RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I've said elsewhere, I don't mind 'pansexuality of Golarion'* As a (god)father and GM, I filter the content I introduce to my minor players either to general G/PG or if I know the parents, content equal to their tolerance.
It also helps that the homosexual relationships are portrayed in the same manner as the heterosexual ones. There's no graphic Harsk on Ezren action, anymore than there is Valeros on Kyra action. Any relationships, either way, are mentioned in passing. (Oleg and his wife in Kingmaker get as much attention centred on them being a couple as the Sherrif and his partner do in Sandpoint). Indeed, the only real 'censoring' I've had to do is wth the Paracountess in PFS. First time I forgot what a 'St. Andrew's Cross' is in her context; the second time I caught myself and just described it as, "This room is full of things we will not discuss at this table... and a bed."
Maybe I'm an idealist, but Caprica is my Ideal. Sam and his husband were given the same level of attention as Clarice and her family, and Joseph and his (dead) wife. i.e. as much as the plot desired.
*
You're assuming Golarion is based on the social mores and taboos of Earth's Middle Ages. It's mythological history has numerous examples of extremely powerful women, which has effects on how civilizations form.As for women in positions of power in places like Cheliax, remember that Hell serves Cheliax. Hell's hierarchy is misogynistic, but it was a woman (Abrogail Thrune) who made the deal with the church of Asmodeus to begin with. Cheliax does not suffer the hierarchies of hell to command it. They pick and choose of their own free will and if the devil's don't like it, they can go screw themselves.
That and it's important to bear in mind that the ruling class throughout human history has always behaved as the exception to cultural rules and...
Thanks - yes, I'm more interested in getting a handle on the Golarion societies and how they might work, rather than try to replicate eg real world medieval society (although eg Brevoy seems quite 'grounded' in reality, depending on which part of Kingmaker I read). I'm focusing on Varisia/Cheliax preparatory to hopefully running Curse of the Crimson Throne. This isn't the only societal issue I've had trouble deciphering but it was one that occurred to me due to this thread.
Magical power is clearly a big thing; a fireball-slinging demigod is a fireball-slinging demigod whatever his/her/its gender. Arguably Xena style superhuman fighting ability falls into the same bracket, which would cover the likes of Sabina Merrin and maybe Cressida Croft. I'm not still not sure about Sandpoint's Mayor Deverin - I've played not read Burnt Offerings; maybe she has a plausible backstory as a successful businesswoman or somesuch who went into politics, for some reason though her very mundanity always made her seem less plausible to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, at the risk of being piled on, it should be noted that, historically, virtually all great military leaders have been men. This has happened because men have dominated in martial positions throughout history. Why? Well, despite the fact that I believe men and women to be innately equal in terms of value as human beings, that does not equate into equality of capability. Nature has made men larger, stronger, and more able to handle the rigors of combat. Hence, many more men have been able to rise to positions of military authority.
Now, I know Pathfinder is fantasy, and suspension of disbelief is important. I'm not clamouring for different strength scores for males and females or anything like that. But one does wonder if Paizo has simply decided that they need X% of authority positions filled with female characters in their modules. It does make me scratch my head sometimes and question what their inspiration is.
There's a vast difference in physical strength needed to be a great general versus a great swordsman. If you're defining "military leader" as, say, Achilles (swordsman) instead of Odysseus (general), then yes, in Earth history, military leaders have been men primarily because men were more inherently qualified (that is, physically strong) than women. No physical strength is needed to be an outstanding strategist, however. A general can be a great general from a wheelchair.
The reason there have not been very many female (strategic) military leaders is that 1) women have largely been barred from participation in military matters, and 2) generally the path to a position where your role is wholly strategic starts out in a role where actual fighting (and therefore strength) is needed. (This is similar to the way in which, say, software companies generally promote their very best devs to management positions, despite the fact that wizard-like programming skills have little to no overlap, on their own, with the people skills needed to be an effective manager.)
So - what is Paizo's "inspiration" for the prevalence of female authority figures in Paizo products? Well, pointless real-world prejudice ain't it. Golarion is a fantasy world in which many cultures have their own baggage, but that doesn't entail automatically including Earth history baggage about gender roles in said fantasy setting.
I fail to see why anyone would be invested in seeing prejudice against women and the restrictive gender roles that result from it included in Golarion.
>>Sometimes so many female characters in positions of bureaucratic (Deverin) or military (Croft) authority are a bit difficult in a quasi-medieval setting though.<<
Why? This is a fantasy setting. Just because a civilization is at a medieval level of technology doesn't mean that it must automatically partake of the absurd views of women that co-occured with that level of technology in Earth's history.
Well the presence of magic, different physical laws etc could change things, otherwise technology would tend to constrain the range of viable societies. Eg with real-world sexual dimorphism societies which favour physical strength and fighting ability will tend to be male dominated to a greater or lesser extent - there is a wide range in real life over the past two thousand years, roughly corresponding to the societal range on Golarion (which has 'ancient world' and '19th century' societies) but nothing approaching sex equality. Fertility and reproduction is also an issue, IRL effective contraception seems to have been a big driver of twentieth century social change towards sex equality.
I'm not particularly interested in trying to make Golarion realistic though, I'm more interested in accepting the premises of the setting, understanding it to the extent authors may have put some thought into it, and finding (semi) reasonable in-world justifications.
Well, at the risk of being piled on, it should be noted that, historically, virtually all great military leaders have been men. This has happened because men have dominated in martial positions throughout history. Why? Well, despite the fact that I believe men and women to be innately equal in terms of value as human beings, that does not equate into equality of capability. Nature has made men larger, stronger, and more able to handle the rigors of combat. Hence, many more men have been able to rise to positions of military authority.
I think for me the challenge for justifiying a Golarion type setting is to combine (a) lots of butt-kicking warrior women (N)PCs with an in-world Human species that in most respects resembles the real world. (a) Means no Runequest style STR penalties on female Fighters, (b) means that sexual dimorphism can't just be abandoned so that there is no average strength difference between 'mundane' men and women.
I'm currently thinking something like: The bulk of the population are similar to the real world, but a substantial minority of human females are born with an 'amazon gene' that makes them as large and strong as men; probably also more aggressive than most women, they may become town guards, Gray Maidens etc. This is sufficiently widely appreciated that women in positions of martial authority are not uncommon. Add in magical, divine and other power sources, and women in leadership positions is not uncommon in many human societies.
|
S'mon, perhaps your justification should read "this world has, due to some reasons mystical and beyond comprehension, less people who think that for women to be treated equal to men in some areas they must posses amazon genes and/or other qualities that make them remotely comparable". Simple, elegant, less fuss. :)
S'mon, the primary reason of women being the "inferior sex" throughout the ages was people who think like you do.
I don't think I'm the primary reason for sex discrimination throughout the ages, and that's pretty nasty IMO.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not particularly interested in trying to make Golarion realistic though, I'm more interested in accepting the premises of the setting, understanding it to the extent authors may have put some thought into it, and finding (semi) reasonable in-world justifications.Why? This is a fantasy setting. Just because a civilization is at a medieval level of technology doesn't mean that it must automatically partake of the absurd views of women that co-occured with that level of technology in Earth's history.
Sometimes so many female characters in positions of bureaucratic (Deverin) or military (Croft) authority are a bit difficult in a quasi-medieval setting though.
In an ideal world -- which we are far from, but should still strive toward -- the onus should be on people to explain why their setting doesn't include an equal number of male and female authority figures, not to explain why it does.
Ergo, I see no need to "justify" the roughly equal numbers of female and male authority figures in Golarion.
|
|
S'mon, the primary reason of women being the "inferior sex" throughout the ages was people who think like you do.I don't think I'm the primary reason for sex discrimination throughout the ages, and that's pretty nasty IMO.
I've edited the post because it's getting late here and I'm not sure I have the time for this fight, but if you're really asking, then notice I didn't attribute that to one concrete person, but to a plural category. You're just an exemplification of a trend in human thought. And I'm not judging, I'm observing. Hell, you might be one of those people who actually do think that gender inequality is right and yearn for The Old Days, and in that case it was something of a compliment.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Core Golarion has extraterrestrial elves, dwarves, faery-touched gnomes, cross-species hybrids (half-eves and half-orcs), dragons, a pantheon of real gods...
The various female iconics can skillfully wield arcane might, call upon their deities' power, smite real-honest-to-goodness tangible undead & fiends, perform near-impossible acrobatics of adroit daring-do, channel rage into demonstrable boosts in physical power, or perform crackshot stunts straight out of a spaghetti western...
...and people instead still get hung up on female humanoids being physical equals to the males? That's what breaks the verisimilitude?
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a game,
I should really just relax."
For Mystery Golarion Theater 3000.
I have a heterosexual player with a Bisexual Kitsune (shapechanger) Bard character. The character has been every sex and has had flings and meaningful relationships with every gender combination. It is without a doubt one of the most interesting and fun characters I've ever GM'd (I refer to the character as "it" because in my campaign kitsune have no sexual organs, and thus no genders). I also have a homosexual player with a Heterosexual Orc Rogue who is married to a Dwarf. I have always found racism, sexism, sexuality, religion, and tolerance core values within RPGs worth exploring because everything is heightened. How can you not question racial intolerance in a world where dwarves literally have racism ingrained into their biology? How can you not explore the meaning of gender, sex, and identity in a world where spells allow a level of fluidity with these notions that is unimaginable in our dull plane? Tolkien envisioned a world where heroes of different races, genders, and beliefs can together to promote an intrinsic good, I try to do the same at my table. That's my two cents.
If you're defining "military leader" as, say, Achilles (swordsman) instead of Odysseus (general),
Not to detract in any way from any of your points, but I was just wondering: does Odysseus ever do anything "general-like" in any of the stories about him? Presumably, as a king he must have been some kind of military leader, but in all of the stories I can think of he's either being a wise-ass or running around with Diomedes on not very general-like at all secret missions.
I suppose the Trojan horse, but that always struck me as more of a wise-ass rogue thing to do than a military leader-general type thing.
|
|
Well, sometimes being a good military commander does include Trojan Horse moves. In 1939 Germans successfully pulled one off by parking a battleship right next to Polish facilities under the guise of a "courtesy visit" few days before the attack and one year later they almost pulled that off again if it wasn't for an aged Norwegian fortress commander who decided to ignore the official rules of engagement and fire an angry salvo at incoming Battleship of Mystery, which turned out to be the lead ship of German invasion force.
|
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
|
Contributor
|
I've edited the post because it's getting late here and I'm not sure I have the time for this fight, but if you're really asking, then notice I didn't attribute that to one concrete person, but to a plural category. You're just an exemplification of a trend in human thought. And I'm not judging, I'm observing. Hell, you might be one of those people who actually do think that gender inequality is right and yearn for The Old Days, and in that case it was something of a compliment.S'mon, the primary reason of women being the "inferior sex" throughout the ages was people who think like you do.I don't think I'm the primary reason for sex discrimination throughout the ages, and that's pretty nasty IMO.Sexual dimorphism is real. It exists in humans, though to a lesser extreme than in many species. In the context of thinking about why men have comprised the bulk of the warrior class throughout history, it's stupid to ignore sexual dimorphism and blame it strictly on prejudice. Even today, though it's become less important in warfare, consider sports: Are professional or Olympic level sports segregated simply due to prejudice? Or are there actual physical realities to consider?
Mind you, I'm not fond of the "Amazon gene" idea, either and it's not reflected in the rules. Per RAW, there is no sexual dimorphism in stats, for males or females, but there is in the range of sizes. In PF, women can be just as physically tough as men and though they tend to be smaller, it's not enough to make a noticeable difference. It's probably best to just accept that without looking at it too closely.
It is kind of interesting to think about what a world without effective sexual dimorphism would look like. If women are as effective warriors as men, are women warriors as common? Are women assumed to be non-combatants and protected, at least by those who honor such conventions?
What would be more interesting to me, as a single dad, is whether men are equally embraced as caregivers and central figures in teaching, household management, and arguers for peaceable resolution of differences, in such a world.
Some could argue is that men are more expendable and that is why they end up fighting battles. Women have more important responsibilities in a tightly defined gendered society. Or perhaps men, women, or in-betweens could all shoulder some of the really important work.
Well, sometimes being a good military commander does include Trojan Horse moves. In 1939 Germans successfully pulled one off by parking a battleship right next to Polish facilities under the guise of a "courtesy visit" few days before the attack and one year later they almost pulled that off again if it wasn't for an aged Norwegian fortress commander who decided to ignore the official rules of engagement and fire an angry salvo at incoming Battleship of Mystery, which turned out to be the lead ship of German invasion force.
Yes, trickery and guile are definitely general-like traits.
But, I always felt ambivalent about how awesome the Trojan Horse really was. I mean, it wouldn't even have worked at all if that biznitch Athena hadn't murdered Laocoon and his sons.
|
However, in the real world, military careers often were barred to woman, and still are. Originally because they were less suited to the physical nature of pre-modern conflict. They are generally smaller and not as strong, which is huge disadvantage when it comes to hitting each other with sharp bits of metal. (We're talking averages, here. There are exceptions on both ends.)
In PF and Golarion, that's not true, if we take the mechanics literally. Women are, overall, no weaker than men. They are a bit smaller, but there's no mechanical disadvantage in that. There's no reason women couldn't join armies and rise through the ranks as easily as men.
And that's leaving out the various other routes to personal power, usually involving some kind of magic. Even less need for discrimination there.
There are a lot of reasons, (many very valid) that women are not barred, but less popular in the military. Many of them deal with multiple aspects of the differences between male and female psychology, attitude, and effects on others rather than the pressumed physical differences, (though there are actually a lot of differences and they really do matter). The effects that they have on men, both their own and the enemy combatants or other nations is generally pretty bad, and many female soldier come in with this attitude that they need to prove themselves to the guys when in actuality (usually) they are the only ones who want that. There is a lot of "treat me as an equal", except when it's to my advantage to be special, and the truth is it is significantlt easier, (less effort) for females to be promoted then men.
There is also some research (in the states at least) that the nation (mostly female voters) do not trust female officials in leadership positions, from the female side more than the male side.
Taking away a lot of modern technology and cultural views, women have a lot of trouble "in the field", as well as being authoritative. They tend much more to have lower, not comanding voices, tend to be reactive and seek to find and maintain a status quo (vs aggresive and making decisions), and tend to be questioned rather than inspiring. They tend to have smaller frames and be shorter, a natural disadvantage for a leader who will both lead the charge and need to be seen from a distance by allied troops, and there is a natural psychological rational for their troops to protect them rather than accomplish what needs to be done. It also doesn't matter about the individual one bit, females can get pregnant, and the fact that that is a possibility is a huge hit to any troops morale on it's own, not including any issues that come up if/when it actually does happen.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
This strikes me as funny, since I think most people who know me know I'm pretty conservative.
I'd say if you were 'highly annoyed' to change Ezren to Ezra, it appears you have a low tolerance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
The amount of "really, dude" indignation that I felt at the assumption of homosexuality as anything other than a narrative choice (much less a political agenda dedicated to ruining your "lighthearted fun," because as we all know, one type of gay counteracts the other) was enough to power a small electric vehicle off my neural synapses.
However, in the real world, military careers often were barred to woman, and still are. Originally because they were less suited to the physical nature of pre-modern conflict. They are generally smaller and not as strong, which is huge disadvantage when it comes to hitting each other with sharp bits of metal. (We're talking averages, here. There are exceptions on both ends.)
In PF and Golarion, that's not true, if we take the mechanics literally. Women are, overall, no weaker than men. They are a bit smaller, but there's no mechanical disadvantage in that. There's no reason women couldn't join armies and rise through the ranks as easily as men.
And that's leaving out the various other routes to personal power, usually involving some kind of magic. Even less need for discrimination there.
There are a lot of reasons, (many very valid) that women are not barred, but less popular in the military. Many of them deal with multiple aspects of the differences between male and female psychology, attitude, and effects on others rather than the pressumed physical differences, (though there are actually a lot of differences and they really do matter). The effects that they have on men, both their own and the enemy combatants or other nations is generally pretty bad, and many female soldier come in with this attitude that they need to prove themselves to the guys when in actuality (usually) they are the only ones who want that. There is a lot of "treat me as an equal", except when it's to my advantage to be special, and the truth is it is significantlt easier, (less effort) for females to be promoted then men.
There is also some research (in the states at least) that the nation (mostly female voters) do not trust female officials in leadership positions, from the female side more than the male side.
Taking away a lot of modern technology and cultural views, women have a lot of trouble "in the field", as well as being authoritative. They tend
...
That's all an argument against women in the military in the modern day, which I'm not going to get into. In medieval (or earlier) warfare, having a harder time killing other people by hitting them with sharp bits of metal on sticks is a far bigger problem than anything you suggest. Women are, on average, enough smaller and have enough less upper body strength that, other things being equal, they're at a big disadvantage in melee combat.
That is not true in PF. Nor do any of your other arguments apply to the game world.
It does speak to suspension of disbelief, though, which I don't think is irrelevant, even in a fantasy game.
|
The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda.
Damn, I wasn't aware that our secret agenda had gotten out!!1
Sorry to hear that you have a problem with non-heterosexual folks. But I promise you that we're not on any secret mission to ruin society. Don't worry.
EDIT: Also, I'd just like to ask if we can move the "gender equality in Golarion" discussion to a thread that isn't about homosexuality? Because gender != sexuality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
As a homosexual myself, I gotta say thay I'm feeling a bit alarmed that I haven't been fully briefed on this "homosexual agenda. Any chance you could direct me towards it? I do hate being out of the loop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
By that logic neither are heterosexual relationships, and their promotion of the Heterosexual Agenda. I was extremely depressed that I had to change Aldern Foxglove's sexuality so that he hit on men instead of women like all decent folk should. This sort of blatant heterosexuality has no place in a typical RPG game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a homosexual myself, I gotta say thay I'm feeling a bit alarmed that I haven't been fully briefed on this "homosexual agenda. Any chance you could direct me towards it? I do hate being out of the loop.
They tend to have this alarming and radical idea that all people should be treated equally regardless of what gender they're attracting to. Scary, I know.
(Also, food for thought: having homosexual characters in a game isn't promoting any agenda any more than having murderers (y'know, the bad guys we fight) in the game promotes murderering people)
If you're defining "military leader" as, say, Achilles (swordsman) instead of Odysseus (general),Not to detract in any way from any of your points, but I was just wondering: does Odysseus ever do anything "general-like" in any of the stories about him? Presumably, as a king he must have been some kind of military leader, but in all of the stories I can think of he's either being a wise-ass or running around with Diomedes on not very general-like at all secret missions.
I suppose the Trojan horse, but that always struck me as more of a wise-ass rogue thing to do than a military leader-general type thing.
Odysseus was one of the inner circle of military counselors to Agamemnon, and, as King of Ithaca, the leader of its forces, so yes, his role was pretty analogous to that of a general. He advises Agamemnon on a number of strategic initiatives, such as when to withdraw his forces, how to keep order among the various Greek armies, etc. He serves as a diplomat as well as a strategist. So no, he wasn't limited to being a trickster -- he appears quite often as a skilled and cool-headed strategic advisor to the Greeks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
Perhaps because I have lived in the real world for so long I am always surprised that people like this exist. The level of ignorance demonstrated by this post is all kinds of remarkable. I very much hope this individual is not in a position to educate or influence any impressional humans. Perpetuating such ignorance is damaging to both those so indoctrinated, and society as a whole. The mind-blowing mental inconsistency that could condone acts of brutal violence (even for any, seemingly noble cause) but condemn a loving relationship between individuals of the same sex is remarkable.
I'm reminded of the time I saw "Terminator 2" at about 11am on TV in California. The violence remained practically uncut, but all of the swear words were dubbed out. Utter insanity.
|
|
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.Perhaps because I have lived in the real world for so long I am always surprised that people like this exist. The level of ignorance demonstrated by this post is all kinds of remarkable. I very much hope this individual is not in a position to educate or influence any impressional humans. Perpetuating such ignorance is damaging to both those so indoctrinated, and society as a whole. The mind-blowing mental inconsistency that could condone acts of brutal violence (even for any, seemingly noble cause) but condemn a loving relationship between individuals of the same sex is remarkable.
I'm reminded of the time I saw "Terminator 2" at about 11am on TV in California. The violence remained practically uncut, but all of the swear words were dubbed out. Utter insanity.
[EuropeanElitism] That's what you get for living in a country where disembowelment = GOOD, f-word = BAD, nipples = WORSE. [/EuropeanElitism]
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
Oh, you!
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.As a homosexual myself, I gotta say thay I'm feeling a bit alarmed that I haven't been fully briefed on this "homosexual agenda. Any chance you could direct me towards it? I do hate being out of the loop.
I guess that makes us bisexuals the spy's of this dueling agenda's, for we literately sleep with the enemy. :)
I'm reminded of the time I saw "Terminator 2" at about 11am on TV in California. The violence remained practically uncut, but all of the swear words were dubbed out. Utter insanity. [EuropeanElitism] That's what you get for living in a country where disembowelment = GOOD, f-word = BAD, nipples = WORSE. [/EuropeanElitism]
Ha! I'm actually Scottish. So I share your elitism ;) Maybe that explains my surprise. That whole Janet Jackson nipple thing was also kind of hilarious. It is a bit of a concern that there are such a lot of people in the world so afraid of nature they need to hide it from their kids.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 20 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say that Pathfinder is supposed to be a game that facilites lighthearted fun. The last thing I want in the game is something that promotes the homosexual agenda or any other political or philosophical agenda. I was highly annoyed at having to change the gender of the love interest in "The Midnight Mauler" so I could run the scenario in good conscience. This sort of thing has no place in your typical rpg game.
While we cannot prevent you from changing the scenarios for your group, we have a number of gay and lesbian staff members, some of whom write for us and some of whom touch everything produced by our company. We support their right to produce content reflecting their life experiences as much as we do that of our straight coworkers, and prefer to have them able to focus on creating the content that Paizo's customers love rather than having to deal with some of those customers questioning the rightness of their relationships, or their right to exist.
If you think homosexuality is wrong, that's your prerogative. As I noted, we also can't prevent you from trying to erase it from the games you run using our content.
But don't bring it here.
|
|
However, in the real world, military careers often were barred to woman, and still are. Originally because they were less suited to the physical nature of pre-modern conflict. They are generally smaller and not as strong, which is huge disadvantage when it comes to hitting each other with sharp bits of metal. (We're talking averages, here. There are exceptions on both ends.)
In PF and Golarion, that's not true, if we take the mechanics literally. Women are, overall, no weaker than men. They are a bit smaller, but there's no mechanical disadvantage in that. There's no reason women couldn't join armies and rise through the ranks as easily as men.
There are a lot of reasons, (many very valid) that women are not barred, but less popular in the military. Many of them deal with multiple aspects of the differences between male and female psychology, attitude, and effects on others rather than the pressumed physical differences,. . .
That's all an argument against women in the military in the modern day, which I'm not going to get into. In medieval (or earlier) warfare, having a harder time killing other people by hitting them with sharp bits of metal on sticks is a far bigger problem than anything you suggest. Women are, on average, enough smaller and have enough less upper body strength that, other things being equal, they're at a big disadvantage in melee combat. That is not true in PF. Nor do any of your other arguments apply to the game world.
I was responding to what you said. You braught up modern military, and also how it would relate to a PF setting. I disagree that the issues would not be issues, except its a game. A lot of the stuff is, and can be hand waved, and I don't have an issue with that. It doesn't mean it isn't real though or that everyone wants it so cookie-cutter. Your right, mechanically, there is no difference for a male or female character, (well there are actually a few only female traits, races, Prestige Classes, and Archtypes, and I do not think there is a single male-only one of any, but that's a little different).