I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it. I tend to relate best to non-chaotic, non-evil characters, regardless of their sexuality. I see who you're willing to take up arms against as being more important than who you want to sleep with.
Edit: then again, I'm willing to accept that I might be the odd one...
My thoughs entirely.
In fact, sexual orientation has only ever come up in the McWoD campaign I am running, and even then its very very minor.
*throws a barrel of gasoline at the smoldering embers*
So, just out of curiosity, since it seems like sexuality is covered, what about different political systems?
Ah...no. Believe it or not, I'm a pretty strong advocate of live and let live...I think I've stirred up enough strife for one month. ;-)
I didn't see you getting assused. Must have missed that.
I didn't claim that I was being accused of either child molestation or beastiality in this thread. I was commenting on the great regularity with which the self-declared foes of homosexuality see fit to liken it to the other aforementioned activities. Indeed, it appears from further posts that I was quite right to do so as pres man goes ahead and finishes connecting the dots.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I didn't see you getting assused. Must have missed that.I didn't claim that I was being accused of either child molestation or beastiality in this thread. I was commenting on the great regularity with which the self-declared foes of homosexuality see fit to liken it to the other aforementioned activities. Indeed, it appears from further posts that I was quite right to do so as pres man goes ahead and finishes connecting the dots.
Ok, just glad no one was blatent about it *laugh* Seriously, I wasn't meaning to imply it either.
This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it. I tend to relate best to non-chaotic, non-evil characters, regardless of their sexuality. I see who you're willing to take up arms against as being more important than who you want to sleep with.
Edit: then again, I'm willing to accept that I might be the odd one...
Oddly enough, I would tend to agree, at least with the non-evil part. The problem, of course, is that in the real world there are no detect evil spells.
|
It's not like you have much to choose from in that department. I mean, you've got Valeros, Sajan, and maybe, MAYBE Lem to pick from. The others... Harsk? Ezren? I'm STRAIGHT and I realize Valeros is the only good choice.Well, Ezren IS a possibility I guess. Rowing did out Dumbledore as being gay... LINKIE
Yeah, but Ezren's hip could go at any moment and that won't be fun for anyone.
I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.
This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it....
I think it's really admirable how you can relate to homosexuals despite being a heterosexual.
Personally, I have a friend who is gay, we get along pretty well, but I find that I just don't get it sometimes when he's going on about his life. It doesn't keep me from liking him, nor does it harm our friendship in fact it's kind of funny sometimes. But, it is hard to relate....
Actually I disagree.
Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?
I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".
This I'm not quite getting... How it is "in your face", unless of course you allow it to be, if there is a mention to an NPC's sexual orientation or racial appearance in a published AP? It's Paizo's business to produce living, well thought out adventures for us to make use of for our own campaigns. Just how is this a bad thing?
It's up to the individual DM to either make use of, or to ignore certain aspects of the story laid out for us.
I said I was being flippant, and no I wasn't comparing homosexuality to those ideas but instead the idea for tolerance for homosexuality for tolerance for other types of sexuality. If we say that there is a line that it is inappropriate to cross, then who gets to pick, you say homosexuality is on the safe side, but the Nambla guys say their ideas are also on the safe side, you say they are wrong, how are you acting any differently than the heterosexuals that say you are wrong?
Excluded middle much? I am not arguing that every form of sex is fine because sex is fun or whatever. It is possible to make non-arbitrary distinctions between different forms of sex. Here's the one so big you can see it from space: informed consent.
Though I will say that if you have ever tried to use the whole Greek man/boy situation as an argument for saying homosexuality is ok, then you wouldn't have any place to stand on complaining about homosexuality being compared to child molestation. Now if you don't agree with the Greeks being used as a justification, then certainly you have every right to feel offended by such a comparison.
I've never done anything so silly, nor have I ever actually met a gay person that has. I have met people who have legitimately cited the Greeks (and the Romans too, or for that matter feudal Japan) against the claim that homosexuality was some sort of invention of modernism. That's not a moral justification (and I'm not one to believe that covering something in the dust of history renders it moral) but rather a point of history.
Anyway, I see no need to justify homosexuality whatsoever. I don't demand that heterosexuals justify their relationships to me. Just as I don't see any obligation to be straight against which I must defend my gayness, I see no obligation to be gay against which straights must justify their straightness.
Would you object to the same depiction if the only racists in town were an immoral family? Having something against homosexuality is morally identical to having something against being black or Jewish in my book.
You mean like how often it is portrayed that elves hate dwarves and dwarves hate elves and yet both are still said to be good? So it would be appropriate to call them all immoral because they dislike other races?
Depends on how the elf/dwarf relationship is described. If it's driven by the conviction on the part of one or the other that their opposite should be oppressed, destroyed, persecuted, held as slaves, or something along those lines then absolutely those elves or dwarves are racists and thus immoral.
That's not how I see the dynamic described in most worlds, except for notable instances in the world's history that might be used to help explain some mutual dislike. What I usually see is two races with very different cultures that value different things and the dwarven love for drugery (from an elven POV) or the elven love for useless frippery (from a dwarven POV) is sometimes a source of relatively ordinary cross-cultural tensions that do not necessarily have any moral weight.
Also read back in Sandpoint, the sheriff's brother is prejudice and he isn't described as being immoral.
I can't read in the back of a book I don't own. I'm a player in Burnt Offerings right now, so I don't care to acquire it either.
Ok, just glad no one was blatent about it *laugh* Seriously, I wasn't meaning to imply it either.
No hard feelings. I didn't think you were.
|
I can't imagine having a Greyhawk topic like this.
I don't think this is true at all, Guru... I think it is highly dependant on they type of game a person is running/involved in. It is just that Paizo is now given free reign to explore any facet they think improves a story in print. There is lots of space for the spectrum of desire in Greyhawk, just not under TSR or WoTC. If Paizo was given Oerth as a sandbox, I think that similar themes might emerge... Was Otiluke such a jackass because of his discomfort with his sexuality and possible love for one of the Circle members? While Otto, that bon vidant, offers many interesting opportunities for the social circles he travels in Greyhawk City. And that's not even tupping the ewe of Iggwilv's sexuality...
I think the "____________" can't be done in "______" setting arguement is pretty straw-mannish (or straw-woman or straw-trannie). It can be done, but might take some work and collaborative effort to do on the DM and player's sides. Granted that comes from a guy who played a halfling rent-boy on the docks of Dyvers at one point in my gaming past.
Who's the Barbarian icon, cause honestly anyone who runs around without a top and oily skin while fighting big strong musle bound orcs, well you do the math.
The barbarian iconic does wear a top. Though if she didn't, she could distract male opponents, and according to one of the oldest rules* of fantasy, she'd be better protected, too.
You can see her pic on the blog, she's the one with the oversized sword.
*One of the oldest rules of fantasy is that the less a female character wears, the better her AC is.
Please do not hurt me sir.
The dead creature template makes you immune to all damage, anyway, so *beats Dead Horse some more*
Now, orcs smooching farmers... that's just gross.
Where do you think half-orcs come from? There's female farmers, too.
Plus, there's bound to be some gay orcs around, too.
Were there any gay smurfs?
There better were. There's only smurfette. If those guys aren't gay, somethings gotta give.
they'd find 15 lbs of porn in me that I never ate. ;)
O_o
I'm sure Freud could come up with a really disturbing image of your thought processes based on that statement, calling you all kinds of pervert, but I prefer not to think about that.
I only think that I'll invent some sausage with patterns on it now. Like that mortadella with a funny face for kids. Only that this sausage will show explicit pictures. PORN YOU CAN EAT.
If the demand is big enough, I'll look into tofu or other vegetarian alternatives, too.
Or, I'll go the other way and publish a smutrag printed with edible dye on edible paper.
"James! You're chewing again. HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT NEKKID WOMEN AGAIN?"
"Hmphphp"
"What?"
*gulp* "No, I swear. I was eating a sandwich, honest!"
15 lbs. of PORN???? I'm not sure, is that alot??? :)
I always go for quality over quantity.
Roguerogue... I have one
Mr. Mutt's torture
Damn Paizo for perpetuating the image of Evil Heterosexuals!
I don't think the Temptresses are heterosexual. I think they go for everything and everyone. Limiting themselves to one gender would cut the fun they can have in half.
But anyone ever read Elfquest? Does the idea of a druid having relations with their "companion" really seem so far fetched in a fantasy setting?
Druids? Never thought about that. Paladins, oh yes. ;-)
Back to the topic of the gay iconic. It might be Valeros, by popular demand. I know that I was involved in at least one discussion where gay Pathfinder fans praised his looks. If so, it would only be fair: We straight guys and lesbians get our Seoni, after all.
If it's on, say, hard disks, yes, 15 lbs would be a lot.
That's a common misconception. Harddisks actually get heavier as they fill up with data.
Nothing like tragedy and the hope to prevent more of the same to get those PCs motivated.
Can I borrow your players? Mine seem to go adventuring only for profit, power, and fame they can use to pick up willing chicks.
You know guys he's right. Christan, Jew, Gay, Stright, lets all come together and start knocking 4th editon again. As one single voice.
Aaah, something we can all agree on.
(The Shackled City path I'm not familiar with, largely because, I think, it was published through Dungeon, and I was a player then.
Well, you can get the hardcover. Shackled City was published in one big nice book.
After all, Dragons/fiends/etc are capable of shapeshifting and breeding with other species. Now, does this imply that dragons and fiends rape everything non-sentient that they breed with?
I'd say so. At least fiends (especially demons) and evil dragons. A lot of those will do it because they can.
It's not like you have much to choose from in that department. I mean, you've got Valeros, Sajan, and maybe, MAYBE Lem to pick from. The others... Harsk? Ezren? I'm STRAIGHT and I realize Valeros is the only good choice.
So you say only the pretty ones may be gay? That's discrimination! ;-P
It's just natural to relate to someone who has a quality like yourself.I, for instance, have one eye, and am nearly blind. I'm going to relate to a character who is in a similar situation, simply because I can imagine the experiences that person has had.
Sorry to hear that.
It also puts you in a bad position looking for characters to relate to in D&D, since all or at least almost all one-eyed characters in D&D I can think of are orcs (eyes of gruumsh, or Pathfinder orcs who put their own eyes out to seem more scary).
they'd find 15 lbs of porn in me that I never ate. ;)
O_o
I'm sure Freud could come up with a really disturbing image of your thought processes based on that statement, calling you all kinds of pervert, but I prefer not to think about that.
I only think that I'll invent some sausage with patterns on it now. Like that mortadella with a funny face for kids. Only that this sausage will show explicit pictures. PORN YOU CAN EAT.
If the demand is big enough, I'll look into tofu or other vegetarian alternatives, too.
Or, I'll go the other way and publish a smutrag printed with edible dye on edible paper.
"James! You're chewing again. HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT NEKKID WOMEN AGAIN?"
"Hmphphp"
"What?"
*gulp* "No, I swear. I was eating a sandwich, honest!"
I promise never to misspell pork again, guys. I swear! ;)
Brilliant ideas about edible porn, BTW. Both of them.
|
they'd find 15 lbs of porn in me that I never ate. ;)
O_o
I'm sure Freud could come up with a really disturbing image of your thought processes based on that statement, calling you all kinds of pervert, but I prefer not to think about that.
I only think that I'll invent some sausage with patterns on it now. Like that mortadella with a funny face for kids. Only that this sausage will show explicit pictures. PORN YOU CAN EAT.
If the demand is big enough, I'll look into tofu or other vegetarian alternatives, too.
Or, I'll go the other way and publish a smutrag printed with edible dye on edible paper.
"James! You're chewing again. HAVE YOU BEEN LOOKING AT NEKKID WOMEN AGAIN?"
"Hmphphp"
"What?"
*gulp* "No, I swear. I was eating a sandwich, honest!"I promise never to misspell pork again, guys. I swear! ;)
Brilliant ideas about edible porn, BTW. Both of them.
They got edible undies just FYI. :)
Personally, I have a friend who is gay, we get along pretty well, but I find that I just don't get it sometimes when he's going on about his life. It doesn't keep me from liking him, nor does it harm our friendship in fact it's kind of funny sometimes. But, it is hard to relate....
A good 95% of my friends (statistic derived from posterior extraction) are straight. I grew up surrounded by straight people. I went through puberty with straight people. Just like you, I was bombarded by heterosexuality in everything from my home to casual mentions of people with boyfriends and girlfriends, to almost every relationship depicted in the media. I know heterosexuals. I have heterosexuals that I love, if not in the romantic sense of the term. Likewise all the same for women. In person I tend to get along better with women than I do with men.
And still every time I saw a straight romance I saw it as a kind of play-acting: "Really? You're seriously into her? What for? I know why she's into you but honestly? Come on. She's a lovely person but what's got the lust running? I mean, where's the sexy stuff?" I spent most of my adolescence wondering why all my male friends had gone loopy for this strange live-action role-playing experience and not one of them seemed aware they were just role-playing.
Which is all a long way to say that despite being unavoidably more exposed to heterosexuality than almost any heterosexual is going to be exposed to homosexuality, I don't relate either.
|
I think that this thread points to the depth and complexity of the setting.
I can't imagine having a Greyhawk topic like this.
Forgotten Realms are another matter altogether. You know...Elminster once was a woman for awhile...and there's those Seven Sisters...
I wrote up a bit of fluff on sacred bands in Greyhawk, including an "alternative" background for Heironeous and Hextor when the subject of how people in Greyhawk related to sex and drug use was raised.
LG Keoland featured an NPC ruler with children who lived with her female seneschal.
And then of course there is Rufus and Burne.
|
I removed that comment because I realized it wasn't productive. I'm sorry it got to you.Not liking homosexuality is one thing. Likening it to illegal behavior is another. You are (fallaciously) ceating a parallel, which leads to drawing unsupported conclusions based on that parallel.
It is no different than:
Religion is like fraud.
Fraud is a crime.
Therefore, religion is a crime.I don't know any clearer way to state that.
I was replying before you edited it, didn't see your removal.
I understand your point. My intent was to explain how much I disliked it. I could have used rape/murder as the example, but I despise those things, and only dislike homosexuality. I was trying to say I like apples as much as pears, not that apples ARE pears. I apologize for my poor phrasing.
I removed that comment because I realized it wasn't productive. I'm sorry it got to you.Not liking homosexuality is one thing. Likening it to illegal behavior is another. You are (fallaciously) ceating a parallel, which leads to drawing unsupported conclusions based on that parallel.
It is no different than:
Religion is like fraud.
Fraud is a crime.
Therefore, religion is a crime.I don't know any clearer way to state that.
I was replying before you edited it, didn't see your removal.
I understand your point. My intent was to explain how much I disliked it. I could have used rape/murder as the example, but I despise those things, and only dislike homosexuality. I was trying to say I like apples as much as pears, not that apples ARE pears. I apologize for my poor phrasing.
Thank you for saying so. I'm sorry for getting carried away. I honestly have no problem with religious folk...I don't agree with them, but I would never condone taking action against someone for their beliefs (other than giving them a good dose of crap, perhaps; which I would expect in turn), and I never meant to give the impression I felt otherwise. It is intolerant people I have a problem with. It was irresponsible of me to equate the two.
|
|
Personally, I have a friend who is gay, we get along pretty well, but I find that I just don't get it sometimes when he's going on about his life. It doesn't keep me from liking him, nor does it harm our friendship in fact it's kind of funny sometimes. But, it is hard to relate....A good 95% of my friends (statistic derived from posterior extraction) are straight. I grew up surrounded by straight people. I went through puberty with straight people. Just like you, I was bombarded by heterosexuality in everything from my home to casual mentions of people with boyfriends and girlfriends, to almost every relationship depicted in the media. I know heterosexuals. I have heterosexuals that I love, if not in the romantic sense of the term. Likewise all the same for women. In person I tend to get along better with women than I do with men.
And still every time I saw a straight romance I saw it as a kind of play-acting: "Really? You're seriously into her? What for? I know why she's into you but honestly? Come on. She's a lovely person but what's got the lust running? I mean, where's the sexy stuff?" I spent most of my adolescence wondering why all my male friends had gone loopy for this strange live-action role-playing experience and not one of them seemed aware they were just role-playing.
Which is all a long way to say that despite being unavoidably more exposed to heterosexuality than almost any heterosexual is going to be exposed to homosexuality, I don't relate either.
Brilliant!
Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?
I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".
Why make mention? Because in the case of some characteristics, they cannot be included without being mentioned. You can show someone's sex or color with an illustration. No additional attention need be drawn to the issue.
But how can you realistically include their creed, sexual orientation, hobbies, bizarre affectations, or anything else not immediately obvious with a visual representation without mentioning it?
I have a challenge for some of you people out there in cyberspace.
I'd like for those of you who are opposed to homosexuality to quote to me those scriptures upon which you base your dislike/disapproval (both judeo/christian and muslim - correct me if other major religions condemn homosexuality).
If you don't base your dislike/disapprove of homosexuality on a faith-driven reason, please post what else makes you have this opinion (more than just "it's unnatural" - please explain it in detail).
I'd like someone to do this for two reasons.
First is so we can have some common ground upon which to base our replies. This also allows me to direct some comments at more specific reasons.
Secondly, I'll use these examples to illustrate why homosexuality (and bi-sexuality, transgenderism etc.) might be accepted in Golarion.
Is it really wise to try and open THAT door?
It's my experience when you attempt to use two "hot topics" (such as these) together, you end up with one inferno of a situation.
Is it really wise to try and open THAT door?
It's my experience when you attempt to use two "hot topics" (such as these) together, you end up with one inferno of a situation.
Well, people are already expressing disapproval for homosexuality because of religious convictions, so I'd just like to have the exact quotes they base their point of view on (some of them might even take a second look at their holy book of choice). So I don't think it's that far beyond what has already been divulged.
And I promise I'll refrain from calling anyone religious nuts or soulless immoral atheists. :-D
Actually I disagree.
Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?
I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".
This I'm not quite getting... How it is "in your face", unless of course you allow it to be, if there is a mention to an NPC's sexual orientation or racial appearance in a published AP? It's Paizo's business to produce living, well thought out adventures for us to make use of for our own campaigns. Just how is this a bad thing?
It's up to the individual DM to either make use of, or to ignore certain aspects of the story laid out for us.
Tokenism. Unless there is a relevant part of the plot, why mention it at all. IF a DM wants XZY to be straight, gay, bi, anything, or abstaining, so be it. This is true for creed too.
But unless the plot has a NEED for XYZ to be oriented a certain way (this includes creed for that matter), then its irrelevant. Take the movie V for Vendetta. In that, the persons orientation was a vital component of the story, it made sense. It wasn't "in your face" it was a necessary part of the plot.
Take the Paladin above. As a lawful character, why is his relationship a secret. Is it illegal. Is he still a Paladin. If so, THAT does not make sense as he is living a lie. If he was a former Paladin, cool. If he was a Paladin without a partner, cool. But as is, I disagree with. It may be me, but that smacks Tokenism.
Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.
Make sense?
Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.Make sense?
I can see where you're coming from but I disagree. I don't need all of the texture in the background, the texture that adds the shading and tone to the background picture, to be relevant to the plot. I want the impression that the people standing behind the protagonists are more than cardboard cutouts and that their relationships with each other and their worlds have had some thought put into them... even if the topic never actually comes up in the course of play. As a DM, having a few more hooks on which to hang my portrayals of the NPCs helps me.
|
|
Tokenism. Unless there is a relevant part of the plot, why mention it at all. IF a DM wants XZY to be straight, gay, bi, anything, or abstaining, so be it. This is true for creed too.
But unless the plot has a NEED for XYZ to be oriented a certain way (this includes creed for that matter), then its irrelevant. Take the movie V for Vendetta. In that, the persons orientation was a vital component of the story, it made sense. It wasn't "in your face" it was a necessary part of the plot.
Take the Paladin above. As a lawful character, why is his relationship a secret. Is it illegal. Is he still a Paladin. If so, THAT does not make sense as he is living a lie. If he was a former Paladin, cool. If he was a Paladin without a partner, cool. But as is, I disagree with. It may be me, but that smacks Tokenism.
Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.
Make sense?
I see your reasoning here, Tony, but I think you are taking a narrow view of it (NOT narrow-minded)... Part of the goal of the Pathfinder APs is to provide adventure hooks for DMs to run with outside of what is explicitely printed on the page. That means introducing a stable of interesting characters with potentially compelling stories for side themes to be developed, not just side trecks, but role-playing opporutinites with a supporting cast the DM might not have though to explore.
As for the Paladin in question... He is a lawful character, true, but that does not necessarally mean that it is illicit under his religion, or illegal under the law of the land. IS he, in fact, living a lie? Not just because he's carrying on a low-key relationship with a guy. He might just not want the baggage that goes with a relationship that isn't seen as the public norm. He might just be a private individual in personal matters. The lie is one that you are choosing to attribute...
Tokenism. Unless there is a relevant part of the plot, why mention it at all. IF a DM wants XZY to be straight, gay, bi, anything, or abstaining, so be it. This is true for creed too.
But unless the plot has a NEED for XYZ to be oriented a certain way (this includes creed for that matter), then its irrelevant. Take the movie V for Vendetta. In that, the persons orientation was a vital component of the story, it made sense. It wasn't "in your face" it was a necessary part of the plot.
Take the Paladin above. As a lawful character, why is his relationship a secret. Is it illegal. Is he still a Paladin. If so, THAT does not make sense as he is living a lie. If he was a former Paladin, cool. If he was a Paladin without a partner, cool. But as is, I disagree with. It may be me, but that smacks Tokenism.
Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.
Make sense?
Ah... In a sense though, it really is relevant to the plot. Perhaps not directly, but indirectly.
With that information in hand, and adjudicating a situation, it does affect/color how an NPC will respond. As well as, providing some information for those times when characters make heavy use of social skills or the use of divination spells to find something that may not be overly obvious. It's all about how you use that background information. Which is just what it is.
A NPC's orientation/creed does not need to be the center of the encounter for it to have any sort of relevance.
I see your reasoning here, Tony, but I think you are taking a narrow view of it (NOT narrow-minded)... Part of the goal of the Pathfinder APs is to provide adventure hooks for DMs to run with outside of what is explicitely printed on the page. That means introducing a stable of interesting characters with potentially compelling stories for side themes to be developed, not just side trecks, but role-playing opporutinites with a supporting cast the DM might not have though to explore.
As for the Paladin in question... He is a lawful character, true, but that does not necessarally mean that it is illicit under his religion, or illegal under the law of the land. IS he, in fact, living a lie? Not just because he's carrying on a low-key relationship with a guy. He might just not want the baggage that goes with a relationship that isn't seen as the public norm. He might just be a private individual in personal matters. The lie is one that you are choosing to attribute...
Very well stated. :o)
|
|
Ah...no. Believe it or not, I'm a pretty strong advocate of live and let live...I think I've stirred up enough strife for one month. ;-)*throws a barrel of gasoline at the smoldering embers*
So, just out of curiosity, since it seems like sexuality is covered, what about different political systems?
That's good, because it was a joke.
SnippedI see your reasoning here, Tony, but I think you are taking a narrow view of it (NOT narrow-minded)... Part of the goal of the Pathfinder APs is to provide adventure hooks for DMs to run with outside of what is explicitely printed on the page. That means introducing a stable of interesting characters with potentially compelling stories for side themes to be developed, not just side trecks, but role-playing opporutinites with a supporting cast the DM might not have though to explore.
As for the Paladin in question... He is a lawful character, true, but that does not necessarally mean that it is illicit under his religion, or illegal under the law of the land. IS he, in fact, living a lie? Not just because he's carrying on a low-key relationship with a guy. He might just not want the baggage that goes with a relationship that isn't seen as the public norm. He might just be a private individual in personal matters. The lie is one that you are choosing to attribute...
Ahhh
Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.
On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.
lots of stuffBrilliant!
*bows* :)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Actually I disagree.
Why make mention to colour, race, creed at all?
I agree that diversity is a good thing. However, drawing special attention to, well, whatever, changes the notion from accepted to simply "in your face".
This I'm not quite getting... How it is "in your face", unless of course you allow it to be, if there is a mention to an NPC's sexual orientation or racial appearance in a published AP? It's Paizo's business to produce living, well thought out adventures for us to make use of for our own campaigns. Just how is this a bad thing?
It's up to the individual DM to either make use of, or to ignore certain aspects of the story laid out for us.
Tokenism. Unless there is a relevant part of the plot, why mention it at all. IF a DM wants XZY to be straight, gay, bi, anything, or abstaining, so be it. This is true for creed too.
But unless the plot has a NEED for XYZ to be oriented a certain way (this includes creed for that matter), then its irrelevant. Take the movie V for Vendetta. In that, the persons orientation was a vital component of the story, it made sense. It wasn't "in your face" it was a necessary part of the plot.
Take the Paladin above. As a lawful character, why is his relationship a secret. Is it illegal. Is he still a Paladin. If so, THAT does not make sense as he is living a lie. If he was a former Paladin, cool. If he was a Paladin without a partner, cool. But as is, I disagree with. It may be me, but that smacks Tokenism.
Where it is relevant to the plot, cool. Where it is just mentioned for no other reason than "ohhh" or "ahhhhh" or "PC cool, thats cool" then I have to say, THAT is a bad thing.
Make sense?
The problem with that is, when writing an adventure, you can never be sure whats going to be relevant to the plot, and what isn't, and for one simple reason:
No two groups of PCs are the same.
Maybe your group never needs to know who local NPC X spends his evenings with, but my group might, and depending on how they decided to act in the adventure, that might be a crucial piece of information with regards to the plot.
Even if it doesn't have any real bearing on the plot, it has the chance to create memorable NPC encounters. I know I had a lot of fun running Vamros Harg for my PCs, especially because one of my players was playing a male halfling "ladies man". One little sentence, there for no other reason than you might call tokenism, lead to a great role-playing experience for me and my PCs.
Lastly, don't shortchange the idea of world building. I very much doubt that the guys at Paizo are throwing gay characters into their products just to have gays around, or to get gay people to buy their stuff. They put them there because they seek to create compelling and realistic characters to populate their products and their campaign world, and homosexuality is part of what makes some of those characters interesting. Just because something doesn't add directly to the plot doesn't mean it can't add richness and depth to the story or the setting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm one gay who is glad to see NPCs I can relate with, and absolutely when it adds something to the setting it should be included.This is one thing that strikes me as odd. It seems from this thread like a lot of gay players relate best to gay characters. I find that an NPC's sexual orientation has precious little to do with it....I think it's really admirable how you can relate to homosexuals despite being a heterosexual.
Personally, I have a friend who is gay, we get along pretty well, but I find that I just don't get it sometimes when he's going on about his life. It doesn't keep me from liking him, nor does it harm our friendship in fact it's kind of funny sometimes. But, it is hard to relate....
I had a MUCH longer and more detailed post than this, but the boards ate it. Here's the short version:
I'm personally exceedingly ascetic. (First drink at 23, first sex at 24 on my wedding night. First cigarette never, first illegal drugs never.) As we usually assume others are at least mostly like us, I don't usually even take into account whatever people do to create pleasure in their lives, as long as they don't try to drag me into it. With that out the window, there's nothing left to relate to except what they actively share with you and how they're treating you at the moment. Plus, I tend to see disliking people for their appearance or "stuff" to be... ...odd, actually. What's the point? And yeah, for the record, I do think extramarital sex, drug use, drunkenness, and smoking are wrong. But I've also done stuff in my life that I look back on and know without a shadow of a doubt was immoral. So who am I to judge? To paraphrase some scripture, I'm still busy with the plank in my eye. If you've got a speck in yours, that's the least of my worries. Also, and I've said this before earlier in the thread, it's useless to try to get people behind your idea of "proper behavior" if they reject the corresponding philosophical underpinnings. It's just plain stupid of me to get upset when someone who's not a Christian doesn't act like I think a Christian should. They don't subscribe to the belief system, and my being all self-righteous and unpleasant towards them certainly isn't going to make them decide to adopt it. Now if you're hurting people, that's bad! I get really angry about about that. So much so that I've just finished acquiring an AAS in Criminal Justice and plan to become a police officer with it in the very near future.
People more down on the "party" end of the spectrum usually find me pretty amusing, though. I do none of the stuff they do, turn down offers to be included in it, and don't get on their case about it. Some of the reactions I've gotten to that set of behaviors over the years are priceless.
|
|
Ahhh
Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.
On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.
I don't have a difinitive answer on this, Tony, just exploring a trajectory that might develope. In Rome, and to some extent in Greece, as well, it was more acceptable to be in a homosexual relationship if you were the top. That means you were control, you were power, you were the commander of your affair. If you were a bottom, it was strike against your masculinity... evidenced by the fact that there has been surviving graffitti implicating a citizen of standing with enjoying the submissive position. In a society that doesn't give a fig if you're doing it with someone, they might be scandalized to hear HOW you are doing it...
Ahhh
Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.
On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.
I believe, by making references to NPC's orientation, the guys at Paizo are showing it does "mean a fig". By using these RL situations, it does add a new and different dimension to the RP experience. Especially, when that experience is something that players can relate to. Perhaps not all, but there certainly some to whom it does.
Back onto the pally thing, this really caught my attention in your quote... "So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you may be applying your personal views on this, where this holy man is concerned, and not taking into account what Paizo is indicating. That within the context of the game world, the religion does not have such a restriction towards it devout followers (such as paladins or clerics). Especially considering he continues to retain his status as a paladin of the order.
Now, of course, this is totally fluff material, which you can omit if you so choose.
|
|
Stuff
I think that GentleGiant has a point above. Even if nobody brings out scripture, if we assume that most opposition to homosexuality is the result of religious conviction, and Golarion does not have any of those religions, the likelihood of religious opposition to 'alternate sexuality' is much less likely.
For example, I don't think worshippers of Lamashtu would discourage any kind of sexual experimentation - the more aberrant the better, probably. And without a 'single god', there is pretty much nothing that can't be justified dogmatically...
'Well, I hate having sex with other men, but it's part of my religion. I just couldn't find a good excuse to get out of it this week'
StuffI think that GentleGiant has a point above. Even if nobody brings out scripture, if we assume that most opposition to homosexuality is the result of religious conviction, and Golarion does not have any of those religions, the likelihood of religious opposition to 'alternate sexuality' is much less likely.
For example, I don't think worshippers of Lamashtu would discourage any kind of sexual experimentation - the more aberrant the better, probably. And without a 'single god', there is pretty much nothing that can't be justified dogmatically...
'Well, I hate having sex with other men, but it's part of my religion. I just couldn't find a good excuse to get out of it this week'
That's exactly one of the arguments I was going to make. Golarion doesn't have the same historical and religious views we do, thus there might not be a religious text which condemns homosexuality as a sin.
It then follows that we have to dive into other reasons why some people on Golarion might exhibit homophobia/condemn homosexuality. Instead of just porting over our own historical/religious view, we have to expand on the (both anthropological and religious) history of the world.
I think that GentleGiant has a point above. Even if nobody brings out scripture, if we assume that most opposition to homosexuality is the result of religious conviction, and Golarion does not have any of those religions, the likelihood of religious opposition to 'alternate sexuality' is much less likely.
For example, I don't think worshippers of Lamashtu would discourage any kind of sexual experimentation - the more aberrant the better, probably. And without a 'single god', there is pretty much nothing that can't be justified dogmatically...
'Well, I hate having sex with other men, but it's part of my religion. I just couldn't find a good excuse to get out of it this week'
That's exactly one of the arguments I was going to make. Golarion doesn't have the same historical and religious views we do, thus there might not be a religious text which condemns homosexuality as a sin.
It then follows that we have to dive into other reasons why some people on Golarion might exhibit homophobia/condemn homosexuality. Instead of just porting over our own historical/religious view, we have to expand on the (both anthropological and religious) history of the world.
Now this is a part of the conversation I could get into. It's just when you mentioned quoting scripture, that was when I would backpedal away from the discussion. As I've seen, and have been a part of, flame wars where the line was drawn into the sand. So to speak.
As long as people can keep it within the context of the game world, I'd be for keeping up the conversation.
snippedThe problem with that is, when writing an adventure, you can never be sure whats going to be relevant to the plot, and what isn't, and for one simple reason:
No two groups of PCs are the same.
Maybe your group never needs to know who local NPC X spends his...
This I can relate to.
One session I was in, we decided to blackmail a local magistrate, and to prove we knew what he was up to, well, we sort of employed the horse head in the bed routine. But with geisha.
Sometimes ninja are too evil :)
Ahhh
Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.
On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.
I believe, by making references to NPC's orientation, the guys at Paizo are showing it does "mean a fig". By using these RL situations, it does add a new and different dimension to the RP experience. Especially, when that experience is something that players can relate to. Perhaps not all, but there certainly some to whom it does.
Back onto the pally thing, this really caught my attention in your quote... "So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does."
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling you may be applying your personal views on this, where this holy man is concerned, and not taking into account what Paizo is indicating. That within the context of the game world, the religion does not have such a restriction towards it devout followers (such as paladins or clerics). Especially considering he continues to retain his status as a paladin of the order.
Now, of course, this is totally fluff material, which you can omit if you so choose.
What I want is consistancy.
I have an issue with a Pally acting in secrecy. If its due to keeping his affairs low key, fair enough. If its BECAUSE of the relationship, then I have an issue with a non-former-pally in it.
I would say the same if the Pally was gambling, smoking wolf hair, or smiting old people. If its against his code, its against his code.
I can accept a game world where gay relationships are accepted in any order other than fertility based orders. (As its difficult for same sex relationships to procreate, but in a fantasy world, Im sure this could be addressed too).
I guess its Paizo's world, and we will need to see their take on the churches codes. If the Pally is acting out of accord, I will voice my concern twice as much then.
Ahhh
Adventure Hooks are well and dandy, but what use would someones orientation would be, in a society where it doesn't mean a fig. Ancient Greece comes to mind here.
On the Pally, when is illegal the same as not lawful. A Pally in Thay has every right to swing his sword at slavers. As he is following the principles of the diety he observes. So I don't think law of the land comes in to it, but the churches view does. I could understand the private individual concept though, that makes sense.
I don't have a difinitive answer on this, Tony, just exploring a trajectory that might develope. In Rome, and to some extent in Greece, as well, it was more acceptable to be in a homosexual relationship if you were the top. That means you were control, you were power, you were the commander of your affair. If you were a bottom, it was strike against your masculinity... evidenced by the fact that there has been surviving graffitti implicating a citizen of standing with enjoying the submissive position. In a society that doesn't give a fig if you're doing it with someone, they might be scandalized to hear HOW you are doing it...
Didn't know that. Thanks.
I didn't see you getting assused. Must have missed that.I didn't claim that I was being accused of either child molestation or beastiality in this thread. I was commenting on the great regularity with which the self-declared foes of homosexuality see fit to liken it to the other aforementioned activities. Indeed, it appears from further posts that I was quite right to do so as pres man goes ahead and finishes connecting the dots.
Nice. But you forgot to call me a homophobe. Maybe next time.
|
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.
Yes, but remember what medium we are talking about - an RPG scenario. The sweet gay romance in Sandpoint is fundamentally less interesting to players because the guys are not villains - they don't even really appear in the scenario, they are barely "dungeon dressing". So they get a couple of sentences. Queen Ileosa is the main villain, much more interesting to the PCs, and so gets more limelight - though the gay stuff is still only a sentence or two. This might look like the bad gay is emphasised over the nice gay, but that is more about RPGs and how they work than subconscious attitudes.
If Ileosa was having loads of heterosexual sex, no one would be even having this conversation. Don't get me wrong, I understand your concern, though I don't agree that the Paizo guys should consider censoring themselves to the extent you seem to be suggesting. In my view, we need to get away from the notion of gays as victims, and treat them (in this medium) as people. Times have changed, and your approach might be appropriate in less enlightened times and places, but in most of the West (US and Europe) we can probably move on. I would agree with you if Ileosa was portrayed as evil because of her bisexuality, but that is not stated or, for me, even implied.
(Sorry if this point is already made - this thread mushroomed overnight and I haven't read it all.)