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

Mechalibur wrote:

Generic Villain wrote:

Mechalibur wrote:

I think there's about an equal amount. Hell, the first gay couple introduced was male, back in AP #1.

Yes I know, and there's a couple in Isles of the Shackles. That's it, and not even slightly equal. But I said my piece and don't have anything else to add. Otherwise looking forward to the adventure.

*EDIT: the adventure which, upon checking my email, I can now download! Woo!

There's more than those two as well. There was a male/male couple in a PFS adventure. Also one in the Rival Guide. Might be more but I don't recall every NPC.

So there are at least twice as many as you remember :/

There are lesbians in at least three APs (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker and Shattered Star). I don't remember any gay men in the adventures other than the paladin and the bard in Rise of the Runelords, and they don't play any part in the adventure itself.

There's been some, but none in significant roles. That changes with Wrath of the Righteous, finally!

James Jacobs wrote:

Generic Villain wrote:

Another lesbian couple eh? I really appreciate Paizo's inclusion of LGBT characters, but come on - where are the gay men? Sigh.

There's a couple in the 2nd adventure. Never fear!

I hope it doesn't get overdone though. We get it, inclusiveness is good, just don't beat me over the head with it. I'm cool with everyone loving everyone but some moderation makes it feel more organic and less forced. I hope that didn't make me sound like a hater. I'm really not.

All I can say is that I don' think it's been overdone... but my/Paizo's take on what is and isn't "overdone" will vary wildly when compared to the customers' takes.

In the end, it's up to each GM how to handle things like relationships in their games, or how those relationships are organized.

But being inclusive is a big deal for us at Paizo, and including GLBT characters in adventures is important, since that helps raise awareness and promotes inclusivity. And it's something we're going to keep doing as we head into the future!

I got my pdf last night and glanced through it as well as the mythic book. I will spend more time on TH going through both.

I hope it doesn't get overdone though. We get it, inclusiveness is good, just don't beat me over the head with it. I'm cool with everyone loving everyone but some moderation makes it feel more organic and less forced. I hope that didn't make me sound like a hater. I'm really not.

I feel similar. I think Paizo's inclusiveness is a good thing, and there should be different types of people in the stories they create just like there are different people in real life. I also like that they often portray the people in those situation in a positive light or at least not in a negative one, but I also want it to be organic, and sometimes wonder if they are getting to the point it feels a little forced myself.

My philosophy on it is that when a writer creates a piece of work if that person has a great idea for what would make the best story, like including a homosexual character or characters for that situation, than that's what should happen.

I don't want it to get to the point where they put things in just for the sake of something different or to just do it, especially when good stories can be made that include different types of people and lifestyles without forcing it. I think overdoing something simply for it's own sake can end up negating some of the good aspects that can come for being inclusive in the first place.

Aaron Scott 139 wrote:

I hope it doesn't get overdone though. We get it, inclusiveness is good, just don't beat me over the head with it. I'm cool with everyone loving everyone but some moderation makes it feel more organic and less forced. I hope that didn't make me sound like a hater. I'm really not.

I feel similar. I think Paizo's inclusiveness is a good thing, and there should be different types of people in the stories they create just like there are different people in real life. I also like that they often portray the people in those situation in a positive light or at least not in a negative one, but I also want it to be organic, and sometimes wonder if they are getting to the point it feels a little forced myself.

My philosophy on it is that when a writer creates a piece of work if that person has a great idea for what would make the best story, like including a homosexual character or characters for that situation, than that's what should happen.

I don't want it to get to the point where they put things in just for the sake of something different or to just do it, especially when good stories can be made that include different types of people and lifestyles without forcing it. I think overdoing something simply for it's own sake can end up negating some of the good aspects that can come for being inclusive in the first place.

So, non-white people should be only included if they make a great story?

Drock11 wrote:

Aaron Scott 139 wrote:

I hope it doesn't get overdone though. We get it, inclusiveness is good, just don't beat me over the head with it. I'm cool with everyone loving everyone but some moderation makes it feel more organic and less forced. I hope that didn't make me sound like a hater. I'm really not.

I feel similar. I think Paizo's inclusiveness is a good thing, and there should be different types of people in the stories they create just like there are different people in real life. I also like that they often portray the people in those situation in a positive light or at least not in a negative one, but I also want it to be organic, and sometimes wonder if they are getting to the point it feels a little forced myself.

My philosophy on it is that when a writer creates a piece of work if that person has a great idea for what would make the best story, like including a homosexual character or characters for that situation, than that's what should happen.

I don't want it to get to the point where they put things in just for the sake of something different or to just do it, especially when good stories can be made that include different types of people and lifestyles without forcing it. I think overdoing something simply for it's own sake can end up negating some of the good aspects that can come for being inclusive in the first place.

So, non-white people should be only included if they make great story?

Thanks Gorbacz. That's much more succinct than anything I could think of.

EDIT: While I think The Bag makes the point pretty clearly, I want to expand on this a little. Including LGBT characters only when the story explicitly calls for it is not being inclusive, it's holding those people up as specifically out of the ordinary. It reinforces the notion that "normal" people are all straight, and people who step out of that norm are plot points.

Being inclusive means acknowledging that sometimes people are gay, or bi, or whatever else, even when there's no specific story reason for them to be so. A lot of relationship information for NPCs isn't really relevant to the plot, but that doesn't mean it should all be left out. In the same way, ignoring LGBT people until it can serve the plot doesn't make sense.

Turning that criteria around, should I, as a writer, only ever include a white male character if there is a specific story reason why that character should be a white male? No. The character may or may not be a white male, but that doesn't mean that the story is going to have anything to do with his skin color or his gender.

The same standard should apply if that character is a black woman, or a lesbian, or an atheist, or fat, or really old, or in a wheelchair. There doesn't need to be a compelling story 'reason' for a character to be a non-white-male, just as their doesn't need to be a 'reason' for the character to be a white male.

The same standard should apply if that character is a black woman, or a lesbian, or an atheist, or fat, or really old, or in a wheelchair. There doesn't need to be a compelling story 'reason' for a character to be a non-white-male, just as their doesn't need to be a 'reason' for the character to be a white male.

Agree. The forced inclusion of minority, majority, gay, lesbian, abled or disabled feels wrong. It's a little like the idea of the female quota that sees to spring up here from time to time: we need more females in business or politics, well then lets set a minimum quota of women in these jobs and employ women to meet that quota. The inclusion feels false and betrays the whole concept of equality.

Its been my experience that in games like this inclusion of any NPC automatically means they stand out - they are out of the ordinary. Players tend to think well why do these people stand out above the crowd? Why are they being shown to use. If you draw attention to them players will assume they have a role to play. Does this automatically mean that role has to do with their gender preference or colour? I hope not. I hope it means they were included to add to a story or fill some meaningful role. If it takes a black or white person, fine; gay, lesbian or straight, fine; disabled, fine (although I haven't seen any now I think about it). They are all equal in value, no one particularly fills a role better than the other unless you seek to highlight that difference for a storytelling element, and that's usually used to reflect on the other people involved - highlighting their failure to accept. If you need to be constantly reminded that people are your equal then you need to reflect on yourself.

I'm of the opinion that if you keep including such NPCs, there will come a point where they won't stand out and soon, no one will make a big deal (both positive and negative) about it. Which to me, is awesome if we get to a point where we can add any character of any gender, race, or sexuality and no one bats an eye.

So keep including them, I say.

So, for anyone who has the pdf, whats the deal with the half-orc on the cover? She looks pretty awesome :)

Set wrote:

The same standard should apply if that character is a black woman, or a lesbian, or an atheist, or fat, or really old, or in a wheelchair. There doesn't need to be a compelling story 'reason' for a character to be a non-white-male, just as their doesn't need to be a 'reason' for the character to be a white male.

Agree. The forced inclusion of minority, majority, gay, lesbian, abled or disabled feels wrong. It's a little like the idea of the female quota that sees to spring up here from time to time: we need more females in business or politics, well then lets set a minimum quota of women in these jobs and employ women to meet that quota. The inclusion feels false and betrays the whole concept of equality.

Speaking as both a member of the minority in question AND an academic who just finished 10 weeks of research on the subject, I disagree. The reason inclusion "feels false" is because people in the general culture are used to the default human being in entertainment being a white, heterosexual, cissexual, abled male. Women show up on approximately a 1:5 ratio with men (of every six characters in a typical fictional work, one will be a woman).

And worse, these ratios come to be expected in environments outside of fiction. Men expect women to appear in that 1:5 ratio in professional environments as well, with certain "accepted" exceptions - teachers (but ONLY elementary school), nurses (but not doctors), libraries (but not in a managerial role), and so on and so forth. When the appearance of women exceeds 1/3 of all people, men tend to believe that they are outnumbered.

When there is one woman for every two men, men think that women are predominating. This has all been extensively researched.

And that's *just* with one variable. When you add in race, class, religion, ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc., it becomes dangerously difficult to find any representation at all.

When LGBTQ+ characters - especially trans characters - show up in a fictional work that is not explicitly LGBTQ+ oriented, people who are not LGBTQ+ tend to believe that these characters represent "forced inclusiveness," rather than simply recognizing that LGBTQ+ people deserve to see themselves represented.

Its been my experience that in games like this inclusion of any NPC automatically means they stand out - they are out of the ordinary. Players tend to think well why do these people stand out above the crowd? Why are they being shown to use. If you draw attention to them players will assume they have a role to play. Does this automatically mean that role has to do with their gender preference or colour? I hope not. I hope it means they were included to add to a story or fill some meaningful role. If it takes a black or white person, fine; gay, lesbian or straight, fine; disabled, fine (although I haven't seen any now I think about it). They are all equal in value, no one particularly fills a role better than the other unless you seek to highlight that difference for a storytelling element, and that's usually used to reflect on the other people involved - highlighting their failure to accept. If you need to be constantly reminded that people are your equal then you need to reflect on yourself.

Simply having representation is reason enough.

"When you grow up poor, sometimes books are the only connection you have to the world that exists outside your neighborhood. You begin to imagine that the people in those books matter. You imagine that they are important—maybe even immortal—because someone wrote about them. But you? 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, "Girl Hood: On (Not) Finding Yourself in Books"

So, for anyone who has the pdf, whats the deal with the half-orc on the cover? She looks pretty awesome :)

She's a Paladin. And married to the trans woman character we're now apparently discussing. ;)

I want more info on the trans* woman in particular...

Its been my experience that in games like this inclusion of any NPC automatically means they stand out - they are out of the ordinary. Players tend to think well why do these people stand out above the crowd? Why are they being shown to use. If you draw attention to them players will assume they have a role to play. Does this automatically mean that role has to do with their gender preference or colour? I hope not. I hope it means they were included to add to a story or fill some meaningful role. If it takes a black or white person, fine; gay, lesbian or straight, fine; disabled, fine (although I haven't seen any now I think about it). They are all equal in value, no one particularly fills a role better than the other unless you seek to highlight that difference for a storytelling element, and that's usually used to reflect on the other people involved - highlighting their failure to accept. If you need to be constantly reminded that people are your equal then you need to reflect on yourself.

As long as they "automatically stand out" then society still has work to do. The point where someone DOESN'T automatically stand out due to race/gender/sexuality is the goal.

And I don't think these characters were forced to be included. I certainly didn't feel forced to include them when I put them into the AP outline. And if the authors felt forced to include them, they didn't say so to me!

So I am very surprised that:

And if the authors felt forced to include them, they didn't say so to me!

This is more to the community than specifically James.

Speaking for myself I never felt forced by any Developer. I have included LGBT characters in three different products and in only one of those instances was it required/requested by the outline. The other two instances were just because that was what my imagination came up with. In that one instance where it was required, I was happy to follow instructions.

Good things come from following instructions.

I'm just volunteering this because I spoke up earlier. I defer further matters of policy to the Development Team.

** spoiler omitted **

Demon lords are considered mythic in their realms. But still, I'm very surprised that they aren't mythic outside of their realm. They are still very powerful and immune to a lot of abilities, but I'm surprised they "get weaker" when they leave their realm, as opposed to "get stronger" when they are in it. If that makes sense.

Actually, now I'm a bit more confused. In the AP, it says that in their own realm, they get the Mythic Power ability, which in Mythic Adventures states:

Emphasis mine. So, since demon lords have no mythic rank, how much mythic power do they use?

magnuskn wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Demon lords are considered mythic in their realms. But still, I'm very surprised that they aren't mythic outside of their realm. They are still very powerful and immune to a lot of abilities, but I'm surprised they "get weaker" when they leave their realm, as opposed to "get stronger" when they are in it. If that makes sense.

Perhaps the act of becoming a demon lord ties them partly to their abyssal realm? To slim it down to numbers, say the standard non-realm is 100.

If a demon lord has an abyssal realm, then within that realm their power increases to 150 in reflection of their status. However, the price of taking a realm is that they are, after all, tied to it (indeed, it gives them a bona-fide means of resurrection against all but the deadliest of foes). So as a result, when outside their realm their overall power drops from what would be 100 standard to 80, or 50 if you prefer a clean exchange.

They trade power outside their realm for increased influence and the realm itself.

Just speculating, mind you, but it seems a reasonable explanation.

So, since demon lords have no mythic rank, how much mythic power do they use?

10/day. I think it was noted in the blog post describing the abilities of demon lords.

As long as they "automatically stand out" then society still has work to do. The point where someone DOESN'T automatically stand out due to race/gender/sexuality is the goal.

Actually I was saying NPC's stick out automatically, any character a DM spends time on usually sticks out to the PC's as someone to pay attention to. This had nothing to do with race/gender/sexuality, just a statement that NPC's will always stand out. I agree with you no one should stand out because of race/gender/sexuality. In a RPG an NPC will always stand out from the crowd. Are the characters in question essential to the storyline? If so then they will stand out, consequently their gender and sexuality will stand out. Is this a function of race/gender/sexuality? Nope, it's just that the two concerned are NPC's and so PC's pay them more attention

And I don't think these characters were forced to be included. I certainly didn't feel forced to include them when I put them into the AP outline. And if the authors felt forced to include them, they didn't say so to me!

No offence was intended, I would never assume you would force any writer to include something and if you read that into the post I apologize. I was addressing the few posts prior to mine regarding race etc. Perhaps the word forced was a little strong.

Odraude wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Demon lords are considered mythic in their realms. But still, I'm very surprised that they aren't mythic outside of their realm. They are still very powerful and immune to a lot of abilities, but I'm surprised they "get weaker" when they leave their realm, as opposed to "get stronger" when they are in it. If that makes sense.

Perhaps the act of becoming a demon lord ties them partly to their abyssal realm? To slim it down to numbers, say the standard non-realm is 100.

If a demon lord has an abyssal realm, then within that realm their power increases to 150 in reflection of their status. However, the price of taking a realm is that they are, after all, tied to it (indeed, it gives them a bona-fide means of resurrection against all but the deadliest of foes). So as a result, when outside their realm their overall power drops from what would be 100 standard to 80, or 50 if you prefer a clean exchange.

They trade power outside their realm for increased influence and the realm itself.

Just speculating, mind you, but it seems a reasonable explanation.

Quote:

So, since demon lords have no mythic rank, how much mythic power do they use?

10/day. I think it was noted in the blog post describing the abilities of demon lords.

That makes sense, as the guideline for Mythic Ranks (CR/2.5) comes to 10. Well, 10.8 but I'd imagine the max is 10 so... yeah/ Still wish it sad it in the PDF.

Do they get a save against mythic powers outside their own realm?

Good question. It doesn't specifically call out if they are mythic or not *shrug*

If they lack that mythic ability outside their own plane it would explain why they stay there, rather than personally invade. Which demon lord would go to a place where they are vulnerable? Wouldn't these issues be raised in the Mythic Adventures book?

If they lack that mythic ability outside their own plane it would explain why they stay there, rather than personally invade. Which demon lord would go to a place where they are vulnerable? Wouldn't these issues be raised in the Mythic Adventures book?

I would assume Mythic Realms, if we're talking Golarion-specific rules. But I don't have MA (about 24 hours to go, I think...), so there may be something in there.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:

There are lesbians in at least three APs (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker and Shattered Star). I don't remember any gay men in the adventures other than the paladin and the bard in Rise of the Runelords, and they don't play any part in the adventure itself.

There's also an implied gay couple in Curse of the Crimson Throne with ** spoiler omitted ** While it's not actually spelled out, I think the implication is clear.

Who are you referring to in Kingmaker? I can't remember off the top of my head.

Kisandra and Satinder Morne from Blood for Blood.

Kisandra and Satinder Morne from Blood for Blood.

Ah yes, of course!

I don't see the issue with the NPC. It's not like everyone has to follow all rules and content exactly and to a T. The characters could just as easily be any other race or gender. All it would require is a little bit of work on the DM's part. Their relationship would remain. If a DM feels like they couldn't properly portray the relationship/character(s) or if they don't agree with it, they can change it for the game. I personally find the relationship interesting and despite that, I doubt the whole "trans" issue will even come up in my game.

Is anyone else still waiting on their download link? :(

Slightly concerned as my order pages contain a lot of stuff about the order not being issued until all pre-ordered items can ship - but I don't have any pre-orders...? *big sad face*

Is anyone else still waiting on their download link? :(

Slightly concerned as my order pages contain a lot of stuff about the order not being issued until all pre-ordered items can ship - but I don't have any pre-orders...? *big sad face*

Yeah, same here. I am a bit depressed that I might get the PDF after the normal costumers get theirs. :(

Yeah, same here. I am a bit depressed that I might get the PDF after the normal costumers get theirs. :(

Epic Fail on Will Save

So your are admitting that you are not normal... That explains a lot.

-- david

ps. Sorry, just could not resist.

Is anyone else still waiting on their download link? :(

Slightly concerned as my order pages contain a lot of stuff about the order not being issued until all pre-ordered items can ship - but I don't have any pre-orders...? *big sad face*

Aye, many of us are still waiting for our orders to ship. No need to worry just yet. :)

Oh, THIS subscription I didn't have to cancel! F5, F5, F5...

magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, same here. I am a bit depressed that I might get the PDF after the normal costumers get theirs. :(

Epic Fail on Will Save

So your are admitting that you are not normal... That explains a lot.

-- david

ps. Sorry, just could not resist.

What's a "normal"?

So what is Xoverons CR?

So what is Xoverons CR?

27!

Starsunder wrote:

So what is Xoverons CR?

27!

Thanks!

Is anyone else still waiting on their download link? :(

Slightly concerned as my order pages contain a lot of stuff about the order not being issued until all pre-ordered items can ship - but I don't have any pre-orders...? *big sad face*

Subscription might take until next Friday to complete according to the early postings from Paizo, so don't get worried.

What's a "normal"?

Vector perpendicular to the tangent plane. Means you're not a fully-upstanding citizen. You're leaning one way or the other. :)

My girlfriend just got hers shipped... just in time for the last part of Reign of Winter to arrive at my house. :)

I don't see the issue with the NPC. It's not like everyone has to follow all rules and content exactly and to a T. The characters could just as easily be any other race or gender. All it would require is a little bit of work on the DM's part. Their relationship would remain. If a DM feels like they couldn't properly portray the relationship/character(s) or if they don't agree with it, they can change it for the game. I personally find the relationship interesting and despite that, I doubt the whole "trans" issue will even come up in my game.

So true. Since the PC in my Reign of Winter game most potentially open to a romantic relationship is a gay male, I briefly considered making Nadya Petska a man.

To Amber I say - bloody well done and hear hear. From my first read through looks to set a very good precedent for the AP... and has me anticipating the rest.

I like the adventure and the love the Mongrelmen get!, not a huge fan of this bestiary entry tho, hope the next is more to my taste, too much huge demons for my taste, I like smaller demons more..

This is directed to Mr. Jacobs...

Will there be a gazetteer about the Riftwardens at some point in the AP?

Also, I'm curious if you guys remember the piece Erik Mona did for Polyhedron 135 about Abyssal artifacts? What are chances of some of those ideas being recycled in an official capacity for use in this AP (in such a way to appease the OGL, of course)?

This is directed to Mr. Jacobs...

Will there be a gazetteer about the Riftwardens at some point in the AP?

Also, I'm curious if you guys remember the piece Erik Mona did for Polyhedron 135 about Abyssal artifacts? What are chances of some of those ideas being recycled in an official capacity for use in this AP (in such a way to appease the OGL, of course)?

I believe that 99,9% of Polyhedron/Dugneon/Dragon content is IP of WotC, so unless we're talking about something taken from real-life mythology, it ain't happening.

A query on the campaign traits and their upgrades. In the Player's Guide it was said that you get the trait upgrade if you go with the associated Mythic path - is that still/actually the case? Or can you pick a different one and still get the upgrade? I know there's been a lot of talk on the Player's Guide and possibly the traits as well:

"Choosing a campaign trait that matches the mythic path you want to take will result in your campaign trait being enhanced when you do become mythic." ~Player's Guide

Should that line be ignored?

I believe that 99,9% of Polyhedron/Dugneon/Dragon content is IP of WotC, so unless we're talking about something taken from real-life mythology, it ain't happening.

Yeah I know about Wizard IP, and I'm not talking about taking it as is, then plopping it into an OGL publication; I'm talking about reintroducing the concepts under new formats, as opposed to a direct translation.

Download completed.
Sooo. What about the save issue?