my favorite encounter right now is the temple in area B. Good character building opportunity (being a conflict that has the potential to become really nasty without PC intervention), and a tragedy in three acts. Also, Huecuevas have been a particular favorite undead monster for me.
I also think this encounter demonstrates how a rogue can be the moral center of the party if played right.
MMCJawa |
I have an indulgent question, if y'all may...
Any opinions on the sinseeker? I was in love with that critter and was frightened how the art might turn out, but working with Andrew and his artist we got an illustration I adore (creepy and cute is a hard thing to order).
I thought it was adorable and ugly at the same time, so I think you succeeded.
Grayn |
These two characters are extraordinairy because they are a couple who are genuinely in love, not because of their gender and sexuality.
I hear and understand your rebuttal, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it, which is okay with me.
I would ask, why would the couple be extraordinary just because they are in love?
Paul Watson |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grayn,
Because happy married couples do not tend to last long in adventure fiction. One or the other needs to die so the surviving one can have 'motivation'. See prety much every comics couple ever in existence. Ever.
Grayn |
Grayn,
Because happy married couples do not tend to last long in adventure fiction. One or the other needs to die so the surviving one can have 'motivation'. See prety much every comics couple ever in existence. Ever.
Well, they haven't been married that long and we don't really know if they will have that motivation in the future.
So, I don't think that answers my question.
Tirisfal |
Trying desperately to yank things onto a reasonable track...
I think my favorite encounter right now is the temple in area B. Good character building opportunity (being a conflict that has the potential to become really nasty without PC intervention), and a tragedy in three acts. Also, Huecuevas have been a particular favorite undead monster for me.
I also think this encounter demonstrates how a rogue can be the moral center of the party if played right.
There are Huecuevas in this AP? I fell in love with the flavor behind those things back at Renchurch :D This would be the PERFECT place for them to show up.
I can't wait to read this
Paul Watson |
I think it does because it means that happy married couples are rare. Look at most action movies, how many feature a married couple who are both active? Hardly any. If the relationship doesn't generate 'conflcit' it's not used. Same applies to other action fiction, rarely is a happy married couple important action character, they're usually background support.
Alleran |
Grayn,
Because happy married couples do not tend to last long in adventure fiction. One or the other needs to die so the surviving one can have 'motivation'. See prety much every comics couple ever in existence. Ever.
Superman and Lois Lane.
Oh, wait. New 52.
Conner Kent and Cassie Sandsmark.
Oh, wait. Geoff Johns, Infinite Crisis, and then the New 52.
Uh, Peter Parker and Mary-Jane Watson.
Oh, wait. Literal deal with the devil, then the former died and almost certainly went straight to Hell.
Er, Green Arrow and Black Canary.
Oh, wait. Broke up over some contrived argument and haven't met in New 52.
Wait, I have one: Reed Richards and Susan Storm. There. Happily married, two kids, still having space adventures.
And another: John Carter and Dejah Thoris. (They have comics about them. They count.)
Not that it's a very long list.
Lord Snow |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grayn,
Because happy married couples do not tend to last long in adventure fiction. One or the other needs to die so the surviving one can have 'motivation'. See prety much every comics couple ever in existence. Ever.
Marriage is even scarcer in APs, I think. I'm stretching my memory to try and find the previous married couple I read about in an AP. The more I give thought to the matter the more I grow convinced that Irabeth and Anevia are NPCs that are supposed to represent ideal, true, and fundamental GOOD. They love and accept each other despite how different and unusual they technically are. They both lost everything they started life with, and are both motivated by a strong desire to protect, help and heal even when darkness is all around them. Their marriage is yet another way that they have achieved something more peaceful and true than most people ever can.
There have certainly been helpful NPCs before, and many of them were willing to risk themselves greatly for good causes, but I can't recall any NPC which was such an overly simplistic example of a good person. In a mythic AP about good triumphing over evil, I found this couple to be very appropriate. I have no idea if this was Paizo's original intent with these NPCs, but that's certainly my take on them.
Darwyn |
Grayn,
Because happy married couples do not tend to last long in adventure fiction. One or the other needs to die so the surviving one can have 'motivation'. See prety much every comics couple ever in existence. Ever.
And pretty much everything written by Joss Whedon. It's like he has an allergy to happiness or something.
"Devil's Advocate" |
In a lot of ways, I kind of see Horgus as a much better example of good. Sure, he is arrogant, but at the same time, he is, unbeknownst to basically anyone, pretty much the rock which has kept both the city and the various crusading groups going for years. I don't really seem blind acceptance as a particularly good virtue, (either in the sense that it doesn't seem particularly non-neutral or non-evil, or in the sense of why is it an exemplary aspect of goodness), but Irabeth does seem to be the in-your-face good. Have to wait and see, but she might be far too good, too perfect.
Reckless |
Marriage is even scarcer in APs, I think. I'm stretching my memory to try and find the previous married couple I read about in an AP.
Lord and Lady Heidmarch
Oleg and SvetlanaTwo that immediately came to mind, no stretching necessary; I could probably find more.
Somehow my shipping notice got shoved into my spam folder. I just noticed this in my downloads yesterday and won't get a chance to look at it until tomorrow.
I'm looking forward to reading this AP.
Jessica Price Project Manager |
Kittyburger |
Kittyburger wrote:Trying desperately to yank things onto a reasonable track...
I think my favorite encounter right now is the temple in area B. Good character building opportunity (being a conflict that has the potential to become really nasty without PC intervention), and a tragedy in three acts. Also, Huecuevas have been a particular favorite undead monster for me.
I also think this encounter demonstrates how a rogue can be the moral center of the party if played right.
There are Huecuevas in this AP? I fell in love with the flavor behind those things back at Renchurch :D This would be the PERFECT place for them to show up.
I can't wait to read this
There's lots of really good scene material that I can't wait to borrow for adventures of my own, even if I never run WotR.
Chris Lambertz Digital Products Assistant |
Kcinlive |
I have an indulgent question, if y'all may...
Any opinions on the sinseeker? I was in love with that critter and was frightened how the art might turn out, but working with Andrew and his artist we got an illustration I adore (creepy and cute is a hard thing to order).
I think it's great. The picture makes it so ugly, it's cute. If I ever get a chance to play the AP, I might have to take one as a familiar.
-Kcinlive
KSF |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apologies if this is pulling things off topic again. Mods, feel free to delete this if you feel it necessary.
Gorbacz wrote:Yeah, what next, black president of the U.S. who was born on Hawaii to parents of Kenyan origin and his second name is Hussein? Preposterous idea...Yes, absolutely. Imagine that, an American president who was born in the U.S., which is a legal requirement, and is black because his parents are from Kenya, an African country, where the vast majority of people, are, in fact, black. What an unbelievable combination of events.
But that's the point. Plenty of trans women are bi or lesbian. (I'm trans and bi myself.) Plenty of transwomen are in relationships with cis-women, either with lesbians or with women who are bi. If both are lesbian, they thus form a lesbian couple. In countries or states where it's allowed, plenty of lesbian couples get married.
So, considering that each individual element is not unlikely, and that various combinations of those elements are not unlikely, is it really unlikely that: a person turns out to be transgender (it happens). She also realizes that she's attracted to women, and is a lesbian (it happens). She finds another lesbian who likes her, and they fall in love (it happens). Their love for each other is strong and lasting, so they get married (it happens). As Kittyburger has repeatedly stated, such people do exist, and you've been conversing with one over the message board (so you have, in fact, met such a person).
Transpose these individual elements, and their real world likelihood of coexistance, over into Golarion, and the characters don't seem forced or unlikely. (Or no more so than any NPC in any adventure.)
James, Jessica, Neil, and Jim, thank you for your statements on the topic earlier in the thread. Thank you to Amber Scott for including the couple. Again, sorry if this re-derails. I won't post in this thread again.
Darwyn, I agree with you on Whedon's apparent allergy to happiness. It's a weakness in his work.
And to add to Alleran's list, there's Nick and Nora Charles in the Thin Man series (book and films). Actually, that pair would make for a good model for a happily married adventuring couple.
DM_aka_Dudemeister |
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:These two characters are extraordinairy because they are a couple who are genuinely in love, not because of their gender and sexuality.I hear and understand your rebuttal, but I don't necessarily agree with all of it, which is okay with me.
I would ask, why would the couple be extraordinary just because they are in love?
Tally the number of characters in healthy loving relationships across the AP line. I bet you can count them on one hand. Love is a rare and precious commodity on Golarion it seems, if these two crazy kids managed to find it then that should be celebrated.
Generic Villain |
So what, exactly, do you want Grayn? What keeps you coming back to this particular thread to discuss this particular topic? Are you hoping to, through some combination of luck and logic, convince Paizo that LGBT characters should no longer appear in adventures? Or convince your fellow posters that this is somehow a bigger issue (agenda/conspiracy/whatever), and not just a personal problem?
Because I'm confident that neither scenario will occur. There will continue to be LGBT characters, just as there will continue to be readers who find such characters "in their face" and "shoved down their throat" due to prejudice. Far more fortunately, the number of readers who find nothing wrong with such characters whatsoever will continue to grow beyond the majority they already are. No amount of luck or logic will alter that.
You've made your point. You personally don't like the character.
Grayn |
So what, exactly, do you want Grayn? What keeps you coming back to this particular thread to discuss this particular topic? Are you hoping to, through some combination of luck and logic, convince Paizo that LGBT characters should no longer appear in adventures? Or convince your fellow posters that this is somehow a bigger issue (agenda/conspiracy/whatever), and not just a personal problem?
Because I'm confident that neither scenario will occur. There will continue to be LGBT characters, just as there will continue to be readers who find such characters "in their face" and "shoved down their throat" due to prejudice. Far more fortunately, the number of readers who find nothing wrong with such characters whatsoever will continue to grow beyond the majority they already are. No amount of luck or logic will alter that.
You've made your point. You personally don't like the character.
Generic, read through my posts, its all there. You are baiting and avoiding the discussion.
And that's what I want, a respectful discussion. But, that seems impossible with some ( but not everyone).
Also, I have been posting for only a couple days, far from continuously coming back here. You're just trying to drive people off these boards that you don't agree with.
Kittyburger |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generic Villain wrote:So what, exactly, do you want Grayn? What keeps you coming back to this particular thread to discuss this particular topic? Are you hoping to, through some combination of luck and logic, convince Paizo that LGBT characters should no longer appear in adventures? Or convince your fellow posters that this is somehow a bigger issue (agenda/conspiracy/whatever), and not just a personal problem?
Because I'm confident that neither scenario will occur. There will continue to be LGBT characters, just as there will continue to be readers who find such characters "in their face" and "shoved down their throat" due to prejudice. Far more fortunately, the number of readers who find nothing wrong with such characters whatsoever will continue to grow beyond the majority they already are. No amount of luck or logic will alter that.
You've made your point. You personally don't like the character.
Generic, read through my posts, its all there. You are baiting and avoiding the discussion.
And that's what I want, a respectful discussion. But, that seems impossible with some ( but not everyone).
Also, I have been posting for only a couple days, far from continuously coming back here. You're just trying to drive people off these boards that you don't agree with.
You said that a trans lesbian character in an interracial relationship is "unrealistic" social commentary, despite the fact that an actual trans lesbian has been posting in this thread, who is acquainted with no fewer than three trans lesbians who are in interracial relationships.
Using the word "unrealistic" to describe an actual situation that people are living in is... well, a few unkind words come to mind.
Kittyburger |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kitty, this is a discussion about fictional characters not an attack on you or your friends.
If you relate so strongly with the characters and can't separate the two, I am sorry but that's not my fault.
When you're transgender, positive representation is a rare and precious thing when it appears. I can think of maybe two characters in the last five years in serial visual media (Candis Cayne as Ms. Hudson in Elementary and Laverne Cox as Sophia Burset in Orange is the New Black), and perhaps a double-handful more in print. The latter I am eminently qualified to comment on, because I just did a research project on the subject. The literary penetration of trans women characters in roles that are not exploitive or pathologizing is fleetingly small and for the most part relatively recent. And as to the price of erasure,
"When you fail to find yourself in books—or people like you, who live in neighborhoods like yours, who look like you and love like you—you begin to question your place in the world. You begin to question if those people who make up your neighborhood and your family are worth writing about, if you are worth writing about. Maybe no one thinks about them or you. Maybe no one sees you." - Jaquira Diaz
I will ask, do you find anything wrong with the two characters?
Really? No. Their story arc in the module until their reunion is "I am separated from my love and I need you to help reunite us," which is a pretty bog-standard high fantasy NPC subplot. I don't think anybody would be objecting to them if they weren't lesbian and one wasn't transgender, which suggests animus rather strongly to me.
Alleran |
Is "interracial" correct when talking about orcs and humans giving birth to half-orcs? Isn't inter-species closer? Interracial examples are Chelaxian with Keleshite, Garundi with Tian, Azlanti with Ulfen, Elf with Drow (AFAIK), and so on and so forth. Inter-species are things like Human and Elf, Elf and Dwarf, Human and Orc, Dwarf and Dragon, Human and Dragon, and so on.
To clarify, I am not attempting to be offensive, but I've always understood race as things like skin pigmentation, bone structure and so on, while species are considerably "more different" (though in some cases interbreeding is still possible, at the price of the sterility risk in offspring - mules, for example).
Kittyburger |
Is "interracial" correct when talking about orcs and humans giving birth to half-orcs? Isn't inter-species closer? Interracial examples are Chelaxian with Keleshite, Garundi with Tian, Azlanti with Ulfen, Elf with Drow (AFAIK), and so on and so forth. Inter-species are things like Human and Elf, Elf and Dwarf, Human and Orc, Dwarf and Dragon, Human and Dragon, and so on.
To clarify, I am not attempting to be offensive, but I've always understood race as things like skin pigmentation, bone structure and so on, while species are considerably "more different" (though in some cases interbreeding is still possible, at the price of the sterility risk in offspring - mules, for example).
Humans, elves, and orcs are interfertile, so I think in this case "interracial" is appropriate. Borrowing modern linnean terminology for a moment, it seems pretty certain that all three are at most separate subspecies of H. sapiens.
Cori Marie |
5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grayn the statement has never been made in this thread "Why couldn't she be just trans*?" but the statement has been made of "Why couldn't she just be lesbian?" Which I, for one, take as a personal attack. As Kitty said, (and as I said before) trans* characters in media are very rare, especially positive portrayals where we aren't portrayed as just predators, victims or jokes. To remove or question one such positive representation is to dehumanize a subset of the population. So yes, I do take attacks on that portion of the character to be attacks on me.
Mark Sweetman |
Is "interracial" correct when talking about orcs and humans giving birth to half-orcs? Isn't inter-species closer? Interracial examples are Chelaxian with Keleshite, Garundi with Tian, Azlanti with Ulfen, Elf with Drow (AFAIK), and so on and so forth. Inter-species are things like Human and Elf, Elf and Dwarf, Human and Orc, Dwarf and Dragon, Human and Dragon, and so on.
Technically Chelaxians / Ulfen / Garundi are all Race = Human. Orcs are a different Race in game terms, as are Half-Orcs.
So RAW - a Human and Orc are Inter-Racial.
Alleran |
Humans, elves, and orcs are interfertile, so I think in this case "interracial" is appropriate. Borrowing modern linnean terminology for a moment, it seems pretty certain that all three are at most separate subspecies of H. sapiens.
So you think the same species but different subspecies? I was sort of thinking same genus, like chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, humans, and so on. Maybe subspecies, I suppose, depending on how different they wind up being.
I wonder what orc or elf DNA/chromosomes are like. Golarion is at least nominally set in a universe similar to our own (ref. Rasputin Must Die), after all. Of course, D&D always played very fast and loose with the concept of race and species. Which is why there are half-elves, half-orcs, half-dragons, half-elementals, half-celestials, half-giants, half-fiends, and all the other ones that I couldn't hope to remember without looking at a list.
Anyway, don't mind me. General stream of consciousness on the subject of human-orc classification, I guess.
Orcs are a different Race in game terms, as are Half-Orcs.
So RAW - a Human and Orc are Inter-Racial.
Well, I was wondering on a more scientific basis than Rules As Written. In reality all the different human variations I mentioned should be race, while orcs would be another step or two up the chain. See above about playing fast and loose with things.
(Minor edit to make it clear which post is replying to what.)
Grayn |
When you're transgender, positive representation is a rare and precious thing when it appears. I can think of maybe two characters in the last five years in serial visual media (Candis Cayne as Ms. Hudson in Elementary and Laverne Cox as Sophia Burset in Orange is the New Black), and perhaps a double-handful more in print. The latter I am eminently qualified to comment on, because I just did a research project on the subject. The literary penetration of trans women characters in roles that are not exploitive or pathologizing is fleetingly small and for the most part relatively recent. And as to the price of erasure,
"When you fail to find yourself in books—or people like you, who live in neighborhoods like yours, who look like you and love like you—you begin to question your place in the world. You begin to question if those people who make up your neighborhood and your family are worth writing about, if you are worth writing about. Maybe no one thinks about them or you. Maybe no one sees you." - Jaquira Diaz
Kittyburger, thank you for honest and candid answer. It helps me understand your point of view and more importantly, you as a person.
Grayn the statement has never been made in this thread "Why couldn't she be just trans*?" but the statement has been made of "Why couldn't she just be lesbian?" Which I, for one, take as a personal attack. As Kitty said, (and as I said before) trans* characters in media are very rare, especially positive portrayals where we aren't portrayed as just predators, victims or jokes. To remove or question one such positive representation is to dehumanize a subset of the population. So yes, I do take attacks on that portion of the character to be attacks on me.
Cori, let me start by apologizing. I never intended to dehumanize you. The lack of including "trans" along with lesbian was a mistake on my part. I truly don't see any difference in trans, gay, lesbian, straight or whatever. My opinion on this thread is about how the focus is on the identity and not on the character. I want characters that are defined by their strengths and flaws, not solely by their partners.