So they think since their way seems so right for them, it must be an universal law. Sure, that's bigotry.That's what I'm talking about, what you said there. The overwhelming majority of straight men I personally know are like this. It is the extreme minority of straight men that I personally know that agree with me - "It doesn't do anything for me, but I'm not bothered by it."
There's also a third group, who are uncomfortable with anything from public displays of affection to graphic sex (it's a spectrum of "How much is too much?") regardless of the sexuality being displayed. That, mixed with the fact that most straight sexuality doesn't fall into the bipolar categories of "deeply closeted or implied through subtext" or "so out and proud as to be obnoxious," makes for extra discomfort.
Proof that women like man-on-man action: popularity of "slash" fiction.
The interesting thing about slash is that a lot of women like it because of the way the men are portrayed as caring and capable of meaningful relationships, whereas in the normal fiction that's generally avoided. It's almost happenstance that it's a gay relationship, because, under the constraints of the story in a largely male world (where the women are generally walk-ons or minor roles), that's the only persons with whom something that resembles reality makes sense for any sort of emotional weight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, never really encountered a 'problem' with this, most of the group either laughs it off or we take great delight in hamming it up. People who go 'Gays are all evil because the Book says so!' need to actually READ the damn thing. Then get the hell off my lawn! At the same point, to my fellow agnostics and atheists, gtfo the religious people's lawns!
Please stop bashing the 90% of normal, happy, sociable people from a certain demographic, regardless of which one, because of the asshattery of the remaining 10% that, yes, really do deserve to be locked away in a room with only one door with their opposite numbers and enough Steak Knives for all. And me camped outside the door with a Atlas Super-Heavy Assault Mech waiting with the AC/20 and SRM 6 all warmed up for the winners to emerge. Human Beings are inherently designed to be A#+%#$~s. Deal with it.
In regards to the 'gay' (Wait, aren't they all happy?) Iconic, bets are for me, will be the flagshipper, if you'll pardon a mashing of terms, of this demographic.
While not a 'gay' story, closest we've come to the dreaded 'erotically roleplay it out' with about a dozen different gamers over the years is the party is trying to sneak up upon a Red Dragon Wyrm and his Consort, a powerful Cleric of Takhisis. Needless to say, powerful magic to cloak us from the Dragon's senses, we sneak up and are just about to jump into the room when we hear noises.
Squishy noises.
Taking a time out, we listen as the Dragon professes his undying love to the Cleric, a warm moment that adds yet another layer to our enemy, and the Cleric's response was equally heart-melting, saying she wanted to feel the Dragon's young growing under her heart, even though we were about to Cleave them both in twain, before our Paladin got impatient and jumped out from around the corner, sword and board at the ready.
Needless to say, even enlarged the Cleric was in no way going to, ahem, accomodate the Dragon. So they were going for a .... now how do I put this delicately .... uhm .... let's just say an 'inundation' tactic. The Paladin's scream of outrage at the Dragon's ... 'preparations' caused the Wyrm Dragon to turn around at precisely the wrong moment. GM Ruled it as an attack from an Endless Decanter set to 'Geyser' mode.
"OH GOD MY MOUTH WAS OPEN AND EVERYTHING!" The Paladin screamed at the table as we all start laughing our asses off.
"You take 1d12 nonlethal damage from the impact and are knocked prone. The new conditions of the tunnel make it difficult terrain, with the ... floor covered in two feet of material. Also, Mike, since your Paladin's mouth was open and he's now prone, he's drowning in the material."
Without going much further, the combat ended with the Paladin, still coated, throwing himself down the Dragon's throat screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE IT, HUH?!". At least the Cleric was easy to deal with, sans her Armor.
And people wonder why my casters always carried around Wands of Prestidigitation after that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
On the other hand, Donna thought that the kiss kiss bang bang between Captain Jack and Captain John (John Barrowman and James Marsters) was hot, but my current roommate (also female) went 'Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!!'I'm not familiar with this, I just found it on youtube. Can you give me a short summary about this scene and wherever it's from?
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a very healthy relationship ;-).
Yup that's the scene.
Background on Jack. He's a former Time Agent, an organization we still know little about. He woke up one day and found they'd 'taken two years of his life' and left. He became a con man, met the Doctor, died, got better, ended up on Earth, joined Torchwood. He's from the 51st century, and Omnisexual, so about the only sexual moral he seems to have is consent.
John we know less about. He's also a former Time Agent, apparently the organization was disbanded some point after Jack left. Like Jack, he's 'a 51st century kind of guy' who doesn't even have the consent moral (I gather). He's been through drug rehab, alcohol rehab, murder rehab...
Jack and John were partners in the Agency. They also were partners in every other sense. (John was the wife) And no, it's not a healthy relationship. Donna just found the kiss extremely hot.
(snipped hilarious Dragonlance story)
Hickman would be so angry. But this made me LOL. Thanks for the belly laugh, sir!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the extreme minority of straight men that I personally know that agree with me - "It doesn't do anything for me, but I'm not bothered by it."
It's okay to be bothered by it. That doesn't make someone a bigot. Can't turn off your likes or dislikes. How you handle it is the key.
Honestly, never really encountered a 'problem' with this, most of the group either laughs it off or we take great delight in hamming it up. People who go 'Gays are all evil because the Book says so!' need to actually READ the damn thing. Then get the hell off my lawn! At the same point, to my fellow agnostics and atheists, gtfo the religious people's lawns!
Please stop bashing the 90% of normal, happy, sociable people from a certain demographic, regardless of which one, because of the asshattery of the remaining 10% that, yes, really do deserve to be locked away in a room with only one door with their opposite numbers and enough Steak Knives for all. And me camped outside the door with a Atlas Super-Heavy Assault Mech waiting with the AC/20 and SRM 6 all warmed up for the winners to emerge. Human Beings are inherently designed to be a~#@#&!s. Deal with it.
In regards to the 'gay' (Wait, aren't they all happy?) Iconic, bets are for me, will be the flagshipper, if you'll pardon a mashing of terms, of this demographic.
While not a 'gay' story, closest we've come to the dreaded 'erotically roleplay it out' with about a dozen different gamers over the years is the party is trying to sneak up upon a Red Dragon Wyrm and his Consort, a powerful Cleric of Takhisis. Needless to say, powerful magic to cloak us from the Dragon's senses, we sneak up and are just about to jump into the room when we hear noises.
Squishy noises.
Taking a time out, we listen as the Dragon professes his undying love to the Cleric, a warm moment that adds yet another layer to our enemy, and the Cleric's response was equally heart-melting, saying she wanted to feel the Dragon's young growing under her heart, even though we were about to Cleave them both in twain, before our Paladin got impatient and jumped out from around the corner, sword and board at the ready.
Needless to say, even enlarged the Cleric was in no way going to, ahem, accomodate the Dragon. So they were going for a .......
Hee hee. An old group of mine had a similar experience but instead of a dragon it was a huge oni specifically designed to be reminiscent of some hentai cartoon.
Only, the DM decided that oni "love" was corrosive and caused 2d6 acid damage per round!
(snipped hilarious Dragonlance story)Hickman would be so angry. But this made me LOL. Thanks for the belly laugh, sir!
No worries, and eep, wasn't intended to upset anyone, but I remember that night purely because it's the reason we no longer have alcohol at three-day gaming binges anymore.
No worries, and eep, wasn't intended to upset anyone, but I remember that night purely because it's the reason we no longer have alcohol at three-day gaming binges anymore.(snipped hilarious Dragonlance story)Hickman would be so angry. But this made me LOL. Thanks for the belly laugh, sir!
Alcohol! Helping dragons using splash weapons since 1848!
Down with outdated socially-constructed models of sexuality!
Let's make homosexuality compulsory!
I'd rather not make any choice of that nature compulsory in either direction. I say "live and let live." I'm straight and I don't care if you're not. Just drop it when I say "no" and we'll be fine.
In your campaign you can make it compulsory if you like - but you'll have to have some way to maintain population levels or your coffers will suffer.
|
Speaking of homosexuality in Golarion. I am surprised no one mentioned the Spartan type matched pair socoeity from Kaer Maga in the City of Strangers. I suppose it was completely overt and perhaps I am reading into to this too much but it did seem like they were a society of males who mated for life and were warriros of some sort. Sorry I am at work and I can not verbatium read the passage.
Speaking of homosexuality in Golarion. I am surprised no one mentioned the Spartan type matched pair socoeity from Kaer Maga in the City of Strangers. I suppose it was completely overt and perhaps I am reading into to this too much but it did seem like they were a society of males who mated for life and were warriros of some sort. Sorry I am at work and I can not verbatium read the passage.
I'm not familiar with Kaer Maga, but the bonded pairs of same-sex lovers in Greek history were the Sacred Band of Thebes, who once routed a Spartan army thrice their size.
|
|
Speaking of homosexuality in Golarion. I am surprised no one mentioned the Spartan type matched pair socoeity from Kaer Maga in the City of Strangers. I suppose it was completely overt and perhaps I am reading into to this too much but it did seem like they were a society of males who mated for life and were warriros of some sort. Sorry I am at work and I can not verbatium read the passage.I'm not familiar with Kaer Maga, but the bonded pairs of same-sex lovers in Greek history were the Sacred Band of Thebes, who once routed a Spartan army thrice their size.
Ah I knew Sparta was involved in some way my bad. I did not have the information with me sorry. I should probably go back and look the book up and give a little more just wanted to get it out there before I forgot and moved onto something else.
I'm not familiar with Kaer Maga, but the bonded pairs of same-sex lovers in Greek history were the Sacred Band of Thebes, who once routed a Spartan army thrice their size.
See now that would be a freaken awesome template to use to make an order of homosexual paladins in a game setting.
I'm not familiar with Kaer Maga, but the bonded pairs of same-sex lovers in Greek history were the Sacred Band of Thebes, who once routed a Spartan army thrice their size.See now that would be a freaken awesome template to use to make an order of homosexual paladins in a game setting.
This.
I don't think I've ever intentionally played a gay male character, but if that were a PrC, I'd be very, very tempted.
I'm not familiar with Kaer Maga, but the bonded pairs of same-sex lovers in Greek history were the Sacred Band of Thebes, who once routed a Spartan army thrice their size.See now that would be a freaken awesome template to use to make an order of homosexual paladins in a game setting.This.
I don't think I've ever intentionally played a gay male character, but if that were a PrC, I'd be very, very tempted.
I think a prerequisite would have to be that you'd have to take the leadership feat so you can have a cohort/lover/partner.
I think a prerequisite would have to be that you'd have to take the leadership feat so you can have a cohort/lover/partner.
Well, yeah, because even if two players in the same group did want to play the same class, the number who would want that and also want to RP bromance with each other while everyone else at the table laughs at their ongoing comedy routine is likely to be vanishingly small.
The group in Kaer Maga/City of Strangers that you're referring to is the Iridian Fold. They're pretty secretive, so I won't say more than is in the book, but I love the comparison to the Sacred Band of Thebes. :D
The group in Kaer Maga/City of Strangers that you're referring to is the Iridian Fold. They're pretty secretive, so I won't say more than is in the book, but I love the comparison to the Sacred Band of Thebes. :D
This might not be the best word to be used in that context ;)
Yup that's the scene.
I like they they kissed than hit each other. After all, they may be gay men, but they're still badass time agents with a grudge to settle.
(Sarcasm) Cause gay dudes to that all the time. ;-)
(necessary info: TCG is a gay guy. )
I don't think I've ever intentionally played a gay male character, but if that were a PrC, I'd be very, very tempted.
So I'm gay and a gamer geek IRL. I've never intentionally played a gay character either. Much like my life my sexuality isn't tattoo'd on my forehead in dayglo ink. It's a part of my life, but it's not the central theme of my life.
On that rant I've never played a woman either. Mostly because since I actually am gay it would be weird to do with my straight gamer buddies. If I role played a female character properly it would be socially awkward.
I have, however, played a straight character. It's much easier.
I'm not sure what all that means about the human condition, but surely someone more gifted with words than I could write something poetically tragic.
I've been reading the revised Inner Sea World Guide, and I noticed that the oblique reference to homosexuality in the "Taldor" entry appears to have been excised.
Did anyone else notice this?
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
I've been reading the revised Inner Sea World Guide, and I noticed that the oblique reference to homosexuality in the "Taldor" entry appears to have been excised.
Did anyone else notice this?
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
What's the reference in question? While plenty of stuff got revised, I suspect that, unless it contradicted something already in canon, it probably just fell by the wayside rather than being deliberately removed.
I think a prerequisite would have to be that you'd have to take the leadership feat so you can have a cohort/lover/partner.Well, yeah, because even if two players in the same group did want to play the same class, the number who would want that and also want to RP bromance with each other while everyone else at the table laughs at their ongoing comedy routine is likely to be vanishingly small.
The Sacred Band. Good reading.
What's the reference in question? While plenty of stuff got revised, I suspect that, unless it contradicted something already in canon, it probably just fell by the wayside rather than being deliberately removed.
Hi James,
I'll have to look up the exact quote tonight, but I remember there being a passage that discussed the inherent misogyny of most Taldan men and an oblique reference to a different reason why some of them were "women-haters"...
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Opinion of the two lovers from the Rivals Guide?
I think it was inspired, and I applaud Paizo for including these two in Rivals Guide!
The whole wizard & fighter angle very much reminds of me of Rufus 'n' Byrne from The Temple of Elemental Evil (I mean, a 1st Edition magic-user with a 15 Strength?? C'mon!!! ;-D), and I like how the inter-party issues aren't with the gay relationship per se, but with the wizard's jealousy and the fighter's sister's overprotective streak frequently clashing. (Not to mention the wizard's understandable Worldwound-phobia...)
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Creative Director
|
What's the reference in question? While plenty of stuff got revised, I suspect that, unless it contradicted something already in canon, it probably just fell by the wayside rather than being deliberately removed.Hi James,
I'll have to look up the exact quote tonight, but I remember there being a passage that discussed the inherent misogyny of most Taldan men and an oblique reference to a different reason why some of them were "women-haters"...
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
Fell by the wayside. For all of the nation entries, I deliberately ramped back on the society and government sections in order to get more gazetteer type entries in there, and for some of the nations that meant condensing material that was in the previous version of the book.
Fell by the wayside. For all of the nation entries, I deliberately ramped back on the society and government sections in order to get more gazetteer type entries in there, and for some of the nations that meant condensing material that was in the previous version of the book.
Thanks for getting back to me on this, James -- it's much appreciated!
And I suspected as much, that it just fell by the wayside; not that big of a loss, IMHO.
(If anything, that text reminded me of a passage from a Terry Pratchett novel, regarding a club for gentlemen who did not enjoy the company of women -- accompanied, of course, by a footnote saying this wasn't *that* sort of establishment, which was located in a different section of Ankh-Morpork and was much more tastefully decorated...)
Cheers, JohnH / Wanda
|
You seem to be saying that it's "okay" to have gay bashing because that happens in the real world. Personally, I'd rather it not happen anywhere at all.
I think it is much more appropriate to allow a group to decide what level of supposed "realism" they'd like in their games. Personally I would feel extremely awkward if a bunch of NPCs (or worse, PCs!) were blatantly, violently homophobic, much the way I would feel awkward about blatant, violent sexism. I would be hesitant to have a BBEG act like that, let alone having it a prevailing attitude of a country!
Would you really be okay with playing a character that could potentially be beaten by another PC because of how they are? And you, as a GM, would be okay with that situation?
|
Considering what real people have to put up with in real life day to day involving homophobia, I think it's plenty understandable why Paizo elected not to pile on the misery porn in something people enjoy as a form of escapism.
Honestly, I'd leave a table that sprung such a gay-bash rape scenario on the players.
And giving a certain subset of players an excuse to grief the hell out of others by way of in-game gay bashing under the pretense of "I'm just playing my character's culture!" isn't something the game particularly needs.
You seem to be saying that it's "okay" to have gay bashing because that happens in the real world. Personally, I'd rather it not happen anywhere at all.
I think it is much more appropriate to allow a group to decide what level of supposed "realism" they'd like in their games. Personally I would feel extremely awkward if a bunch of NPCs (or worse, PCs!) were blatantly, violently homophobic, much the way I would feel awkward about blatant, violent sexism. I would be hesitant to have a BBEG act like that, let alone having it a prevailing attitude of a country!
Would you really be okay with playing a character that could potentially be beaten by another PC because of how they are? And you, as a GM, would be okay with that situation?
As a Gm I do not like players fighting with other players.
Considering what real people have to put up with in real life day to day involving homophobia, I think it's plenty understandable why Paizo elected not to pile on the misery porn in something people enjoy as a form of escapism.Honestly, I'd leave a table that sprung such a gay-bash rape scenario on the players.
And giving a certain subset of players an excuse to grief the hell out of others by way of in-game gay bashing under the pretense of "I'm just playing my character's culture!" isn't something the game particularly needs.
Real life can be a pain. In any event homophobia in rl is prevalent in Judeo-Christian traditions. Including, of course, Islam. If you don't have those cultures, there is no reason to include their prejudices unless you want to. Take ancient Greek culture as an example of a different view. I don't think Paizo has defined the attitudes of their societies in this regard (have they?). At which point it's a DM choice.
Given the huge range of species / cultures in a frpg setting, I suspect that homosexuality might be the least of peoples concerns...
First I want to say that I honestly appreciate the inclusion of homosexual characters in Pathfinder, Queen Ileosa and Sabina for example, as most RPGs seem to ignore this group completely. However it seems to me that Paizo has fallen into the trap of only making female gay characters. What I would like to see are some gay male characters and transsexuals in Golarion, the women have had their fun, let the boys and anyone in between in on it as well!
Also, I would like to see some information on how these groups are generally treated in the various societies on Golarion (most of what I've seen up til now seems to be quite progressive, but I doubt that is true for the entire world).
Crown of the Kobold King (one of their 3.5 modules) specifically included a homosexual male NPC.
It's not the fact that Paizo has acknowledged that gay people exist in Golarion that bothers me, I've got no beef with gays (and for the record I f#%@ing LOVE me some lesbians), what bothers me is the arbitrarily politically correct way they've handled it. All we have to go on is "gay people exist, SOME places persecute them, SOME don't" and that's lame, personally I'd rather have it written that "Andoran strongly believes in tolerance and acceptance of all sexual orientations, but cross the border into Cheliax and you'll probably be sodomized to death by bearded devils as a form of ironic punishment."
I think it's more a case of not wanting to paint the writers into a corner by allowing blanket statements and then later either having to cut holes in the blanket or retcon the blanket if someone thinks of a cool plot that contradicts it. Blanket statements also play merry hell with continuity editing.
To give an example not concerned with sexuality, when I was writing "The Secret of the Rose and Glove," I put in a minor line about make-up being frowned on in Galt due to previous use by the aristocracy. James had me back that down to the town of Dabril itself, because obviously that small line would have large implications and would cause havoc for other writers and especially artists. It was a good change and an important one to make to keep the world playable.
Giving Andoran and Cheliax blanket statements about attitudes to homosexuality in the manner you did, for example, redlines the plots for GMs who like a little more grey in their moral landscapes. Imagine what it might be like if Andoran were extremely socially progressive except in this one instance while Cheliax, despite it's myriad Hellish failings, has inadvertently taken the progressive moral stand if just through apathy? I could easily run with both those storylines.
What's best, I think, is the "by village" approach to anything that doesn't specifically have to do with the overplot of an area. You want a certain practice prohibited? This village prohibits it. You want it allowed? This village allows it. You want a lot of confusion somewhere? This village has never considered the case. Some of the village elders consider the practice in question disgusting, some think it immoral, some think it puzzling but harmless, and some think it looks like a lot of fun and want to try it themselves.
I believe this subject is too controversial and should not be included in the game. Especially if young children are playing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this subject is too controversial and should not be included in the game. Especially if young children are playing.
Why? People are gay,some folks just need to ecept facts even if they dislike them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this subject is too controversial and should not be included in the game. Especially if young children are playing.
That's not the developers responsibility. It's the DM (or god forbid the parents) responsiblity to decide the maturity level of his or her players and plan accordingly. Some DMs may even consider genocide (kobolds, goblins, etc), murder (see bestiary 1-3), etc to be too controversial.
|
|
I'm not saying homophobia shouldn't exist in Golarion. If I'm playing a female character, I expect that I'll run into uppity stodgy old coots who believe a girl's place is in the kitchen, not out adventuring, from time to time. If I'm playing a tiefling in Cheliax, or a Mwangi in Sargava, I expect that I'll find a lot of people that are openly racist against me. Likewise, if I was playing an openly homosexual character, I would expect there would be people who would be horrified by the concept... (well, it's a bit more difficult to hide your gender or your race than your sexuality, but still.)
The difference is that you're condoning some pretty horrible things (gay bashing, cruel torture, etc.) to happen. There's a difference between some drunk guy in a bar giving you smack and calling you various gay slurs and sodomy by devils as punishment. It's like saying that it's okay for a male PC to rape or beat a female PC because he's a misogynist, or one PC to lynch the tiefling or Mwangi character in the party because he's racist. One is an interesting situation where you can explore these kind of prejudices through a fantasy roleplay. The other is extremely, extremely unsettling to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe this subject is too controversial and should not be included in the game. Especially if young children are playing.
This game has hookers in it too, since 1st edition when there was even a random hooker generator table in the DMG. Last I checked, hookers were also considered controversial. Except maybe in the Old Testament where Samson goes and finds one in Gaza and spends the night with her and the bible is totally cool with that. Ditto owning slaves, which has fallen out of fashion in recent years.
That said, if you're running a game for young children, you can censor out anything you consider inappropriate. Don't want hookers and brothels? Don't have them. Don't want same-sex relationships? You don't have to have them either.
You can also say that all babies are brought by the stork, and since this is a magical universe, that explanation is totally possible.
However, it should be stressed that this is not a game designed for very young children.
Kind of like the bible.
Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
I believe this subject is too controversial and should not be included in the game. Especially if young children are playing.Why? People are gay,some folks just need to ecept facts even if they dislike them.Some people are homophobic, some folks just need to accept facts even if they dislike them.
It's an extremely controversial issue, you don't include it at all unless everyone at the table is on the same page and mature enough to handle the content. Kinda like everything else.
The world has slaves...it also has hookers and drugs and all kinds of other things.What it does not have is a religion (to my knowledge) that pushes gays are wrong. Erastil might come close but not even he is homophbic about it. He isn't even anti-womens rights as some folks seem to think, but thats not the point.
Its the GM's Job to take out things that do not fit his group. If folks want to be ingorta and homophobic I can't help that. But I can explain how In golarion that mind set is not indoctrinated into the young or pushed by religion.
I'm saying that while I can't imagine a scenario where an openly gay player and a homophobic player are at the same gaming table, in the event that they were if the gay player chose to make his character openly gay, they're opening the door for input from the other side of the issue.
No, I don't think it really does. Presence of a characteristic for a PC doesn't mean the game is opened or should be opened to suppressive viewpoints.
Guess what? Since both sexuality and religion are sacred cows of political correctness, you run into an unstoppable force meets immovable object scenario. In a game like Pathfinder, the correct thing is to omit both or include both.
I'd say the correct thing is to include that which the players in the game want and omit what the players in the game don't want. There's no need to have some kind of viewpoint "balance" in a D&D game.
|
|
An inescapable problem of including anti-gay bias in Golarion is that Pathfinder still uses defined alignments.
What? Those gay-bashers are GOOD aligned! No f'ing way! How can intolerance be good... etc etc.
What? Those gay-bashers are EVIL aligned! No f'ing way! They're defending morality! They pro-gay folk are the evil ones! etc etc.
Just including it at all is a no win situation for Paizo. Arguably, defining anything as gay or not gay at all, for that matter. But that ship has sailed for better or for worse.