|
For me, alignment isn't based off of actions - it's a metaphysical marker on a character's soul. While actions are a factor in how your soul is shaped before it passes on to the afterlife, I feel it's more the internal struggle of a character that determines their alignment. Case in point, if a character has unquestioned and unchallenged bigoted beliefs, those beliefs push the character into the evil spectrum of alignments. Now, there is a chance that the character has other redeeming qualitiesWhat does this mean, then, for the deluded or twisted individual who truly believes that what he is doing is for the greater good, even when it involves wholesale puppy slaughter? Is that person still evil if he commits evil acts? Or is he the victim of someone else's evil manipulation, and is himself blameless? Or somewhere in between?
I believe that in the case of the twisted individual that if they're committing objective evils - whether or not they believe they're doing good - then they're solidly an evil alignment. It's not because they're doing evil acts, it's because their essence is evil, despite their opinion of themselves.
If someone is being manipulated and believes they are doing genuinely good acts, I believe that sort of thing is permissible, with the caveat that if they learn the truth of the situation, they need to correct their errors to remain on the good side of things.
I recall JJ or SKR stating that evil was judged on actions. In this way, those who are a bit unbalanced and think they are doing good through their evil acts are still evil.
It's long been a bit of a mantra of mine that you can't control your thoughts, but you can control your actions. When someone does me wrong, sometimes I can't help but think nasty things about them. But so long as I hold those ideas in check and refuse to follow through because I know they're wrong, I'm being "good".
Sorry, I can't be bothered to look up likes to the comments I mentioned in my first paragraph.
The long and the short of it - I don't think bigots are evil unless they act in bigoted, oppressive ways.
Perhaps it could just be refluffed? Is it really just the name?
Note that they don't get bonuses because they hate, but because they've been taught to fight those enemies.
Change the name of the trait to something other than "Hatred". Change the text to say "against these ancient foes" or something and suddenly it's no longer racist.
I think you are missing the point. Paizo Publishing named it "Hatred". Paizo Publishing in the Core Rulebook created two playable races who possess prejudicial, if not down right racist, traits.
The mechanic of the trait targets a group of combatants BASED ON RACE.
AND you can still be a LAWFUL GOOD PALADIN and possess this RACIST trait according to the Core Rulebook. Thus the argument could be made that, according to Paizo Publishing's Core Rulebook of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, RACISM is NOT indicative of one's ALIGNMENT and that PREJUDICES has NO PENALTY towards one's ALIGNMENT.
If you were trained to fight a particular foe based on race in the real world, you would be called a racist.
I assume, that if you were trained to fight a particular foe based on race on Golarion, you would be called a racist too.
However, it appears that being a racist or a bigot does not make you EVIL on Golarion.
Thus, the argument could be made that hatred of any kind would likewise have no effect on alignment according to the Core Rulebook.
Furthermore, it is justifiable, according to the mechanics of the game, that Titus Scarnetti could be both Lawful Neutral and Homophobic because hatred, in this case sexually based hatred, has no correlation with alignment.
The long and the short of it - I don't think bigots are evil unless they act in bigoted, oppressive ways.
I think I have a pretty good argument that you can act bigoted and still not be evil. Its posted above. ^^^
The long and the short of it - I don't think bigots are evil unless they act in bigoted, oppressive ways.I think I have a pretty good argument that you can act bigoted and still not be evil. Its posted above. ^^^
Yah, ok, how about: I don't think bigots are evil in evil ways :)
Developer
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, I don't need sexuality mucking up my D&D or Pathfinder fun. It's not supposed to be part of the game. I must say that I am extremely disturbed about this little tidbit about Sandpoint. They make the one guy that isn't okay with the homosexual couple evil? That truly is bigoted. Yes, let's villify everyone that has moral objections to homosexuality. That sort of thing definitely has no place in Pathfinder.
Every NPC, whether called out or not, has a sexuality. Just as in real life everyone has one. We tend not to mention it unless it's pertinent to the story, however, in the same way we don't mention an NPC's gender or ethnicity unless it matters (ever notice that most guards or thugs are just human warriors and not male Garundi warriors?).
You don't actually have a problem with "sexuality" mucking things up, though, because when we say Sir Canayven Heidmarch and Sheila Heidmarch are a husband and wife venture-captain team, we've mentioned both of their sexualities (assuming neither of them is closeted or a beard). What you really mean when you say sexuality doesn't have a place in your games is that *homo*sexuality doesn't have a place in your games. Which you've said before. And which we've said isn't going to change in our products.
I'm starting to think your presence on this thread is more trolling than actually hoping Paizo changes our stance on inclusiveness and diversity (which we won't).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, Paizo get's all my respect for how they are handling these situations and personalities.
You don't actually have a problem with "sexuality" mucking things up, though, because when we say Sir Canayven Heidmarch and Sheila Heidmarch are a husband and wife venture-captain team, we've mentioned both of their sexualities (assuming neither of them is closeted or a beard).
Heh heh. Last time I was in Sandpoint, I did it with the daughter of the innkeeper, that sexy minx.
Yah, ok, how about: I don't think bigots are evil in evil ways :)The long and the short of it - I don't think bigots are evil unless they act in bigoted, oppressive ways.I think I have a pretty good argument that you can act bigoted and still not be evil. Its posted above. ^^^
Hmmm stupid phone.
What I meant to say was: I don't think bigots are evil unless they act in evil ways...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the off-topic hate thing, I don't thinking hating a particular species/race/religion is evil. If I, the real me, was in-game, I'm pretty sure I'd be okay with kill-on-sight for drow, evil-outsider, worshipers of Lamashtu, orcs, chromatic dragons, and host of other beings. Hatred may not be the most positive thing, but when it comes to demon worshippers... Maybe we can ask questions later?
As for the original, and later, posts, I don't get what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of people described in various paizo products whose actions, or existence, various people find objectionable. Murderers, adulators, fornicators(Oh my do we have those), thieves, bankers, lawyers, religious zealots, non-religious zealots, women, men, children(Evil!) etc. etc. and so forth. Kind of like how life is, yes? Isn't that the point, yes?
Honestly, my main objection to Korvaski and Drokkus is that the LG paladin of Abadar isn't married or working on it! For goodness sake, you're a paladin! If I don't see a ring on that finger soon... there will be words.
|
|
I recall JJ or SKR stating that evil was judged on actions. In this way, those who are a bit unbalanced and think they are doing good through their evil acts are still evil.
I have a hard time condemning people to the domain of evil because of a mental illness that may affect their actions. If I disagree with the developers on this point, I can accept that.
It's long been a bit of a mantra of mine that you can't control your thoughts, but you can control your actions.
Isn't it a fundamental ability of sentient creatures to analyze and change one's thoughts? (as an aside, I'm still not sold on the dichotomy of thought and action)
|
Then the bulk of humans are evil for using the law to control and punish others. I suppose you have never advocated a law that others might find punitive or unfair.....That gets into the matter of alignment and thoughtcrime. The way I run games only actions determine alignment not bad thoughts. If an npc is incredibly homophobic and displays it by trying to ruin the lives of a gay couple (using the sandpoint example) that would constitute an evil act.The Sandpoint example really isn't one (the character in question is LN, and isn't actively trying to ruin their lives as far as we know).
I agree with the idea that evil impulses kept in check by self-control (of whatever kind) can stave off an Evil alignment. What about someone who exercises political (formal or informal) action to oppress homosexuality? If the Scarnetti family wields its (not insignificant, I'd wager) informal political muscle in Sandpoint to prevent a homosexual couple from being able to express their love in the same manner as a heterosexual couple, is that an evil act?
There is a difference between laws which exist to better society, protect individual rights, and to punish those who would act against those interests, and laws which exist to oppress the rights of a group of individuals for the self-interested gain of a few.
You get that, right? This is setting off some warning bells in my head about how you see society as a whole.
This holds true in Pathfinder as well. There's a reason that both Lawful Good and Lawful Evil are valid alignments. The purpose and mechanism by which laws are implemented and executed can reflect the intentions of those who craft them.
Either way, however, I was explicitly calling out the Scarnetti family's informal political power, which means I wasn't talking about actual laws at all.
And of course you get that one persons "better" society is another persons atrocity (look at past "progress" in germany and russia) LN is also valid, as in laws to be ORDER without regard to good and evil. not everything is either good OR evil. Clinging to traditions just to resist change as many "bigots" do is more LN than anything as they fear a loss of order.
|
|
I recall JJ or SKR stating that evil was judged on actions. In this way, those who are a bit unbalanced and think they are doing good through their evil acts are still evil.I have a hard time condemning people to the domain of evil because of a mental illness that may affect their actions. If I disagree with the developers on this point, I can accept that.
It's long been a bit of a mantra of mine that you can't control your thoughts, but you can control your actions.Isn't it a fundamental ability of sentient creatures to analyze and change one's thoughts? (as an aside, I'm still not sold on the dichotomy of thought and action)
I do heroic acts in asmodius name, to further my own ego and esteem of others, to bring power that i might serve him better. Good as any paladin. makes no sense
As far as i know there can be no paladins of evil godesses. So maybe it´s supposed to be a joke. With the introduction of the inquisitor the pov of paladins has changed anyway because you now have a class that does what paladins often supposedly did (hunting heretics, exiles, etc.). Paladins can now focus on being good (even in a jerkish way).
Asmodeus probably likes gay men if he is misogynist, because that way he can show women they are only needed for reproduction and maybe low housekeeping services or such. Devilish, devilish. But wait, what about that beloved sweet seducers of hell? Or were that demons? And all the devil-worshipping witches?
For the off-topic hate thing, I don't thinking hating a particular species/race/religion is evil. If I, the real me, was in-game, I'm pretty sure I'd be okay with kill-on-sight for drow, evil-outsider, worshipers of Lamashtu, orcs, chromatic dragons, and host of other beings. Hatred may not be the most positive thing, but when it comes to demon worshippers... Maybe we can ask questions later?
As for the original, and later, posts, I don't get what all the fuss is about. There are plenty of people described in various paizo products whose actions, or existence, various people find objectionable. Murderers, adulators, fornicators(Oh my do we have those), thieves, bankers, lawyers, religious zealots, non-religious zealots, women, men, children(Evil!) etc. etc. and so forth. Kind of like how life is, yes? Isn't that the point, yes?
Honestly, my main objection to Korvaski and Drokkus is that the LG paladin of Abadar isn't married or working on it! For goodness sake, you're a paladin! If I don't see a ring on that finger soon... there will be words.
As an aside, I chuckled a bit when I saw bankers and lawyer in that list ;).
And of course you get that one persons "better" society is another persons atrocity
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, here.
Isn't it a fundamental ability of sentient creatures to analyze and change one's thoughts? (as an aside, I'm still not sold on the dichotomy of thought and action)
Your long-term mantra does not correspond with objective reality. I'm not going to offer a definition of sentience, but whatever it is, 'analyze and change one's thoughts' isn't it.
Thought experiment.
- Assumption: persons are sentient.
- Ask person if something (pick your something. I'll go with the ever-useful invisible pink unicorn exists.
- For purposes of the thought exercise, we'll assume the answer is 'no'. (the opposite case proceeds along similar lines and is left as an exercise for the reader).
- Ask the person to analyze and change her thoughts so that she now believes such a thing exists. Allow as much time as the person wants.
- Ask the person if that thing exists.
- What do YOU believe that person's answer will be?
- Can YOU believe otherwise?
Tons Of Joy --
MI
|
Just stop. You've been told multiple times to knock off...Exactly, I don't need sexuality mucking up my D&D or Pathfinder fun. It's not supposed to be part of the game. I must say that I am extremely disturbed about this little tidbit about Sandpoint. They make the one guy that isn't okay with the homosexual couple evil? That truly is bigoted. Yes, let's villify everyone that has moral objections to homosexuality. That sort of thing definitely has no place in Pathfinder.What is it about the mere mention of a non-hetero attraction between two consenting adults that somehow crosses the line into being harmful to impressionable players/readers? Yeah, it's your home game, do what you want... but why are LGBT people automatically censored in it?
I believe it's to do with our very existence being objectionable, a regrettable fact that they prefer not to be reminded of in their fun time reading. Of course calling it an agenda is a way to stigmatize and vilify: We act from carefully-considered principles; They have the agenda.
There are certainly things I don't want in my fun time reading, but I can't say that I always want it purged of, say, homophobes. A setting where nobody ever objects to LGBT people is very nearly as bizarre and impossible to relate to (if in a more positive way) than one where LGBT people simply don't exist. It's nice for an occasional break, of course.
But really I think Paizo did a great job way back in the original Sandpoint write-up. There's a closeted gay couple that everyone in town knows about and nobody cares except one guy that has an E in his abbreviated alignment. It strains my credulity a lot that a somewhat isolated small town (like the one I live in) is that broad-minded, but I'm willing to spot that as Sandpoint is meant to endear itself to the players and it comes from a world that does not have the same obsessive sexual hangups that ours has so often suffered.
Not once did I advocate violence against someone or depriving people of their rights. I simply do not think that putting gay npcs in Pathfinder products to promote some personal beliefs about homosexuality that the developers personally have is appropriate. After all, no one would bat an eye or care (even the most staunch pro-gay supporters) if there were no gay npcs in their products, so why do otherwise? On a striclty pragmatic level, no one is going to refuse to buy Paizo products if they don't have gay npc randomly inserted into them, but you better believe some parents will not allow their children to buy or play Rise of the Runelords if they are aware of the gay couple in Sandpoint because they don't want their kids exposed to that. Before I leave this thread for good, I'd like to point out that the only ones spouting hate and practicing bigotryin this thread are the supposed "tolerant" pro-gay warriors. Look at yourselves before you judge others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cory -- you were told to take it elsewhere. If you want to argue about whether homosexuality should be illegal/kept from children/etc. please take it to the off-topic forum.
|
|
Isn't it a fundamental ability of sentient creatures to analyze and change one's thoughts? (as an aside, I'm still not sold on the dichotomy of thought and action)Your long-term mantra does not correspond with objective reality. I'm not going to offer a definition of sentience, but whatever it is, 'analyze and change one's thoughts' isn't it.
Thought experiment.
- Assumption: persons are sentient.
- Ask person if something (pick your something. I'll go with the ever-useful invisible pink unicorn exists.
- For purposes of the thought exercise, we'll assume the answer is 'no'. (the opposite case proceeds along similar lines and is left as an exercise for the reader).
- Ask the person to analyze and change her thoughts so that she now believes such a thing exists. Allow as much time as the person wants.
- Ask the person if that thing exists.
- What do YOU believe that person's answer will be?
- Can YOU believe otherwise?
Tons Of Joy --
MI
I don't think there's a conflict between my proposal and objective reality. People can and do, on a regular basis, change fundamental beliefs. Theists become atheists, and visa versa.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cory this thread was started in large part to thank Paizo for being inclusive. I would daresay if they weren't as inclusive there may be some who wouldn't feel inclined to buy their products.
At the risk of sounding crude the days of hiding in the closet are way over, even in tabletop gaming. One of my buds that I used to play with was gay, so I for one am happy that the game includes more variety and ways for him to feel welcome at my table.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Cory this thread was started in large part to thank Paizo for being inclusive. I would daresay if they weren't as inclusive there may be some who wouldn't feel inclined to buy their products.
At the risk of sounding crude the days of hiding in the closet are way over, even in tabletop gaming. One of my buds that I used to play with was gay, so I for one am happy that the game includes more variety and ways for him to feel welcome at my table.
Aaron, try to keep to the topic please.
Hmm, was thinking with People of the North, I'd guess homosexuality is well accpeted among the nobility of Irrisen. I do wonder if with the Mammoth Kings it might be seen like some of the real world Pashtun views. The guy 'on top' isn't seen as gay.
Good point Matthew, I can see a number of cultures that would take the 'only gay if below' view.
Something I'm curious about, how do the Kelesh nations feel about the issue? Since men are rather second class, perhaps it is like ancient Greece, you may need a man for children, but true love can only, or most easily, be found with a woman? Is it positive, negative?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
After all, no one would bat an eye or care (even the most staunch pro-gay supporters) if there were no gay npcs in their products, so why do otherwise?
Being myself a gay man, I'd say I'm a pretty staunch pro-gay dude. My healthy opinion of myself is doubtless on display in many posts on these boards. So I must be no one, because I would cease buying products from a company I knew had a policy of excluding gay characters. As a matter of fact, I've given serious thought to dropping a novel series that I otherwise quite like as it has swelled and the absence of gay characters has become more and more grating.
I did, however, start buying Paizo stuff much more frequently when I learned that they not only lacked such a policy but had a commitment to inclusiveness. That they do so so well is testimony to the fact that they're not just putting up a PR flag either. That's the kind of company I want to support.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I leave this thread for good, I'd like to point out that the only ones spouting hate and practicing bigotryin this thread are the supposed "tolerant" pro-gay warriors. Look at yourselves before you judge others.
Oh man I really hope you start up a thread in Off Topic. It would be like waking up to Christmas.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo did not have a policy of inclusiveness, and another RPG publisher in the same genre did, I would probably focus on the products from that publisher instead. I am a parent with kids as young as 7 who play RPGs and I would not hesitate to talk about a same-sex couple in GMing a game if it were in the adventure I had chosen to run. In fact some of the adventures I've played have included that kind of thing already. It wasn't anything sexual, just the equivalent of "the mayor is named Bob and his husband is named Mike" or something. And they didn't bat an eye, as we've raised them to understand there are all sorts of valid relationship models.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before I leave this thread for good, I'd like to point out that the only ones spouting hate and practicing bigotryin this thread are the supposed "tolerant" pro-gay warriors. Look at yourselves before you judge others.Oh man I really hope you start up a thread in Off Topic. It would be like waking up to Christmas.
Oh Scott, sometimes you are the wind beneath my wings. :)
And I am so beside myself that I'm surrounded by myself, like a mirror image spell gone horribly, horribly wrong, that any parent would allow their kids to play a game with *demons and devils in it* (and rules for what sorts of kewl powers / bennies you can get by selling your soul in a devil pact or making blasphemous obeisances to various demon lords), where spells like animate dead and trap the soul and magic jar and death knell exist, where the entire premise of advancement is based on *endless killing rampages make you more powerful,* where you can have your character worship one of dozens of made-up gods, some of them terribly evil, and then have some sort of moral problem with two dudes in a 'blink and you missed it' passage in one book having a secret love affair that's not relevant to the plot and could be entirely missed by someone not looking for it.
That's a really weird straw to be breaking the camel's back...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm not certain which book you guys are talking about, exactly, but in the Rise of the Runelords game Set and I played in, there was a scene where a hawt chick tries to do it with one of the PCs.
Where's the outrage about heterosexuality in Paizo products?
Btw, I was only able to perform some cunnilingus on her before her pops showed up.
Goblins do it in the basement!
Goblins do it in the basement!
I hear he likes to watch...
On a totally separate note, am I the only one who read this quote on Coretyn from Cities of Golarion:
Archheathen Kettermaul Charthagnion (NE male human aristocrat 5/fighter 2) is the current lord, a handsome, muscular, dark-haired man...
Kettermaul is frequently accompanied by his gelugon advisor, Oronothos, in public. The two have adjoining offices in the Archheathen's Manor, one of a cluster of government buildings overlooking the harbor. The Archheathen is an excellent dancer, and never misses an opportunity to attend noble balls on the social calendar, although he finds most noble pursuits wearisome. These dances are also the only occasions he is seen with his wife, Iridelia (NE female human aristocrat 4). Theirs is a political marriage; they sleep in separate rooms, often with separate lovers.
To mean that Kettermaul is a little more than a friend to Oronothos? In my game, I played up a big political scandal where the Tellers of Tales caught on that the two had an affair and were spreading the information around the city.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yeah, I'm not certain which book you guys are talking about, exactly, but in the Rise of the Runelords game Set and I played in, there was a scene where a hawt chick tries to do it with one of the PCs.
Where's the outrage about heterosexuality in Paizo products?
Btw, I was only able to perform some cunnilingus on her before her pops showed up.
Goblins do it in the basement!
I touched on Shameless, er Shayless already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I touched on Shameless, er Shayless already.
You might have touched her, but I got in her pants!
Goblins do it in the basement!
(Also, Shayless was a good girl. Trash talk her again and we'll have to step outside!)
Goblins do it in the basement!
I wish I could favorite this, too, but our game didn't get very far before the DM quit. :(
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just spent a majority of my evening reading this 5 year retrospective on queer Pathfinder. I can't tell you how happy the Paizo staff responses have made me. It is these kind of things that make me buy more of their products than anyone else's.
Also, Samnell, I congratulate you on sticking with the thread for all these years. I think I'm your mini- fanboy.
I would love to see some sort of product in the future promoted as a queeRPG experience.
Also where is Shayliss(Shayless?) in RotR? I might be playing in it and I really want to mess with the GM.
Shayless ?Venter?, I can't recall the familial, is one of the daughters of one of the town merchants & she may be Sandpoint's Second worst kept secret after the gay couple. As written, she almost gives kind of a 'town bicycle' kind of vibe...
But that could just be my filthy imagination. She is a 'consequence' of the PC's actions in the initial Goblin attack that opens up 'Burnt Offerings'. Basically, she flirts, hard with one of the PC's with the highest Cha. How the PC in question responds can have an effect on their standing in the town & later may have contributed to how that PC handles a dungeon later on in the AP, but she is mostly kind of a bit character to help with flavoring & connecting Sandpoint with the PC's.
That said, I think more PC's have interacted with her than with the gay couple. Which is kind of personally disappointing now that I think about it. Really hoping my GM brings them to my PC's attention as possible mentor's/we've been where you are, we're here for you for my Paladin PC.
I just spent a majority of my evening reading this 5 year retrospective on queer Pathfinder. I can't tell you how happy the Paizo staff responses have made me. It is these kind of things that make me buy more of their products than anyone else's.
Also, Samnell, I congratulate you on sticking with the thread for all these years. I think I'm your mini- fanboy.
I would love to see some sort of product in the future promoted as a queeRPG experience.
Eh, I come and go.
I haven't read it myself, but you might like Blue Rose.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Irrik,
I didn't read it as 'town bicycle' vibe, I read it more as 'Jan Brady' vibe. Her older sister Marsh- Katrine is getting the majority of daddy's attention because she's (allegedly) rutting with one of the loggers, and Katrine figures 'bagging' a hero will get her dad's attention back.
Being called a 'trouble seeker' might lend to the 'bicycle' image though. I read it as a bit of sibling rivalry. Basically she keeps doing things to get her father's attention.
|
|
What exactly would be a 'queeRPG' experience? It just seems like making a book that would be a 'Left handed RPG experience' to me. i.e. something that is made *just* to make it.
Potentially something that is similar to what this thread was attempting to do in the first place: A companion book that celebrated diversity and looked into the backgrounds of political and social oppression and revolution in Golarion. Possibly something like "A Sociologist's Guide to Golarion" that is designed to help players get a better understanding of their character background if they're interested in playing a more diverse role (I'm sure this product would tie in well with the upcoming hardcover Ultimate Campaign).
And, isn't making something just to make it a great reason? Why not use your position to promote diversity?
(As an aside: I understand the complications of actually advertising something as a queeRPG, but I would still love to see what I just proposed as a Player Companion).
And, isn't making something just to make it a great reason? Why not use your position to promote diversity?
Personally & ethically, I can agree with you. From a business perspective, the folks at Paizo have to be as sure as they can that any product they provide has a customer base broad enough to be profitable.
That said, they have already shown themselves to be willing and capable of generating product that manages to be both fair value & profitable, and manage to provide the kind of character insight you are alluding to. So if anyone could pull off something on the order of 'Sexuality of Golarion', only without the brown paper wrapper or the incredibly dry technical prose, it would be these guys.@Samnell: I have read 'Blue Rose' & I rather liked it. Granted, as an 'old school' white, heterosexual, male gamer I found some of the premise a smidge jarring at first, but it is good to be reminded that not everyone is exactly like you, especially when you are the beneficiary of a great deal of unconscious privilege.
Aaaand this post is at best only bordering on the original topic, so here is where I am ending it.
|
|
Hmm, was thinking with People of the North, I'd guess homosexuality is well accpeted among the nobility of Irrisen. I do wonder if with the Mammoth Kings it might be seen like some of the real world Pashtun views. The guy 'on top' isn't seen as gay.
Slowly putting a megapost of NPCs for the thread for folks of other stripes that still feel lacking for positive representation(transgendered folks, bisexual folks, poly folks, D/s folks, various combinations of, etc.) That post just pushed "Mammoth Lord gay hunter couple from "considered" to "go", along with some tweaking on how their relationship is seen in their tribe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What goes on between a hunter and his mammoth is nobody's business.
It gets mighty cold and lonely, up there in the northlands, s'all I'm sayin.'
I both love you and hate you at the same time.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a gay man, who recently ran The Midnight Mauler for Pathfinder Society, I would like to thank Paizo for their tasteful inclusion of the characters. There was no sarcasm, no offensive stereotypes, nothing that at all made me feel the story was cheapened or that my existence was a punchline. The story was focused on a lover's quarrel, and those lovers happened to be dudes. The story would have worked just as well if they were hetero, but the fact that they weren't didn't detract, or make it seem unbelievable. It was just.... there. My players accepted it and just went on with it.
All too often, I see companies express their "tolerance" of my demographic by including hot lesbians making out, or having the gay male be a bard, or a coward, or something equally as effiminent and demeaning. I read the scenario 3 times because I couldn't believe it at first. I was proud to see the characters in the scenario feel like legitimate characters, and not shock value or pandering.
Thanks Paizo.