Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

101 to 150 of 5,778 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it. The previous poster claimed that he has a gay mentor, who is precious to him, but that he cannot condone the man's sexuality? WTF? I will not post on this thread again. Just know that there are people out there who find your twisted Judeo-Christian take on human potential as perverse and twisted as you seem to hold gays to be. I have more gay friends than Christian friends. They are just far more pleasant to be around.

As opposed to the intolerance and bigotry that seem to accompany secular philosophy? Oh yes, that is so much better. You object to someone who cannot condone someone else's sexuality, but you seem to have worse issues condoning your "Christian" friends' faith. You should take a good long stare into the abyss because it most definitely has looked back into you and smirked a hello at its reflection.

Just because you should tolerate something does not mean you have to approve it, support it, or promote it. Nor is is necessary to tolerate everything and anything in a spirit of universal acceptance, particularly when you have no demonstrate such little toleration of religion and religious people when it comes time for you to be accepting.


KinightErrant,

My wife is religious (Catholic) and I have a lot of friends who are also, to varying degrees, and I also find many of the generalizations about religious people to be disturbing.

I do believe in God but organized religion (ok that's all religion) really bothers me. I would probably abhor religion entirely were it not for the fact that I have a lot of respect for the religious individuals in my life.

Whatever I say about religion in general is certainly not meant as an attack on you personally or people in on all people in religious organizations. I've read a lot of your posts and always come away feeling like you are a decent guy.

=)


So much for no flame war. I'd like to see this whole thread suppressed. I should have known that it was inevitable that someone would blame religion (in particular Judeo/Christian religion) for intolerance.

Intolerance is not soley the intellectual property of religious conservatives. In face, liberal intolerance is far more dangerous since it is given a glossy coat of respectability by its proponents.

All forms of idealism and philosophy have given rise to those who are intolerant of any form of competing or contradictory viewpoint.

Final note: it is perfectly possible to believe in and practice Biblical Christian values and play D&D. Much like Christians can play Monopoly, Stratego, or whatever.

D&D is a game. Ultimately it contains what you want it to. D&D itself is just rules to play. All settings and what they contain are purely optional.

Play the way you want. Just play nice.


Kruelaid wrote:

KinightErrant,

My wife is religious (Catholic) and I have a lot of friends who are also, to varying degrees, and I also find many of the generalizations about religious people to be disturbing.

I do believe in God but organized religion (ok that's all religion) really bothers me. I would probably abhor religion entirely were it not for the fact that I have a lot of respect for the religious individuals in my life.

Whatever I say about religion in general is certainly not meant as an attack on you personally or people in religious organizations. I've read a lot of your posts and always come away feeling like you are a decent guy.

=)

I try to be, and I appreciate the sentiment. I'm not always the best example of a human being, let alone a Catholic, though I try, but I hate to see people that I know that are incredibly selfless, truly good people, that have dedicated their lives to nothing more than helping other people, and I feel bad to think about them getting painted with a broad brush.

I really do appreciate the sentiment, though, and I'm just more worried that (and its a failing in myself here), that someone I really respect will say something really off the wall that goes further than they intend it too, and I'll have a hard time telling myself that its probably not what they really meant.


This quote is long past, but...

James Jacobs wrote:
...I view your views on this subject as outright disgusting as well. If it's that big of a deal to you, you should vote with your wallet....

James, you rule.

(BTW, for context, what JJ wrote was directed at a virulently homophobic post.)


Riese wrote:
I know it's a homebrew campaign that I am in and all but I'm gay. Shhh! I don't think my DM knows yet! He keeps tossing cute ladies at me to see if I go for them.

Hee hee! Iron Rabbit S*!# is girly-boy!

That was in character, before anyone gets upset.


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:


All forms of idealism and philosophy have given rise to those who are intolerant of any form of competing or contradictory viewpoint.

Not Banjoism . . . at least not Orthodox Banjoism . . . those other Banjoists are just dangerous fanatics that should be purged from the known universe . . .

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:

HMMM I guess i am homophobic. Not a crime i guess. In todays enlightened society it seems hip to ridicule anyone with any kind of moral center or religious belief. And homosexuality is so mainstream now it is as if it is the "in" thing all of the sudden. Invading even the most innocuous of arena's, Dungeons and Dragons.

Don't get it twisted though. I am not here to judge anyone. But pardon me if i don't bow and scrape to the politically correct crowd. It is the beauty of democracy, that you can give your opinion, i can give mine and armed storm troopers won't hunt either of us down and take us to task for it.
I do apologise for invading this rather disturbing thread,and if any one person was offended by anything i may have said, i apologise for that as well. On a parting note ,if there is room in PFRPG for a gay iconic, there has to be room for psionics as well. And for the record i do not condone the mistreatment of gays or psions in any way shape form or manner. Thank you.

I get where you're coming from. I can honestly say that I'm a little bit homophobic. and a tiny bit racist. And, I also have a deep, deep distaste for religion. And there's reasons for it;

all the Hispanic dudes I've ever met were meat-headed a*&~#*@s hopped up on their own ego. They made my time in high school that much more unpleasant. I was shoved, mocked, and actualy spit at, just for being "that quiet kid who reads alot". I certainly dont hate hispanic people, just those particular guys, but I cant say that knowing them didnt affect me, and my unconscious opinion of hispanic people in general.

religion started to bug me around middle school, when I heard about things like book burnings (a deep stab at my heart). and then I dug deeper, and found more and more horrible things, all the while learning more and more about science, and eventualy decided "Well, thats it. Those churchy folks have got it wrong, and I'm damn well not going to let them interfere with the way my life, my education system, and my country is run."

as for the sleight homophobia: it comes from living in a small wisconsin town, and never actually knowing firsthand any gay people (that I knew of, anyway). Also certain portrayals in the media have rather grated on me (the partying e-crowd). But, that's just media portrayal, so it's really just ignorance. I dont consider homosexuality to be unholy or anything, I'm just not crazy about it. I dont wayt to get in the way of anybody's happiness, but I kind of wish that the gays were a little less noisy. "you like men, I get it!" But, from a political perspective, I'm all for things like gay marriage, given the people who are pissed off about it ;)

And, I have no patience for the current idea that being a minority automatically makes someone A) morally superior, B)a victim of the white majority, C) right, D) immune to any criticism, and E) more deserving than someone else of equal ability.

The movement of political correctness is, I feel, constrictive and anti-critical. I'm tired of saying factually defensible statements and being shushed down for being "culturally insensitive." You know what? Alot of gay people have aids. You know what? "gangsta" culture is really, really stupid. like, real stupid. I mean, sideways guns? Now, arguments arent based on facts, but on who might be offended. As a great fan of argument, I call shenanigans on that.

The reason I'm saying all this is to give perspective that just because someone isnt a wholehearted liberal fan of homosexuality doesnt mean they're a evil, republican, religious bigot incapable of empathy or independent thought.

As for gay NPCs and pre-gen characters in Pathfinder, which is the point of all this, I'm perfectly fine with it. Obviously, however, there's no need to go overboard.

All people are people, first and foremost.


KnightErrantJR wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:


All forms of idealism and philosophy have given rise to those who are intolerant of any form of competing or contradictory viewpoint.

Not Banjoism . . . at least not Orthodox Banjoism . . . those other Banjoists are just dangerous fanatics that should be purged from the known universe . . .

Heh. Well, clearly Orcodox Banjoism is just a cult.


<==== Gay Christian Equine


Dead Horse wrote:
<==== Gay Christian Equine

What?


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Heh. Well, clearly Orcodox Banjoism is just a cult.

Heretic! Next you'll say that smurfs have souls!


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Dead Horse wrote:
<==== Gay Christian Equine
What?

It says I'm a gay Christian equine...

:|

Please do not hurt me sir.


No...THEY just have moxy.

Heh...no avatar change for me! ;p


As opposed to the intolerance and bigotry that seem to accompany secular philosophy? Oh yes, that is so much better. You object to someone who cannot condone someone else's sexuality, but you seem to have worse issues condoning your "Christian" friends' faith. You should take a good long stare into the abyss because it most definitely has looked back into you and smirked a hello at its reflection.
Just because you should tolerate something does not mean you have to approve it, support it, or promote it. Nor is is necessary to tolerate everything and anything in a spirit of universal acceptance, particularly when you have no demonstrate such little toleration of religion and religious people when it comes time for you to be accepting.

I for one am not intolerant of religous people. I think they are misguided, but I don't try to have legal sanctions put into place against them, or get them fired, or blacklisted. Nor do I advocate beating them up, imprisoning them, or explicitly making their lifestyle illegal. A little reseach will uncover all of these things (and more) being done to homosexuals, almost *always* in the name of religion.

In my experience, direct and otherwise, most intolerance has its genesis in religion. Feel free to disagree all you like, but history is not on your side. Pointing this out does not make me a bigot.


Jodah wrote:

The movement of political correctness is, I feel, constrictive and anti-critical. I'm tired of saying factually defensible statements and being shushed down for being "culturally insensitive." You know what? Alot of gay people have aids. You know what? "gangsta" culture is really, really stupid. like, real stupid. I mean, sideways guns? Now, arguments arent based on facts, but on who might be offended. As a great fan of argument, I call shenanigans on that.

Psst... a lot MORE straight people have AIDS than gay people and a lot more gay people don't have AIDS than do. Just so you know...


Further down the spiral we go. Somebody should apologize to the OP for the complete derail of his topic.

Most intolerance comes out of excessive zeal -whether it be religious or some other form of idealism.


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
So much for no flame war. I'd like to see this whole thread suppressed.

I'd second this. This thread has turned into a disaster. The OP has not had his question answered at all.

If you don't like something, don't buy the product. No one cares if you don't like gay people or if you don't like religion. You're arguing about matters of opinion on the freaking internet. I can't think of anything more pointless.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

I particularly appreciate the diversity of characters found in Golarion. A few relationships are stereotypical, but stereotypes happen in real life, too.

I prefer that the characters' sex lives aren't such a significant part of the plot that I can't tone down the scenario's "hot button issues" before I run my wife and children through it. So far, I haven't been disappointed in this: Mr. Jacobs has done an excellent job of editing.

Some of the comments in this thread concern me, however. We all may have some strong opinions, but we should try to respect the opinions of others. (I'm trying, too. I'm no paragon.)

I am a Christian. I'm often not a GOOD one, but I'm trying to be better. It saddens me that Christianity is so often associated with the worst excesses of the narrow-minded and ignorant. That isn't my experience of Christians; in fact, I've found Christians to be fairly accepting.

It concerns me that one of the people I game with is a devout Catholic, yet for years I didn't know that. He knew what baggage his beliefs carried among some gaming circles.


I agree that this thread needs a "buh-bye," but honestly, I think the original poster has had his question answered perfectly.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Jodah wrote:

The movement of political correctness is, I feel, constrictive and anti-critical. I'm tired of saying factually defensible statements and being shushed down for being "culturally insensitive." You know what? Alot of gay people have aids. You know what? "gangsta" culture is really, really stupid. like, real stupid. I mean, sideways guns? Now, arguments arent based on facts, but on who might be offended. As a great fan of argument, I call shenanigans on that.

Psst... a lot MORE straight people have AIDS than gay people and a lot more gay people don't have AIDS than do. Just so you know...

Ooops. Damn, I've been hit by a stupid-stick. should have done the research instead of going off of high-school health class bias.

researching....

I amend my previous post. Shutting up, now. I need to avoid posting on topics like this; I often wind up putting my foot in my mouth.


bugleyman wrote:

I for one am not intolerant of religous people. I think they are misguided, but I don't try to have legal sanctions put into place against them, or get them fired, or blacklisted. Nor do I advocate beating them up, imprisoning them, or explicitly making their lifestyle illegal. A little reseach will uncover all of these things (and more) being done to homosexuals, almost *always* in the name of religion.

In my experience, direct and otherwise, most intolerance has its genesis in religion. Feel free to disagree all you like, but history is not on your side. Pointing this out does not make me a bigot.

In 1933 Joseph Stalin, not particularly a fan of religion, made homosexuality illegal in the Soviet Union, something which stayed in place until the USSR collapsed in the nineties.

Homosexuals were also considered potential enemies of the state in Nazi Germany as well. Again, based on the secular idea that they weren't ideal human beings.

During the Communist Revolution in China, homosexuality was made illegal as well.

Ayn Rand, while conservative, was a staunch atheist, and was quoted several times as saying that homosexuality was wrong, immoral, and disgusting, although she also said it shouldn't be illegal.

My point is, there may be demonstrable proof of religions intolerance, but this is by no means the only source of it.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wanted to add that Paizo's slightly mature content is one of the things I like best about it. From the moment I read "Burnt Offerings" and saw creepy goblins actually killing people (as opposed to getting a few paper cuts in before the heroes saved the day), I was impressed.

The thought of some (fake) orcs raiding some innocent farmers bothers me far more then some (fake) dudes or chicks smooching. Now, orcs smooching farmers... that's just gross.


Jodah wrote:


I amend my previous post. Shutting up, now. I need to avoid posting on topics like this; I often wind up putting my foot in my mouth.

Hey, how are you gonna correct misconceptions and mistakes if they aren't out in the open? That's part of the point of diversity, both in background and in outlook. It's GOOD to learn something and good to recognized that you've learned it. It means there's hope for you yet. ;)


As unofficial, self-appointed, and non-Paizo endorsed moderator, I declare this thread bunged.


KnightErrantJR wrote:


That having been said, I come to this forum to talk about games. By no means would I expect someone to ignore aspects of the adventures are written into the game, but at the same time, is there really a point in moving beyond the discussion of the game and into political or religious discussions?

First I would say that no one is forcing anyone to come to this thread to post. But that's beside the point.

I think it's really hard to not bring politics or religion into a topic that is deeply tied to both, given the current climate of things.

To put it another way: Forty (or even thirty) years ago, it would have been shocking for Paizo to have included a black, female paladin as an iconic. The discussion of half-elves could easily devolve into a discussion of interracial marriage (which was a hot button at the time). Now it's not because that's water under the bridge.

I personally love discussions of anthropology, sociology and culture, devoid of judgment calls (both negative AND positive). I think that can be done with regards to RPGs and cultures too. Though apparently not in this thread.


Bunged. Bunged, I say!


mwbeeler wrote:
Bunged. Bunged, I say!

Considering the Urban Dictionary's definition of the term "Bunged":

"To have previously had sexual intercourse with."

I must say, well played, sir. Well played indeed.


KnightErrantJR wrote:


In 1933 Joseph Stalin, not particularly a fan of religion, made homosexuality illegal in the Soviet Union, something which stayed in place until the USSR collapsed in the nineties.

Homosexuals were also considered potential enemies of the state in Nazi Germany as well. Again, based on the secular idea that they weren't ideal human beings.

During the Communist Revolution in China, homosexuality was made illegal as well.

Ayn Rand, while conservative, was a staunch atheist, and was quoted several times as saying that homosexuality was wrong, immoral, and disgusting, although she also said it shouldn't be illegal.

My point is, there may be demonstrable proof of religions intolerance, but this is by no means the only source of it.

It's funny I knew about each of those individually, but never really put them together. Nice.

You, Sam, and Gurubalabamalariasalami have all made excellent points that I hope our secular friends here will consider carefully. MI've got a personal stake in this in that my brother and sister in law are very open minded, well-educated scientists, but it stops when they get onto the topic of religion - their intolerance really bothers me sometimes.

So: "We shall not tolerate intolerance of intolerance!"

Let that be our rallying cry!


James Jacobs wrote:

Fair enough. And I hope you respect the fact that I view your views on this subject as outright disgusting as well. If it's that big of a deal to you, you should vote with your wallet.

QFT. This is the most relevant post in this whole thread and says eveything that needed saying.


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Further down the spiral we go. Somebody should apologize to the OP for the complete derail of his topic.

David E wrote:
I'd second this. This thread has turned into a disaster. The OP has not had his question answered at all.

79 posts in less than twelve hours, to think that I was afraid that no one would reply...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Yes. It is necessary. Just as it's necessary to move beyond having every PC and NPC in the game be white. And why it's important to show women in positions of power (be they bad like Queen Ileosa or good like Mayor Kendra or whatever.) It's called diversity, and it's a Good Thing.

Yes.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jodah wrote:
The movement of political correctness is, I feel, constrictive and anti-critical. I'm tired of saying factually defensible statements and being shushed down for being "culturally insensitive." You know what? Alot of gay people have aids. You know what? "gangsta" culture is really, really stupid. like, real stupid. I mean, sideways guns? Now, arguments arent based on facts, but on who might be offended. As a great fan of argument, I call shenanigans on that.

I'm tired of that as well. Part of my job involves teaching anti-racism or anti-sexism but I am no longer able to bring in explicitly racist or sexist materials as evidence and can only allude to them in very indirect ways for fear of offending. The result is it is harder to teach these things. An openly homophobic poster in this thread seems like an opportunity for criticism and exploration and I welcome that opportunity.

On the other hand, however, my job is also made more difficult by my views being uncritically dismissed as "politically correct" and "culturally sensitive" without being given fair consideration. I call shenanigans on that.


Andre Caceres wrote:
As a Chatholic I see being gay as a sin, but I can still deal with my views as a mature adult as you have. Hell I joke more then anyone but dosent change my core belife system. Don't think your alone and don't jump ship. As a said a few post above I think the guys at Pathfinder just wanted a more realistic fantasy setting, some like it some don't. Most I think...

I have no idea why I'm joining in on this thread...

I am a professor of Catholic sexual ethics and I would certainly be considered "conservative" in that I support the Church fully on these matters. I just wanted to clarify that the Catholic church does NOT teach that being "gay" is a sin.

As a separate point, KnightErrantJR, thanks for everything. On behalf of my gaming group of practicing Catholics, thanks for always being willing to speak up against intolerance here.

Peace.
C

Liberty's Edge

I'm sorry the post has gone a little off-topic, but I don't see any reason to close it. Sure, some people are probably going to be offended because either they are gay or they are homophobic. Considering that both sides will be offended since both sides will show up in the debate, I guess that's fair.

I do think sexuality is an important part of D&D, or should be. As has been said before, it can be an important storytelling element. It can help shape the nature of the conflicts and explain what is happening in 'current events'.

I am not gay. I don't think any of my players are gay. But I'm happy that Paizo has included gay characters in their products. The administrator in Falcon's Hollow is gay, and as a character he works better becasue of it. The known gay couple in Sandpoint also allows some story events to be hung off of it. And in our current Rise of the Runelords campaign, one of the characters is gay. I don't think the player intended that at first, but it just 'sort of happened'. It has been a source of amusement in the game for a number of reasons. For example, after getting WAY TOO DRUNK at the hagfish, he woke up with three women. 'Oh, the horror'.

So, I'd rather see it included in the game, and if I were uncomfortable with it, I can remove it. So far, Paizo has been very 'unobtrusive' with these elements, allowing the DM to integrate it as he thinks. In my opinion it is no different than a feat selection they make for the NPC. I can change it if I want to, it might be a little work, but I'm in control.

As for 'exposing me' to it, I don't want Paizo to only expose me to things that I'm comfortable with. I want them to provide adventures that at least have me thinking about what is good and what is evil and the nature of heros. And sure, there are going to be people that are uncomfortable with 'torture-porn' and there are going to be people unfcomfortable with homosexuality, no matter how inocuously it is portrayed... I guess I don't see a problem with that.

As James says, if you're uncomfortable with diversity, in whatever form, and Paizo is committed to portraying diversity, well, you've got a problem. Either support the product and accept that not every character is one you'll be comfortable with, or don't support the product.

No reason to try to convince anyone that their lifestyle is abhorrant (whether that is a religious lifestyle or an 'alternate' lifestyle).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd encourage the authors of this adventure path to educate themselves on the history of homosexuality in America. In particular, I'd encourage them to tread very, very carefully on the connections between homosexuality and mental illness, as being gay was classified as a mental illness by the DSM until 1973 and not removed entirely from that diagnostic manual until 1987. "Treatments" for this "illness" included castration, hysterectomy, vasectomy, lobotomies, and electric shock therapy.

Part of the justification for the medical establishment's homophobia was their untested belief that even healthy gay relationships are inherently unstable. When something happened to those relationships, they thought that gay people became mentally unstable, as in suicidal or homicidal. They also thought that gay people were unhealthily self-absorbed and narcissistic because they desired their reflection, not not another gender's.

Do you see why I'm starting to have problems with the Grey Maidens plot line? And the psychotic and/or possessed BBEL?

Until Dr. Evelyn Hooker's work debunking this nonsense, though, no one had scientifically tested the stated belief of the mental health profession that homosexuals were mentally ill, as all testing had been done only on those people committed involuntarily to mental institutions.

Do you see why stories--and who gets to tell them--matter a great deal? Do you see why you have a special responsibility due to the special privilege granted by your talents as story-tellers?

I'm telling you what I tell my media students: just because you don't intend to be homophobic doesn't mean that you can't be homophobic.

I'd think strongly about "forcing" those people uncomfortable with homosexuality to have an out and proud gay iconic or major NPC. After all, you were perfectly comfortable "forcing" them to have THE major villain and her bodyguard be gay. A sentence 9 modules ago doesn't cut it.


...and yet you continue to post. I'm just going to have to pretend to ban all of you I suppose.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
I'd like to see this whole thread suppressed.

Can we stop with the "Close the thread" requests? Every time things get a bit confrontational now (after the febrile few weeks on the playtest threads) someone seems to pop up and demand a thread is closed. Let's talk it out, or walk away, but let's not burden Paizo with our arguments and demand they close the threads we don't like.

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Just play nice.

Agree totally with that.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
roguerouge wrote:

I'd encourage the authors of this adventure path to educate themselves on the history of homosexuality in America. In particular, I'd encourage them to tread very, very carefully on the connections between homosexuality and mental illness, as being gay was classified as a mental illness by the DSM until 1973 and not removed entirely from that diagnostic manual until 1987. "Treatments" for this "illness" included castration, hysterectomy, vasectomy, lobotomies, and electric shock therapy.

Part of the justification for the medical establishment's homophobia was their untested belief that even healthy gay relationships are inherently unstable. When something happened to those relationships, they thought that gay people became mentally unstable, as in suicidal or homicidal. They also thought that gay people were unhealthily self-absorbed and narcissistic because they desired their reflection, not not another gender's.

Do you see why I'm starting to have problems with the Grey Maidens plot line? And the psychotic and/or possessed BBEL?

Until Dr. Evelyn Hooker's work debunking this nonsense, though, no one had scientifically tested the stated belief of the mental health profession that homosexuals were mentally ill, as all testing had been done only on those people committed involuntarily to mental institutions.

Do you see why stories--and who gets to tell them--matter a great deal? Do you see why you have a special responsibility due to the special privilege granted by your talents as story-tellers?

I'm telling you what I tell my media students: just because you don't intend to be homophobic doesn't mean that you can't be homophobic.

I'd think strongly about "forcing" those people uncomfortable with homosexuality to have an out and proud gay iconic or major NPC. After all, you were perfectly comfortable "forcing" them to have THE major villain and her bodyguard be gay. A sentence 9 modules ago doesn't cut it.

We seem to be getting very PC here. The way I take it, there are nice homosexuals and there are nasty homosexuals, same way there are nice heterosexuals and nasty heterosexuals. So if Queen Ileosa is being portrayed as a nasty person and a bisexual, I don't necessarily believe that the two things should be connected. There are plenty of gay psychos - Jeffrey Dahmer (sp?), Dennis Nielsen (also sp?) - and plenty of hetero ones too.

I don't think it is helpful to engage in double-think on this - "Gee, am I being intentionally homophobic, or unintentionally homophobic, or not homophobic?" So if Paizo adopts a policy of not including gay characters in order to avoid being seen as homophobic, is that pandering to homophobia, or even heterophobia (if such a thing exists)? Or only having nice gay characters, but all the BBEGs are straight?

The whole thing is a minefield. While you say "A sentence doesn't cut it" actually I think it cuts a lot - at the time it was remarked upon, and was generally applauded as recognising diversity and, frankly, being adult about it. It isn't to everyone's taste, for whatever reasons they might have (moral, religious or whatever) but reflects current (i.e. modern Western) societal norms. If we can't get past portraying a gay person as being a baddie without somehow suggesting we are all closet gay-bashers, then we haven't got anywhere in accepting homosexuality, and homosexuals as individuals, in society.

Lone Shark Games

Interestingly, Sean Reynolds and I just had the "vote with your wallet" discussion about Orson Scott Card and his apparent anti-gay beliefs. I came down on the side of "I hope the intolerant folks buy my stuff," but I can see the other side.

Anyway, one of the nice things about RPG modules is that they are presented to the majority of their participants through the window of a Dungeon Master, who is free to alter whatever he or she wants to alter. So it's unlikely that a player will know while playing the game that an NPC is gay if the DM doesn't want the player to know it. Any level of discomfort or disinterest the DM has can be removed from the play experience.

Similarly, were an iconic to be outed, the group is not forced to deal with it. Because every iconic is presented to the majority of participants through the window of a player, and if the player chooses to ignore or alter the character's preferences, so be it. The Gaming Police do not kick down the door and force the player to get in line.

The mistake, I think, would be to require the confluence of these two things. An encounter where a gay NPC hits on a specific gay iconic might trip things up a bit. But since Pathfinder modules are supposed to be written for all PCs (and since we can't presume you have a gay PC), that's pretty unlikely.

So whatever we write, there's a governor switch, and that's called "You."

Mike


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Aubrey, I don't think that you are giving my argument a fair reading.

I think you'll find that I'm not saying that all representations of villains as homosexual is wrong. That's a straw man argument.

I'm saying that these authors are treading very close to perpetuating homophobia when their representation of homosexuality consists of: one sentence of a normalized homosexual relationship nine modules ago and two major NPCs who replicate many of the most harmful MISrepresentations of homosexuality as murderous and psychologically disturbed. (The iconic who keeps his sexuality closeted is news to me.)

It's not one depiction that's the problem. It's the lack of balance.

The authors are a part of our culture. They are influenced by it, but not totally. They can keep perpetuating this myth or they can make new ones. That's their wonderful privilege as writers.

They don't have to use the Evil Dead Lesbian cliche. It's not only irresponsible and uncaring: it's also bad writing.

Scarab Sages

Great Post Aubrey!
I agree with all you've written there. As a student of educational science, I had to explain my point of view regarding intentional / unintentional / conscious / unconscious rejudices more then once, but I don't think I ever found better words then you did.
I really think the only possibility of real acceptance and equality is equal treatment - in a good and in a bad way. Don't tread someone better OR worse just because he is homosexual, heterosexual, of another religion etc.
As for the BBE in any adventure / campaign making him/her a psychotic only because of his sexual orientation, that would be bad design as well as a sign of prejudice - but surely making the BBE for example gay and psychotic through personal history (even if influenced by his sexual orientation through abuse / forceful denial etc.) surely isn't.
Trying to avoid any combinations that might "smell funny" in terms of prejudice and bias can lead to an exetional narrow definition of villainy that could still be used.

Silver Crusade

DeadDMWalking wrote:

No reason to try to convince anyone that their lifestyle is abhorrant (whether that is a religious lifestyle or an 'alternate' lifestyle).

Or both!

Thanks to the guys that have tried to insert a bit more civility and level-headed, even-handed reason(you know who you are) into this thread after it went haywire and tangental.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Whether you have faith or not, surely you see that some people actively promote intolerance in the name of religion? I don't think all religous people are evil, but certainly many do evil in the name of religion. I don't see groups of homosexuals out promoting intolerance or strapping bombs to themselves and running into hospitals, and until I do, I just don't see the hypocrisy.

People do evil in the name of all KINDS of things. Religion, politics (both left and right in roughly equal amounts, and if the scale's imbalanced, wait a few years), science, corporate interest, self-interest, the list goes on and on and on and ON. Religion hardly has a corner on bad behavior of any kind. For the record, I consider myself a Christian (a non-denominational protestant) and sit on the line between conservative and libertarian, politically-speaking. I have some somewhat traditional views of morality as it applies to my own conduct, but I see it pointless to try to hold anyone to them who doesn't willingly and voluntarily subscribe to the underlying belief system first. Jews probably see my eating of bacon to be horrifying (and dieticians, too, but oh well) but I think the average Jew on the street doesn't worry about my eating bacon as long as I don't make HIM do it (the average dietician is probably losing sleep over it, though). I feel that way about a number of behaviors, including extramarital sexual relations. (I waited. Almost none of my friends did. Neither did either of my siblings, for that matter. That's their choice. None of them ridiculed me for mine, so I'll gladly return the favor.) There are places where this "live & let live" idea doesn't work so well, though; but those behaviors are on the books as crimes.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Roguerogue... I have one flaw with your arguement.

Nualia and Tsuto's obsession with her.

Shayliss's slutting after male characters.

Aldren's treatment of his wife

Vorel's vengeance on Kasanda

Ironbriar's involvement with serial killers.

The hetero-incestious inbreeding of Mammy Maul

Mr. Mutt's torture

That's just a brief review of RotRL.

Damn Paizo for perpetuating the image of Evil Heterosexuals!

To the OP. I'm really indifferent to the orientation of NPCs, as long as it's part of them, not their definition. IOW, as long as they're not gay characters they're characters who are gay.

Hope that makes sense.


Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it. The previous poster claimed that he has a gay mentor, who is precious to him, but that he cannot condone the man's sexuality? WTF? I will not post on this thread again. Just know that there are people out there who find your twisted Judeo-Christian take on human potential as perverse and twisted as you seem to hold gays to be. I have more gay friends than Christian friends. They are just far more pleasant to be around.

I find it kind of odd that this kind of statement goes unpunished by the board moderator but yet one person makes an anti-gay statement and you'd think the world has come to an end. Unbelievable.


Contrary to current popular belief, debate (and getting everything out into the open) is not always a good thing.

klofft wrote:
I just wanted to clarify that the Catholic church does NOT teach that being "gay" is a sin.

Talk about splitting hairs. The Catholic Church considers the actual act of same sex consummation is a sin. Simply being homosexual is not a sin, but a temptation. Feel free to be gay, just don't act on it.

Also, let's try to get over this whole, "afraid" of homosexuals idea. I'm afraid of being shot (a fairly real prospect in Detroit), but I'm not for banning guns.

"Phaerie wrote:
Now, orcs smooching farmers... that's just gross.

Half-orcs have to come from somewhere!

Robert Frost - "Good fences make good neighbors."


Were there any gay smurfs?


OMG I'M TRANSGENDER!!! ^

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Were there any gay smurfs?

Well, as Smurfette was the only female Smurf and she was created by Gargamel, it does lead to some rather interesting lines of thought, wouldn't you say?

101 to 150 of 5,778 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.