Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

1,451 to 1,500 of 5,778 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>

Set wrote:

Golarion has some funky divine guidance on sexuality. Calistria scoffs at sex and love having anything to do with each other. Erastil wants everyone to have traditional opposite sex marriages with lots of kids (but refuses to settle down himself, making him one of those parents who smokes a pack a day, but flips out if his kid sneaks a drag). Lamashtu is all 'woo, bestiality, yay!' Zon-Kuthon's the patron diety of gimp suits. Aroden was the god of tiger-blooded warlock pimps, with his pair of hot young demigoddess attendents.

Ok from now on, thanks to you I'm going to see Aroden as Charlie Sheen. Winning!!!

Silver Crusade

Studpuffin wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
The question, however, would be a good one to ask for Kingmaker. How many kingdoms would actually allow for the practice of concubinage/bigamy?

Besides all ready mentioned Qadira, the continent of Casmaron (the padisha has, 1000's of sons and daughters between his many wives, in Hongkal of Tian Xia, the Khan's brother (a prince), has numerous wives.

Myself, I wouldn't mind for having some polyandry, to level the field for women (even though, biologically speaking, its not as productive as polygamy) - I can see gnolls operating this way.

I could see Varisians operating that way as well, or possibly elves. Of all the places I could see it, though, it'd be Irrisen for polyandry.

IIRC, Qadira actually operates this way, aside from the Kelesh emperor off in Casmaron. All goes back to having a primary female deity, again IIRC. At least, that's what I remember from the Qadira book. Seeker of Secrets rolled around and had a Qadiran merchant princess trying to dodge marriage proposals from a dude, so I'm not sure what's going on there.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to file a complain on how underpowered bisexuality is compared to the obviously broken option of asexuality.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals can be targeted by one gender when abilities that targer preference come into play. Bisexuals get targeted by both while asexuals, the obvious choice for any min-maxer, are immune.

Clearly this needs to be rectified. Bisexuals need to be buffed ASAP.

But how?

This is a serious matter. This is my serious face. >:|

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mikaze wrote:

Clearly this needs to be rectified. Bisexuals need to be buffed ASAP.

Bisexuals (and pansexuals) gain the trait "On the Fence", which gives a +4 bonus vs. abilities that target preference.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:

I'd like to file a complain on how underpowered bisexuality is compared to the obviously broken option of asexuality.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals can be targeted by one gender when abilities that targer preference come into play. Bisexuals get targeted by both while asexuals, the obvious choice for any min-maxer, are immune.

Clearly this needs to be rectified. Bisexuals need to be buffed ASAP.

But how?

This is a serious matter. This is my serious face. >:|

Remember, though, they get a bonus on sense motive against teases. I think that more than makes up for it, because that invariably means they're better against feints.


Set wrote:


Really impossible to quantify, since we have no idea how polymorph effects really work. They clearly cause enough brain/mind changes that a person transformed into an aquatic creature can breath underwater without going into 'waterboard panic' and convulsing helplessly for the duration, trapped in existential fear of drowning, or a person suddenly can handle having a climbing speed, or winged flight, despite having never had that ability before.

Whether that would affect gender limited attractions or not, is hard to tell. It's possible that excessive body-changing would lead to an individual losing track of that entire concept, and begin to find themselves attracted to *people* who have qualities that they admire, and no longer defining 'love' by whether they have an innie or an outie.

There are trans-men that still find themselves attracted to men. They're just gay men trapped in women's bodies. Same for trans-women.

From purely anecdotal experience, I'd say that about a third of trans people stick with their previous sexual preference. Another third tend to shift into the "normal" hetero preference. And another third really don't pursue many sexual relationships at all, although whether that's from choice, discomfort at pursuing a relationship (which is obviously complicated by having to explain their trans-nature to a potential partner), or otherwise is different per the individual.

And we sorta DO have a sense of how polymorphs work. My father polymorphed herself into a woman a few years back. Now, granted, this was a much more gradual process than an instant spell - but you could see the subtle shifts in behavior and a lot of that had to do with hormones, which falls under the physical component, I think. Your perceptions are altered, which alters your behavior - even if it is slightly.

Also, for great body swapping fiction - check out Richard K Morgan's Takeshi Kovacs novels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Studpuffin wrote:
Hmmm, what would you call a polygamous situation between homosexuals? Is there a word for that? I mean, it is generally polygamy, but would it be something like homogamy? Hmmm, I like that word. Homogamy. It's like a tongue twister.

I think existing terms have it covered.

Polygamy = multiple spouses, more or less.
Polyandry = multiple husbands
Polygyny = multiple wives

One guy has multiple husbands, it's polyandry.
One gal has multiple wives, it's polygyny.

But the above assumes that we're talking about one person with a sort of harem of mates who don't necessarily consider themselves married to one another. Tibetan fraternal polyandry, for example, entails one woman marrying all the male members of a particular generation of the family she marries into. But the brothers are not married to one another.

If everyone does share a presumed marital bond, that would be a straight group marriage.


Trench wrote:
There are trans-men that still find themselves attracted to men. They're just gay men trapped in women's bodies. Same for trans-women.

I happen to be one of these women. I'm as crooked as can be, despite being trans.


Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
Trench wrote:
There are trans-men that still find themselves attracted to men. They're just gay men trapped in women's bodies. Same for trans-women.
I happen to be one of these women. I'm as crooked as can be, despite being trans.

Word, sister.

My father (now non-bio mother) sort of shifted into men gradually. She doesn't really rule any potential partner out, mind you, but it seems to be mostly straight men interested in her. That could be because she's very up front about her trans stature right off the bat, but who knows?

Sovereign Court

ewan cummins 325 wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:


When did two people in a loving relationship become not-kid-friendly? Presumably these same kids are still going to violently dismember goblins and the like?

How remarkably odd.

I don't see it as odd; it's just not your view.

Not everyone agrees with your views on homosexuality, or on what is appropriate for children. This is most definitely an issue where YMMV applies. If he feels that homosexual (or any sexual) relationships are not kid-friendly by his standards, that's his call.

If I ran a game for any of the kids I know, I'd eliminate sexuality or tone it down to nothing more than a kiss for the princess after she has been rescued. I would wholly exclude homosexuality. This is a question of age appropriate material, but also of respect for parental authority. I would not want to step on the toes of any parents; especially as said parents would most likely be my relatives or friends.

YMMV

The thing is, even if you don't go beyond 'a kiss for the princess' then I don't see how there is a reason to exclude homosexuality.

If you have 'a kiss for the princess' then you have sexuality in your game. In such a game I would let the princess kiss either a guy or a gal: is there any difference in age-appropriateness between those two things?

Sovereign Court

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ah yes, because there's absolutely no history of left handed people being persecuted or people trying to 'fix' them. There's no history of that at all.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I have talked about the effect and meaning within the setting and you come back with this silly distraction.

Is this really comparable? Is this really going to affect the setting? Would this tell you things about the community and campaign world in the same way that I showed?

I regard it as quite rude to ignore the core of an argument and instead pick away at the fringes of the explanation. I am not the perfect essayist and will not always put forward the perfect explanation of an idea but it is still the idea which matters.

If you genuinely disagree then deconstruct the argument and put forward a genuine alternative interpretation.


Mikaze wrote:
I'd like to file a complain on how underpowered bisexuality is compared to the obviously broken option of asexuality.

Muahaha.. along with my dumped charisma score i am now min maxed!

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GeraintElberion wrote:
ewan cummins 325 wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:


When did two people in a loving relationship become not-kid-friendly? Presumably these same kids are still going to violently dismember goblins and the like?

How remarkably odd.

I don't see it as odd; it's just not your view.

Not everyone agrees with your views on homosexuality, or on what is appropriate for children. This is most definitely an issue where YMMV applies. If he feels that homosexual (or any sexual) relationships are not kid-friendly by his standards, that's his call.

If I ran a game for any of the kids I know, I'd eliminate sexuality or tone it down to nothing more than a kiss for the princess after she has been rescued. I would wholly exclude homosexuality. This is a question of age appropriate material, but also of respect for parental authority. I would not want to step on the toes of any parents; especially as said parents would most likely be my relatives or friends.

YMMV

The thing is, even if you don't go beyond 'a kiss for the princess' then I don't see how there is a reason to exclude homosexuality.

If you have 'a kiss for the princess' then you have sexuality in your game. In such a game I would let the princess kiss either a guy or a gal: is there any difference in age-appropriateness between those two things?

Honestly, it very much depends on the kiss.

If the princess has been rescued by the party and starts tearfully kissing all of her dear dear rescuers, even the witch's toad familiar, there's nothing sexual about it. The princess doesn't want to have sex with the toad, doesn't want to have sex with the female witch, and likely doesn't even want to have sex with the handsome male paladin. They're very chaste platonic kisses she's passing out and no more sexy than a mother kissing a child good night.

If, on the other hand, the scenario is one where the king promises the princess's hand in marriage to whomever saves the kingdom from the dragon, it's sort of expected that the dragonslayer is going to be male, single, and of some race considered marriage appropriate. It's enough to ask your daughter to marry someone she doesn't love. It's raising the ante a bit much to expect her to marry someone whose sex she isn't attracted to and ditto whose race isn't on the usual "sexy humanoid" menu. The dragon was killed by a lesbian ratfolk? And she wants to marry me? Um, dad....

Some scenarios come with certain expectations. If marriages are done for political alliance, and children are to cement the power of bloodlines, then romance doesn't come into the picture and neither does sexual preference except as a problem to overcome. It doesn't matter if you are in love with a green half orc girl if your family wants you to marry an elven prince. The best you might expect is that your family arranges for your green half orc paramour to be your "lady in waiting" and your elven husband is understanding apart from that whole "siring an heir" business.

I expect there's an awful lot of this sort of thing going on in Taldor specifically because of the nobility and bloodlines business. If arranged marriages are the norm, they're going to be done in the usual opposite-sex patterns, and same-sex relationships are going to be the queen's "confidant" and the prince's "boon companion" and nobody is going to raise too many eyebrows because, say what you will about same-sex relationships, they don't engender any inconvenient bastards unless there's serious magic involved.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Great post.

Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

Some scenarios come with certain expectations. If marriages are done for political alliance, and children are to cement the power of bloodlines, then romance doesn't come into the picture and neither does sexual preference except as a problem to overcome. It doesn't matter if you are in love with a green half orc girl if your family wants you to marry an elven prince. The best you might expect is that your family arranges for your green half orc paramour to be your "lady in waiting" and your elven husband is understanding apart from that whole "siring an heir" business.

I expect there's an awful lot of this sort of thing going on in Taldor specifically because of the nobility and bloodlines business. If arranged marriages are the norm, they're going to be done in the usual opposite-sex patterns, and same-sex relationships are going to be the queen's "confidant" and the prince's "boon companion" and nobody is going to raise too many eyebrows because, say what you will about same-sex relationships, they don't engender any inconvenient bastards unless there's serious magic involved.

I'm over reading about Paizo's motives or whether homosexuality belongs in fantasy RPGs or not. I'd love, however, to discuss how it is dealt with in a medieval fantasy world that it probably less hostile than our own world was/is.

Hetero marriages as heir producers is a still going to be very important, unless heirs are frequently chosen through adoption or selection, as the Romans often did. Would gay relationships then be open secrets of child-producing hetero married homosexuals, or would there be a role for gay couples? The safe uncles you can trust because they have no ambition of putting their own child on the throne, much like eunuchs in Imperial China. Or would a certain number of homosexual folk have biological kids just to stay in game, and then pursue their actual love interests?

Would a fantasy medieval society expect gay men to be whatever they consider "manly" to be, or would they have some of the same feminine stereotypes as found today? Same with lesbians? Expected to be as feminine as other women are expected to be, or are they surrogate men, raping and pillaging with the other raiders? Might be a moot point in a world where gender roles seem to be pretty weak.


Mosaic wrote:

Hetero marriages as heir producers is a still going to be very important, unless heirs are frequently chosen through adoption or selection, as the Romans often did. Would gay relationships then be open secrets of child-producing hetero married homosexuals, or would there be a role for gay couples? The safe uncles you can trust because they have no ambition of putting their own child on the throne, much like eunuchs in Imperial China. Or would a certain number of homosexual folk have biological kids just to stay in game, and then pursue their actual love interests?

Would a fantasy medieval society expect gay men to be whatever they consider...

Well in my homebrew setting gay marriages are accepted but frowned upon the higher you are in standing, two commoner males fall in love and shack up, people aren't going to like it, and there may be some reprisals from some quarters but hey, what are you gonna do? they're in love. The bigger issue comes up in the ranks of nobility because while the deity of love in my setting preaches love is love, most nobles aren't happy with having gay children, not because of any stigma, but due to the lack of said union being unable to conceive an heir. Though this slight anti same sex union is only against the oldest child of a noble, second or third children can pretty much do whomever they want.


SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Though this slight anti same sex union is only against the oldest child of a noble, second or third children can pretty much do whomever they want.

What happens if the child dies? You need the heir and the spare


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a conversation recently overheard in the halls of a secret society for Ustalavic nobles between the adult sons of aging lords:

Spoiler:
Robert (mocking): So, Renee, where's that horse I hear your father was going to give you?

Renee: Hmmph.

Lucas: Horse, what horse? Renee, when was this?

Renee: ::ignores::

Robert: Lord Giovi was in negotiations with a trader to have a horse shipped in for Renee here. Beautiful animal, they tell me. Qadiran stallion. Lithe as an elven dancer. The color of a fresh-minted gold coin. And then he sends it back.

Lucas: What?! What'd you do?!

Renee: mumble mumble...

Robert: ::smirks::

Lucas: No, really, what?

Renee: The second floor maid, all right?! She's with child. Father's trying to teach me just how inconvenient bastards really are. ::grumble::

Robert: ::laughing his ass off::

Lucas: Renee, Renee, how many times have I told you? That's why you go after the men down in the stable.

Renee: ::whining:: But they smell like horse!

Robert: ::still laughing::

Lucas: But you can't get bastards out of them, believe me I've tried.

Scandal is what makes a man interesting. Otherwise he's just a bore. Likewise, scandal makes this game interesting.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Though this slight anti same sex union is only against the oldest child of a noble, second or third children can pretty much do whomever they want.

What happens if the child dies? You need the heir and the spare

Then the spare would be expected to find a wife/husband who can give them a child


GeraintElberion wrote:

The thing is, even if you don't go beyond 'a kiss for the princess' then I don't see how there is a reason to exclude homosexuality.

If you have 'a kiss for the princess' then you have sexuality in your game. In such a game I would let the princess kiss either a guy or a gal: is there any difference in age-appropriateness between those two things?

Yes, there would be a difference for me, my family, and my friends with young kids.

The reasons I would not include it in a children's game include:

respect for the values, rights, authority of parents
(This is especially important, as if I ran a kids game, these would be my nieces and nephews, or the kids of my freinds.)

concern for the innocence and impressionability of young kids

my personal views on morality and sex

YMMV

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

GeraintElberion wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

Ah yes, because there's absolutely no history of left handed people being persecuted or people trying to 'fix' them. There's no history of that at all.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I have talked about the effect and meaning within the setting and you come back with this silly distraction.

Is this really comparable? Is this really going to affect the setting? Would this tell you things about the community and campaign world in the same way that I showed?

I regard it as quite rude to ignore the core of an argument and instead pick away at the fringes of the explanation. I am not the perfect essayist and will not always put forward the perfect explanation of an idea but it is still the idea which matters.

If you genuinely disagree then deconstruct the argument and put forward a genuine alternative interpretation.

I thought I disassembled your argument quite nicely. As Set pointed out above. Lefties have been persecuted throughout history. Pointing out that the town accepts him despite his differences and weakness in combat (remember, as a front line fighter, he's leading with his exposed organs, and his shield would cover the wrong part of his body) is exactly as tolerant and understanding as making him gay. They even have excatly the same game mechanical rules. (i.e. none)

Or has your agrument now degraded to 'my persecution is greater than yours'?

Edit: I want to point out I'm *not* attacking the decision to make* the character gay. I'm just pointing out it is one way to make the community open, inclusive, and tolerant as Gerriant is arguing the purpose is. James could have shown the 'tolerant' aspects by making the character have two wives, or an 8 year old bride**, or a halfing bride for that matter. Or made him left handed.

*

Spoiler:
At least we don't have to have the born or chose question in fluff, it's clear that the character's preferences, from sex to dinner, are chosen for them.

**

Spoiler:
What? Mohammed had an 8 year old bride, I'm jsut saying it would show tolerance to diverse cultures.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

BigNorseWolf wrote:
SwnyNerdgasm wrote:

Though this slight anti same sex union is only against the oldest child of a noble, second or third children can pretty much do whomever they want.

What happens if the child dies? You need the heir and the spare

So go three down. One of my abortive story attempts was the bastard son of a Taldor noble, who's heirship(?) was usurped by twins between the noble and his wife.* I see a lot of 'three downs' being part of the reason for Taldor's decadence.

*

Spoiler:
The idea was for the character (who knew his father and mother were in love, he married for politics, and wasn't expecting children from that union) to find his place in the world that didn't need him (i.e. adventurer/hero) I wanted the twist that his parents loved him and each other, and he loved his (half-)siblings, enough that he would volunteer for exile rather than be used in political machinations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ewan cummins 325 wrote:


Yes, there would be a difference for me, my family, and my friends with young kids.

The reasons I would not include it in a children's game include:

respect for the values, rights, authority of parents
(This is especially important, as if I ran a kids game, these would be my nieces and nephews, or the kids of my freinds.)

concern for the innocence and impressionability of young kids

my personal views on morality and sex

How does including homosexuals trample on the rights, values, and authority of parents? You don't have to present Golarion the way they write it. You can homebrew anything you want. You can elect to buy the products that fit in with your own moral views.

But how about those of us who want these elements there so that we can teach our kids our moral values like respecting homosexuals as normal people? I like having examples in stories and other media of normal homosexual people. It helps build the impression that differences are acceptable and can be respected.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"We tolerate redheads" and "we tolerate homosexuals" are two entirely different things, no matter how hard you try to reduce both sentences to pure logic value.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Howso Gorbacz? Considering that hair colour, handiness and sexual orientation all have the same origin in a fictional setting. It all boils down to the same. "We tolerate the Other."

(aside: kind of hurt no one commented on my spell above)

Edit: My eldest Godson gets teased constantly about being a redhead, actually more than my goddaughter does about being a lefty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
"We tolerate redheads" and "we tolerate homosexuals" are two entirely different things, no matter how hard you try to reduce both sentences to pure logic value.

considering that haircolour and eye colour have been used as a screening tool for genocide, and is currently used for profiling in law enforcement and US security I think a case can be made that intolerance can be considered an absolute. I have yet to hear of law enforcement pulling someone over because they look gay.

None of what I say is equating a ginger struggle with a gay struggle currently. If a society is intolerant of gingers, the consequences could be as harsh. My wife's grandfather escaped aushwitz and was found later by haircolor according to him. He escaped that place Twice. The second time was for good! :)

Homosexuality is the focus of intolerance now, but there were others who were discriminated against for reasons just as stupid.


Spell looks fine but I would remove (D) from duration - let it be harder to remove incriminating evidence.

Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Quote:
"We tolerate redheads" and "we tolerate homosexuals" are two entirely different things, no matter how hard you try to reduce both sentences to pure logic value.

In current society yes, hair color stopped being improtant distinction (except for children and teens who will find any trait a suitable target for teasing). There were times and places where being redhead was serious social disadvantage: mark of Set, seemingly being descendant of Hyksos, being a witch.

Dark Archive

Drejk wrote:
Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Not all redheads are this, or even this, some are this.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Set wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Not all redheads are this, or even this, some are this.

Well played, sir.


Starfinder Superscriber
Set wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Not all redheads are this, or even this, some are this.

man add a NOT SAFE FOR SANITY for that last link there. Seriously startled me there.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I could do with out this type of stuff. It has absolutely no place in an RPG. The game is supposed to be about having fun, not about some people trying to push personal agendas.


Set wrote:
Drejk wrote:
Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Not all redheads are this, or even this, some are this.

That's it! No tolerance for redheads! They are blemish on the face of Earth! They must be colorized into acceptable brown, black or blonde!

Ok, I could be traumatized by the last photo, except I expected somethink not to my tastes. Also, I saw photos of Carrot Top before. And it isn't his worst photo.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
I could do with out this type of stuff. It has absolutely no place in an RPG. The game is supposed to be about having fun, not about some people trying to push personal agendas.

Cory,

I don't think the issue is 'pushing personal agendas' so much as 'write what you know.' Any writing on (fictional) society is pushing an 'agenda'. We know Cheliax = bad. But isn't it an 'agenda' saying that evil = bad?

Discussing homosexuality, polygamy, left handedness, etc is always going to show an agenda. In word choice if nothing else. Discussing how Golarion reflects these choices, and how players (and GMs) react to that. is valid.


Bill Dunn wrote:


How does including homosexuals trample on the rights, values, and authority of parents? You don't have to present Golarion the way they write it. You can homebrew anything you want. You can elect to buy the products that fit in with your own moral views.

But how about those of us who want these elements there so that we can teach our kids our moral values like respecting homosexuals as normal people? I like having examples in stories and other media of normal homosexual people. It helps build the impression that differences are acceptable and can be respected.

You seem a bit confused.I can only assume that you missed some stuff upthread, so I'll summarize for you.

As I have stated several times now, I don't object to Paizo's inclusion of homosexual NPCs in published materials.

I would not be interested in paying them to publish a politically correct setting, but published Golarion is not what I'd call PC . :)

Geraint asked me specifically about what I would run in a game for children, NOT what I think Paizo should publish. You seem to have conflated the two.

I hope this post has cleared up your confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
I could do with out this type of stuff. It has absolutely no place in an RPG. The game is supposed to be about having fun, not about some people trying to push personal agendas.

I believe that the problem with leaving it out is that it becomes conspicuous by its absence. You're going to have marriages, children, dating, sordid affairs, love triangles, kisses from princesses in any rpg. I would imagine that if you have only heterosexual relationships being mentioned constantly without any mention of homosexual relationships then it looks like heterosexuality is being pushed. You and i probably wouldn't notice it or think of it, but to many gamers its only presenting one side, someone elses side, of an emotion that is very important to fleshing out characters both player and non.

Apologies if I've spoken for anyone and got it wrong, feel free to correct away.


Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
I could do with out this type of stuff. It has absolutely no place in an RPG. The game is supposed to be about having fun, not about some people trying to push personal agendas.

If they had simply made no mention of it, that wouldn't have phased me. It's not as if I do something for fun (read a novel, watch a film, go to a party, play sports, go camping, go shooting, etc) and suddenly stop having fun to ask myself- 'Ewan, where are the gay people?'

As it is, I don't think they've gone too far with it. If I start to feel as if they are preaching, I'll quit buying their books.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ANebulousMistress wrote:

This is a conversation recently overheard in the halls of a secret society for Ustalavic nobles between the adult sons of aging lords:

** spoiler omitted **

Scandal is what makes a man interesting. Otherwise he's just a bore. Likewise, scandal makes this game interesting.

Of course a counter to your spoiler is that men and women can have similar sex to what is implied and not produce children as well. Just saying. :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:

Redheads? How could one not tolerate redheads? How can could not adore redheads?! ;)

Aww shucks, you're making me blush...


Mosaic wrote:

Great post.

Hetero marriages as heir producers is a still going to be very important, unless heirs are frequently chosen through adoption or selection, as the Romans often did. Would gay relationships then be open secrets of child-producing hetero married homosexuals, or would there be a role for gay couples? The safe uncles you can trust because they have no ambition of putting their own child on the throne, much like eunuchs in Imperial China. Or would a certain number of homosexual folk have biological kids just to stay in game, and then pursue their actual love interests?

It is important to remember that homosexuality is not a modern invention. No man, in a medieval setting, would be conisdered to be a homosexual because many men of power might take another male to bed if he so desired. It was not uncommon for men of court or royalty to have their wives and lovers besides, be they men or women. A 'homosexual' man would indeed have a wife and probably many children but also have his male lover close at hand, living in his holdfast and likely a member of his court. These powerful men could get away with just about anything and they often did.

In the case of a pagan pantheon, similar to the greek gods or celtic/nord gods, homosexuality is often a practice of the divine forces and as such would not be considered devious by mortals.

Consider the setting, consider the social structure and religious factors. There is not right or wrong answer, it is all fantasy. :)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@BigNorseWolf,

I think several Christian Hells have frozen over. You and I agree.

Personally I don't care if it's Bill and Fred in Sandpoint. When I play with adults, it will likely be Bill and Fred, but they won't engage in passionate affirmations of their affections anymore than Bill and Ginger.

When I play with children, I'll check with their parents on the level of content to use. While I may not have an issue, their parents might, and they're the determinators of content.

So far* Paizo has done a wonderful job of making their campaign material 'mature' without being 'tasteless' or 'graphic'**

So if I'm running it for my sister's kids, and she says "I don't want my nine year old exposed to that," it's out. If I'm running for my (lesbian) friend's kids, I'll ask the same question and get a different answer.***

Finally, on the world itself, I like discussions of 'how is X seen in Golarion'? It's like with Caprica. I wanted to see what seperates a Sagatarian from a Tauron from someone from Scorpio. The immersion of the world is what interests me.

*

Spoiler:
Always including that caveat.

**
Spoiler:
In my opinion of course

***
Spoiler:
I'm assuming the 'kill things and take their stuff' in the game is understood. Though trying to play a peaceful game might be a challege...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
"We tolerate redheads" and "we tolerate homosexuals" are two entirely different things, no matter how hard you try to reduce both sentences to pure logic value.

Ah, in YOUR view of things this may be so, in MY view of things this is not so.

What is logic and value to YOU is not the same as logic and value to ME.

When you use WE (if you intend to or not) you are trying to impose your views of tolerance on, not only me, but also on everyone. The WE is all inclusive (at least in the way you have used it in your above statement.)
I am certain that that is not your intent, and I respect your right to express your views. I ask that you please try not to use words like WE unless you have mentioned a specific group in which you are refering to. I am not part of your "WE" nor are many of the people that I know.

I hope I have not offended you Gorbacz, and I apologize if this comes off rude or offensive, that is not my intent.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
ANebulousMistress wrote:

This is a conversation recently overheard in the halls of a secret society for Ustalavic nobles between the adult sons of aging lords:

** spoiler omitted **

Scandal is what makes a man interesting. Otherwise he's just a bore. Likewise, scandal makes this game interesting.

Of course a counter to your spoiler is that men and women can have similar sex to what is implied and not produce children as well. Just saying. :)

Of course. But that leads to an entirely new class of scandal and my goal was to portray a PG-ish scandal for overly sensitive minds. Since there are a few around.

Liberty's Edge

ewan cummins 325 wrote:
If they had simply made no mention of it, that wouldn't have phased me. It's not as if I do something for fun (read a novel, watch a film, go to a party, play sports, go camping, go shooting, etc) and suddenly stop having fun to ask myself- 'Ewan, where are the gay people?'

That's also because you are (assumedly) heterosexual. :)

Some of your examples are pretty unrelated, but for me personally, it does stand out if you don't have homosexual characters, even if they're playing minor roles. It would stand out for me if there were no interracial relationships* or no Asians or Africans**. Obviously context plays a role, and I don't see a point in needlessly adding a gay character for the sake of having a gay character. But as window dressing? Why not? It's harmless. It might stand out as strange or unnatural to you... but to others, it speaks of their reality. Well, minus the devils and dragons.

Personally I would love to see heterosexuality and homosexuality being given equal amounts of emphasis in the real world. If you see a girl and a guy walking down the street holding hands, nobody would even look twice. If you see two guys or two girls doing the same, immediately there is attention. In my ideal world... there wouldn't be any. Hopefully one day!

* I mean this more in the sense of Varisian x Shoanti, rather than Human x Dwarf.

** Some campaign settings, of course, are excluded from this, but Golarion is not.

Contributor

Removed some more posts. I've said it before, but I'll keep saying it: Post nicely. There's a lot of excellent discussion going on here that keeps getting derailed, and we've given more than enough warnings already.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Edit: I want to point out I'm *not* attacking the decision to make* the character gay. I'm just pointing out it is one way to make the community open, inclusive, and tolerant as Gerriant is arguing the purpose is. James could have shown the 'tolerant' aspects by making the character have two wives, or an 8 year old bride**, or a halfing bride for that matter. Or made him left handed.

I'm sorry, but I just don't get your arguments here at all. Geraint's point is that a modern day reader of Burnt Offerings can quickly see several meaningful things from the presence of a gay paladin in the town of Sandpoint. The only reason these things seem meaningful is because homosexuality is something of a hot-button topic in our world and therefore the relaxed attitude to it is interesting. The tolerance is interesting because it's an area where people in our own world face a lot of intolerance.

For something else to be just as meaningful it would need to be addressing a topic which was just as controversial and suffered just as much intolerance as homosexuality. With all due respect to the problems left-handed people may have faced, I don't think left-handed people in today's world suffer as much and as violent prejudice as do homosexual people. Therefore saying that the paladin was left-handed and suffering prejudice because the Scarnetti don't like left-handed people just wouldn't have the same impact.

Your argument appears to be that any inclusion of a minority is just as meaningful as the inclusion of another kind of minority. But since pretty much everybody is part of a minority group in some fashion that really doesn't follow. It only draws attemtion when the minority group in question is one that suffers prejudice, and the more prejudice that group has suffered then the more meaningful and the more potentially controversial the relationship becomes. Do you honestly believe that there would be a 30 page thread on the forum if the paladin had been left-handed? That alone says something about how the two things tell a different story about the community.


Berik wrote:


I'm sorry, but I just don't get your arguments here at all. Geraint's point is that a modern day reader of Burnt Offerings can quickly see several meaningful things from the presence of a gay paladin in the town of Sandpoint. The only reason these things seem meaningful is because homosexuality is something of a hot-button topic in our world and therefore the relaxed attitude to it is interesting. The tolerance is interesting because it's an area where people in our own world face a lot of intolerance.

For something else to be just as meaningful it would need to be addressing a topic which was just as controversial and suffered just as much intolerance as homosexuality. With all due respect to the problems left-handed people may have faced, I don't think left-handed people in today's world suffer as much and as violent prejudice as do homosexual people. Therefore saying that the paladin was left-handed and suffering prejudice because the Scarnetti don't like left-handed people just wouldn't have the same impact.

Your argument appears to be that any inclusion of a minority is just as meaningful as the inclusion of another kind of minority. But since pretty much everybody is part of a minority group in some fashion that really doesn't follow. It only draws attemtion when the minority group in question is one that suffers prejudice, and the more prejudice that group has suffered then the more meaningful and the more potentially controversial the relationship becomes. Do you honestly believe that there would...

Matt is looking at this through the lens of time not the modern world. There is a reason the Left side is called Sinister in heraldry. For our world, no of course there is no comparison. It is difficult to say with certainty that Left Handed people were not discriminated against harshly in the past. I can not envision the discrimination being worse than homosexual discrimination is now, but it very well could have been.

He is also correct in that there is no rule set for left handedness anymore than there is a ruleset for gender. I beleive that is why he was choosing left handedness.

No one says left handed people have suffered as bad as homosexuals. You are absolutely correct that saying the Paladin is left handed would garner no attention now. However if we were at the Battle of Bannockburn and someone was writing a ballad about Sir Gordon Sinister the left handed knight, that indeed would garner some scrutiny.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
InsideOwt wrote:


It is important to remember that homosexuality is not a modern invention. No man, in a medieval setting, would be conisdered to be a homosexual because many men of power might take another male to bed if he so desired. It was not uncommon for men of court or royalty to have their wives and lovers besides, be they men or women. A 'homosexual' man would indeed have a wife and probably many children but also have his male lover close at hand, living in his holdfast and likely a member of his court. These powerful men could get away with just about anything and they often did.

I guess this gets to the question of expectations. Are gay folk expecting to experience romantic relationships as a side deal from their child producing relationships, and do they see that as satisfying, or are they expecting to be with their romantic partner all the time (a more modern expectation). Actually, could ask the same for hetero marriages. Middle ages, not sure how many straight couples found romantic satisfaction in their marriages. But we never really talk about if most folk in the world are marrying for romantic loves or compelled to marry by family or circumstance.

RL my understanding is that lower classes mattered less so were freer to marry who they waned or be sexually open. A good reputation matters less when your on the bottom. But higher society has stricter rules and more choreographed roles. Marry at your station or above, etc. Romantic desires matter little. I could see formalized roles for gays like lady's best friend, maybe lesbians as a guys' guy who has secret knoledge of women. But homosexuals loni g to be with romantic interests are not different from heterosexuals longing to be with romantic interests. It's Jane Austin meets the Tudors!

I guess the test of positioning as being more important than romantic or even sexual preference would be if a parent would ever set up a straight kid with a gay partner for social advancement? Seems like Julia did this with both of her kids in Rome a couple of times. Actually that show was a pretty good example of all being fair game in love and politics.


Mikaze wrote:
Alice Margatroid wrote:
I'd like to return to thinking about Daikitsu and Nalinivati in the Dragon Empires, which is a very interesting coupling, in my opinion. The Tien apparently think that fertility and agriculture are strongly connected--and I can see why. Planting seeds, etc. But it's also an interracial relationship...and not something as minor as elf x human! Are the Tien more accepting of oddball relations like this?
Gah, those were the two I remember being mentioned before. AntiElite, you said you were looking for inspiration? ;)

Why do those names sound familiar...?

Checks his copy of Dragon Empires Gazetteer

...mother of pearl polishing.

I have visual, and now I have need of someone to transfer it from my mind to digital format.

Also, I like to think, even if we aren't using direct real-world analogs for this purpose, that the Dragon Empires definitely think outside of the box (HA!) due to different cultural preconceptions. After all, given some of the likely creation myths held by different peoples, there could be all kinds of taboo perspectives taken in different directions. How many times in the real world do we see creation myths involving, among other things, incest (at least Shinto and Grecian myths), necrophilia (Egyptian myth), coprophilia (Aztec if I recall correctly), and any other number of things that just make the modern mind screech to a halt or possibly run screaming in the opposite direction?

Which is not to compare homosexuality to these by any means; I only infer that one person's squick is another person's taboo is another cultures origin of any number of rituals.


Alice Margatroid wrote:


That's also because you are (assumedly) heterosexual. :)

Some of your examples are pretty unrelated, but for me personally, it does stand out if you don't have homosexual characters, even if they're playing minor roles. It would stand out for me if there were no interracial relationships* or no Asians or Africans**. Obviously context plays a role, and I don't see a point in needlessly adding a gay character for the sake of having a gay character. But as window dressing? Why not? It's harmless. It might stand out as strange or unnatural to you... but to others, it speaks of their reality. Well, minus the devils and dragons.

Personally I would love to see heterosexuality and homosexuality being given equal amounts of emphasis in the real world. If you see a girl and a guy walking down the street holding hands, nobody would even look twice. If you see two guys or two girls doing the same, immediately there is attention. In my ideal world... there wouldn't be any. Hopefully one day!

* I mean this more in the sense of Varisian x Shoanti, rather than Human x Dwarf.

** Some campaign settings, of course, are excluded from this, but Golarion is not.

Yes, Alice, I'm heterosexual. I'm sure that you are right- I don't notice the absence because homosexuality is not as relevant to my own life, my own experiences. I hardly know any gay folks.

Not noticing/caring about the absence of gay NPCs is not the same as objecting to the inclusion of gay NPCs.

Note
- If I were to I see two men holding hands, I would probably guess that they were gay, but there are other explanations. I've been to countries where it's not so unusual for two friends of the same sex to hold hands in public.

PS-You write that some of my examples are unrelated. Examples of what? I'm not sure what you mean.

1,451 to 1,500 of 5,778 << first < prev | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.