Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

4,951 to 5,000 of 5,778 << first < prev | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
If there's no taboo against homosexuality, it's also possible arranged marriages could be same sex. Possibly against the preference of one or both parties.

Political marriage would almost certainly still would require offspring. Marriage between same sex partners would be, seen as warranty of a political or economical deal, less durable than marriage between partners that would produce offspring - the same would apply for marriage unable to bear offspring because of other reasons.

Liberty's Edge

Drejk wrote:
thejeff wrote:
If there's no taboo against homosexuality, it's also possible arranged marriages could be same sex. Possibly against the preference of one or both parties.
Political marriage would almost certainly still would require offspring. Marriage between same sex partners would be, seen as warranty of a political or economical deal, less durable than marriage between partners that would produce offspring - the same would apply for marriage unable to bear offspring because of other reasons.

Exactly. The very point of political marriages was to seal alliances through the continuation of the respective families' bloodlines.

A marriage between two people not able to produce offspring through their union would be of little to no benefit to powerful noble/merchant families. And its why very little pomp and circumstance surrounded the marriages of elderly noble couples past their child-bearing years compared to that of younger couples.

Paizo Employee Associate Editor

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Louis Lyons wrote:
A marriage between two people not able to produce offspring through their union would be of little to no benefit to powerful noble/merchant families. And its why very little pomp and circumstance surrounded the marriages of elderly noble couples past their child-bearing years compared to that of younger couples.

Though we do have the counter example of Trade Prince Aaqir al'Hakam, who simply adopted children with his husband.


Drejk wrote:
Political marriage would almost certainly still would require offspring. Marriage between same sex partners would be, seen as warranty of a political or economical deal, less durable than marriage between partners that would produce offspring - the same would apply for marriage unable to bear offspring because of other reasons.

Transmutation magic is still a thing. Further, spells that allow two men or two women to reproduce together could be developed. They aren't listed in the CRB, but it's not surprising the CRB doesn't contain spells whose only purpose is reproduction. Talking about these things while ignoring magic in the setting doesn't make much sense.

Besides, requiring offspring isn't the same as requiring a man-woman couple. Maybe there's some sort of surrogacy setup that's socially accepted. Just like you'd hand an infant off to a wet nurse, someone else is pregnant with your child for you. This could work in conjunction with magic: two men go see their local cleric of Shelyn, who casts a spell that lets them reproduce together. After doing so (in a tastefully decorated room in the back of the temple of Shelyn which exists just for this purpose), they return to the cleric. She casts a conjuration spell which moves the zygote to their appointed surrogate who then caries it to term. These two men then have an heir who shares both their blood.

Further, it might not be that your heir has to share your blood. Maybe there's some sort of adoption which is socially acceptable for same-gender noble couples. Legally and socially these adopted children are treated as being of the bloodline of the couple.


Two female drows of equal social level marry (have to both be female otherwise the family the male was from would be treat lower level). One has alter self (or other campaign specific spell) and the two mate. When the spell ends, both the "seed" and the woman revert back to their form. This makes the egg double immediately and has the added bonus of guaranteeing only female off-spring since no y-chromosome would ultimately be present (assuming similar biology). Off-spring would have to be female.

Males would still be needed since a higher level family would not want their daughter to marry a lower level female (thus being treated as equal). Males heirs help you rise in station, female heirs help you stay where you are at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people tend to get caught up with labels, which would have been non-existante in earlier historic cultures, and which settings like Golarion are at least loosely based upon.

I'm not in the least bit interested in seeing setting material get bogged down in the hoplessely confusing number of labels that our present culture uses to try and "pin down" peoples sexuality as if it was a black and white, written in stone subject.

The way they have handled the NPC in Wrath of the rightiouse is spot on. They have explained the current circumstances of their relationships, and provided a bit of history as to how they came to those current curcumstances.

Anything else is irrelevant.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Political marriage would almost certainly still would require offspring. Marriage between same sex partners would be, seen as warranty of a political or economical deal, less durable than marriage between partners that would produce offspring - the same would apply for marriage unable to bear offspring because of other reasons.

Transmutation magic is still a thing. Further, spells that allow two men or two women to reproduce together could be developed. They aren't listed in the CRB, but it's not surprising the CRB doesn't contain spells whose only purpose is reproduction. Talking about these things while ignoring magic in the setting doesn't make much sense.

Besides, requiring offspring isn't the same as requiring a man-woman couple. Maybe there's some sort of surrogacy setup that's socially accepted. Just like you'd hand an infant off to a wet nurse, someone else is pregnant with your child for you. This could work in conjunction with magic: two men go see their local cleric of Shelyn, who casts a spell that lets them reproduce together. After doing so (in a tastefully decorated room in the back of the temple of Shelyn which exists just for this purpose), they return to the cleric. She casts a conjuration spell which moves the zygote to their appointed surrogate who then caries it to term. These two men then have an heir who shares both their blood.

Further, it might not be that your heir has to share your blood. Maybe there's some sort of adoption which is socially acceptable for same-gender noble couples. Legally and socially these adopted children are treated as being of the bloodline of the couple.

In our world it wasn't until the development of nobility in the early middle ages that blood descent was required for inheritance - until then, an adopted heir was as good as a blood heir (many of the early Roman Emperors were adopted by their predecessor, often some years into adulthood). I think that in a world where there's not a powerful religion pushing for the illegitimization of same-sex relations, adoption would remain valid for noble inheritance.

The Exchange

Can't see why not


pres man wrote:

Two female drows of equal social level marry (have to both be female otherwise the family the male was from would be treat lower level). One has alter self (or other campaign specific spell) and the two mate. When the spell ends, both the "seed" and the woman revert back to their form. This makes the egg double immediately and has the added bonus of guaranteeing only female off-spring since no y-chromosome would ultimately be present (assuming similar biology). Off-spring would have to be female.

Males would still be needed since a higher level family would not want their daughter to marry a lower level female (thus being treated as equal). Males heirs help you rise in station, female heirs help you stay where you are at.

That's assuming that

1. one female would be willing to turn into a lowly male.
2. When the "seed" leaves the body it reamins "seed" and doesn't revert back.
3. When the spell ends, the "seed" left behind remains "seed" and doesn't revert to the female equivalent.
Also, If the "seed" remains "seed" after the spell ends then it carries the male chromosome as the female was male during fertalization.
4. This is all assuming there is a scientific biologigal process and there is such a thing as chromeosomes and not some magic or spiritual fantasy equivelant.


Captain Wacky wrote:
pres man wrote:

Two female drows of equal social level marry (have to both be female otherwise the family the male was from would be treat lower level). One has alter self (or other campaign specific spell) and the two mate. When the spell ends, both the "seed" and the woman revert back to their form. This makes the egg double immediately and has the added bonus of guaranteeing only female off-spring since no y-chromosome would ultimately be present (assuming similar biology). Off-spring would have to be female.

Males would still be needed since a higher level family would not want their daughter to marry a lower level female (thus being treated as equal). Males heirs help you rise in station, female heirs help you stay where you are at.

That's assuming that

1. one female would be willing to turn into a lowly male.
2. When the "seed" leaves the body it reamins "seed" and doesn't revert back.
3. When the spell ends, the "seed" left behind remains "seed" and doesn't revert to the female equivalent.
Also, If the "seed" remains "seed" after the spell ends then it carries the male chromosome as the female was male during fertalization.
4. This is all assuming there is a scientific biologigal process and there is such a thing as chromeosomes and not some magic or spiritual fantasy equivelant.

First off: :P

;)

Next:
1. Yes, one of them would have to exert dominance over the other one.
2. It might for the duration of the spell, if not with alter self than with a campaign specific spell (where is the BoEF when you need it, update it to PF people!).
3. Nope, you missed my point, when it reverts back, it immediately doubles the cell, we'll let magic handle the details, maybe this always forces a set of identical twins.
4. Of course, I said that. Again, let magic take care of the details.

EDIT: Keep in mind, magic can handle things that science can't (or at least not fully yet).


Jessica Price wrote:
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
I can also see Cheliax being less friendly towards homosexuality, more so towards male homosexuality. We know that Asmodeus is a rampant mysygonist, and I'm sure he'd be unamused by a man "acting like a woman" by being submissive. They might even have the logic. "It's not gay if you're topping"
That assumes an association between femininity and submissiveness that isn't present in Golarion.

Now see, THIS is the kind of thing that I feel isn't appropriate for a game that is aimed at younger players. Morality discussions completely aside, these are very mature sexual concepts that are being pressed into a game. Referencing that a Chellish duke married a man is one thing, but the above statements/concepts are beyond the scope of an all ages game.

In other threads, I made cases for necromancy and blood magic, and it was implied that this wasn't appropriate content for immature players (said threads are common enough to find on your own, should you seek to reference this yourself). I pointed out time and time again that diabolism was similarly inappropriate for young players, but this was disregarded.

MY POINT: Homosexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way. Like the proverbial "birds and bees" discussion, this should remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda (liberal/conservative/progressive/whatever) intruding upon the commonly shared fantasy setting.

Before the torches, pitchforks, and banhammers come out, let me go on record saying that I am certainly no homophobe/zealot/whatever, but felt the need to post because the only disagreement with the initial sentiment was inarticulate at best (embarrassingly uninformed at worst). It just seems that anything less than gleeful acceptance of this topic is regarded as intolerance, so I have (again, and likely to many failed) attempted to articulate tolerance (short of gleeful acceptance) of concepts with which I personally disagree.

Examples:
At a home game I currently play at, there are several adult players of varying gender, persuasion, and faiths (or lack thereof). Sexual content/discussion in this game, gay or otherwise, whether explicit or implicit, is at the discretion of the adults present who consent to playing at that table, to the limited only by consensus and the right to play in that private setting ore not to.

At the bi-weekly Pathfinder Society game at our LGS, which my 12-year old nephew might attend, sexual content/discussion is completely inappropriate (as would be any graphic description of the implied violence of the game) as this mature content would be accessed by minors who may not be qualified to make mature moral/ethical distinctions (which until 18 remains the legal jurisdiction of the parent or guardian).

Project Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure where you're getting that anything explicit about homosexuality and sexual submissiveness/dominance, or femininity and submissiveness, is in any of our products.

The part you're quoting is fan speculation about aspects of the culture, not plot points from our actual published material.

As I've made clear above, most discussion of sexual preferences in our material is limited to simply noting that Bob the Baker is married to George the Tanner.


Jessica Price wrote:

I'm not sure where you're getting that anything explicit about homosexuality and sexual submissiveness/dominance, or femininity and submissiveness, is in any of our products.

The part you're quoting is fan speculation about aspects of the culture, not plot points from our actual published material.

As I've made clear above, most discussion of sexual preferences in our material is limited to simply noting that Bob the Baker is married to George the Tanner.

All of which is perfectly acceptable, tolerant, and fair- as is fan speculation by and for those interested in such content. I hope I've made my position clear without coming off like something I'm not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
I can also see Cheliax being less friendly towards homosexuality, more so towards male homosexuality. We know that Asmodeus is a rampant mysygonist, and I'm sure he'd be unamused by a man "acting like a woman" by being submissive. They might even have the logic. "It's not gay if you're topping"
That assumes an association between femininity and submissiveness that isn't present in Golarion.

Now see, THIS is the kind of thing that I feel isn't appropriate for a game that is aimed at younger players. Morality discussions completely aside, these are very mature sexual concepts that are being pressed into a game. Referencing that a Chellish duke married a man is one thing, but the above statements/concepts are beyond the scope of an all ages game.

In other threads, I made cases for necromancy and blood magic, and it was implied that this wasn't appropriate content for immature players (said threads are common enough to find on your own, should you seek to reference this yourself). I pointed out time and time again that diabolism was similarly inappropriate for young players, but this was disregarded.

MY POINT: Homosexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way. Like the proverbial "birds and bees" discussion, this should remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda (liberal/conservative/progressive/whatever) intruding upon the commonly shared fantasy setting.

Before the torches, pitchforks, and banhammers come out, let me go on record saying that I am certainly no homophobe/zealot/whatever, but felt the need to post because the only disagreement with the initial sentiment was inarticulate at best (embarrassingly uninformed at worst). It just seems that anything less than gleeful acceptance of this topic is regarded as intolerance, so I have (again, and likely to many...

For the 997th time: Saying Bob and George are married isn't anymore sexual content than saying Bob and Diane are married. Nor is saying that Bob or Diane is homosexual.

I will agree that "It's not gay if you're topping" and other stuff about feminity == submissiveness, despite being very common attitudes, would be pushing boundaries for the younger age range.
OTOH, more than the violence, demons and all the rest?


thejeff wrote:
I will agree that "It's not gay if you're topping" and other stuff about feminity == submissiveness, despite being very common attitudes, would be pushing boundaries for the younger age range.

That's all I was saying.

thejeff wrote:
OTOH, more than the violence, demons and all the rest?

Certainly not. I'm not saying that homosexuality is any more a mature concept than any of the others you listed, nor am I comparing them in any other light than mature/controversial content.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
In other threads, I made cases for necromancy and blood magic, and it was implied that this wasn't appropriate content for immature players ... I pointed out time and time again that diabolism was similarly inappropriate for young players, but this was disregarded.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:


MY POINT: Homosexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way. Like the proverbial "birds and bees" discussion, this should remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda (liberal/conservative/progressive/whatever) intruding upon the commonly shared fantasy setting.

How is my attraction to dudes a matter of "mature content" when my attraction to women is not?

Maybe I just don't understand why my existence should "remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda". Should a child not be exposed to Disney films for fear that they might see straight people falling in love? How is Cinderella's love story G-rated but a man falling in love with a man considered mature content?

You made your point in bold, capitol letters, but I still don't see it...


Tirisfal wrote:

How is my attraction to dudes a matter of "mature content" when my attraction to women is not?

Maybe I just don't understand why my existence should "remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda". Should a child not be exposed to Disney films for fear that they might see straight people falling in love? How is Cinderella's love story G-rated but a man falling in love with a man considered mature content?

You made your point in bold, capitol letters, but I still don't see it...

Let's not pretend there's no controversy on this topic, nor that ignoring that controversy in a fantasy world will solve said controversy in the real world.

At some point the fantasy world will differ from the real one (imagine that! lol), what's being determined now is how liberal/conservative/whatever Golarion will be. Is this NOT what we're really talking about here?

I'm not qualified to judge another human being, nor am I trying to, my concern is over an "official" stance on a controversial topic in a public fantasy forum


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:


MY POINT: Homosexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way.

You made a number of reasonable points, but you lost any moral cachet with me with this statement. Homosexuality is no more "mature" than heterosexuality. My childern are fully aware that people get married, and that from time to time, it's to someone of the same sex. They are hazy on what it is exactly that married people do in bedrooms, probably equally so with heterosexual couples as with homosexual ones. They do occasionally get confused and try to claim only married people have sex, but there's a learning curve at that age...


pres man wrote:
3. Nope, you missed my point, when it reverts back, it immediately doubles the cell, we'll let magic handle the details, maybe this always forces a set of identical twins.

What in the spells description would lead you to believe it would double the cells upon reversion? I'm not sure I'm fallowing the logic.


I'm pretty sure that almost no 13 year old (isn't that the bottom limit PF is specificily geared for?) is not at all "hazy" about what happens in bedrooms and how they came about (no mommy didn't find you in the cabbage patch). Nobody needs specifics (the whole "who's on first and who's on top" is probably pushing it a little), but let's not pretend as if 13 year olds are oblivious reality either, not in these societies they are not.


RJGrady wrote:


You made a number of reasonable points, but you lost any moral cachet with me with this statement. Homosexuality is no more "mature" than heterosexuality. My childern are fully aware that people get married, and that from time to time, it's to someone of the same sex. They are hazy on what it is exactly that married people do in bedrooms, probably equally so with heterosexual couples as with homosexual ones. They do occasionally get confused and try to claim only married people have sex, but there's a learning curve at that age...
OK, that's fair. Here's what I meant:
Baron Ulfhamr should have wrote:
Overt homosexuality, or any overt sexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

What is "overt" homosexuality? Like, Elton John is pretty overt.


I think he means explicit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
RJGrady wrote:


You made a number of reasonable points, but you lost any moral cachet with me with this statement. Homosexuality is no more "mature" than heterosexuality. My childern are fully aware that people get married, and that from time to time, it's to someone of the same sex. They are hazy on what it is exactly that married people do in bedrooms, probably equally so with heterosexual couples as with homosexual ones. They do occasionally get confused and try to claim only married people have sex, but there's a learning curve at that age...
OK, that's fair. Here's what I meant:
Baron Ulfhamr should have wrote:
Overt homosexuality, or any overt sexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way.

As RJGrady said, what's "overt homosexuality"?

Is "overt heterosexuality" also a problem? You kind of imply that it is, but there's often a big difference between "overt sexuality", which I would read out of this context as much closer to explicit sex, and "overt homosexuality", which many would take as any evidence of homosexuality.

As an example: Gay couple hugging and briefly kissing - Overt homosexuality.
Straight couple hugging and briefly kissing - Not overt sexuality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

there isn't really anything all that explicit about any of the stuff relating to homosexuality in Pathfinder products. I suspect a kid that is mature enough to deal with the complexity of Pathfinder and play in a game that often deals with the confrontation of evil in myriad forms, is probably capable of hearing that bob the blacksmith has a husband, not a wife

Silver Crusade

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gee, one would think that in a game that's about killing things and taking their stuff one would worry in the first place about how visceral descriptions of blood and gore getting splattered around during fights or moral implications of cold-blooded murder for profit and the lifestyle of a murderhobo would impact a child's psyche, but no, we get the question on whether the image of two women kissing passionately on a bench in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon constitutes a violation of young one's pure innocence. REALLY.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Gee, one would think that in a game that's about killing things and taking their stuff one would worry in the first place about how visceral descriptions of blood and gore getting splattered around during fights or moral implications of cold-blooded murder for profit and the lifestyle of a murderhobo would impact a child's psyche, but no, we get the question on whether the image of two women kissing passionately on a bench in the park on a sunny Sunday afternoon constitutes a violation of young one's pure innocence. REALLY.

It's the American Way.


Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
At the bi-weekly Pathfinder Society game at our LGS, which my 12-year old nephew might attend, sexual content/discussion is completely inappropriate (as would be any graphic description of the implied violence of the game) as this mature content would be accessed by minors who may not be qualified to make mature moral/ethical distinctions (which until 18 remains the legal jurisdiction of the parent or guardian).

Would that include depictions of same-sex relationships that do not enter the bedroom, so to speak? Would Aron and Sosiel (from the Wrath of the Righteous AP) be okay, or is that off limits too? If you're playing in a game that (for whatever reason) includes some of the Iconics, would it be okay if it were mentioned that Kyra is a lesbian? (Note: I'm just trying to get a better sense of what you're asking for.)

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
OK, that's fair. Here's what I meant:
Baron Ulfhamr should have wrote: wrote:
Overt homosexuality, or any overt sexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way.

Where do kissing, or being in a marriage, or even just handholding or other simple expressions of affection or devotion fit into this? Are those okay? Those are expressions of homosexuality. (Again, just asking to get a sense of what you're asking for.)

And as others have said, Paizo generally doesn't progress things past that point in their published material, so I think you probably need have no worries on this subject.


thejeff wrote:
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
RJGrady wrote:


You made a number of reasonable points, but you lost any moral cachet with me with this statement. Homosexuality is no more "mature" than heterosexuality. My childern are fully aware that people get married, and that from time to time, it's to someone of the same sex. They are hazy on what it is exactly that married people do in bedrooms, probably equally so with heterosexual couples as with homosexual ones. They do occasionally get confused and try to claim only married people have sex, but there's a learning curve at that age...
OK, that's fair. Here's what I meant:
Baron Ulfhamr should have wrote:
Overt homosexuality, or any overt sexuality is a mature concept that not all agree on, and shouldn't be placed in a game UNLESS it is to be earmarked as having mature content-which is fine, by the way.

As RJGrady said, what's "overt homosexuality"?

Is "overt heterosexuality" also a problem? You kind of imply that it is, but there's often a big difference between "overt sexuality", which I would read out of this context as much closer to explicit sex, and "overt homosexuality", which many would take as any evidence of homosexuality.

As an example: Gay couple hugging and briefly kissing - Overt homosexuality.
Straight couple hugging and briefly kissing - Not overt sexuality.

Or, alternately, we could just not have either? I mean, gimme the stats and brief information on the NPCs and lets move along with the module/adventure path. As I said previously, adding another term into the stat block isn't that hard and satisfies 99% of the requests for information.

If players and GMs need more they can create it for their particular game and table as befitting their particular groups tastes. There is limited space in the product as is and we're already missing all sorts of interesting information about locations, for example. We could move the romantic subplots and extra information to a free download on the website for that matter; this way it can be expounded on as needed and doesn't impact the space for the adventure.

This way everyone can be happy -- those that want more can easily access it, those that don't care don't have to go get it, and on the off chance that someone is worried that little Timmy will find out what goes on between characters, he'll have to go to extra steps to find out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:

How is my attraction to dudes a matter of "mature content" when my attraction to women is not?

Maybe I just don't understand why my existence should "remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda". Should a child not be exposed to Disney films for fear that they might see straight people falling in love? How is Cinderella's love story G-rated but a man falling in love with a man considered mature content?

You made your point in bold, capitol letters, but I still don't see it...

Let's not pretend there's no controversy on this topic, nor that ignoring that controversy in a fantasy world will solve said controversy in the real world.

At some point the fantasy world will differ from the real one (imagine that! lol), what's being determined now is how liberal/conservative/whatever Golarion will be. Is this NOT what we're really talking about here?

I'm not qualified to judge another human being, nor am I trying to, my concern is over an "official" stance on a controversial topic in a public fantasy forum

It's only controversial because others can't keep their damn noses out of someone else's business and seek to condemn them for their actions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Little Timmy wants to know what's up with Racial Heritage (kobold). :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Tirisfal wrote:

How is my attraction to dudes a matter of "mature content" when my attraction to women is not?

Maybe I just don't understand why my existence should "remain the domain of parenting and/or self discovery without agenda". Should a child not be exposed to Disney films for fear that they might see straight people falling in love? How is Cinderella's love story G-rated but a man falling in love with a man considered mature content?

You made your point in bold, capitol letters, but I still don't see it...

Let's not pretend there's no controversy on this topic, nor that ignoring that controversy in a fantasy world will solve said controversy in the real world.

At some point the fantasy world will differ from the real one (imagine that! lol), what's being determined now is how liberal/conservative/whatever Golarion will be. Is this NOT what we're really talking about here?

I'm not qualified to judge another human being, nor am I trying to, my concern is over an "official" stance on a controversial topic in a public fantasy forum

Why am I controversial?

And if the "the fantasy world will differ from the real one", why can't it be a fantasy world where people don't tell me I'm controversial?

"lol"?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
knightnday wrote:

Or, alternately, we could just not have either? I mean, gimme the stats and brief information on the NPCs and lets move along with the module/adventure path. As I said previously, adding another term into the stat block isn't that hard and satisfies 99% of the requests for information.

If players and GMs need more they can create it for their particular game and table as befitting their particular groups tastes. There is limited space in the product as is and we're already missing all sorts of interesting information about locations, for example. We could move the romantic subplots and extra information to a free download on the website for that matter; this way it can be expounded on as needed and doesn't impact the space for the adventure.

This way everyone can be happy -- those that want more can easily access it, those that don't care don't have to go get it, and on the off chance that someone is worried that little Timmy will find out what goes on between characters, he'll have to go to extra steps to find out.

Ah yes, take out the subplots and the characterization, or at least more parts of it, and get back to nothing but the important part of the game: fighting.

Why aren't NPCs, who the GM is going to have to bring to life, worth a little bit of extra space? Personally, I'd rather have more NPCs and more interesting details and things going on with them, which would include romance and sex, in place of a few more rooms with a few more disposable mooks in them.

Project Manager

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
As I've made clear above, most discussion of sexual preferences in our material is limited to simply noting that Bob the Baker is married to George the Tanner.

All of which is perfectly acceptable, tolerant, and fair- as is fan speculation by and for those interested in such content.

Then I'm not really sure what the issue is.


thejeff wrote:

Ah yes, take out the subplots and the characterization, or at least more parts of it, and get back to nothing but the important part of the game: fighting.

Why aren't NPCs, who the GM is going to have to bring to life, worth a little bit of extra space? Personally, I'd rather have more NPCs and more interesting details and things going on with them, which would include romance and sex, in place of a few more rooms with a few more disposable mooks in them.

I'm all for removing some of the rooms to add more content into the APs. I'd love more information on the towns, villages, NPCs, extra plot hooks, rumours and more.

Each and every one of us have certain avenues we're interested in with these APs and adventures. What I'd prefer not to see is added material solely to check off a box on each NPC -- we must indicate every angle of their identity, love life, romance and more. I exaggerate, but that seems to be what is being advocated in several cases.

There is a limited amount of space in these products. Frankly, I buy them for the adventure -- not just the fighting, but for the overall plot. If the relationship is germane to the adventure path and the plots then sure, include away. If we're just including information so that everyone is getting equal billing relationship, sexual identity and so on, then I question if that is the best use of the space.


knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Ah yes, take out the subplots and the characterization, or at least more parts of it, and get back to nothing but the important part of the game: fighting.

Why aren't NPCs, who the GM is going to have to bring to life, worth a little bit of extra space? Personally, I'd rather have more NPCs and more interesting details and things going on with them, which would include romance and sex, in place of a few more rooms with a few more disposable mooks in them.

I'm all for removing some of the rooms to add more content into the APs. I'd love more information on the towns, villages, NPCs, extra plot hooks, rumours and more.

Each and every one of us have certain avenues we're interested in with these APs and adventures. What I'd prefer not to see is added material solely to check off a box on each NPC -- we must indicate every angle of their identity, love life, romance and more. I exaggerate, but that seems to be what is being advocated in several cases.

There is a limited amount of space in these products. Frankly, I buy them for the adventure -- not just the fighting, but for the overall plot. If the relationship is germane to the adventure path and the plots then sure, include away. If we're just including information so that everyone is getting equal billing relationship, sexual identity and so on, then I question if that is the best use of the space.

Then I agree. I don't think anyone really wants all the boxes checked on every NPC. For the vast majority, it's unimportant to us.

It's only in cases like Anevia and Irabeth where the relationship is described in detail but in ways that seem like deliberately talking around the modern terms. Which results not only in ambiguity, but also possible offensive phrasing and probably actually more word count.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Ah yes, take out the subplots and the characterization, or at least more parts of it, and get back to nothing but the important part of the game: fighting.

Why aren't NPCs, who the GM is going to have to bring to life, worth a little bit of extra space? Personally, I'd rather have more NPCs and more interesting details and things going on with them, which would include romance and sex, in place of a few more rooms with a few more disposable mooks in them.

I'm all for removing some of the rooms to add more content into the APs. I'd love more information on the towns, villages, NPCs, extra plot hooks, rumours and more.

Each and every one of us have certain avenues we're interested in with these APs and adventures. What I'd prefer not to see is added material solely to check off a box on each NPC -- we must indicate every angle of their identity, love life, romance and more. I exaggerate, but that seems to be what is being advocated in several cases.

There is a limited amount of space in these products. Frankly, I buy them for the adventure -- not just the fighting, but for the overall plot. If the relationship is germane to the adventure path and the plots then sure, include away. If we're just including information so that everyone is getting equal billing relationship, sexual identity and so on, then I question if that is the best use of the space.

Then I agree. I don't think anyone really wants all the boxes checked on every NPC. For the vast majority, it's unimportant to us.

It's only in cases like Anevia and Irabeth where the relationship is described in detail but in ways that seem like deliberately talking around the modern terms. Which results not only in ambiguity, but also possible offensive phrasing and probably actually more word count.

I think most people here agree with that. Sexuality of characters really only matters if it potentially plays into character motivations and is something the characters are realistically going to learn about. I don't need to know whether Minago is a lesbian or straight...sexual orientation is just not going to influence her hounding of PCs.


Abraham spalding wrote:
It's only controversial because others can't keep their damn noses out of someone else's business and seek to condemn them for their actions.

It's also controversial because others can't keep their damn business out of someone else's noses. I condemn no one, but in my younger angrier days, I've been the guy to wave my business under other people's noses and demand they accept it.

thejeff wrote:


...what's "overt homosexuality"?

Is "overt heterosexuality" also a problem? You kind of imply that it is, but there's often a big difference between "overt sexuality", which I would read out of this context as much closer to explicit sex, and "overt homosexuality", which many would take as any evidence of homosexuality.

As an example: Gay couple hugging and briefly kissing - Overt homosexuality.
Straight couple hugging and briefly kissing - Not overt sexuality.

I think both the above examples are the same level, and well within respectable limits. I suppose if a thing is acceptable in public, it shouldn't be considered overt. Any couple making out for minutes on end in public is kinda inappropriate (your table may vary).

Tirisfal wrote:

Why am I controversial?

And if the "the fantasy world will differ from the real one", why can't it be a fantasy world where people don't tell me I'm controversial?

"lol"?

Please don't take this as a personal attack. It isn't. I wouldn't want you to feel weird or unwelcome in any way if we were ever to play at the same table. There IS, however, controversy about homosexuality- which is far from the only defining trait a person has. How many assumptions or conclusions have been made about me, perhaps discoloring my every word, because I identify as a metalhead? A Christian? As being in my 30s?

I don't really care if there's a gay iconic or not anymore, I can see by the literal thousands of posts that this issue is far more pressing to Golarion than necromancy, or factions, or whatever. I just wanted to offer a counterpoint without getting the Phil Robertson mistreatment. (I also have a substantial beard and like to hunt, so have at it). In a progressive society, people of different beliefs, cultures, orientations, etc. SHOULD tolerate each other, but this does not mean they have to embrace these different lifestyles. There will be those that are morally offended by a gay iconic. I'm not one, but those people must be tolerated as well- or are their feelings on the topic invalid?

I'm just saying what no one else will, apparently.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll just save you time, "tolerance of intolerance is a false equivalency".

Also, to add to my earlier comment, if parents are waiting till their kids are 13 years old to give them "the talk",...

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
There will be those that are morally offended by a gay iconic. I'm not one, but those people must be tolerated as well- or are their feelings on the topic invalid?

That puts us back in "why aren't you tolerant of intolerance?"

Paizo is not about to start excluding people to satisfy prejudices that we are long past needing to have left behind.

Now back to Golarion and homosexuality in it

Or rather, next door...

What about Castrovel? Specifically the Lashunta. Considering the cultural gender divide between them, helped along by the extreme dimorphism, one really has to wonder how romantic relationships tend to take shape between and within both groups.


Mikaze wrote:
Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
There will be those that are morally offended by a gay iconic. I'm not one, but those people must be tolerated as well- or are their feelings on the topic invalid?

That puts us back in "why aren't you tolerant of intolerance?"

Paizo is not about to start excluding people to satisfy prejudices that we are long past needing to have left behind.

Now back to Golarion and homosexuality in it

Or rather, next door...

What about Castrovel? Specifically the Lashunta. Considering the cultural gender divide between them, helped along by the extreme dimorphism, one really has to wonder how romantic relationships tend to take shape between and within both groups.

Yes, back on topic.

I heard someone say that Meri and Kyra are a couple in the comics now? :D

What happened? Did Meri throw her feelings upon the mercy of the court? Was there a brush with death that made Kyra realize that life is too short to hide your feelings??

*claps*

Details!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:
Was there a brush with death that made Kyra realize that life is too short to hide your feelings??

Actually....


Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
I wouldn't want you to feel weird or unwelcome in any way if we were ever to play at the same table.

Thanks.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
There IS, however, controversy about homosexuality- which is far from the only defining trait a person has. How many assumptions or conclusions have been made about me, perhaps discoloring my every word, because I identify as a metalhead? A Christian? As being in my 30s?

It seems Paizo has made it clear where they stand on this "controversy." And it seems like nothing in their published work crosses the line you're arguing for. So what's the issue?

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
I don't really care if there's a gay iconic or not anymore, I can see by the literal thousands of posts that this issue is far more pressing to Golarion than necromancy, or factions, or whatever.

All the discussion on the subject tends to get directed to this thread and a few others, hence the length. I'm sure there are plenty of posts on necromancy and factions as well.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
In a progressive society, people of different beliefs, cultures, orientations, etc. SHOULD tolerate each other, but this does not mean they have to embrace these different lifestyles. There will be those that are morally offended by a gay iconic. I'm not one, but those people must be tolerated as well- or are their feelings on the topic invalid?

As others have said, you're asking Paizo to be tolerant of intolerance. Plus, the people you're talking about can very easily make a few simple changes to remove any LGBT content from their home game, if they feel the need to do so. (It's easier to subtract content than it is to create it.) Paizo has said as much on occasion when the topic has come up in the past.

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
I'm just saying what no one else will, apparently.

I'm pretty sure your argument has been made on these boards before.

Baron, if you take the time to read some of these threads, you'll see that depiction of homosexuality (and LGBT people in general) in Paizo's products has had a positive impact on some people. Isn't that a good thing?

Baron Ulfhamr wrote:
Anything I say will be overwhelmed and taken out of context, or any flaw in my grammar, diction, or logic will be exaggerated until I am found to be, in fact, a racist homophobe. Whatever. Think and do whatever you want, none of that was ever my intent

I don't think you're a racist homophobe. I do think that you're asking for two different things, one of which is already the case (in terms of how far the depictions of homosexuality go), and the other of which is unlikely to happen and seems to be advocating a degree of intolerance of gay people.

The latter question, "those people must be tolerated as well- or are their feelings on the topic invalid?" seems to have been answered. (See the comments by pres man and Mikaze.) The former question has been answered. (See the last reply from Jessica Price.)

Maybe take a breath and step away from the keyboard for a bit?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

Now back to Golarion and homosexuality in it

Or rather, next door...

What about Castrovel? Specifically the Lashunta. Considering the cultural gender divide between them, helped along by the extreme dimorphism, one really has to wonder how romantic relationships tend to take shape between and within both groups.

Why aren't you a game designer? You always seem to come up with interesting nooks and crannies and extensions of the setting.

4,951 to 5,000 of 5,778 << first < prev | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.