| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer my rpg's to be free of political axe-grinding, no matter the flavor. The Crimson Throne relationships are good stories and don't stick out like a sore thumb. "Let's make a gay paladin and good doctor that provides abortions" and "one or more of the iconics is gay" strikes me as intentionally sticking the same sore thumb in the collective eye of people who are bothered by those ideas. Does Paizo really need to take a stand on these issue? What's next? Militant vegan iconics? Anti-union iconics? Does one iconic support the closing of the Chilexian border?
I could really do without yet another media outlet sneaking in their unrelated editorial bias. For what it's worth, I'm generally inclined to agree with the Paizo editorial bias, but that's not really the relevant question. The question is whether Paizo is serving the story or their political ideology. If it's the former, I'm groovy (I'm looking at you Crimson Throne), if it's the later, I'm a little disgusted (a gay iconic). Just as I would encourage my fellow posters to air their political views in the appropriate forums or threads, so too would I encourage my friends at Paizo with regards to their beliefs. I don't give a rat's ass what the sexual preferences of the iconics are in a vacuum - if you've got a story to tell and it involves those issues, I'll listen, but I can do without the pithy political soundbite and attempts to beat people with an unwelcome ideology, regardless of whether its my ideology or not.
Sebastian, I just wanted to thank you for being able to sum up some comments I couldn't quite elaborate myself.
I still don't quite understand why we haven't seen much in the way of mixing of races (whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever). I mean there are 7 races in the PHB alone, let alone all the different things in the MM. This whole human-on-human centric sexual dealings seems pretty narrow minded to me. Where are the halflings that like dwarves? Where are the elves that secretly like half-orcs? Human-on-human relationships, whether hetero or homo, are very conservative, I would think.
You're not advocating for pervy hobbit fanciers now, are you? Read on... if you dare!
http://cassieclaire.livejournal.com/Better link:
http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/index.html
|
(And I believe there's another thread here about how to determine the sex of a black pudding.)
You could ask it it's size. If it's quite obviously Gargantuan, but declares itself 'Huge', or 'Large Plus', then it's female.
If it brags about it's size "I am COLOSSAL!! FEAR MY GIRTH!!", then it's male.
:)
|
|
You're not advocating for pervy hobbit fanciers now, are you? Read on... if you dare!
http://cassieclaire.livejournal.com/Better link:
http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/index.html
Linked for easier clicking:
You're not advocating for pervy hobbit fanciers now, are you? Read on... if you dare!
http://cassieclaire.livejournal.com/Better link:
http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/index.html
Why do they need be "pervy"?
|
I still don't quite understand why we haven't seen much in the way of mixing of races (whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever). I mean there are 7 races in the PHB alone, let alone all the different things in the MM. This whole human-on-human centric sexual dealings seems pretty narrow minded to me. Where are the halflings that like dwarves? Where are the elves that secretly like half-orcs? Human-on-human relationships, whether hetero or homo, are very conservative, I would think.
This may be another issue. As I see things Golarion goes back to the roots of D&D in heavily encouraging the players to choose human SC. Chelaxians,Shoanti and Varisians stand in the spotlight while we basically know nothing from the other races (apart from that they exist). In this sense the Pathfinder approach could be called conservative but I don't think that it has anything to do with the rejection of interracial sexuality .
|
|
If only the real world had a DM.
M
Whoa! no thank you, I don't want a single person deciding what is right or wrong in the real world...and I doubt neither do you...
Would you want that DM to outlaw Gaming? Television? Sex? How about everyone reproduces through test tubes, you all wear jumpsuits and have shaved heads...The movie's already been made, THX-1138 watch it if you haven't already.
No single person should be given absolute power to decide an entire worlds fate. I don't even do that to my children, they make their own decisions based upon ideals I try to give them, they break the rules they learn the consequences.
|
|
(And I believe there's another thread here about how to determine the sex of a black pudding.)You could ask it it's size. If it's quite obviously Gargantuan, but declares itself 'Huge', or 'Large Plus', then it's female.
If it brags about it's size "I am COLOSSAL!! FEAR MY GIRTH!!", then it's male.
:)
good one!
|
Actually it would be amarital if marriage isn't an option.Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?Actually, I believe the term in that case is 'premarital' since you've never been married. Extramarital specifically deals with having sex with a partner that isn't your spouse, while you ARE married. I'm sure if I am wrong on this, someone will correct me; but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
That's what I was going for. "Sex with someone you're not married to, whether you're married to someone else or single."
|
|
Not making that exact comparison at all, really. In fact, I was almost making the opposite comparison; I deliberately took something FAR worse than homosexuality would be in the eyes of anyone but the most extreme of zealots as my example. In other words, "if you can still love someone who's utterly ruining their life and the lives of everyone around them, it's certainly possible to love someone who's doing something harmless, but maybe not moral by your worldview." It's just an example of how you can disapprove of something someone is doing without hating them for it. One could say the same of someone with a drinking, gambling, or shopping problem, somebody who spends too much time playing video games, wastes all of their time on message boards, doesn't save as much money as they should, games too much, picks at scabs, picks their nose, collects toenail clippings, has awful fashion sense, drives a gas-guzzling SUV, or undercooks foods that may contain Salmonela. Take your pick. The point is, you can disapprove of something that somebody is doing without hating them.My apologies for misreading it!
It just seemed that because of the example you used, you were comparing homosexuality to drug use because you would hate both things without hating the person doing them. I hope you can see how I got to that conclusion.
I would like to ask you then:
Why do you consider homosexuality a sin (and I take it that you mean it as a biblical sin)?
And others can join in for this one:
Why is the biblical sin of homosexuality given so much weight compared to all the other sins you can commit according to the bible?
Well, I'm glad we got the analogies straight! As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language. It's as simple as that. I subscribe to a religion. That, by definition, means that I take some things on faith. But again, see my earlier posts. I am not, nor do I claim to be, any sort of final moral authority whatsoever. Being abnormally low on "vices" counts for about as much as a pinch of dust as a down payment on a mortgage where any real scale of morality is concerned. I'm far from perfect. Farther than many people who have done things I've abstained from, I'd wager. I have done things that have hurt people I care about in my life.
As far as homosexuality being given extra "weight" in the Bible, I'm not sure I buy it. Adultery seems to be the big one, and quite frankly, it should be. (I may be biased on this; my wife's a really awesome person and I wouldn't want to hurt her. I'm pretty damn certain I could turn down ANYone without problems based on that alone. I also grew up observing my parents in a very happy, loving marriage.) Cheating on someone you're supposed to be committed to is pretty vile in all but the most extreme of circumstances. (I leave it to the judgment of the reader as to what the most extreme of circumstances would be.) The fallout also tends to rip through families, social networks, and workplaces like runaway shrapnel.
In the wild, what does consent have to do with sex? Watching a nature show, does the lioness tell the lion, "Sure I'm in the mood." No, consent is a non-factor in the wild, and morality based on it may also be a non-factor.Although rape does occur in the animal world, don't many species wait for their heat cycles? I'll agree about amorality. Squirrels hit that @#$% like they're angry at it. Right and wrong hold no dominion in an upper-bough wrasslin' match.
The Wrasslin match is probably two males fighting. Squirrels are big into playing hard to get. A female squirrel in heat attracts males - usually 3-5 and then she runs as fast as she can jumping over barriers and from tree branch to tree branch. The males chase her and try and knock their competitors off the roof or bite their tails. Fastest male squirrel gets to mate. Makes a lot of sense really, speed is an important survival trait in squirrels and this mating method rewards speed.
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.
This is likely the kind of thing that comes up more because you only know their an Atheist when their actively arguing against your point of view. Most of the time when you come across Atheists you likely have no idea that they are Atheists becuase it simply does not come up.
I suspect that one can find the same thing in politics. If you happen to have strong leaning to either the left or the right your likely to view the other side as being particularly hostile and negative - after all you spend an inordinate amount of time in vehement arguments with them!
If I spent a year at Pat's house, died, and then required an autopsy, they'd find 15 lbs of porn in me that I never ate. ;)
OK so we know a couple of things about this victim. He has 15 lbs. of porn in him and its been established that he did NOT eat the porn. Clearly that makes it a case of IMPLANTED porn. Bow we just have to figure out WHO implanted the porn. HOW they implanted the porn. WHY they implanted the porn and, umm, there are probably some other good questions we could ask about this implanted porn but I can't think of them ... I'm being distracted from my detective work by these strange cravings for donuts.
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.
The humanist theologian Erasmus.
I am a humanist. The hostility on this thread started with a person making faith claims by the way (EDIT: Wrong, no such claims found after checking back); although to his credit he's been pretty cool since then.
(And I believe there's another thread here about how to determine the sex of a black pudding.)You could ask it it's size. If it's quite obviously Gargantuan, but declares itself 'Huge', or 'Large Plus', then it's female.
If it brags about it's size "I am COLOSSAL!! FEAR MY GIRTH!!", then it's male.
:)
This made me spew (snort?) my beverage with mirth. Thank you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sebastian: nothing posted by actual Paizo staffers (James Jacobs, James Sutter, et al) has lead me to believe that gay iconics are all about the marketing or about shock value or whatnot.
It seems to be an honest desire to promote diversity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep refraining from posting to keep this thing from rising again, but it seems as if 5 hours is the absolute maximum (if your thread refuses to subside after 4 hours, consult a physician).
Sometimes, despite your best efforts, a deer wanders in front of the car you’re driving. Maybe you weren’t looking, maybe it was too fast for you to react, regardless, it happens. You’re staring at a cracked windshield waiting for the shock to wear off. You look around, pat yourself down to make sure you’re ok, then unbuckle the seatbelt and get out to see how bad the damages are. The headlights are broken and filled with green and brown deer feces, there’s brown and white fur in the grill, blood covers the hood, and there on the ground in front of the car is a gorgeous animal with broken legs. It looks up at you with beautiful, innocent, pained eyes and bleats at you a few times, trying to stand and failing. You can’t help the deer, you know it won’t recover, and there’s nothing you can do to make things better. You’re going to have to do something or both she and you will suffer for hours. What choice remains in this situation? You walk back to your trunk, retrieve a tire iron, and bash its skull in as it looks up at you with the same sad, beautiful, and innocent deep black eyes, staring up at you for help as you watch it breathe its last breath on Earth. You’ll never be the same, but it didn’t have to drag itself into a ditch to die alone and in pain.
A car has hit this thread, and someone has to cowboy up and bash its brains out.
I don’t want it to go away because I don’t like discussion, or don’t like to see the topic, I merely want it to return to focus or die quietly.
So if you want to talk about how homosexuals fit into Golarion, by all means keep on trucking, and we’ll all restart at the end of page 10 (Selk’s post raised some excellent questions, by the way, regarding how one goes about indoctrination into the faith or how matrimony works). Otherwise, start a new thread in OT like, “Civil discussion of sexual preferences,” or a thread in Pathfinder General that says, “Feedback: Wish to see more / less LGBT in Pathfinder material,” because neither one of those subjects belongs in this thread. Personally, I’d love to know how homosexual men feel about circumcision, so by all means, start one of those threads up and I’ll join. But, if your question is “attitudes towards lesbianism (or whatever they’d call it there, not having an Isle of Lesbos) in ancient Thassilon,” here’s the place.
Is it over?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So once again...how about outing the gay iconic?Though I'm still pulling for Harsk....
So am I. Between Valeros, Lem, Ezren and Harsk, I think Hark would be the most interesting choice. Valeros would be too easy (besides, he'd be more interesting as hetero and very sexually frustrated), Lem is a halfling, and while Ezren's not a bad candidate, having it be Harsk would just fly in the face of both dwarven and gay male sterotypes (in a good and necessary way).
Inconceivable!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it over?
Shhh, just lie still.
I still don't quite understand why we haven't seen much in the way of mixing of races (whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever). I mean there are 7 races in the PHB alone, let alone all the different things in the MM. This whole human-on-human centric sexual dealings seems pretty narrow minded to me. Where are the halflings that like dwarves? Where are the elves that secretly like half-orcs? Human-on-human relationships, whether hetero or homo, are very conservative, I would think.
Halflings that like dwarves? In the madhouse, along with anyone else that likes dwarves ;-P
Seriously, though, I guess that there would be size difference problems there, just like halflings and anything except gnomes. The only small/medium creature relationship I can think of is elflings, Midnight's elf/halfling crossbreeds, and that's between halflings and an elf subrace that's even shorter than the average elf, which is already smaller than humans. I'd guess that this is about the limit of possibilities.
Elves that like half-orcs, I guess, is so extremely rare because nearly everyone hates orcs, and, by extension, half-orcs. Then there's the thing that such a union would probably be fruitless (elves and orcs aren't interfertile, I haven't read anything about half-orcs, though).
I think the main reason there aren't that many stories about it or mentions of it is that on Golarion, humans are the vast majority, and it seems that in Varisia, this is especially the case.
So am I. Between Valeros, Lem, Ezren and Harsk, I think Hark would be the most interesting choice. Valeros would be too easy (besides, he'd be more interesting as hetero and very sexually frustrated), Lem is a halfling, and while Ezren's not a bad candidate, having it be Harsk would just fly in the face of both dwarven and gay male sterotypes (in a good and necessary way).
Valeros: True. he'd be so very sexually frustrated - travels around with three very hot chicks and no one as much as looks at him. On the other hand, it would make sense that he's the gay one, since then, he'd have a much easier time of traveling with those three.
Harsk would indeed be interesting - and I always thought that all the dwarves with all the beards in any gender would probably be unable to tell apart genders, anyway. ;-)
And Lem's a halfling - so what? There's the whole LotR-Frodo-And-Sam thing (one of the best ways to piss off a LotR fanboy), nothing says a halfling can't be gay.
Whoa! no thank you, I don't want a single person deciding what is right or wrong in the real world...and I doubt neither do you...If only the real world had a DM.
M
I would! Of course, it would be me who'd do the deciding. I'd rule this pitiful planet with an iron fist!
That's what I was going for. "Sex with someone you're not married to, whether you're married to someone else or single."
Okay then. I think we agree: It's wrong (unless your spouse doesn't mind, but that's not that likely)
Ileosa WILL use sex as a weapon in Pathfinder 12.
See how I pulled it out of context to make it seem a sure thing? I rule.
Anyway, can we get the write-up for that weapon? How's the handling? Is it a simple weapon? A marital one? Exotic? Can I use weapon finesse? Is it maybe one of those bastard sword things, so the handling depends on whether I go exotic?
What classes get it as a free proficiency? If it's exotic, do any races get weapon familiarity? Do any races get automatic proficiency, for that matter?
Which begs the question: If we provide a veritable buffet of salacious material, but everybody focuses on the ladies, are we being unequal in our pandering? Or is there some self-selection going on?
That's guys for you (well, straight ones, at least): If you mention gay men, they either react with "ewww" (or something worse) or "well, it's their choice". If you mention lesbians, the reaction is: "rawwr, that is SO hot. ;-)
(Inner Voice Thinking: "If I started a thread on Homosexuality in 4th Edition would I crash the Paizo servers? Cool.")
Well, the whole "astral diamonds" thing sounds to me like they want to pander to the stereotypical clichéd gay man - you know, the guy who talks weird, has a limp wrist, is very neat, wears pink, and listens to the village people all day. And probably calls himself Galaxia and wears women's clothes for good measure.
I give up.
Washes hands of thread.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Don't forget that its actually LGBT. I happen to know a few people in the last category and I think they deserve a mention as well.Absolutely! The "LGB" bit was more a typo than a deliberate attempt to marginalize the "T" part of things! LGBT is is!
See, I find that interesting. I know some LGB who have asked 'When the hell did the T get tacked on there?' and are very hostile towards the T.
Then again I've a bi friend who self identifies as a 'bisexual lesbian' meaning she'll take a male partner, but prefers women. who gets a lot more flak from the L then the S(traights)
Plus, I personally can't help but look at LGBT and my brain goes "GBLT? What is that, a sandwich?"
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I still don't quite understand why we haven't seen much in the way of mixing of races (whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever). I mean there are 7 races in the PHB alone, let alone all the different things in the MM. This whole human-on-human centric sexual dealings seems pretty narrow minded to me. Where are the halflings that like dwarves? Where are the elves that secretly like half-orcs? Human-on-human relationships, whether hetero or homo, are very conservative, I would think.
I don't know if it's conservative so much as alternatives are rare.
I mean most of the races seem to cluster in their ghettos, and I take it that most humans can go years w.o seeing a real elf, not to mention the potential of confusing halflings with small children.
I have a character (concept) I want to play who's the bastard son of a noble. His mother's a half elf consort, and he's an adventurer because the (political) marriage to a human noble female produced legitimate heirs. He left specifically to avoid being used as a political pawn against his house. The family is stable and loves each other (even the courtesan and the wife, think William Moulton Marston's house). But it's nonstandard. The reason I bring this up is that his father met his mother in his adventuring days, and the fact that he has a 'half-elf' beauty is a subject of much rumour mongerings. It also leads to the PC's somewhat flexible sexuality itself.
The reason for that long winded explination is I'd like to see organizations like 'The Glorious Blade of the People' from the Realms, of all races. Better still if some can be presented in a sympathetic light. If the real world has the KKK, La Raza, Black Panthers, etc. Then a 'down with half breeds!' group should exist in Golarion
Well, I'm glad we got the analogies straight! As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language. It's as simple as that. I subscribe to a religion. That, by definition, means that I take some things on faith.
[snip]
As far as homosexuality being given extra "weight" in the Bible, I'm not sure I buy it. Adultery seems to be the big one, and quite frankly, it should be.
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins, such as eating shellfish and wearing garments of two kinds of fabric... where are the outrage at those sins?
And I'd bet that most of those in this thread who has a problem with homosexuality has committed at least one of those other sins... shouldn't we berate them for that too?And although you might see adultery as a far greater sin I haven't seen any adultery-bashings or anti-adultery parades lately. ;-)
Besides, as far as we know, Golarion doesn't have a book or set of texts (whether divine or not) which describes these things as sins, thus it's utterly misplaced to port over these earth-specific positions.
We DO know that, at least in earlier times, the seven deadly sins were considered... well, sins, so it's much more appropriate to use those as a base for exploring what might or might not be deemed right or wrong in Golarion society.
I don't know if it's conservative so much as alternatives are rare.
Maybe "conservative" wasn't the best word for what I was trying to say. Maybe "tame" would be better?
I mean most of the races seem to cluster in their ghettos, and I take it that most humans can go years w.o seeing a real elf, not to mention the potential of confusing halflings with small children.
I know you weren't saying this, but these two put together made a thought jump into my (dirty) mind. If sex with "children" is off limits, even for other children, well think about the poor elves. 100 years and no loving! Which brings up a thing I heard on NPR ... Ah, here it is : For Prospective Moms, Biology and Culture Clash
Girls in hunter-gatherer societies probably did not reach puberty until 16 or 17, Fisher says. "They couldn't get pregnant. They were very thin. They got a great deal of exercise. It's thought that we were probably built to have about 10 years of practice at sex and love without the cost and risks of pregnancy.
EDIT: I hope that didn't come across as too pervy, I tend to leave that to Nick and others.
The reason for that long winded explination is I'd like to see organizations like 'The Glorious Blade of the People' from the Realms, of all races. Better still if some can be presented in a sympathetic light. If the real world has the KKK, La Raza, Black Panthers, etc. Then a 'down with half breeds!' group should exist in Golarion
I agree, though it would be nice if those groups, like some of their real world analogies, would be presented as complex, with good and bad aspects versus a superficial "they are bad, m'kay" approach (e.g. black panthers versus KKK).
|
|
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins, such as eating shellfish and wearing garments of two kinds of fabric... where are the outrage at those sins?Well, I'm glad we got the analogies straight! As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language. It's as simple as that. I subscribe to a religion. That, by definition, means that I take some things on faith.
[snip]
As far as homosexuality being given extra "weight" in the Bible, I'm not sure I buy it. Adultery seems to be the big one, and quite frankly, it should be.
In the old testament, you have a point. In the new testament, not so much.
And I'd bet that most of those in this thread who has a problem with homosexuality has committed at least one of those other sins... shouldn't we berate them for that too?
And although you might see adultery as a far greater sin I haven't seen any adultery-bashings or anti-adultery parades lately. ;-)
Have you seen me berating anybody for their sins anywhere in this thread? I've explicitly stated that I don't feel I have the right at least once and implied it a couple more times.
|
|
Atheists and humanists for whatever reason (at least in my anecdotal experience) seem to be exceedingly pissed-off, hostile people. I mean, like ALL THE TIME.This is likely the kind of thing that comes up more because you only know their an Atheist when their actively arguing against your point of view. Most of the time when you come across Atheists you likely have no idea that they are Atheists becuase it simply does not come up.
I suspect that one can find the same thing in politics. If you happen to have strong leaning to either the left or the right your likely to view the other side as being particularly hostile and negative - after all you spend an inordinate amount of time in vehement arguments with them!
I reached that same conclusion with other posters about four pages back. ;) On the other hand, I don't loudly bash atheists, and sadly, in my experience, they often do not extend me the same courtesy.
Is it over?Shhh, just lie still.
There's no place for me here. I feel unloved. ... I mean 'Moooo'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, none of the 'Psycho Lesbian' cliches really apply to Queen Illosa, or even Sabine. Queen Illosa is evil because she's utterly ruthless and will stop at nothing to get what she wants, which is power.
Major, major, entirety of CotCT, no-players-allowed
Then there's: "Her mind afflicted with insidious dreams." Sounds like madness? But it's actually a possession that brings out the evil latent within her, kept suppressed in the past only by fear? If it sounds like madness, looks like madness, and plays like madness for a year until you find the mystical who-sit, then that long-hidden plot point doesn't really help the authors...
You can put me down for recommending two things. First, I recommend balance. You've got a great over-the-top villain here. If you want to make your progressive gamers comfortable with your products a gay hero seems in order. You've done the normal gay relationship in the background. You've done the blackmailed gay judge. You're bringing a gay NPC center stage as a villain. There's one last step to take.
Second, I really hope that the authors of this Path take the space to provide some guidance to DMs on how to RP this scenario and deal with any homophobia that might come up at the table. Because even if they don't intend it to be there, it's close enough to the stereotypes that some preventative measures or DM Tips would prove helpful.
|
|
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins,
No disrespect, or an attack, GGiant, but I do have to correct this.
Romans 1:26-27 "...for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another..."As to homosexuality: Can I disapprove of the act, and yet still have an honest love for the person? Did Timothy McVey's parents stop loving him, even when confronted with his actions? When my own kids act stupid and do stupid things do I opress them? Not at all. And in no way does it make me a "-phobe." I have absolutely no fear of you, and have no problems interacting with you in ANY environment or situation, and absolutely promise not to be chastising you at any moment.
As to organized religion: I guess it depends on the organization. I participate in "organized religion" not so that I can pat myself on the back and gloat over how much better than you I am, but rather, to closer examine just how wrong *I* (and I alone) am, and to perhaps make myself better. If I share this with you, it is not in the desire to waggle my fingers at you, because, trust me, my own issues are more likely uglier than yours, but because I want to share the redemptive qualities. If wanting to be a better, more wholesome member of society rather than the selfish leech I have been makes me somehow a tool, or a moron, or a mental deviant, then I am proud to be such a deviant. Me then = DEFINITELY a tool! Me now = a much better person, thank you.
Finally, as to homosexuality in gaming: Don't have a problem with it at all. In fact, I have a paladin character (oh look, there's a surprise...) who is also gay, with that concept adding a certain level of personal conflict. I like my characters to have complexity and depth, not just "Thogg swings at evil man ..." As far as any iconics or NPCs, or PCs in the game, as long as its done with class, quality, and to support the story and not just for a cheap thrill, I'm all for it.
I'd prefer my rpg's to be free of political axe-grinding, no matter the flavor. The Crimson Throne relationships are good stories and don't stick out like a sore thumb. "Let's make a gay paladin and good doctor that provides abortions" and "one or more of the iconics is gay" strikes me as intentionally sticking the same sore thumb in the collective eye of people who are bothered by those ideas. Does Paizo really need to take a stand on these issue? What's next? Militant vegan iconics? Anti-union iconics? Does one iconic support the closing of the Chilexian border?
Not totally your point, but there have been good adventures exactly along these lines. First, "Siege of the Spider Eaters" in Dungeon has a big end game issue where the players perform an abortion in the case of inter-species rape. That was a great adventure. Second, they have an atheist iconic. Third, didn't Planescape do a lot with a comic Commie faction? (That's an outside Paizo argument, but it still holds.)
You imply that this kind of thing doesn't lead to good gaming and hurt sales, but that's not necessarily true. You're in favor of good stories. So am I. One man's bias is another man's story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First off, I'm quite offended that everybody's talking about Ileosa and Sabina, but nobody's paying any attention to the numerous instances of male homosexuality in Golarion (at least, beyond the Sandpoint article). For instance, there are the Tallow Boys of Kaer Maga, a Mata-Hari-esque gang of male prostitutes-turned-information-brokers. Or the men of the Iridian Fold, who are kind of doing a gay Spartan + Aes Sedai thing. It may not be plastered all over the place (neither are our lesbian relationships), and skipping a sentence or two can remove it from your game world entirely, but as with the real world, if you look for it, it's there.Which begs the question: If we provide a veritable buffet of salacious material, but everybody focuses on the ladies, are we being unequal in our pandering? Or is there some self-selection going on?
What the heck are you talking about? I'm a subscriber to your modules and paths and I have no idea what you're talking about.
You made sexual politics central to your main villain's plot line, putting it in the first pages of your second Path. Not the most awesomeness of jests.
Edited second paragraph and deleted last sentence due to better second Sutter post.
understood, deleted the post.
We've agreed to disagree Matthew. Let's not stoop to labels, please. I edited out the last remark within 10 minutes... and before seeing your post.
Gotcha. I'll do the same.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as considering that homosexuality's a sin, it's in the Bible, in both the old and new testaments as being one in pretty unequivocal language.
So is cutting your hair, eating pork (or shellfish) and defecating anywhere within the confines of your community. All listed as sins.
In the Bible it's singled out that 'lying with a man as you would with your wife' in your marriage bed is a sin. The punishment? The same as if you ate food in your marriage bed, or had sex with any woman not your wife, or had sex with your wife in anyway that was not intended to produce a son (remember, 'pulling out' is a sin! Ask Onan!), all of which make the marriage bed 'ritually unclean.' A priest must be called in, you confess to him and he re-consecrates your marriage bed. (You probably get a talking-to and it's terribly embarrasing, I imagine.)
That's it. No cheet-ohs in the marriage bed. No other women in the marriage bed. No 'safe sex' in the marriage bed. No dudes in the marriage bed. Presumably no farm animals or inflatable dolls either, but that wasn't specifically mentioned. The marriage bed is for breeding (and sleeping), nothing else, and other acts will require you to call the priest and ask him to re-consecrate it or God will curse you with daughters instead of sons! The horror!
Bacon-eaters, engaging in a sin as dire as two chicks in a shower, get away with eating delicious bacon. (I had some with breakfast. I also get my hair cut regularly. And I never leave town to expel waste! I'm *such* a sinner!) Apparently, 'sins' that don't make insecure people feel icky don't rate these days.
Jesus' New Covenant, the Golden Rule, etc. All too often ignored by Bible-thumpers who flip back into the Old Testament looking for an excuse to rationalize their own hates and fears. I sympathize with the real Christians, who follow the teachings of Jesus (not to judge or cast stones, as *God* is the judge, not any mortal agency), and are saddled with the burden of being associated with people like Pat Robertson, who said that someone should smuggle a nuke into the Department of Defense to 'wake America up' to the dangers of 'don't ask, don't tell' and that we 'deserved' 9/11 because of our tolerance of gays and that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for New Orleans having a gay pride parade...
Spoiler:"She wanted a city in her own image." This plays directly into the "self-obsessed lesbian" of the homophobic psychology that underpins this cultural cliche. Then, of course, she seeks out all the most attractive women in the realm for her "personal guard" and strike force of terror. Can't you just hear the jokes around the table now...
I have to disagree with you on these points.
Seeking out attractive women and disfiguring them in her personal guard can have more to do with narcissicm. No issues of homosexuality necessary.
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins,No disrespect, or an attack, GGiant, but I do have to correct this.
Romans 1:26-27 "...for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another..."
And actually, that can be interpreted in a lot of ways, meaning everything from just not "doing their sexual duty" as women (seen from a male perspective at that time) to abandoning their "other duties", again from a male dominated society's perspective (no cooking, cleaning etc.).
Even the various versions of the bible cannot agree on what is the right wording.To get even more technical, this is written by Paul(us), isn't a direct quote from anything Jesus is supposed to have said, so we have one guy's perspective on how things should be (and he's talking about Greek pagans). In fact, I'm seeing more and more that a lot of Christians seemingly "worshipping" the word of Paul(us) more than the word of Jesus.
As to organized religion: I guess it depends on the organization. I participate in "organized religion" not so that I can pat myself on the back and gloat over how much better than you I am, but rather, to closer examine just how wrong *I* (and I alone) am, and to perhaps make myself better. If I share this with you, it is not in the desire to waggle my fingers at you, because, trust me, my own issues are more likely uglier than yours, but because I want to share the redemptive qualities. If wanting to be a better, more wholesome member of society rather than the selfish leech I have been makes me somehow a tool, or a moron, or a mental deviant, then I am proud to be such a deviant. Me then = DEFINITELY a tool! Me now = a much better person, thank you.
I know this is going way off topic (although it's already a bit all over the spectrum), but why does this always have to be done through religion? Are people really so insecure that they can't own up to being a smuck and just say "Hey, I think I want to live a better life, be a better person and do good things towards other people"? I don't see why religion has to make an appearance here.
I'd prefer my rpg's to be free of political axe-grinding, no matter the flavor. The Crimson Throne relationships are good stories and don't stick out like a sore thumb. "Let's make a gay paladin and good doctor that provides abortions" and "one or more of the iconics is gay" strikes me as intentionally sticking the same sore thumb in the collective eye of people who are bothered by those ideas. Does Paizo really need to take a stand on these issue? What's next? Militant vegan iconics? Anti-union iconics? Does one iconic support the closing of the Chilexian border?
I could really do without yet another media outlet sneaking in their unrelated editorial bias. For what it's worth, I'm generally inclined to agree with the Paizo editorial bias, but that's not really the relevant question. The question is whether Paizo is serving the story or their political ideology. If it's the former, I'm groovy (I'm looking at you Crimson Throne), if it's the later, I'm a little disgusted (a gay iconic). Just as I would encourage my fellow posters to air their political views in the appropriate forums or threads, so too would I encourage my friends at Paizo with regards to their beliefs. I don't give a rat's ass what the sexual preferences of the iconics are in a vacuum - if you've got a story to tell and it involves those issues, I'll listen, but I can do without the pithy political soundbite and attempts to beat people with an unwelcome ideology, regardless of whether its my ideology or not.
This is an excellent, excellent post. Well said.
Of course, pointing out that an iconic 'might be gay' is somewhat confusing - aren't the iconics meant to simply be pre-generated PCs? What's with this silly bit of background being added? What value am I as a consumer getting out of that? (Rhetorical, since the actual answer is "none".) I guess it seems to confirm my belief that including the iconics (2 pages, no less!) in the Pathfinders is a complete and utter waste of space.
The thing is that homosexuality (and let's not forget that it actually says man laying with another man, nothing about lesbians in there) is mentioned alongside other sins, such as eating shellfish and wearing garments of two kinds of fabric... where are the outrage at those sins?In the old testament, you have a point. In the new testament, not so much.
The bible, as far as I know, consists of both the old and the new testament. Either decide whether to follow both, cut out the old testament if it's only the new testament which is appropriate or stop using phrases from the old testament to disapprove behaviour of other people. :-)
(note, this isn't directed directly at you Timespike, just a general note to Christians who like to quote the bible :-)).Have you seen me berating anybody for their sins anywhere in this thread? I've explicitly stated that I don't feel I have the right at least once and implied it a couple more times.And I'd bet that most of those in this thread who has a problem with homosexuality has committed at least one of those other sins... shouldn't we berate them for that too?
And although you might see adultery as a far greater sin I haven't seen any adultery-bashings or anti-adultery parades lately. ;-)
I know, the above was also a more general statement, not one directed towards only you. I just wrote it in the same post where I quoted you, that's all. :-)
|
Thank you for your very honest comment.
If I may at least critize the story. Wouldn't it have been better in a dramatic sense to have had the romance been key plot twist later in the adventure path, rather than just two throw-away sentences. That's why it just looks like fanboy titalation. You can do better.
I cannot believe the number of posts that have come up in the last hour and a half since I last checked in. Perhaps a Pathfinder: Off-topic thread, or something like that is warranted.
I have to ask, how is this fanboy titilation. I haven't seen one iota of requests for homosexuality of any stripe on these boards at all before this tread got started. I would have to think that that the mail that Piazo gets is pretty low on that level as well.
"Fanboys" you simply deride generally ask for things like authors, or plot lines that include favored monsters or plot devices.
I'm a married straight guy with two kids. Always been straight, always will. My son is old enough to play and guess what. He knows what gay means. He knows we have gay friends. I will be running the Crimson Throne and he will hear about the plot devices. There isn't going to be any "skinamax" scenes because:
1. They aren't written.
2. I wouldn't feel like it would add to the game.
I buy the Pathfinder games because they are very well written and I like the fact that the characters really step out from the alignment cookie cutter mold. (I hope I'm not starting another flair up with that last comment.) If Pathfinder backed away from creating a wide and diverse group of NPCs. I'd more than likely want to drop my subscription. Love the NPCs or hate them in my game thats fine. But bland and boring NPCs ruin the game for me entirely.
And as far as how for their need, I could never see how all of the Pathfinder GMs will use thier source material. But with so much of it spelled out for you, you can really do so much with it.
The murder mystery in the Skinsaw Murders depends on players looking around for clues and that means that they need to investigate Sandpoint. The GM can take as much time as he would like unraveling the story because he has that much more to work with. NPC realations will come out. How the players react is up to them.
So to sum up, I don't really feel that the publishers or the writers are being salatious or exploitaive.
Now I have see the explotative RPG cover, I won't go int the publishers who put cheesecake covers up back in the OGL 3.0 days that had nothing to do with the material in the publication. I have seen a few pictures at Piazo made me think wow is plastic surgery available in Gloriaon? But I hardly think that any plot point created for the Pathfinder was created just so "fanboys" could be served.
And making that accusation really is just low jdh417. It really shows that you have a low opinion of people who play the Pathfinder games and enjoy them as written. I'm not asking you to like Pathfinder. But when you make such a blanket statement like you did above I have to tell you that I can't take you seriously.
I know, you'll just say that you won't take me seriously, it is the internet afterall. Anything I can do, you can do better, yada, yada, yada. You have every right to do so.
I just think it's sad really. No one wants the writers to just write anymore, they just want dictate to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I'm a bit disappointed that Paizo appears to be intentionally alienating that segment of their audience.
I swore to myself I was not going to get into this, but this comment realy stuck out with me.
So... how does it feel that you are a part of that "allienated segment"? Doesn't feel good does it?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So... how does it feel that you are a part of that "allienated segment"? Doesn't feel good does it?
Sigh.
Setting aside the whole issue of whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know how it feels. If you actually read what I wrote, I did not claim to be alienated by the topic itself, I am annoyed that Paizo is choosing to push their politics into their products.
Anyway, I'm disgusted with this thread, somewhat disgusted with Paizo, and generally done with the topic.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You imply that this kind of thing doesn't lead to good gaming and hurt sales, but that's not necessarily true. You're in favor of good stories. So am I. One man's bias is another man's story.
Try rereading my posts slowly. I said that I don't mind controversial issues in the service of the story. Or to put it another way, it's not necessarily true that these things do not belong in a story. I mind that these topics are appearing with great frequency and not always in the interests of a good story. I think it's a mistake for any company to align itself so strongly with a political ideology that people no longer appreciate the art for hatred of the artist (e.g., the Dixie Chicks). I like having certain spheres of my life free of politics, in particular, my leisure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I have to disagree with you on these points.
** spoiler omitted **
The idea that narcissists or the psychological unbalanced can be of any gender or sexual identity is true, but beside the point. The point is that the Evil Dead Lesbian cliche is based on these biased set of concepts: because they are mentally unbalanced, gay people seek out their same sex; their underlying self-obsession is the unbalance that causes them to make their partner choices; when something happens to their partner, they go AGGRO or commit suicide because they are unbalanced. Usually, these concepts are dressed up in Freudian babble.
Again, it was bad science and worse thinking, you and I agree on that, but this myth has had an unholy life span in Western culture, which perhaps we don't agree on.
As evidence I cited an academic article online, an academic article I wrote where I disagreed with the application of this very theory, and another poster mentioned The Celluloid Closet, which is an excellent movie and a better book. A short list of modern movies where there has been a controversy over whether the storytellers were perpetuating an extremely harmful slander through this myth range from Rebel without a Cause (1955) and The Children's Hour (1961) to Basic Instinct (1992) and Lost and Delirious (2001), which I have not seen and include only because it tends to get included on these lists. Many sites have an impressive list of modern TV programs as well.
The argument is that perpetuating the myth that homosexuality is unbalanced is that the most visible effect is generally on gay and lesbian teenagers.
Stephen Booth: "It is not unusual for gay and lesbian teenagers to be trying to come to terms with their sexual identity in an overtly or subtly hostile environment. And if that is indeed the case, any gay peers are frequently either closeted or still grappling with their identity themselves, leaving many gay teens pretty much bereft of anyone they can talk to comfortably about these issues; and any gay adults they might meet are likely to be either closeted or discreet, leaving them without role models as well (bear in mind that gays and lesbians are one of the few minority groups whose parents are not necessarily members of the same minority.)
"So... are also the ones most likely to have to draw their images of gay life from the media, for lack of any direct sources."
"... More generally, the dead/evil lesbian cliché in the media sends out a message, whether unconscious or overt, that homosexual sex, love, and impulses are wrong, deranged, and will be punished."
I would argue that this includes gaming.
It's especially relevant here because the goal of this adventure path is going to be to kill the Queen, her female lover, and their hordes of indoctrinated beautiful female soldiers. I certainly hope that the authors have a good nonviolent resolution for her bodyguard and the Grey Maidens. I certainly hope that they have a really good plan to separate the sexual identity from the evil.
Again, I'm not making an accusation, just providing a warning and information. My stated opinion is that Paizo historically writes great modules that go into interesting and dark places in our cultural heritage. I'm suggesting that they be conscious of exactly how dark an area they may be accused of exploring.
I'm asking the editors and authors of this series right now: how much of a sacrifice is it to write a DM Tip on how to role play homosexuality and villainy at the gaming table? 'Cause under a bad DM, I can really see a lot of gay players citing this Path as a bad experience of witnessing bad players and DMs engage in fantasies of gay bashing.
A DM Tip is a small thing to do to let you sleep at night and let you tell the stories you want to tell.