FYI, Thay was actually settled by people who left Mulhorand, who are real-Earth ancient Egyptians transported to Faerun via portals. So Thayans are actually Arabs, not Asians.
I did not know that, and appreciate the clarification, Sean! :-)
(I was always much more of a Greyhawker than a Realmsian, and sometimes it shows...)
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Most groups make exceptions of story content for the players personal histories/tastes. Why shouldn't the GM get the same break?
I'm all for accommodating players' and the GM's preferences. But if the GM is uncomfortable RPing gay romantic/sexual encounters, there are also more options than just having the person play cross-gender. You could have a willing player take over an NPC love interest, or just play campaigns where romance is unlikely for anyone, for example. Talk with your players and see what works best for both of you.
But it also only seems fair/tactful that if you're squeamish about GMing queer sex/romance, you don't still GM graphic hetero sex, you know?
|
Reading a recent thread on ENW on whether the GM should allow PCs of a different sex than the player (answer: yes) reminded me of this issue. In an RPG with the potential for romance and/or sexual situations, what's your thoughts on being asked to conform to the GM's specific comfort levels re sexual orientation?In particular, I'm a heterosexual male. I'm OK GMing heterosexual PC-NPC romances and quickly-fade-to-black sexual content, whatever the gender and orientation of the player(s). I'd be ok GMing a lesbian romance, though I can't recall any such in any of the games I've run. However I think I would be uncomfortable GMing any romantic or even fade-to-black sexual content for an openly gay male PC, again whatever the gender or orientation of the player. This obviously means a double standard.
My question then is, particularly for homosexual players, what would you think of being asked to play a heterosexual PC of the opposite sex? OK? Grave breach of etiquette? Highly offensive?
Thoughts? On the one hand, I agree: it's a double-standard. On the other hand, I know, being a GM myself, there are gaming situations I find highly uncomfortable at times that players seem to enjoy (e.g., monsters playing, well, monsters).
If the GM put it to me this way, I would leave. I, as a gay player, should not be limited to female characters; that's ridiculous, and reminiscent of certain stereotypes about gay people (which is to say, confusion about the difference between homosexuality and transgender).
If a GM spoke honestly that he would be uncomfortable running a scene of same sex romance, I would respect that honesty, and would work up an acceptable solution (a character who, for whatever reason, isn't likely to have a love interest, a heterosexual male or female character, what have you). But if the only option presented to me is, "You, gay guy, play the girl", I would find a new group.
I guess the key is that the GM's suggestion in this scenario does not invite collaboration, but rather imposes a specific restriction on my character that he would not be imposing on everyone else's.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Most groups make exceptions of story content for the players personal histories/tastes. Why shouldn't the GM get the same break?I'm all for accommodating players' and the GM's preferences. But if the GM is uncomfortable RPing gay romantic/sexual encounters, there are also more options than just having the person play cross-gender. You could have a willing player take over an NPC love interest, or just play campaigns where romance is unlikely for anyone, for example. Talk with your players and see what works best for both of you.
But it also only seems fair/tactful that if you're squeamish about GMing queer sex/romance, you don't still GM graphic hetero sex, you know?
Just curious, Judy. Why?
If I have a player terrified of spiders, I don't use spiders, but I use snakes. If I have a player who's an abuse survivor, I don't put in molested children, but I will put in orphans and child eating monsters.
Just curious, Judy. Why?
If I have a player terrified of spiders, I don't use spiders, but I use snakes. If I have a player who's an abuse survivor, I don't put in molested children, but I will put in orphans and child eating monsters.
For parity, I assume. If you were arachnophobic, and you had a player wanting to play a drider, and another wanting to play something equivalent but not spider themed, it wouldn't really be fair to tell the one no because you don't like spiders and the other one sure, go right on ahead, no?
For parity, I assume. If you were arachnophobic, and you had a player wanting to play a drider, and another wanting to play something equivalent but not spider themed, it wouldn't really be fair to tell the one no because you don't like spiders and the other one sure, go right on ahead, no?Just curious, Judy. Why?
If I have a player terrified of spiders, I don't use spiders, but I use snakes. If I have a player who's an abuse survivor, I don't put in molested children, but I will put in orphans and child eating monsters.
If spiders gave me raving nightmares but horses didn't, I see nothing wrong with saying, "Spiders squick me out. My world has no driders. If you want to play a half-something, play a centaur." And the same would go true the other way if I were afraid of horses but perfectly fine with arachnids.
However, this is a dodge to get around the fact that we're talking about human sexuality, a subject which has numerous cultural and religious taboos and associated personal hang-ups, and even personal phobias which may have nothing to do with cultural or religious matters. It's immaterial. A phobia is a phobia, and if someone is up front enough to tell you what their personal comfort level is, it should be respected.
Saying that homosexuality doesn't exist in a world is ridiculous, the same as it's ridiculous to say that menstruation doesn't exist, or childbirth. However, cultural and religious taboos about these things abound, as do personal phobias.
If some player came out and said she was going to play her witch as the magical midwife who did all her magic skyclad except for carefully painting herself with the sacred moonblood she had gathered in honor of her goddess, there would be some GMs going "Kewl!" others yawning because it sounds like recycled Diannic Wiccan stuff, and some freaking out about the crazy naked chick smearing herself with used tampons.
Gay sex? Same thing. It's either kewl, boring, or TMI depending on an individual's personal comfort level and taste.
Parity is something to expect from the law, not from an artist, and GMs are storytellers which is one of the oldest arts.
A phobia is a phobia, and if someone is up front enough to tell you what their personal comfort level is, it should be respected.
Yeah, it should. At the same time, someone shouldn't be singled out because of your hangups either. So if one of your hangups is homosexual sex, and you don't want to approach the subject, you should simply not approach the subject of any sex.
Of course, I honestly doubt any group would include both homosexuals and homophobes for very long at all. That's kinda like inviting Malcom X and the grand dragon of the KKK to dinner - even if they're civil, neither one is gonna be having any fun in the other's presence.
FYI, Thay was actually settled by people who left Mulhorand, who are real-Earth ancient Egyptians transported to Faerun via portals. So Thayans are actually Arabs, not Asians.Did not know that. Learn something new everyday.
Pretty sure that in the 3.0 FRCS as well.
A phobia is a phobia, and if someone is up front enough to tell you what their personal comfort level is, it should be respected.Yeah, it should. At the same time, someone shouldn't be singled out because of your hangups either. So if one of your hangups is homosexual sex, and you don't want to approach the subject, you should simply not approach the subject of any sex.
Why? Because someone at the table has a phobia of hetero sex? Sure. Because someone at the table pouts and says, "Well, if I can't have my spiders, they shouldn't get to have ponies!"? No.
A lot of it also has to do with worldbuilding. Playing a gay character in certain societies is kind of like trying to play a modern hippie vegan in the land of yak-eaters. What is there to eat? Yak. Anything to drink? Yak-butter tea. Could I maybe just get a salad? Yes, there is a salad in the yak's stomach! Fresh and pickled with the yak's digestive juices and seasoned with extra yak's blood!
You have greatly impressed the chieftain of the yak-eaters with your yeti-hunting prowess. So much in fact that he wishes to marry you off as appropriate to his son or daughter, and "as appropriate" means "to the opposite sex." If you say you prefer the son or daughter of your same sex, the chieftain will laugh at your fine joke, then go back to offering you the opposite sex partner because that's the way kinship and political alliances are done in the land of yak-eaters, and he wants yeti-hunting grandkids. He also doesn't care if you love his son or daughter. Yes, it's nice, but unnecessary for a political alliance and an arranged marriage.
But where's the gay sex? The steamy hot loving gay sex? Maybe it isn't socially acceptable in the land of yak-eaters. In fact, if you're caught doing it, you're left naked in the snow for the yetis.
Of course, maybe this is not a terrible thing, since the yetis are somewhere between the Shakers and the Village People, and they only get new members by conversion, and the ritual of initiation where you become a yeti is kind of like a gay orgy at a furry convention.
But wait, no, your character doesn't want to be a gay yeti. He wants to be a gay human in a loving monogamous gay relationship officially recognized by the state, a kinship arrangement that's pretty much an anachronism in worlds based on a mix of historic feudalism and sword and sorcery. And he wants the relationship to be recognized with the word "marriage" and not some second-class status like "leman" or "shield brother" or "domestic partner." Oh, and the history of the kingdom needs to be retconned so this has been the social custom for at least three hundred years, no one anywhere can possibly disapprove of it unless they're chaotic evil (and not even most of them), and at least 50% of all marriages in the kingdom are same sex, including the current king, nevermind any troubles this causes with primogeniture and suspension of disbelief. And same sex couples who want babies can have them created by witches with a special hex that lets them be discovered under cabbage leaves or oracles who can summon them by means of interplanar storks. And the witches and oracles do this for free and don't have a backlog of orders.
At what point does "roleplaying" leave off and "wish fulfillment fantasy" begin? I fully realize that everything in a roleplaying game is at some level a wish fulfillment fantasy, but there has to be some happy medium between nothing you want and everything you ever wanted plus spiders and a pony.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Of course, maybe this is not a terrible thing, since the yetis are somewhere between the Shakers and the Village People, and they only get new members by conversion, and the ritual of initiation where you become a yeti is kind of like a gay orgy at a furry convention.
Things like this are why we need sigfiles :-)
Why? Because someone at the table has a phobia of hetero sex? Sure. Because someone at the table pouts and says, "Well, if I can't have my spiders, they shouldn't get to have ponies!"? No.
A lot of it also has to do with worldbuilding. Playing a gay character in certain societies is kind of like trying to play a modern hippie vegan in the land of yak-eaters. What is there to eat? Yak. Anything to drink? Yak-butter tea. Could I maybe just get a salad? Yes, there is a salad in the yak's stomach! Fresh and pickled with the yak's digestive juices and seasoned with extra yak's blood!
You have greatly impressed the chieftain of the yak-eaters with your yeti-hunting prowess. So much in fact that he wishes to marry you off as appropriate to his son or daughter, and "as appropriate" means "to the opposite sex." If you say you prefer the son or daughter of your same sex, the chieftain will laugh at your fine joke, then go back to offering you the opposite sex partner because that's the way kinship and political alliances are done in the land of yak-eaters, and he wants yeti-hunting grandkids. He also doesn't care if you love his son or daughter. Yes, it's nice, but unnecessary for a political alliance and an arranged marriage.
But where's the gay sex? The steamy hot loving gay sex? Maybe it isn't socially acceptable in the land of yak-eaters. In fact, if you're caught doing it, you're left naked in the snow for the yetis.
Of course, maybe this is not a terrible thing, since the yetis are somewhere between the Shakers and the Village People, and...
Whoa, yeah, where did I say that in the game world it always has to be accepted as normal? I don't recall ever saying that. What I said was if you're going to forbid homosexual sex/romance/whatever, it's only fair not to go there with heterosexual either.
If you (and your players) are fine with what you wrote about the crazy yak people, that's not the same thing. And frankly, anybody with any sense of decency and tact would, when confronted with that kind of situation, just say "I don't really want to have a lot of romance in my game". Period. Not "I don't like gay sex, so Eduardo must be straight or sexless, but Conan, feel free to explain in detail every action you take at the local brothel." If you're homophobic enough that you can't even manage an "ok, and fade to black" though...therapy time, seriously.
A phobia is a phobia, and if someone is up front enough to tell you what their personal comfort level is, it should be respected.Yeah, it should. At the same time, someone shouldn't be singled out because of your hangups either. So if one of your hangups is homosexual sex, and you don't want to approach the subject, you should simply not approach the subject of any sex.
Of course, I honestly doubt any group would include both homosexuals and homophobes for very long at all. That's kinda like inviting Malcom X and the grand dragon of the KKK to dinner - even if they're civil, neither one is gonna be having any fun in the other's presence.
Well if we're going to go with semantics, let's go with the correct ones. If the person is actually a homophobe, he would exhibit terror, not hatred, at the thought of homosexual activity, and try to avoid it in any way possible. The slang term "homophobe" rarely refers to someone with a true phobia, but rather to a person with a prejudice against homosexuals.
So in this case, a phobia is not actually a phobia.
Ahh, tolerance-as-absolute.
People who feel homosexuality is a sin must tolerate homosexuality in the name of tolerance, because there's a belief value that says "We must all tolerate our differences, it builds diversity."
Even though I'm firmly in the camp that gay rights are human rights, the tenor of 'tolerance is an absolute' offends me. Because it's an absolute with a lot of unspoken codocils; tolerance is an absolute only when it aligns with things presented in popular culture.
A religious person who is made uncomfortable by the idea of homosexuality (and there are reasons why this happens...) is being sent the message "because you're made uncomfortable by my actions, you must be a bigot." And that's unwarranted and, dare I say it, intolerant of the views and beliefs of others.
Now, my personal beliefs are that A) gay rights are human rights and B) tolerance means, yes, having to put up with religions that range from benign to sheltering homicidal maniacs.
So, call people who chastise gays for being immoral "rude". Rudeness largely means "Inconsiderate of the social norms", and is an appropriate epithet.
Call them cruder names than that.
However, by calling them intolerant, you are taking a lot of semantic freight and swinging it indiscriminately, and are likely prolonging the conflict.
So, call people who chastise gays for being immoral "rude". Rudeness largely means "Inconsiderate of the social norms", and is an appropriate epithet.
The exact way to say it is, *In best C3-P0 voice* "How rude!" =D
*Mark of the Beast post, yes!*
Of course, maybe this is not a terrible thing, since the yetis are somewhere between the Shakers and the Village People, and they only get new members by conversion, and the ritual of initiation where you become a yeti is kind of like a gay orgy at a furry convention.
You realize that orgy is made up of less than the 5% that actually does anything even remotely close to that in costume?*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matt's definition of 'tolerance'
"Yeah, that stuff is out there, and since it's not illegal, I have to accept you have a right to do it. You don't have a right to do it with me, to me, using my resources, or on my property. You also don't have a right to keep me from telling you you're frakking nuts, and calling you names. Deal with it."
P.S. You touch me or mine, I'll cave in your skull with my cane. Tolerantly of course.
I'm just going to chime in and say that, in my opinion, what you do at your gaming table--as well as what you do in your bedroom--is your own business. If your whole group likes graphic hetero sex scenes but not gay sex scenes, then you should roll with that. Nobody (at least nobody reasonable) is saying that you must have parity *even if that doesn't work for your group*. It's make-believe. Do what you want.
That said, I think what Judy and other folks meant when we went off on this tangent is that it's important to know your players and be sensitive to the needs of *everyone* in the group. If you have a gay player (or a straight player who wants to play a gay character, or a transvirtual, to use Jacobs' term for cross-gender players, or whatever), it's good to make sure that he or she isn't being shoehorned into a role they aren't comfortable with, or being made uncomfortable by the rest of the group's desires. In short, with sexuality, as with *every other aspect of running a game*, it's important to try to facilitate compromise and play to each player's desires as much as you reasonably can. So if one character really likes romance of sex scenes of any denomination, and your other players don't--or vice versa--maybe you can accommodate that in a way that leaves everyone happy. And nobody's saying you have to roleplay things you aren't comfortable with, just that folks should be aware that some players *may* feel left out if the game is strongly focused toward one sexuality. In short--talk to your friends, see what works for everyone.
And *that* said, I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :D
I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :D
So are all gnomes bisexual? Does a gnome on either of the far edges of the Kinsey scale end up at a handicap to prevent the Bleaching?
How prominent are belts of gender changing? Are they far-away and mythical in the same way that affordable SRS is in this world? Is there only one? Or are there a few Transmuter-types who specialize in making these belts? Or maybe alchemists...
Did the artist decide to do that to poor Ezren or did someone put forth the idea for the artist to draw? On the same note, how does a middle aged man have a perky rack not normally seen outside of colleges?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So are all gnomes bisexual? Does a gnome on either of the far edges of the Kinsey scale end up at a handicap to prevent the Bleaching?
That's an interesting question. While I doubt there are any more gnomes at the far ends of the Kinsey scale than there are humans (and probably fewer, thanks to their fey ancestry - fey are traditionally somewhat sexually ambiguous), the ones that are only a point or so away from the ends might well be pushed to try something they normally wouldn't go for if the Bleaching starts closing in...
On the same note, how does a middle aged man have a perky rack not normally seen outside of colleges?
They are, one supposes, rather newer than the rest of him/her.
Whoa, yeah, where did I say that in the game world it always has to be accepted as normal? I don't recall ever saying that. What I said was if you're going to forbid homosexual sex/romance/whatever, it's only fair not to go there with heterosexual either.
If you (and your players) are fine with what you wrote about the crazy yak people, that's not the same thing. And frankly, anybody with any sense of decency and tact would, when confronted with that kind of situation, just say "I don't really want to have a lot of romance in my game". Period. Not "I don't like gay sex, so Eduardo must be straight or sexless, but Conan, feel free to explain in detail every action you take at the local brothel." If you're homophobic enough that you can't even manage an "ok, and fade to black" though...therapy time, seriously.
You didn't say "accepted as normal" but you pretty much implied it with stressing "only fair."
If there's a brothel in the world for Conan to go to, with detailed hetero sex to describe therein, one rather expects that that sex and brothel is legal or at least culturally tolerated and Conan has no greater social stigma for his elaborately described sexual escapades than "guy who goes to brothels" or possibly "son of the women therein."
Meanwhile, Eduardo wants gay sex. Let us say that this is not "accepted as normal" in this land, so there is no gay brothel next door, or even just one big bisexual brothel for both Conan and Eduardo to patronize. You didn't say "accepted as normal," right?
So anyway, Eduardo, denied a brothel catering to his sexual preference, goes cruising to find if there's anyone gay in this town, does enough Diplomacy to find that the innkeeper's son might swing that way, and after a night of elaborately described gay lovemaking, finds the innkeeper wanting to beat him to death for seducing his son, and the son meanwhile is claiming that he was charmed and raped by Eduardo because in this town, gayness is not "accepted as normal" and indeed has some worse social stigma than "guy who goes to brothels" or even "son of the women therein." There may even be some legal penalty, anywhere from fines to burning at the stake with extra punishments in the afterlife because the town's god is not down with gayness either.
Eduardo complains--and with good reason--that this is not fair.
If you're going to do "only fair," can you see any solution other than "accepted as normal" and completely revising the social and cultural context on every level, ranging from coed brothels to the king offering the hand of the prince in marriage to whoever saves the kingdom from the dragon? And if the savior ends up being a lesbian or hetero male who would prefer a princess, the king also has a convenient Girdle of Opposite Gender? (Since the prince is marrying for the good of the kingdom he can also change sex for the good of the kingdom, and whether he wants to be a transexual is immaterial, and ditto for whatever sexual preference he has, if any. "Only fair" does not have to extend to NPCs.)
And *that* said, I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :D
Cross-posted last post, so getting back to the subject at hand, which kingdoms in Golarion are established as having eunuchs and what is the sexual status of them? Are they considered a separate gender for social purposes? How does that relate to homosexuality/heterosexuality?
|
I was thinking they could call him 'pin-dick', on the grounds that a halfling is all he could satisfy?
There is no way that Paizo will ever officially comment on certain physical ratios between the races, but I'm pretty sure that Lem would take issue with that comment...
He would no doubt make many boastful innuendos, but then again, we all know he likes to blow his own flute.
|
All right, an on-topic question: Homosexuality and Faction Membership. In particular, Hellknights and Eagle Knights. What's their policy ?
Eagles mate for life, on the one hand.
Freedom loving Andorans might, on the other hand, be a bit more permissive by nature, not merely as a result of having a chaotic patron, but because of a reaction against the stuffy hidebound rules, rules, rules of Cheliax and the equally stuffy rules (and then screw around behind your spouses back, and everyone knows about it anyway) and hypocrisy of Taldor. They might feel that open expressions of love, and codes and 'rules' that support relationships based on love and attraction, instead of expectation and convenience, are better than the enforced and draconian rules of Cheliax and the utterly ignored 'rules' and openly flaunted secrets and 'scandals' of Taldor, feeling that either situation leads to loveless and spiritless marriages, divorced of any real value.
And, I could see none of this being 100%. *Some* Eagle Knights are going to find the whole thing 'a bit queer' (using the old version of the word) and off-putting, and no matter how open-minded his nation is trying to become, he kind of wishes that particular genie could get shoved back in the bottle, where he didn't have to see it, while *some* Hellknights are going to be more concerned with heresy and sedition and not really give a rat's patootie what the Paracontess is up to with her serving wench, considering that sort of thing about as much of a 'crime' about as worthy of a Hellknights time as jaywalking.
. . . .I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :D
So would I! :-D
Are there any countries/nations of Golarion that people think would be especially condemnatory of homosexuality?
For example, I don't pretend to know much about Cheliax, but I would expect a lawful evil society like that to be repressive in general, but particularly for acts of self-expression.
But that being said, Chelish opera and all . . . ;-)
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
For example, I don't pretend to know much about Cheliax, but I would expect a lawful evil society like that to be repressive in general, but particularly for acts of self-expression.
But that being said, Chelish opera and all . . . ;-)
It seems to me BDSM is very lawful, but that might be more Zon-Kuthon's bag.
Getting back to Cheliax I figure the society would be scandalized by someone of high station or birthing being submissive to someone of lower station. Switch the roles around, though, and it's totally okay, whatever the genders involved. Very Roman...
I suspect that any gnome who's so desperate to stave off the Bleaching that he's started collecting strange fleas on his body, or devoted his life to finding and cataloguing bizarre forks, or tattooing every inch of his body with the names of flowers he's picked, has probably picked up most of the low-hanging fruit in the bedroom, if you catch my drift. But that's just my guess. Going to bed with a gnome is probably always a bit of a gamble.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any nations or organizations on Golarion that are particularly anti-gay, though I'm sure they're there. I suspect that it's mostly a factor of there being so many more obvious differences between people upon which to base prejudice. Sure, that dude likes dudes, but that guy over *there* has giant orc tusks and is hitting on a woman who's three feet tall. Which is less conventional?
That said... I suspect (and this is NOT canon) the Hellknights and Eagle Knights are probably both fine with sex within the orders as long as it's discrete and doesn't make things awkward. What's on the battlefield stays on the battlefield. (And as a gay Air Force friend of mine pointed out once: "What's better than being a military gay in peacetime? It's all just dudes hanging out with nothing to do but work out, lift weights, and hook up...")
Getting back to Cheliax I figure the society would be scandalized by someone of high station or birthing being submissive to someone of lower station. Switch the roles around, though, and it's totally okay, whatever the genders involved. Very Roman...
I suspect that Cheliax is fan of decadence in most of its forms.,,,
|
Off the top of my head, I can't think of any nations or organizations on Golarion that are particularly anti-gay, though I'm sure they're there. I suspect that it's mostly a factor of there being so many more obvious differences between people upon which to base prejudice. Sure, that dude likes dudes, but that guy over *there* has giant orc tusks and is hitting on a woman who's three feet tall. Which is less conventional?
That used to be the argument against racism (in its traditional sense) in Shadowrun. Why should I be worried about the guy with darker skin than mine riding the subway in the middle of the night when there's a 12 foot tall guy with tusks and bone outgrowths from his body that just sat next to me? I think it's a pretty fair argument too and certainly applies in this case.
. . . .I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :DSo would I! :-D
Are there any countries/nations of Golarion that people think would be especially condemnatory of homosexuality?
I think that Hermea in particular would not be down with homosexuality, at least not as an exclusive sexuality. The great gold dragon Mengkare is conducting a eugenics experiment, and one expects that would be based on heterosexual arranged pairings. Whether you like the sex you're having or like the person you're having sex with is immaterial--if Mengkare wants you to make babies, you do it.
That said, one expects that homosexual hook-ups, orgies, or even long term romances are something Mengkare would care less about than the heterosexual versions because the second would end up with unplanned pregnancies which Mengkare would look at his spreadsheets and find either unfavorable or less favorable, as these were not the particular specimens he wanted to breed together.
What I expect Mengkare would do would be to use the males he considered to have the most superior genetics as studs for the rest of the females, but would make certain to have the less favored (but still good enough for Hermea) males sire at least one child so as to pass on their genetics and possibly get a superior stud for the next generation.
A male with such a strong homosexual orientation that he is unable to perform even when ordered by a gold dragon? One expects that Mengkare would be both intrigued and disappointed, might begin to explore the whole nature versus nurture debate (since whether you can actively breed for a specific sexuality is an important question for eugenics), then simply shrug and use Dominate Person or a more lasting solution such as a hypothetical Helm of Opposite Sexual Preference.
|
|
I think that Hermea in particular would not be down with homosexuality, at least not as an exclusive sexuality. The great gold dragon Mengkare is conducting a eugenics experiment, and one expects that would be based on heterosexual arranged pairings. Whether you like the sex you're having or like the person you're having sex with is immaterial--if Mengkare wants you to make babies, you do it.
On the other side of the coin, there might be a fair number of individuals with useful talents that Mengkare has invited to bend their talents to the service of his grand vision, but *doesn't* want spreading their inferior genes.
For those sorts of people, he might *encourage* homosexual (or just asexual) behavior...
In a few centuries, he'll likely be able to supply his own stock, but for now, he's still recruiting from the surrounding lands, and some of the philosophers and arcanists and engineers he's recruiting might be there to provide training and tutelage, build some aqueducts and map out some planned communities and optimize some systems of crop rotation, but be excluded from the breeding pool (Perhaps as simple as casting Bestow Curse on them. Infertility seems well within the range of the 'design your own' curse option, and singularly appropriate for a necromantic effect...).
Come to think of it, Bestow Curse also works for keeping people from hooking up with / breeding with people you don't want them with, causing the 'flesh to fail' when in the presence of an un-approved partner type.
Ah, Bestow Curse, what a wonderful spell. Somewhere between Prestidigitation and Limited Wish, it can do so much!
Ah, Bestow Curse, what a wonderful spell. Somewhere between Prestidigitation and Limited Wish, it can do so much!
Indeed.
Depending on how you interpret it, changing someone's sexual preference would only take one or two applications:
Curse: "You're not attracted to men."
Curse: "You're attracted to women."
Curse: "You think older is hotter."
Curse: "Pointed ears are a sexual turn-on."
Curse: "You have a fetish for redheads."
Curse: "Just hearing the name 'Gwenda' gives you a woodie."
Enter Gwenda, the red-headed half-elf sorceress that Mengkare wants you to hook up with.
And of course Mengkare would probably just turn anyone gay or asexual who he didn't want breeding, though it would probably be more practical to just craft some artifact that throws an island-wide curse of homosexuality and/or asexuality for any non-approved pairing. It would save time and bother.
|
|
Ah, Bestow Curse, what a wonderful spell. Somewhere between Prestidigitation and Limited Wish, it can do so much!Indeed.
Depending on how you interpret it, changing someone's sexual preference would only take one or two applications:
Curse: "You're not attracted to men."
Curse: "You're attracted to women."
That sounds more Geas-y, with the enchantment / charm aspect. Bestow Curse being necromantic, I'd be more inclined to approve custom 'behavioral modification' curses like;
Curse: "I don't care what you are attracted to, Mister Happy doesn't get up for boys anymore."
Curse: "Mister Happy is very 'up' for Gwenda. Painfully so, unless you deal with that."
Body changes / manipulations, life-energy, pain effects, maybe some fear effects. "No, she literally *is* afraid of girls..." Etc.
Not to derail the thread any further, but I have 2 more things to say.
1) When I speak about fairness, I mean fairness at your table, not fairness in the game world. Very different things, those.
2) Tolerance should be absolute, and enforced...but tolerance isn't acceptance. Tolerance is just "live and let live", and that's simple, basic decency.
Now, back on track. I highly doubt Cheliax has a problem with homosexuality, considering the leadership of Korvosa and its strong Chelaxian ties and all. The talk of Hermea is interesting, though...I wonder how Mengkare would react, especially considering dragons and their...appetites...(you don't see a half-<insert core race here> template, after all, even if there are two half-humans among them).
As magical as they are, I somehow doubt that dragons get can get men pregnant, at least not without extra magic.
Now that would be an interesting curse, especially as it deals with life energy: "You may be male, but you can get pregnant! Have fun with the caesarean!"
If that did work, I can see Mengkare using exactly that, followed by good prenatal care and magical healing for the deliveries from both fathers.
Hermea is all about the innovations, and if there's some witch on the island doing her graduate thesis on creative midwifery, that's about all it takes.
Parthenogenesis and immaculate conception seem perfectly good hexes too. Much less troublesome than trying to get cabbages or storks to carry a fetus to term, though there are probably Hermean witches working on these as their graduate theses too.
Storks and magical cabbage patch homonculi are the new Hermean witch familiars of choice.
|
|
And *that* said, I'd love it if this thread could continue to focus on sexuality in Golarion rather than spiraling into a political tolerance vs. enforced tolerance debate. :D
I agree, this was a very interesting thread to follow but was turning into something I was about to stop following. Glad to see it turning back to it's purpose.
|
|
As magical as they are, I somehow doubt that dragons get can get men pregnant, at least not without extra magic.
Now that would be an interesting curse, especially as it deals with life energy: "You may be male, but you can get pregnant! Have fun with the caesarean!"
That does bring up a interesting point. What happens when someone is polymorhped? I mean if a man to a woman and get pregnant or a woman who is. Then gets turned back into a man or gets turned into a man. I mean what happens to the baby? Does it go away or does it stay?
But maybe I shouldn't ask this question since I could easily see this totally derailing things. So IF you reply to this, please leave real world views and issues out of it.
As magical as they are, I somehow doubt that dragons get can get men pregnant, at least not without extra magic.
Now that would be an interesting curse, especially as it deals with life energy: "You may be male, but you can get pregnant! Have fun with the caesarean!"
That does bring up a interesting point. What happens when someone is polymorhped? I mean if a man to a woman and get pregnant or a woman who is. Then gets turned back into a man or gets turned into a man. I mean what happens to the baby? Does it go away or does it stay?
But maybe I shouldn't ask this question since I could easily see this totally derailing things. So IF you reply to this, please leave real world views and issues out of it.
That's a question that would depend on the DM's definition of "you" in the sentence "and you just got polymorphed, ha ha". If "you" includes all your little parasites, bacteria, and babies, then they come along for the ride and your new "you" has the parasites, bacteria, and babies/lack thereof without anything worth mentioning happening. It all works seamlessly. And when/if you're polymorphed back it all returns as it was when you were originally changed. Because having a 10 year old kid pop up next to you just because you were pregnant when you got hit by a polymorph 11 years ago is too much for most suspensions of disbelief.
If the "you" doesn't involve all your parasites, bacteria, or babies then they don't get polymorphed with you. Your intestinal flora don't care as for simplicity I'm assuming your innards stay in the same place during the polymorph (otherwise they might end up in your abdominal cavity and then it's time to thank the gods for Remove Disease). Same with parasites, although some might just fall off if the part of you they were eating isn't there anymore (think those worms that swim up streams of pee to lodge in unfortunate men's... ahem...). Babies would depend on the DM: it might get reabsorbed, it might stay there and you take damage until it can be removed like you're a favored of Lamashtu, it might develop properly in a male pregnancy, it might end up in Rules Limbo until you're polymorphed back, there might even be a demiplane for baby storage where they sit in bubbles waiting to be born somewhere else.
So it's whatever the DM wants or is able to barter/negotiate with the player for. Preferably negotiate for since the player might have an immovable viewpoint on this (like everything else in this thread).
|
|
I imagine it would be something like this.
Eeww but yeah makes sense. I only brought this up cause honestly the thought had never occurred to me before and when it did. I was curious what others thought.
Back on the more general topic. In some places one gender might be more accepted than others as well.
As magical as they are, I somehow doubt that dragons get can get men pregnant, at least not without extra magic.
Now that would be an interesting curse, especially as it deals with life energy: "You may be male, but you can get pregnant! Have fun with the caesarean!"
That does bring up a interesting point. What happens when someone is polymorhped? I mean if a man to a woman and get pregnant or a woman who is. Then gets turned back into a man or gets turned into a man. I mean what happens to the baby? Does it go away or does it stay?
But maybe I shouldn't ask this question since I could easily see this totally derailing things. So IF you reply to this, please leave real world views and issues out of it.
Well, real world views and issues aside and just going with real world biology, I believe it could work as I believe it's at least theoretically possible for the placenta to attach to the wall of the intestinal cavity. It may not technically be a womb, but it could work, though you'd have to deliver via Caesarean unless there was magical help.
Metaphysically we're dealing with another can of worms. I've heard of people playing it such that any pregnant female can't be polymorphed into a non-female form. I've read of polymorphing causing spontaneous miscarriage, specifically in "The Devil Wives of Li Fong" by E. Hoffmann Price where the old priest forces the snake woman to retake her serpent form, not knowing that she was pregnant with her human husband's child. He then finds out that his sanctimonious holy act has made him an abortionist.
Which of course does get back to another real world issue which I'm certain that Paizo doesn't want to get into in Golarion ever even though it's something that GMs are going to have to decide for themselves, specifically at what stage of development does a fetus become a person and if it dies, does it show up in the queue in the Boneyard for the Lady of Bones to send it on to some afterlife or does she have some age cutoff where she thinks immediate reincarnation is the best option since exactly how many moral choices can someone who died three minutes, three hours or three days after birth make exactly?
|
|
Pregnant woman + fetus still attached via umbilical cord = fetus changes safely.
That is how I would rule it, since that actually came up in a free-form game I played in. A shapeshifter didn't know she was pregnant and was still shifting, something her people didn't do while pregnant. Her husband(a lycanthrope played by me) explained to her that lycans shifted all the time, and that the child would be fine because it shared his blood as well.
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it. The previous poster claimed that he has a gay mentor, who is precious to him, but that he cannot condone the man's sexuality? WTF? I will not post on this thread again. Just know that there are people out there who find your twisted Judeo-Christian take on human potential as perverse and twisted as you seem to hold gays to be. I have more gay friends than Christian friends. They are just far more pleasant to be around.I hate to do it, but...
What he said.Well "thanks a lot" to the two of you for lumping every religious person in with those you have trouble with and being as lousy as they are.
Pot. Kettle. Black.Whether you have faith or not, surely you see that some people actively promote intolerance in the name of religion? I don't think all religous people are evil, but certainly many do evil in the name of religion. I don't see groups of homosexuals out promoting intolerance or strapping bombs to themselves and running into hospitals, and until I do, I just don't see the hypocrisy.
I know this is a bit late but I do have an example of homosexuals promoting intolerance.
it's just more proof that if you get any group big enough it and there will be bigots joining it
|
|
Pregnant woman + fetus still attached via umbilical cord = fetus changes safely.
That would be my ruling, too. For polymorph, etc., while it's attached, a fetus is treated being as much a part of the woman's body as her mitochondria or her kidneys or the funky flora that live in her abdominal tract.
All part of the miracle of life! (And, yanno, magic.)
Man, turned into woman, then fertilized, then turned back into a man? Not even sure I want to go there...
As for the theological aspect of when souls are issued in Golarion, that could be interesting. IRL, we don't even know if souls exist, and canonically, it's been interpreted anywhere from three days after birth to the microsecond that the sperm slams into the egg.
If it was, in Golarion, the latter, and identical twins functioned as they do IRL, dividing off from a single fertilized egg up to forty-eight hours after fertilization, that would mean that there's only one soul, either split between two identical bodies, *or* that there's only one soul, in one of the bodies, leaving the other to become the proverbial 'evil twin.'
There's a church doctrine that one 'can't dilute the power of God,' which allows one to pour a flask of holy water into a basin of clean water and make all of it holy water, which could be interpreted to suggest that there is no such thing as 'half a soul.' Any fragment of a soul, divided among identical twins, triplets, whatever, counts as a full and complete soul (like a human liver, chop it up, transplant it into a couple of people, and they all end up with full-sized livers, eventually). But if that doctrine isn't interpreted this way (or just flat-out isn't true in Golarion), these 'half-souled' twin children could have something special about them. Perhaps they are more likely to be Sorcerers, or Clerics (seeking to fill the emptiness within them with faith). Perhaps they *can't* be Clerics, or Paladins, or other sorts of divine casters, and perhaps Rahadoum has a bumper-crop of identical twins, who not only dislike religion, but never could have bene priests anyway, due to their 'half-souled' nature.
In a setting where this sort of thing was literally true, that souls get handed down at the moment of conception, leaving twins half-souled or even possibly soulless 'evil twins,' the setting might have a very real bias against the half-souled (and very real reason to have such a bias, as their weak souls make them more susceptible to possession, etc.), or a regular practice of testing identical twins to see 'who got the soul' and just quietly bury the other one in the backyard, not considering it a twin, but a changeling child, attempting to sneak into this world to cause havoc in a human form (also justified by soulless 'evil twins' generally growing up to be sociopaths and serial killers). In the funner versions of this sort of setting, the tests themselves would be ridiculous (Submerge the baby over and over until the evil spirits flee! Oops. I guess she was evil. She wouldn't have drowned if she was pure...), or, occasionally, the 'soulless' baby wouldn't exhibit the expected signs, while the souled twin would inconveniently fail the test, resulting in the concerned parents accidentally snuffing the wrong kid, and raising the little hellspawn instead...
If the soul is issued three days after birth, or at the moment the umbilical cord is cut, symbolically (and, in this case, literally) dividing it's life away from it's mother to become a separate organism, capable of breathing, feeding, etc. on it's own, then these funky situations wouldn't occur, but other odd practices might. Perhaps, as the good soul flows into the baby, dark forces are believed to get pushed aside into the placenta, requiring that it be ritually destroyed (burn it with fire!), to purge the evil that lurks within it. In this paradigm, it would be believed that someone with sinister intent could retain the placenta of a newborn to use to work dark magic against them later, and if the paradigm is true, there might be spells to take advantage of this 'Focus component,' or just some sort of DC penalty against spells cast by someone holding your placenta.
|
|
Now, back on track. I highly doubt Cheliax has a problem with homosexuality, considering the leadership of Korvosa and its strong Chelaxian ties and all.
I can see it having cropped up at some point amongst certain circles of society, to tie into that family's "old-fashioned"-ness at Sandpoint, but yeah, it doesn't seem to fit in with Cheliax that was and Cheliax that is.
Some portions of Erastil's church might frown on it possibly, given how that god has been presented so far, but it should likely never go beyond that amongst actual Erastilians.
On the other hand, sweat lodges.
Seriously though, Erastil's big on families forming and making babies.
But he's also big on those families working and providing a healthy loving environment for parent and child alike. If a child can't be raised properly by his birth parents, I don't see Erastil making too much fuss at all about a fit homosexual couple adopting him.
Now there's a question. Regardless of how Erastil views homosexual couples, one has to wonder whether he and his church views male couples differently from female couples...
|
|
Pregnant woman + fetus still attached via umbilical cord = fetus changes safely.That would be my ruling, too. For polymorph, etc., while it's attached, a fetus is treated being as much a part of the woman's body as her mitochondria or her kidneys or the funky flora that live in her abdominal tract.
All part of the miracle of life! (And, yanno, magic.)
Man, turned into woman, then fertilized, then turned back into a man? Not even sure I want to go there...
As for the theological aspect of when souls are issued in Golarion, that could be interesting. IRL, we don't even know if souls exist, and canonically, it's been interpreted anywhere from three days after birth to the microsecond that the sperm slams into the egg.
If it was, in Golarion, the latter, and identical twins functioned as they do IRL, dividing off from a single fertilized egg up to forty-eight hours after fertilization, that would mean that there's only one soul, either split between two identical bodies, *or* that there's only one soul, in one of the bodies, leaving the other to become the proverbial 'evil twin.'
There's a church doctrine that one 'can't dilute the power of God,' which allows one to pour a flask of holy water into a basin of clean water and make all of it holy water, which could be interpreted to suggest that there is no such thing as 'half a soul.' Any fragment of a soul, divided among identical twins, triplets, whatever, counts as a full and complete soul (like a human liver, chop it up, transplant it into a couple of people, and they all end up with full-sized livers, eventually). But if that doctrine isn't interpreted this way (or just flat-out isn't true in Golarion), these 'half-souled' twin children could have something special about them. Perhaps they are more likely to be Sorcerers, or Clerics (seeking to fill the emptiness within them with faith). Perhaps they *can't* be Clerics, or Paladins, or other sorts of divine casters, and perhaps Rahadoum has a...
Those poor triplets, quadruplets, and quintuplets...