|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how "treating people like people" gets perceived as some sort of conspiratorial "gay agenda".
Not really grasping the "problem" of having an equal number of competent and powerful women to match the men in the setting either.
Golarion wouldn't suddenly become better in quality by instituting real world sexism as popularly believed to exist throughout history as the norm for the setting. And it certainly wouldn't be as welcoming to as many gamers.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how "treating people like people" gets perceived as some sort of conspiratorial "gay agenda".
Oh, that's easy - it's one of the only ways to feel okay about being a bigot.
Possibly he was trying to say he wants to leave out the debates and politics and stuff, which i find ok, because it´s a game not a discussion place. Remember somwhere i says Pegi 13.
The debate about women is a bit silly in my eyes. As someone who knows martial arts and also strenght training i would say that a women that received the same training as a man will bring a similar outcome. Of course there can be someone stronger, faster, more brutal, more pycho, more experienced or simply taller (which is not always an advantage in real life!) but that can happen ingame and in real life to everyone.
I think it´s quite cool that Golarion is so open and not middle-age lke because i´m really fed up with this reenactment rpg´s with anglo-saxon and scottish names all over the place and people feeling the need to talk like Walter von der Vogelweide all the time.
I could imagine some fluff though that draws from such themes heavily, like gay societies or patriarchal and matriarchal societes warring with each other. This could add interesting ingame challenges with oportunities for great roleplay.
Besides that to some people you can only say: the manacles of their socialisation are quite strong on them or perhaps their eyes are to fral to take of the pink glasses and see the light of reality.
Sometimes i could think that for some people homosexuality is more of a lifestyle question though. Which is a far better choice than many others because it doesn´t hurt someone.
Possibly he was trying to say he wants to leave out the debates and politics and stuff, which i find ok, because it´s a game not a discussion place. Remember somwhere i says Pegi 13.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. PEGI 13 isn't even a real rating, and if it were it would only apply to video games.
Anyway, no. He was using a smokescreen of "equality" and being anti-"agenda" to try and put a stop to authors' ability to represent a diverse array of characters in their game fiction.
It's a game. It's also a springboard for discussion. Many games are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the few references to LGBT humanoids in Golarion, I can't even recall any as being much more than a passing reference, or a plot thread/hook. I never took it as promoting any kind of agenda other than "anti-dull/beige games."
For the sake of Neutrality-Uber-Alles, should all NPC descriptions also avoid any slight mention or hint of ethnicity? What about gender? All family/significant other relationships? Children? Right- or left-handedness? Social background? Family history? How sterile should it be?
Tabletop RPGs are imagination-powered; any fluff that survives the Count von Word Count's red pen remains just to drive the plot and make it feel a little more believable. Just because some GMs/customers feel all LGBTness should be left out, don't insist the game developer omit it all too.
|
Possibly he was trying to say he wants to leave out the debates and politics and stuff, which i find ok, because it´s a game not a discussion place. Remember somwhere i says Pegi 13.
Exactly, I look at the random placement of gay npcs in modules and scenarios, and think "Is this really necessary?". Is Pathfinder, a fantasy roleplaying game, really the proper venue for such issues? I think not. If someone wants to play a "book of erotic fantasy" homebrew game,and include this kind of stuff, fine, but I really don't want to see it in published adventures and PFS scenarios.
|
I don't see how "treating people like people" gets perceived as some sort of conspiratorial "gay agenda".
Not really grasping the "problem" of having an equal number of competent and powerful women to match the men in the setting either.
Golarion wouldn't suddenly become better in quality by instituting real world sexism as popularly believed to exist throughout history as the norm for the setting. And it certainly wouldn't be as welcoming to as many gamers.
If your refering to my post, I'm not saying at all people male or female shouldn't be treated as people. I was just pointing out that there are valid reasons that men and women are different, and also percieved differently by others, and that Golarion doesn't take those things into account. I do think that Paizo has overcompensated in trying to bring the girl-power, but that's about it. I don't really care, personally.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly he was trying to say he wants to leave out the debates and politics and stuff, which i find ok, because it´s a game not a discussion place. Remember somwhere i says Pegi 13.Exactly, I look at the random placement of gay npcs in modules and scenarios, and think "Is this really necessary?". Is Pathfinder, a fantasy roleplaying game, really the proper venue for such issues? I think not. If someone wants to play a "book of erotic fantasy" homebrew game,and include this kind of stuff, fine, but I really don't want to see it in published adventures and PFS scenarios.
Relationships between two men or two women aren't solely or automatically sexual any more than relationships between a man and a woman. It is not the case that man + woman = love & partnership, while man + man or woman + woman = sex. Mentioning that the female mayor is married to the female priestess of Desna isn't "erotic" any more than mentioning that a male and female innkeeper in Magnimar are married.
And as I noted above, you're free to your opinions. You can believe that they're wrong, or that they have no place in your games.
But don't bring it here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
re: PG-13
If there is anyone 13 years-old or older who will be harmed by a half-sentence reference to an NPC's love interest/significant other/spouse, then they really really shouldn't be playing a game where they imagine they are a fictitious kleptomaniac-murder-hobo wielding magic and receiving power/healing from non-YHWH/God/Allah/______ deities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone wants to play a "book of erotic fantasy" homebrew game,and include this kind of stuff, fine, but I really don't want to see it in published adventures and PFS scenarios.
I, for one, am glad that Paizo doesn't make its editorial decisions based on bigots wanting their narrow worldview reflected in their reading material.
Developer
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possibly he was trying to say he wants to leave out the debates and politics and stuff, which i find ok, because it´s a game not a discussion place. Remember somwhere i says Pegi 13.Exactly, I look at the random placement of gay npcs in modules and scenarios, and think "Is this really necessary?". Is Pathfinder, a fantasy roleplaying game, really the proper venue for such issues? I think not. If someone wants to play a "book of erotic fantasy" homebrew game,and include this kind of stuff, fine, but I really don't want to see it in published adventures and PFS scenarios.
We will continue to include diversity of all sorts in our gaming products, including same-sex couples, transgendered individuals, women in non-stereotypical roles or positions of power, as well as people of all races.
In the instance of the relationship that seemed to prompt this reaction from you, the characters in question are described simply as a loving and committed long-term couple. If you were able to change the gender of one character and suddenly have their relationship be kosher at your table, then clearly the problem you have with it isn't that they were all into kinky sex that was inappropriate. Rather, your problem with it was that they were both guys. And that's a problem that no one but you can help you solve.
Feel free to change whatever genders you need to in published material if you can't live with the idea that some fictional characters aren't living their fictional lives to the standard you feel is appropriate or moral, but simply being inclusive of people who may not be exactly like you isn't Paizo putting forth the gay agenda any more than us including a white male is us pushing the white supremacist agenda. As Jessica has said above, you're free to whatever beliefs you want, but don't bring your hatred here, please.
Jessica Price what you said is not my opinion and i also didn´t read this whole thread.
I said Pegi 13 because some of your designers pointed that out somewhere else, but the nature of the game is very graphic and where i come from the violence is actually viewed more of a problem that any sexual stuff.
I also want to point out that this: "man + woman = love & partnership, while man + man or woman + woman = sex" is absolutely not my opinion.
Just look at all the PUA stuff and porn and dating sites, most of it is straight.
I think its good to have diversity, for my taste there could be even more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I personally dont have an opinion on this matter, but what I do want to comment on is this increasingly disturbing trend I see here on the forums. And its mainly this: If you express an opinion that is different than the current popular culture "one", you immediately receive some ugly label like "bigot" or whatnot no matter how respectful or intelligently you voice your opinion.
Tolerance should apply to everyone, as long as their behavior is not harming anyone directly. A difference of opinion is the american way.
Our society has only progressed because people were brave/bold enough to voice their opinions/convictions and then stand by them.Sure, the world is full of loud mouthed, intolerant idiots, but we get no where by stooping to their level. You cant enlighten anyone after crudely insulting their beliefs/opinions. I.E "Your opinions/beliefs are different than mine...so obviously you are an idiot..."
IDK, I am just sick of it. In a country where hardly anything is taboo to discuss in the public forum, well just let me quote the bible and I'll bet I get a bunch of snide remarks or some vague moderator threat of "we are not here to discuss religion" garbage. Why? The bible reperesents nothing less than a belief system, which we are all here voicing here in one form or another. And unlike our little quips and quotes, which will be quickly forgotten, the bible has endured for nearly 2 thousand years. What hubris to compare a few decades of life experience to the wisdom of the ages.....
Hmm, well that rant aside...how about a little more tolerance people? A little more love thy neighbor?
|
|
If your refering to my post, I'm not saying at all people male or female shouldn't be treated as people.I don't see how "treating people like people" gets perceived as some sort of conspiratorial "gay agenda".
Not really grasping the "problem" of having an equal number of competent and powerful women to match the men in the setting either.
Golarion wouldn't suddenly become better in quality by instituting real world sexism as popularly believed to exist throughout history as the norm for the setting. And it certainly wouldn't be as welcoming to as many gamers.
It was more in response to Cory Stafford's post, no worries. Though I don't really think Golarion has overshot with female characters either.
I do think there could be more interesting/appealing male protagonist-friendly characters though, for those folks that may be a bit starved for them(sometimes just to interact with, and sometimes as potential love interests). Speaking primarily about the Cressida Krofts, Ameiko Kaijitsus, and Sheila Heidmarches and other similar focal NPCs, although speaking of less central NPCs...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I personally dont have an opinion on this matter, but what I do want to comment on is this increasingly disturbing trend I see here on the forums. And its mainly this: If you express an opinion that is different than the current popular culture "one", you immediately receive some ugly label like "bigot" or whatnot no matter how respectful or intelligently you voice your opinion.
Tolerance should apply to everyone, as long as their behavior is not harming anyone directly. A difference of opinion is the american way.
Our society has only progressed because people were brave/bold enough to voice their opinions/convictions and then stand by them.Sure, the world is full of loud mouthed, intolerant idiots, but we get no where by stooping to their level. You cant enlighten anyone after crudely insulting their beliefs/opinions. I.E "Your opinions/beliefs are different than mine...so obviously you are an idiot..."
IDK, I am just sick of it. In a country where hardly anything is taboo to discuss in the public forum, well just let me quote the bible and I'll bet I get a bunch of snide remarks or some vague moderator threat of "we are not here to discuss religion" garbage. Why? The bible reperesents nothing less than a belief system, which we are all here voicing here in one form or another. And unlike our little quips and quotes, which will be quickly forgotten, the bible has endured for nearly 2 thousand years. What hubris to compare a few decades of life experience to the wisdom of the ages.....
Hmm, well that rant aside...how about a little more tolerance people? A little more love thy neighbor?
It doesn't matter how respectful or intelligent you say something. Believing fervently in your own opinions and convictions doesn't automatically make you a good person. If you're still saying something hateful about a group of people, that doesn't mean people have to respect you. They aren't being called bigots because they believe in a different mainstream opinion. They are called a bigot because what they believe in is offensive and oppressive to a group of people. Our society has progressed with people bold enough to voice their opinions AGAINST social oppression. What I am sick of in this country is that people think that because of the First Amendment, they can use it to constantly justify being a cunt to other people. If you believe that a group of people shouldn't be in novels or RPG products because their their existence offends you, then yes, you (not you personally Widow) are a slack-jawed bigot.
You have the right to believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make you right nor does it mean people have to respect you.
|
"Love thy neighbour" is an ironic thing to say here considering most of the time the people who get labelled with "bigot" are hating on other people for one reason or another (in this case, sexual preference).
Free speech is the right to say what you like, not the right to be free from criticism or taking responsibility for your words and beliefs.
Jessica Price what you said is not my opinion and i also didn´t read this whole thread.
I said Pegi 13 because some of your designers pointed that out somewhere else, but the nature of the game is very graphic and where i come from the violence is actually viewed more of a problem that any sexual stuff.
I also want to point out that this: "man + woman = love & partnership, while man + man or woman + woman = sex" is absolutely not my opinion.
Just look at all the PUA stuff and porn and dating sites, most of it is straight.
I think its good to have diversity, for my taste there could be even more.
I know, I was responding to Cory's response to your comment. Your quote was nested inside his.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have tried to love my neighbor for some decades now. I love my neighbor so that I do not say a single cross word about his choice of partners, his family, or even the plethora of legal rights that attach to them. I do not want him harmed. I want no one to insult or denigrate him or damage his person, his loved ones, or his property for who he is and who he loves. I love him so that I do not want him harassed or any way treated or made to feel as anything less than as good decent a person as I am.
When will he love me the same way? I have waited long years now and see still more long years ahead where no wrong done to me warrants so much as a comment from him but where I am condemned not even for any act I undertook, not for any falsehood I have spread, but for the tone I choose when I report the wrongs done to me and object to their being done to others.
I begin to think this is not the path of wisdom at all, but rather a license to treat others as dirt and deny them the very words they would use to express their suffering.
Sorry, but I'm uppity and not at all sorry about it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I personally dont have an opinion on this matter, but what I do want to comment on is this increasingly disturbing trend I see here on the forums. And its mainly this: If you express an opinion that is different than the current popular culture "one",
I will be as clear as I can, here: It is not okay to label a belief in equality as simply a product of current popular culture. Belief in the equality of all people, including those with sexual orientations that differ from your own, is the right belief to hold, in the purest sense of the word. It is not a fad. It is not a belief that we hold because celebrities hold it, or because it is popular. In fact, it was decidedly unpopular in most American circles until very recently, and we still held it. Popular culture has nothing to do with it, and the insistence that it does is simply an attempt by those who don't believe in equality to make it seem like that belief is somehow less than legitimate.
Stop doing it.
you immediately receive some ugly label like "bigot" or whatnot no matter how respectful or intelligently you voice your opinion.
There is no respectful or intelligent way to voice an opinion that a gay person is not your equal, and does not deserve to have his take on relationships represented in media.
If you find yourself getting called a bigot in this discussion, it's probably accurate.
Tolerance should apply to everyone, as long as their behavior is not harming anyone directly. A difference of opinion is the american way.
I don't tolerate the opinions of white supremacists. That might give them - or others - the impression that it's okay to hold that opinion. It's not. The same holds true for the opinions of homophobes.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I personally dont have an opinion on this matter, but what I do want to comment on is this increasingly disturbing trend I see here on the forums. And its mainly this: If you express an opinion that is different than the current popular culture "one", you immediately receive some ugly label like "bigot" or whatnot no matter how respectful or intelligently you voice your opinion.
Tolerance should apply to everyone, as long as their behavior is not harming anyone directly. A difference of opinion is the american way.
<snip>
Hmm, well that rant aside...how about a little more tolerance people? A little more love thy neighbor?
Being tolerant doesn't mean we have to tolerate that which should be intolerable. And you might want to recheck what you think seems to be the current popular cultural trend. Last I checked, at least 60% of the US states seemed to be quite comfortable with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
This isn't about expressing a harmless difference of opinion like "Paizo adventures shouldn't purple worms in them" or "I don't like peanut butter". The opinions not being tolerated are oriented toward keeping homosexuality in some shadowy closet of moral abnormality rather than out in the open and as moral and mundane as heterosexuality.
I'm all for loving my neighbor, but I won't do it if he's trying to keep people I care about on the fringes of society because of what they are and who they fall in love with.
You know what? I personally dont have an opinion on this matter, but what I do want to comment on is this increasingly disturbing trend I see here on the forums. And its mainly this: If you express an opinion that is different than the current popular culture "one", you immediately receive some ugly label like "bigot" or whatnot no matter how respectful or intelligently you voice your opinion.
Tolerance should apply to everyone, as long as their behavior is not harming anyone directly. A difference of opinion is the american way.
<snip>
Hmm, well that rant aside...how about a little more tolerance people? A little more love thy neighbor?Being tolerant doesn't mean we have to tolerate that which should be intolerable. And you might want to recheck what you think seems to be the current popular cultural trend. Last I checked, at least 60% of the US states seemed to be quite comfortable with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
This isn't about expressing a harmless difference of opinion like "Paizo adventures shouldn't purple worms in them" or "I don't like peanut butter". The opinions not being tolerated are oriented toward keeping homosexuality in some shadowy closet of moral abnormality rather than out in the open and as moral and mundane as heterosexuality.
I'm all for loving my neighbor, but I won't do it if he's trying to keep people I care about on the fringes of society because of what they are and who they fall in love with.
Agreed. No one should have to tolerate someone else's intolerance against a group of people. If there is some so-called agenda, it's that they just want to be treated like people.
| 4 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.
This post suggests that acceptance of anything but a heterosexual orientation is an "agenda", while ignorant prejudice against the same is some kind of natural state of being.
Where's the "unfavourite" button when you need it?
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?
I tend to treat surface elves in non-Tolkienesque settings as having reduced sexual dimorphism as compared to humans. Female elves are more likely to be warriors, on the other hand they are still the ones who bear children; you're not likely to be a nursing mother and a professional warrior at the same time. Typically either a female warrior won't ever marry or will retire from the warrior role when she marries or conceives.
With dark elves the females are bigger and stronger, but again they still bear the children. In their chaotic-evil society the result is that males, being expendable, are still commonly warriors, even though females have a strength advantage, but usually in relatively low-status positions and often with female leaders.
Anyway somebody up thread suggested this was off topic for a thread about homosexuality, and some of the responses were a bit depressing (but thanks for the good ones), so I'll leave it. I got some good ideas about Cheliaxan cultural norms, and I think "some women are as strong as men" is pretty immanent in most modern fantasy RPGs, so I'll likely use both.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I guess that makes us bisexuals the spy's of this dueling agenda's, for we literately sleep with the enemy. :)
Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
Ironically, I've had stories from my female 'bi-' friends that they get treated worse by the lesbians for being bi than the straight women treat them. YMMV of course.
I've heard of similar - basically that the bisexual-oriented person is really gay but maintaining a partially closeted life to avoid trouble with the homophobes or are just being wishy-washy. In effect, they catch trouble from elements of both sides of the sexual orientation. I'm not sure how widespread that problem is, though I personally know one person who has complained of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jessica, next time someone mentions women roles in ancient and medieval culture, just point to Olympias and Eurydice II, Joan of Arc and non-European cultures.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Agreed. No one should have to tolerate someone else's intolerance against a group of people. If there is some so-called agenda, it's that they just want to be treated like people.
Bull.
I'm intolerant of paedophiles.* Buggering little children is wrong, and I don't want them 'treated like people'. I'm intollerant against terrorists. I don't want to tolerate them, I've a vested interest in wanting them dead.
(And no, I'm not comparing homosexuals to either group. Don't even try that strawman).
Anyone who's read my FB page knows my stands on "Same Sex Marriage" (or just google "The_Livewire" and "Fred" on the Gaypatriot.net site) so I'm not going to go over that again.
Cory has every right to his opinion, as much as I disagree with it. He doesn't have a right (only Lisa and Vic do) to post on these message boards. Or to put it another way, "You have the freedom of speech, you do not have a right to my bullhorn."
And everyone has an agenda. Paizo wants to portray same sex couples as part of their universe, that's part of their 'agenda'. I want to live alone with a small dog, that's part of my 'agenda'. Defense of Marriage wants to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman, that's their 'agenda'.
It is easy, and lazy to demonize the 'other'. Not everyone who stands against you wants you destroyed, for example.
I appriciate Golarion's diversity. I also reserve the right to make any changes in the game to fit my audience. If that means removing the paracountess' toys, so be it. If that means changing Ezren to Ezra, so be it.
*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though I don't really think Golarion has overshot with female characters either.
I do think there could be more interesting/appealing male protagonist-friendly characters though, for those folks that may be a bit starved for them (sometimes just to interact with, and sometimes as potential love interests).
Golarion could use a few more female rulers who aren't crazy evil or in bed with teh debbil. All the world shaking non-evil mages (Old Mage Jatembe?, Nex, the alchemist in Thuvia) seem to be dudes, and the legendary magical mystery ladies are people like Baba Yaga, her current crop of kids, Abrogail Thrune, etc.
OTOH, I found the Forgotten Realms to feel almost misandrist at times, crawling with incredibly powerful and improbably hot female wizards and, later (when that class was invented), sorceresses. Women who were Chosen by the gods pretty much handled it fine, but men who were Chosen had a 50/50 chance of flipping out because they couldn't handle the power and ending up like Sammaster. Where men did lead it was in organizations like the Zhents, nations like Thay, or city-states like Mulmaster and Hillsfar, which all had 'evil' in common.
It seemed like almost every ruler of a nation was either an evil man or a good woman. (The rare exception, such as King Azoun of Cormyr, was bumped off, to complete the pattern.)
I doubt Ed Greenwood or James Jacobs or any setting designers sits down and thinks 'Let's make all the women good and all the men evil, or let's make most of the female rulers total villains and most of the history makers and legendary figures of note men!', but it seems like that sort of thing just happens as writers unintentionally draw from the same well and all the roles the different genders end up in look kind of lopsided.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion could use a few more female rulers who aren't crazy evil or in bed with teh debbil. All the world shaking non-evil mages (Old Mage Jatembe?, Nex, the alchemist in Thuvia) seem to be dudes, and the legendary magical mystery ladies are people like Baba Yaga, her current crop of kids, Abrogail Thrune, etc.
I'm going to make this brief, cause it isn't about Homosexuality in Golarion, but, recent popular representations aside, Baba Yaga isn't necessarily evil. She's . Attributing human/mortal morality to her is like attributing it to angels & dragons & other natural disasters. At certain points it just doesn't work.
That said, I totally agree with you that Golarion/Avistan could stand to have a few more notable/powerful Good caster-ladies.
|
|
Golarion could use a few more female rulers who aren't crazy evil or in bed with teh debbil. All the world shaking non-evil mages (Old Mage Jatembe?, Nex, the alchemist in Thuvia) seem to be dudes, and the legendary magical mystery ladies are people like Baba Yaga, her current crop of kids, Abrogail Thrune, etc.
I'm going to make this brief, cause it isn't about Homosexuality in Golarion, but, recent popular representations aside, Baba Yaga isn't necessarily evil. She's . Attributing human/mortal morality to her is like attributing it to angels & dragons & other natural disasters. At certain points it just doesn't work.
That said, I totally agree with you that Golarion/Avistan could stand to have a few more notable/powerful Good caster-ladies.
Whereas all the PCs patrons in the APs are hot females (CotCT, LoF, CoT, JR, S*)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah, what happened in here?
Anyway, Ms. Price, you're right. I am remembering Odysseus in war council mode now.
But I still have to ask: does anyone think Odysseus and Diomedes did it? I mean, it was ten years away from Penelope at that point. I think they did it.
No reason they wouldn't have. Fidelity wasn't one of the traits of the greco-roman heroes. Like, at all.
I mean, sure, Odysseus tied himself to the mast and what not to resist the sirens, but that was a shipwreck thing, not a fidelity thing, right?
That may have been an allegory for a fidelity thing...
Nah, that was a shipwreck thing.
Banging away at Circe while poor Penelope does her weaving...
Men!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Love thy neighbour" is an ironic thing to say here considering most of the time the people who get labelled with "bigot" are hating on other people for one reason or another (in this case, sexual preference).
Free speech is the right to say what you like, not the right to be free from criticism or taking responsibility for your words and beliefs.
I guess that is a subjec of the U.S. interpretation of free speech, where hatespeech, incitement of people are legal and defamation and mud-slinging a daily business. There are other parts on this planet where such stuff is illegal and you can be sued for it. Especially incitement of people and telling something defamating but untrue about others.
In old greece sexuality was a bit different. I can´t cite a proper source right now, but i studied latin and that stuff in school. (Old) men with young boys, young girls, some animals, their friends, enemies, their wives, their slaves, whoever. You drink, you get horny, you have fun. You feel lonely or sad, get comforted. Sexuality seems to have been a bit different in the pre-christian era. Since it was patrairchic, there probably have been some limitations on married women to not get pregnant by other men though ( i guess).
I actually like the paracountess, because in some ways she is a good reflex of the real world but at the same time completely fantastic. Normally it´s white men in that role and place living out their power-hunger and sexuality like there is no tomorrow, gay or not gay doesn´t really make a differend at that point.
Because i have to say, as the end of the white man has been announced lately, most of this stuff is not about gay or not gay, neither white men, but some (because of the curse of history primarily white men, but there are also some asian "yellow" and arabic and other colored men involved)men that are quite the jerks and only care about their personal power and advantage use stuff like this, prejudice and racism and whatever, to keep the rest busy and make their way to the top or stay there. The same can be said about some women lately and throughout history, like british queens or chinese ones for example.
Fun Post (@Doodlebug and Littlehewy) Hey, Penelope had it great compared to Dido!
Serious post (@Hayato Ken) I think your portrait of Greco-Roman sexual mores is dead on. It's worth remembering that the idea of sex as sin didn't really gain traction in Europe until the Christian church was established.
Medea and Clytemnestra! Deianira and Ariadne!
Clearly, being a chick in Ancient Greece mostly sucked.
Helen ended up okay though. She did always land on her feet, that strumpet!
|
|
No one is treating "the gays" like they are not people. There is a big jump between gay = inhuman and gay = untasteful/uncomfortable subject matter/right or wrong/etc. . . I personally do not care, but trying to hide behind the double standard that people that are against homosexuality are bigots means your (generic you) simple a hypoctite and just as intolrant of other's beliefs and views as you claim they are. It's a double edged sword you again generic you) want to try to use only for your benefit.
No one is treating "the gays" like they are not people. There is a big jump between gay = inhuman and gay = untasteful/uncomfortable subject matter/right or wrong/etc. . . I personally do not care, but trying to hide behind the double standard that people that are against homosexuality are bigots means your (generic you) simple a hypoctite and just as intolrant of other's beliefs and views as you claim they are. It's a double edged sword you again generic you) want to try to use only for your benefit.
I see your point there Devil, but when a person opines that Paizo products should not mention such subject matter, that person is using their personal tastes to limit the first amendment rights of others, rather than simply choosing what sort of product to buy.
That is, when you demand "the gays" aren't mentioned in mass media of any sort, that's treating them like they don't exist and thus, are not people.
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.
I question the existence of this "homosexual agenda". Seems odd that homophobes know all about it, but queers like me have never heard of it.
Are homophobes running a secret homosexual agenda...?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I see your point there Devil, but when a person opines that Paizo products should not mention such subject matter, that person is using their personal tastes to limit the first amendment rights of others, rather than simply choosing what sort of product to buy.
That is, when you demand "the gays" aren't mentioned in mass media of any sort, that's treating them like they don't exist and thus, are not people.
Hitdice,
I see it as you having it backwards. Cory's (a bit overdramatically) indicating that he *doesn't* want non-heterosexual relationships depticted in products he buys. That is exercising the right of free speech. Paizo is producing products that also demonstrate the exercise of free speech. If the Corys outnumber the Hitdice (or the Matthews who don't care) then nothing is stopping Paizo from still producing products that reflect their values.
Your analogy would be akin to saying that because they don't mention left handed people, lefties are being treated like we don't exist, and thus are not people.
The First Amendment prevents the Government from passing laws interfering with religion* or free speech or right to address the government for grievances. Not Cory, not Paizo, not me.
*
|
|
I see your point there Devil, but when a person opines that Paizo products should not mention such subject matter, that person is using their personal tastes to limit the first amendment rights of others, rather than simply choosing what sort of product to buy.
That is, when you demand "the gays" aren't mentioned in mass media of any sort, that's treating them like they don't exist and thus, are not people.
And the other side can say the exact same thing. It's not as simple as "don't like it, then don't look". I personally wouldn't want to read about a graphic rape, or see an element of beastiality or child sex. I guess that makes me a bigot, and I'd vocally condemn the idea of Paizo (as an example), including those things for tolerance. For some people, homosexuality is a similar concept. That doesn't make them wrong, or their opinions less valid or worth being heard. It's also a huge double standard because f we take your statement and switch it riht around to apply to the other side, I doubt it be held as tolerantly.
"when gays demand homosexuality is presented in mass media of any sort, that's treating those against homosexuality like they don't exist and thus, are not people."