Homosexuality in Golarion

[Mikaze]

TanithT wrote:

On the Ben Afleck part though, not so sure if want. :/

Well, he was the bomb in Phantoms, y'know. ;)

[Berik]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

There are a lot more important and varied things that can go into the bios. A fully formed character isn't an orientation or list of relationships. :)

Relationships are certainly important to a fully formed character. The motivations of most people are most definitely tied to relationships, I'd find it very hard to feel that characters were fully formed if Paizo took your apparent advice of never mentioning when somebody is acting a certain way because of a relationship that they're in. Fully formed characters very often do things because of loved ones, bios totally ignoring relationships would be silly. So what actually are you complaining about here? Some examples that you think went too far in mentioning a relationship would be nice.

If a bio in a Paizo product was just 'Bob is a Paladin and he's bi' then sure that would be a problem. But I'm pretty sure that no such bio exists. What's wrong with a bio of Bob the Paladin that mentions his internal conflict over the demands of his current lover Jim along with the time he needs to spend with his former lover Julie and the child they had together (but obviously something well written since it's Paizo and not me)?

EDIT: Problem, not probably! Darn posting after work brain...

[Mikaze]

Berik wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

There are a lot more important and varied things that can go into the bios. A fully formed character isn't an orientation or list of relationships. :)

Relationships are certainly important to a fully formed character. The motivations of most people are most definitely tied to relationships, I'd find it very hard to feel that characters were fully formed if Paizo took your apparent advice of never mentioning when somebody is acting a certain way because of a relationship that they're in. Fully formed characters very often do things because of loved ones, bios totally ignoring relationships would be silly. So what actually are you complaining about here? Some examples that you think went too far in mentioning a relationship would be nice.

If a bio in a Paizo product was just 'Bob is a Paladin and he's bi' then sure that would be a probably. But I'm pretty sure that no such bio exists. What's wrong with a bio of Bob the Paladin that mentions his internal conflict over the demands of his current lover Jim along with the time he needs to spend with his former lover Julie and the child they had together (but obviously something well written since it's Paizo and not me)?

And it does bear repeating that Paizo does not half-ass it when writing such characters. These complaints keep hinging on caricatured examples that don't happen in Pathfinder material.

[TanithT]

Berik wrote:

What's wrong with a bio of Bob the Paladin that mentions his internal conflict over the demands of his current lover Jim along with the time he needs to spend with his former lover Julie and the child they had together

Nothing at all. It needs a little more plot to be even a vaguely interesting story arc, but this is a reasonable example of the type of plot impetus you would actually need before a character's bisexuality would be relevant enough to become known.

The way my players found out about the first aspect of my major NPC's sexuality was by following him around and eventually finding out that he was a voluntary outcast from his tribe because his daughter had called a Blood Hunt on him for the right of succession. She had some serious unresolved anger issues for passing on his weak and impure half-human blood to her, and was ambitious for the succession. He refused to kill her to end the Hunt, and has chosen the 'cowardly' option of running instead, which is why he's with the PC's. It takes the PC's awhile to actually get all the information as to WHY he's fleeing his tribe and who's hunting him, but eventually he trusts them enough to say, and they get this part of his story.

At this point the PC's just assume he's straight, since he talks about having deeply cared for and admired her mother as a strong warrior of the tribe who chose him, a highly intelligent and physically powerful half-blood, and vigorously defended her choice to their tribe. His admiration is tinged with the sadness of his growing realization that the savage ways of his tribe are not just brutal, but evil and wrong, and antithetical to his true nature. He also speaks of having learned other ways, better ways, from a human friend he greatly admired. But he isn't exactly a Chatty Kathy type - that's not how this reserved, dignified, studious and yet completely primal and savage character is drawn - so the details of this friendship aren't really elaborated on.

The PC's still have no clue he's not actually straight until that male friend shows up some time later, for equally solid plot reasons. There were some harsh and highly angst-ridden choices to be made involving his evil but strong and basically honorable wife (somewhere around LNE on the alignment scale), his ambitious, extremely angry and decidedly chaotic evil daughter, and his lawful good human male ex-lover who sees the potential for true good within him and wants to encourage it.

All the while his character has been evolving slowly and sometimes painfully towards paladinhood. There is significant conflict between his loyalty and deep concern for his family and tribe, despite the fact that they are actively trying to kill him and doing some other horrific things in the region that are perfectly honorable by their standards, and his increasing conviction that his human lover's beliefs are much more right and true for him.

Very long (years long) campaign short, his daughter ends up dead, not by his hand, he leaves his wife and tribe in the most honorable way possible, and he ends up not only a paladin but at least briefly a chosen avatar of the god.

Do the PC's eventually get that he's bi? Yep. But it's very much secondary to the overall story arc, and they never had a clue until they had a legitimate plot related reason to have one.

[RJGrady]

TanithT wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

I, personally, would find it gratifying to see a LG paladin, straight as an arrow type, unambiguously identified as bisexual in Golarion. It would make me smile. I would enjoy it. Some people like humongous swords or sorceresses who glue on their clothes or magical lighting trains. Me? I want to see a BISEXUAL PALADIN who, in my mind, could be played by Ben Afleck without stretching himself too much. That would be awesome and great.

F***k yah. This would be made of win and awesome. Assuming that showing his bisexuality ACTUALLY MADE SENSE in your plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons, and the character was an engaging and complex one who was significantly more than a walking stereotype or political billboard.

On the Ben Afleck part though, not so sure if want. :/

Do straight characters need to actually make in a plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons? I'm asking because, most of the time, people are going to assume, unless told otherwise, that most characters are straight. If you have to justify a character being bisexual, that seems to me like you're placing a burden on bisexuality. Like, it's not good enough to simply exist. You can have coffee in Golarion, but if you want bisexuality, it has to be justified.

[Hakken]

RJGrady wrote:

TanithT wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

I, personally, would find it gratifying to see a LG paladin, straight as an arrow type, unambiguously identified as bisexual in Golarion. It would make me smile. I would enjoy it. Some people like humongous swords or sorceresses who glue on their clothes or magical lighting trains. Me? I want to see a BISEXUAL PALADIN who, in my mind, could be played by Ben Afleck without stretching himself too much. That would be awesome and great.

F***k yah. This would be made of win and awesome. Assuming that showing his bisexuality ACTUALLY MADE SENSE in your plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons, and the character was an engaging and complex one who was significantly more than a walking stereotype or political billboard.

On the Ben Afleck part though, not so sure if want. :/

Do straight characters need to actually make in a plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons? I'm asking because, most of the time, people are going to assume, unless told otherwise, that most characters are straight. If you have to justify a character being bisexual, that seems to me like you're placing a burden on bisexuality. Like, it's not good enough to simply exist. You can have coffee in Golarion, but if you want bisexuality, it has to be justified.

I will actually say in response to that it doesn't say for example in rise of the runelords when talking about the sherrif

The sheriff who is heterosexual and has a relationship with his wife, comes up to the players and asks yadda yadda yadda

when a bartender serves a drink, or store owners sells an item or a bunch of thugs attack the party, I don't say "the person you are interacting with is straight btw"

Most characters you would not be able to tell from their description if they are gay or straight---sex doesn't come up for most NPCs in their interaction with the characters.

Your faction leader gives you a mission---not your faction leader gives you a mission while he kisses his wife in their heterosexual relationship. So you could already switch most characters around to whatever sexual orientation you wanted.

It no more spells out a NPC is hetero than it does homo

to specifically call out an NPC as gay or straight should have some reason in the plot---ie their loved one is kidnapped.

[JonGarrett]

Sexuality if a fairly major part of who most people are. It should be a facet of the actions of mature, realistic character because our sexuality defines how we act in some situations based on it.

If a NPC that PC's have helped repeatedly would find the 22 charisma score Bard whose been nothing but kind and friendly attractive, they might make a pass. Why wouldn't they? A real person might if a highly attractive person they found attractive was constantly friendly. And if that person is gay or bi, that person might be the same gender.

Honestly, I find the whole 'sexuality doesn't matter' idea a little...childish. I ignoring a whole facet of nature just to get to hitting monsters in the face faster doesn't seem realistic or mature. It shouldn't be random or pointless - there should be a reason for the PC's to find it out - but it doesn't have to be plot relevant. Maybe recovering the massively important family heirloom gives the young man the confidence to come out in public. Not really plot relevant, since the PC's have already given it to him, but a nice touch. Or possibly just a character whose highly flirtatious, just because some people are.

Then again, I'm a big fan of social rewards as well as experience and gold to motivate players. Most of the time my players would be delighted to have a character trust them enough to ask them to help with changing them into a man's body, or finds them interesting enough to come onto them, as much as they would be to hit a fresh level or get a big new shiny +3 something.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

Kysune wrote:

What's next in Galorian? LGBT's are forcefully demanding clerics to marry them in their gods' temples.

Shut up and continue the blessings, heretic.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

Kysune wrote:

@Scott - I would be opposed to someone enforcing sexual acts on someone against their will also. Which makes me wonder why you even used that as an example. A person can freely choose to be a heterosexual or homosexual. But giving someone a "classification" that parallels a disease or mental issue for not agreeing with your views on sexual preference seems a bit wrong.

I'm sorry, I must have missed all the news reports on that scientific discovery. Are you telling me I've been making choices that screw with my head for no discernible benefit my whole life?

Quote:

I think you're referring to people that verbally abuse, beat up, or kill homosexuals as being homophobic. I'm referring to the use of the term when people are called homophobic because they don't agree that homosexuality is right. It's there personal opinion and is completely fine as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Unless we all want to play the "thought police" and punish anyone that doesn't conform to our personal definition of morality.

You have the right to oppose my sexual orientation and gender identity. I have the right to call you a bigot and many other names because you choose to do so. 1st Amendment cuts both ways.

Quote:

@JonGarrett - btw, royalty typically mutilated Eunuchs that served in the king's palace to prevent them from having sexual relations with royalty and/or concubines. The other instance typically seen was Eunuchs that took a solemn oath to abstain from sexual relations in dedication to their god/goddess and to display their commitment. Those were the two most typical reasons why Eunuchs were Eunuchs.

When dealing with the subject of transgendered and transsexual individuals, the typical reason for doing something is rarely applicable. Most eunuchs may not have had gender identity issues, but that doesn't mean people with such issues didn't gravitate towards the role.

[RJGrady]

Hakken wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

TanithT wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

I, personally, would find it gratifying to see a LG paladin, straight as an arrow type, unambiguously identified as bisexual in Golarion. It would make me smile. I would enjoy it. Some people like humongous swords or sorceresses who glue on their clothes or magical lighting trains. Me? I want to see a BISEXUAL PALADIN who, in my mind, could be played by Ben Afleck without stretching himself too much. That would be awesome and great.

F***k yah. This would be made of win and awesome. Assuming that showing his bisexuality ACTUALLY MADE SENSE in your plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons, and the character was an engaging and complex one who was significantly more than a walking stereotype or political billboard.

On the Ben Afleck part though, not so sure if want. :/

Do straight characters need to actually make in a plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons? I'm asking because, most of the time, people are going to assume, unless told otherwise, that most characters are straight. If you have to justify a character being bisexual, that seems to me like you're placing a burden on bisexuality. Like, it's not good enough to simply exist. You can have coffee in Golarion, but if you want bisexuality, it has to be justified.

I will actually say in response to that it doesn't say for example in rise of the runelords when talking about the sherrif

The sheriff who is heterosexual and has a relationship with his wife, comes up to the players and asks yadda yadda yadda

when a bartender serves a drink, or store owners sells an item or a bunch of thugs attack the party, I don't say "the person you are interacting with is straight btw"

Most characters you would not be able to tell from their description if they are gay or straight---sex doesn't come up for most NPCs in their interaction with the characters.

Your faction leader gives you a mission---not your faction leader gives you a mission while he...

So what happens if someone tries vamp, charm, or otherwise affect an NPC? At that point, you need some idea of their Kinsey number. The GM wouldn't randomly note an NPC's sexuality, but for instance, a paladin might be noted as married with children, and also open to homosexual liasons. Or the bartender might be a woman who is only into women. Many of these decisions will be made arbitrarily, but they still need to be made.

So, scribbling, "this paladin is bisexual, btw," into an NPC description does serve a useful purpose and is not gratuitous or political. It may or may not come up in play, but it undeniably useful.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With the inclusiveness commandment of August, there will be no anti-homosexuality groups/factions or independents, or burnings of LGBT, because that could offend someone, even if it creates suitable villains for the pcs to fight against.

That actually makes me sad. I'm a fire breathing LGBT advocate, but anti-gay groups and hate crimes within Golarion would add several levels of drama and excitement, and this is a good thing. A game like Pathfinder isn't fun when everyone loves and accepts each other fully.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

RJGrady wrote:

So what happens if someone tries vamp, charm, or otherwise affect an NPC? At that point, you need some idea of their Kinsey number. The GM wouldn't randomly note an NPC's sexuality, but for instance, a paladin might be noted as married with children, and also open to homosexual liasons. Or the bartender might be a woman who is only into women. Many of these decisions will be made arbitrarily, but they still need to be made.

So, scribbling, "this paladin is bisexual, btw," into an NPC description does serve a useful purpose and is not gratuitous or political. It may or may not come up in play, but it undeniably useful.

This is why I plan to start writing lesbian on my character sheets when I start gaming again. If this situation comes up, the GM won't be able to say I just pulled homosexuality out of my ass to avoid the charms of the handsome vampire lord, and it's only fair that the succubus can get my attention when she pops up.

[Sissyl]

I can just repeat something I saw a while ago:

If you don't approve of homosexual marriage, don't enter into a homosexual marriage.

Simple as that.

[thejeff]

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With the inclusiveness commandment of August, there will be no anti-homosexuality groups/factions or independents, or burnings of LGBT, because that could offend someone, even if it creates suitable villains for the pcs to fight against.

That actually makes me sad. I'm a fire breathing LGBT advocate, but anti-gay groups and hate crimes within Golarion would add several levels of drama and excitement, and this is a good thing. A game like Pathfinder isn't fun when everyone loves and accepts each other fully.

That's 3.5 L's interpretation of the "commandment". Not anything like the literal text.

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

thejeff wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With the inclusiveness commandment of August, there will be no anti-homosexuality groups/factions or independents, or burnings of LGBT, because that could offend someone, even if it creates suitable villains for the pcs to fight against.

That actually makes me sad. I'm a fire breathing LGBT advocate, but anti-gay groups and hate crimes within Golarion would add several levels of drama and excitement, and this is a good thing. A game like Pathfinder isn't fun when everyone loves and accepts each other fully.

That's 3.5 L's interpretation of the "commandment". Not anything like the literal text.

What is the literal text? I've got so much smoke in my eyes from all the fire breathing that I can't find it.

[thejeff]

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With the inclusiveness commandment of August, there will be no anti-homosexuality groups/factions or independents, or burnings of LGBT, because that could offend someone, even if it creates suitable villains for the pcs to fight against.

That actually makes me sad. I'm a fire breathing LGBT advocate, but anti-gay groups and hate crimes within Golarion would add several levels of drama and excitement, and this is a good thing. A game like Pathfinder isn't fun when everyone loves and accepts each other fully.

That's 3.5 L's interpretation of the "commandment". Not anything like the literal text.

What is the literal text? I've got so much smoke in my eyes from all the fire breathing that I can't find it.

I believe he's talking about this.

Basically "keep using GLBT characters".

[Kelsey MacAilbert]

I can't see anything in that post to support his assertion. I'll take this one to the Ask James Jacobs thread.

[Malachi Silverclaw]

Over 25 years ago I was GMing a Runequest game in a world I created. One of the things I wanted to achieve was that females should be able to be adventurers if they wanted to be.

Although this was already true (in that players get to choose the gender of their own PC), I wanted it to make sense in-game in a world modelled on our own middle ages.

So, why did women have to go to such extra-ordinary lengths in order to be the real-world equivalent of adventurers? My conclusion was that Christianity and childbirth prevented that freedom.

I wanted female adventurers to be much less remarkable. I didn't want them to be forced to disguise themselves as male, nor did I want their existence to be a challenge to the established social order.

The Christianity part was not a problem simply because my fantasy world did not have that religion. My world had the usual fantasy plethora of gods and pantheons. But what about childbirth?

I decided that there was a herb which had the effect of our modern 'morning after pill'. Since this herb had been known and used since pre-history, and since there was no single religion saying that its use was wrong, then that meant that women were free to choose whether they wanted children or not.

This had consequences for society in several ways, but this post is already too long. : )

The reason I'm bothering you all with this? Was my thought process in any way 'pushing my political agenda'? Was it just making the reality of players being able to freely choose to play a female PC consistent with the game world (or vice versa)?

Would anyone really have sat down at my table, knowing that any player had the option to play a female character, get up and walk out as soon as he found out that I'd created an in-game justification for female adventurers?

In the sense that everything we do can be interpreted as 'political', sure, but if that's the case then there's no point criticising anything for being political. But I never felt that I was 'pushing a political agenda', I just wanted my game world to make sense!

When I read this thread, I don't really see anyone trying to push political agendas (beyond the whole 'everything we do is political' thing), I just see players and DMs making characters that they want to play.

I'm okay with that.

It must also be said that me or anyone else not at your table being 'okay with that' or not is neither here nor there. You don't need my permission to make whatever character you want. I'm certainly not waiting for anyone else's permission to play a female!

[Generic Villain]

I disagree with roughly 95% of everything 3.5 Loyalist has typed on this thread. However, I'm with Kelsey in that I have no problem with an anti-LGBT group in Golarion. We have apartheid in Sargava, slavery all over the place, misogyny and misandry as national policies (the drow, orcs, etc.), religious infighting and persecution, and so forth.

That said, justifying such a hate group would itself open up a can of worms for those who already think "gay stuff" is being "shoved down their throats" (what is it with homophobes using that expression by the way? But I digress). Namely, it would require at least some exploration of how homosexuality and transgenderism are viewed throughout Golarion. To whit, we know why religion is banned and oppressed in Rahadoum: because it caused massive civil strife. We know why colonialists treat the natives like garbage in Sargava: because ethnic Chelaxians are proud, arrogant, and like enslaving/dehumanizing people. So what would drive a whole group to despise LGBT people? You could fall back on the only real-world reason that I've ever heard, which is "they're yucky and I don't like them," but that's so boring.

Maybe a group of fanatics believes that enforcing their own brand of traditional gender roles will help "cleanse" society of its impurities. I'm sure there's a LE patron that would support this - probably one of the Infernal Dukes* or Malbranches. Or maybe a nutty alchemist wants to see if he can get two males or two females to reproduce, and he has some incredibly unpleasant experiments to test this thesis.

Ultimately though, any such plot line would invariably cast the LGBT characters in a sympathetic light. Then we'd have to go through another round of subtle and not-so-subtle bigots explaining why these characters don't belong in their game, ala The Worldwound Incursion thread.

*Titivilus, patron of lies, propaganda, and rhetoric would be a perfect fit.

[Detect Magic]

I think you could easily justify worshipers of Erastil being homophobic in Golarion. I don't think they would campaign against same sex marriage or anything, but they'd probably have no qualms about saying some homophobic garbage under their breath and to the people near them, and not to mention the dirty looks they'd give.

[Shisumo]

If Sarenraens can be Burners, I think we could probably justify an Erastilian sect that is actively and even violently anti-homosexual. What might be interesting there is that the sect likely wouldn't have issues with transfolk as long as the resulting pairings were still capable of producing children...

[Detect Magic]

My thoughts exactly. Erastil seems to be really concerned with the survival/reproduction. Old-world, conservative style--the kids take over when the parents are too elderly to work (caring for them in their old age).

[graywulfe]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important?

Have you read anything Paizo has printed since the start of the Pathfinder AP line? Seriously 90% or more of the NPCs in their material never mention sexual orientation. Why do they not qualify for your request?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation).

Seriously read their stuff. If you honestly feel that this is not in Paizo's material then you can't possibly have read it.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

Since when has anyone here said everything must represent their group? The answer here is never until you. You are the only one who seems to think that only your interest group should be represented.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue), and it was faith heavy, paladins very superheroes, and everyone else was a bit inferior to clerics or pallies.

The best games, are where you leave your politics and your identity at the door. Roleplaying isn't just about playing you or someone similar to you, or always making sure your political group is in a world far different to our own.

That is your definition of what Roleplaying is about. You are not the sole authority on Roleplaying. Seriously, please quit talking like you are an expert and everyone else's opinion is wrong.

Would I want to play in a game where someone is was forcing a Political or Religious agenda down my throat? No. You know what? No one here is forcing a Political or Religious agenda down your throat. You have chosen to perceive this attitude of inclusion as an attack. That is your problem.

Like it or not, sexuality is part of what motivates people. Sexuality has driven some of the greatest stories of all time. To ignore it is to weaken a story.

Without acknowledgement of sexuality, would the Iliad make sense. Of course not, Helen is an object of Lust to Menelaus and someone to be Loved to Paris. Both of these are aspects of sexuality, and without them the story has no reason, no catalyst for the events that unfold.

[Alice Margatroid]

Agreed on the Erastil front. I think they'd be the minority of stodgy old LN sects, but still could exist. They'd be the same ones advocating for women being barefoot and pregnant, etc.

[Pippi]

RJGrady wrote:

Don't ask, don't spell.

Boo! :P

[3.5 Loyalist]

graywulfe wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important?

Have you read anything Paizo has printed since the start of the Pathfinder AP line? Seriously 90% or more of the NPCs in their material never mention sexual orientation. Why do they not qualify for your request?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation).

Seriously read their stuff. If you honestly feel that this is not in Paizo's material then you can't possibly have read it.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

Since when has anyone here said everything must represent their group? The answer here is never until you. You are the only one who seems to think that only your interest group should be represented.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting. It makes the setting an uncomfortable place for those that aren't on board or very interested in the rosy presentations of one side. The last time I saw this, it was actually a series of games by a very Christian dm (so I am not just saying trans political proponents are the only issue),

...

If 90% of paizo npcs don't mention sexual orientation, and paizo npcs are great with plenty of depth, why does the sexual orientation of new npcs need to be mentioned or focused upon when they are LGBT?

It doesn't.
It isn't really that important, as it is missing from (your approximate) 90% of paizo npcs.

Thank you for making that useful point in the way you did. :}

In regards to the "must" it comes from Jacobs "make sure" in this quote:

"GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least."

Make sure they are included. Not put them in if you like, or think they fit, or if your group wants them. Make sure they are included. We are putting them in and will continue to do so, tow the line and make sure they are included. Sounds like Jacobs is saying they must be in. Funny stuff really, reminds me of the phrase the tyranny of the progressive. I know players that would not like the whole gamut of LGBT in game, and I respect their wishes not to be bothered with this. Jacobs clearly does not.

[KSF]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

RJGrady wrote:

You know what would float my boat? A male human LG paladin who is bisexual. Take that, haters!

How about characters where their sexual orientation is not important? With depth in other, more relevant areas. Such as, what have they done (not who they have done), where do their allegiances lie in the setting (making it less about them being inclusive representations) and what are their long term goals (thus moving beyond the goal of being an inclusive representation).

At a guess, I'd say that describes the majority of the NPCs in Paizo's products (outside of those in romances, whether they be straight or not.) Many of the NPC bios I've read for Golarion characters don't indicate their orientation. (I guess someone could, as a sample, go through and count how many in the NPC Codex do.)

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

With so much potential detail and depth, waving around the label of the bisexual paladin seems reductive. Great, can be convinced or convince themselves to have sex with pretty much anyone, and they are possibly genderfluid. And?

Conversely, isn't waving around the "too much politics" concern every time a single LGBT character is mentioned, or even (in this case) suggested, a bit reductive of the potential and depth of the setting as well?

And keep in mind that sometimes the inclusion of LGBT characters is something that can be and is done in the context of traditional fantasy genre stories, such as romance. Here, consider this:

A fighter leads a trio of mercenaries around, having adventures and earning their keep, when over the course of one such adventure, they rescue a wizard. The wizard not only joins the group, but also falls in love with the fighter. The fighter falls in love with the wizard as well. They become a couple, and the group continues on to have adventures together.

That describes a couple of NPCs in the Rival Guide, who both happen to be male. And from what I understand, the couple in the new AP are set up and function in a not dissimilar fashion - an adventuring couple that the party encounters that happens to have a interesting backstory, like a lot of adventuring couples do.

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

Not everything, or all that is new, has to be about your interest group you know? Or putting your identity in the game. Perhaps play something else other than your sex drive.

The original poster referred to a single, hypothetical character. Is once in a while representation an okay thing for Golarion or in an individual's game?

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

This issue is about political representation. One of the big mistakes I've seen dms pull, is to go hard with their politics and force it on to a setting.

I'm not sure that the occasional LGBT character, or having LGBT one character out of a cast of, what, 20, 30, however many NPCs are in an AP is "going hard with politics."

[thejeff]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I know players that would not like the whole gamut of LGBT in game, and I respect their wishes not to be bothered with this. Jacobs clearly does not.

I've known players that would prefer not to have women in game, at least not in any role other than "rescuee" or "reward".

I've known players that would prefer not to have any black characters in game.
I don't respect their wishes not to be bothered with such things and I don't see any significant difference between the types of prejudice.

[Mikaze]

thejeff wrote:

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

I know players that would not like the whole gamut of LGBT in game, and I respect their wishes not to be bothered with this. Jacobs clearly does not.

I've known players that would prefer not to have women in game, at least not in any role other than "rescuee" or "reward".

I've known players that would prefer not to have any black characters in game.
I don't respect their wishes not to be bothered with such things and I don't see any significant difference between the types of prejudice.

This.

You know who else was bothered by inclusiveness? The people that turned Bruce Lee down for the lead role in Kung Fu.

He would probably still be with us today if the studio hadn't appeased racism.

I'm using sloppy logic here, but if appeasing bigotry killed Bruce Lee, well #%€* that noise even more.

[TanithT]

RJGrady wrote:

Do straight characters need to actually make in a plot arc for good and valid storytelling reasons?

Well, yes, because the average interaction my PC's are going to have with any of my plot advancing NPC characters will not show any sexual orientation. At best, there may be a brief glimpse of their primary partner or some history they have with that partner. But that's going to be rarer than otherwise.

In order for the PC's to assume someone is straight or gay, they would need one glimpse of one piece of information tying them to a person of that gender. If the NPC hangs around long enough, they'll eventually get that. In order for the PC's to know that person is bi, they would generally have to see two pieces of information about their personal life. That's likely to take awhile if the story arc stays focused on stuff like worldkilling plagues, demonic undead, famine and desperation leading to holy war, etc, that does not leave anybody time to go on dates.

Doesn't matter what orientation you are, if you're busy saving the world, you're probably not making ANY kind of whoopee. So unless your relationship is extremely obvious and visible, it will be subsumed in the plot and invisible. The one exception is that if married couples with kids are depicted, the PC's will probably assume they're straight. There's nothing to say they aren't otherwise when the kids and the PC's aren't looking, but the chances of the PC's being told this when it's irrelevant to the plot and they would have no way of knowing this legitimately are pretty low.

Did my PC's eventually find out that my main NPC was bi? Sure they did, but since he is explicitly not drawn as the talky-talky type, it didn't surface until there were solid plot reasons for them to a) find out that he had a wife and daughter, because they were the ones hunting the party, and b) meet his ex lover, because he was in the priesthood they needed to find later on for crucial information on the undead plague.

Quote:

If you have to justify a character being bisexual, that seems to me like you're placing a burden on bisexuality. Like, it's not good enough to simply exist. You can have coffee in Golarion, but if you want bisexuality, it has to be justified.

Subtle but crucial difference. For storytelling purposes, I have to justify the on-camera time it takes to show that a particular character is bisexual without making them a flamboyant walking stereotype. Because that actually is harder to do, unless your character is in a culture where polyamory is the norm and you can show a single glimpse inside a multi partner household for valid plot reasons.

The burden isn't on being bi, but on allotting enough on-camera time to any NPC's personal relationships to show two of them. When I do have reason to show an NPC's relationships at all, it's a good reason. My half-orc character's complex relationship with his evil but strong and honorable Urgakh wife was awesome action plot fodder. Later on, almost every interaction the PC's saw him having with the sad and gentle priest who loved him deeply but was willing to let him go back to the harsh ways of his tribe for the good of the region was a major tearjerker. Lots of plot intensity and angst.

One of the major plot arcs of this campaign actually hinged on this character's bisexuality, much like Dumbledore's crucial back story involved his being with Grindelwald. BUT, and this is a big but (I cannot lie), if I had changed his character or the plot solely to show off his bisexuality before it was plot relevant, it would not have done a service to the plot or the character. So no, the PC's were not seeing it until it was good storytelling time for his past relationships to show up. It did take more time to legitimately show two relationships than it did to show one, so yes, depicting bisexuality was harder.

It certainly becomes easier if your character is not quite as taciturn and willing to talk openly about personal things, or if your campaign incorporates flirting for diplomacy checks or tavern breaks. But honestly, since you will never have occasion to know that the average person you interact with is bisexual, I don't play it that way for my PC's either.

[RJGrady]

TanithT wrote:

In order for the PC's to assume someone is straight or gay, they would need one glimpse of one piece of information tying them to a person of that gender.

Which will never happen if the NPC writeup doesn't include the information, "btw, homosexual."

TanithT wrote:

ubtle but crucial difference. For storytelling purposes, I have to justify the on-camera time it takes to show that a particular character is bisexual without making them a flamboyant walking stereotype. Because that actually is harder to do, unless your character is in a culture where polyamory is the norm and you can show a single glimpse inside a multi partner household for valid plot reasons.

... or ... they could just, you know, be bisexual. The game already makes a point of noting whether the paladin has a Craft (weaponsmithing) bonus of +8 as opposed to +9, I think there is room on the character sheet for, "btw, bisexual." By no means does this have to be a part of every writeup, but it's certainly the kind of detail that belongs in writeups for characters in a town or intrigue campaign. Certainly, any character that's going to be part of the Ultimate Campaign systems needs some kind of marriage orientation, at the very least. Certainly, some player is eventually going to wonder whether same-sex marriages are recognized civilly or religiously in any given region.

[TanithT]

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

The bisexuality was a tiny part, with homosexual acts just the taking of a friendship a bit further. A piece in a larger puzzle of what had happened to this character. It sounds like this part happened when the "savage" was in a vulnerable period of his life, and in need of guidance from a similar souls.

Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, you seem to have completely missed the part where I clearly stated that he was gay but situationally willing to be bisexual in order to father a child in the tribe's succession with another warrior. You're trying to use my character to tell your own narrative, which is one of a basically heterosexual man who maybe performs some homosexual "acts" because he is vulnerable and in need of guidance. And that's simply not who this character is. He is a gay man who was willing to father a child for the tribal succession. The true love of his life is male, and he had to choose between staying with that love and keeping his tribe out of a war that would have devastated the region. That's a pretty significant part of the backstory that you decided to write over with your own narrative.

Out of curiosity, how did you manage to miss it?

His relationship with his tribal chieftain wife is complex, and part of that complexity is that she is kha'heerz, having effectively renounced her female social status to be a warrior chieftain. She is not transgendered, but she does ritually present as male. This may or may not ever become a relevant plot point depending on what the PC's choose to do. Most parties will not end up interacting with the wife at all except from the wrong end of the battlefield.

Quote:

I was quite pleased that this former tribesman raised in a strict cultural background (but one which he moved away from to follow the LG path under tutelage), did not suddenly think he was a woman, or born a woman stuck in a man's body. He was a bit too stable and on too much of an important quest to engage in such dalliances, delusions or to be interested in changing his sex. Not genital focused at all; it was about his beliefs, morality and dealing with the consequences of a troubling background. :)

Wat. Why would you even say this. Any of this. Seriously, just why.

[TanithT]

RJGrady wrote:

Which will never happen if the NPC writeup doesn't include the information, "btw, homosexual."

... or ... they could just, you know, be bisexual. The game already makes a point of noting whether the paladin has a Craft (weaponsmithing) bonus of +8 as opposed to +9, I think there is room on the character sheet for, "btw, bisexual." By no means does this have to be a part of every writeup, but it's certainly the kind of detail that belongs in writeups for characters in a town or intrigue campaign. Certainly, any character that's going to be part of the Ultimate Campaign systems needs some kind of marriage orientation, at the very least. Certainly, some player is eventually going to wonder whether same-sex marriages are recognized civilly or religiously in any given region.

I think we're talking at completely cross purposes here, because I'm speaking as a GM who does not allow players to read NPC writeups and see that they have +8 on weaponsmithing. They don't get to know that unless they have occasion to have that NPC actually do some weaponsmithing. And even then they don't know the numbers. They just get to see that he does a good job or a bad job. Or there is some legitimate reason he gets around to telling them that he can make and repair weapons.

If the PC's don't happen to have occasion to involve this guy in any game-relevant weaponsmithing? Then they're not going to know he has this skill, because why would they. I'm not going to make up an arbitrary plot arc around weaponsmithing if there is no particularly good reason for it and it does not advance the plot. It's just another thing that is not remarkable and not worth focusing on at the expense of things that actually do advance the plot.

You're saying that a complete NPC writeup should have orientation information that the GM has access to. In some cases, yes, that's going to be highly relevant and a very good idea in a complete writeup for a long term plot-advancing NPC with whom the party is going to be significantly interacting. In other cases, no, because most NPC's will have only superficial interaction with the PC's, and you aren't going to need either their extended skill stats or their personal relationship information. Does the GM need to know, sometimes yes. Do the players need to know, that would be a resounding 'hell no' unless there is an actual in-game reason for them to know. Does not matter if the statistic is +8 weaponsmithing or bisexual. My players do not get this information for free.

Classic example, JK Rowling had to step in and tell the movie peeps not to hint at a love interest between Dumbledore and Minerva, because at that time only she knew the backstory between Dumbledore and Grindelwald that was plot relevant but not overtly revealed to the readers at that time. The PC's (eg, the readers and viewers) did not and should not know that part of the backstory yet. So, good thing for the DM to know, but a character breaking, plot immersion breaking or bad premature reveal thing for the players to know.

Additionally, leaving some of your NPC's flexible is not necessarily a bad thing. I can decide that of the sketchily drawn dozen-odd town guards in the scenario I am running, one or two of them are gay. Because that just makes logical sense, percentage wise. How much interaction are the PC's going to have with the town guards? I don't know, since I don't railroad my players. Probably not enough to get involved in any of their personal lives. But it could happen. Chances are good it will never come up, but if it does, I can run it at my own discretion. If I do, I'm going to have to come up with more backstory for the guard(s) they interact with, because the original scenario didn't really focus on the personal lives of those guards. So it's my job to flesh that out if my players decide to head in that direction for whatever reason. That's what a good GM does, because it's not reasonable for the writer of any scenario to write a phone book's worth of biography for every single inhabitant of a town.

[RJGrady]

TanithT wrote:

My players do not get this information for free.

Nor do mine. What are you talking about, seriously?

Quote:

Classic example, JK Rowling had to step in and tell the movie peeps not to hint at a love interest between Dumbledore and Minerva, because at that time only she knew the backstory between Dumbledore and Grindelwald that was plot relevant but not overtly revealed to the readers at that time. The PC's (eg, the readers and viewers) did not and should not know that part of the backstory yet. So, good thing for the DM to know, but a character breaking, plot immersion breaking or bad premature reveal thing for the players to know.

We are specifically talking about published NPCs. So, using this example as an analogy, Paizo would be JK Rowling telling the movie directors not to hint at a romance between Minerva and Dumbledore because Dumbledore is gay. It's equally as valid a thing as someone's weaponsmithing, and every published NPC is going to list their applicable skills, whether they necessarily come in play or not. A gang of rogues who threaten the PCs? Probably not necessary. The crown prince in a long term campaign? Relevant. You should describe what he is looking for romantically.

[TanithT]

RJGrady wrote:

We are specifically talking about published NPCs. So, using this example as an analogy, Paizo would be JK Rowling telling the movie directors not to hint at a romance between Minerva and Dumbledore because Dumbledore is gay. It's equally as valid a thing as someone's weaponsmithing, and every published NPC is going to list their applicable skills, whether they necessarily come in play or not.

Not necessarily, and you explain why right here.

Quote:

A gang of rogues who threaten the PCs? Probably not necessary. The crown prince in a long term campaign? Relevant. You should describe what he is looking for romantically.

Exactly. For sketchily drawn NPC's who aren't specifically intended to do a lot of interaction with the party, it doesn't make much sense to write ten pages of backstory or even complete stats for them if there is no reason to expect the PC's to go in that direction. Otherwise every adventure path is going to run about a thousand pages and include the backstory and relationship history of every dirt farmer the PC's pass on the road. Not feasible.

If the PC's specifically state that they are stopping at one of those dirt farmer's homesteads, then the GM gets to improv and decide whether this person grows turnips or corn or cabbages, what their relevant skills are other than farming, and whether they are male or female, gay or straight or bi or trans, a whole family living there or just one person. Because it's probably not going to already be written into the scenario, and unless you make a habit of railroading your players, sometimes they're going to head off the tracks and poke at stuff that isn't strictly part of the plot.

What I'm saying is that no, you don't need a gajillion stat blocks or detailed character write-ups for every scenario. Leaving many or even most of them lightly sketched out is just fine.

But yes, important PC's whose personal relationships and backstories are a significant part of the plot arc, it is needful for the GM to know a lot more about them. We are not in disagreement on that issue.

[TanithT]

KSF wrote:

I'm guessing that if someone was writing an adventure for Paizo, and they felt that such characters did not fit with the adventure, they would't be included.

I *am* LGBT, but I don't make characters LGBT for no better reason than my own orientation. That would border on Mary Sue-dom, and it's just not something I consider good writing or storytelling. I am not my characters, nor are my characters my personal idealized fantasies of anything. They actually don't tend to have anything at all to do with me personally.

To the best of my ability, all of my characters are their own people, as "real" as they can be. They have their own grit and flaws and scars and vices and virtues, tragedies and triumphs that shape them. To the best of my ability, their history and personality is completely consistent with the culture and world background they came from. It has nothing to do with the modern world or with my own beliefs or experiences in the modern world, because those characters are not supposed to be an obvious product of that world.

The storyteller is not the story. The storyteller is not even in the story. The default assumptions of the modern world do not exist in my fantasy world unless there is a logical reason for them to exist. I'll port basic physics and biology, but not culture. That's cheating. It is a major logic fail. It is also a sign of creative bankruptcy when a writer defaults to filling in details from Judeo-Christian medieval Europe because they can't be bothered to do the harder thinking about how a culture that worshiped completely different deities and had a completely different history would evolve. It would evolve differently.

Since I AM porting basic biology, a small but reasonably consistent percentage of the complex vertebrate organisms in this world will be some flavor of LGBT. That's an ordinary no brainer, same as a percentage of them being red haired or left handed or having perfect pitch. Am I going to make any part of my plot arc about the fact that someone is red haired or left handed or has perfect pitch? Maybe, but there had better be a good reason for that other than just for the sake of doing it.

Good worldbuilding dictates that there would have to be a reason for there NOT to be any red haired, left handed, perfect pitch or LGBT characters in the scenario. You can selectively violate the laws of biology and physics - the existence of magic does this - but you need to be internally consistent in explaining where the deviations are and how they work, or suspension of disbelief suffers. If it stops making sense for things to work that way, you probably need to work harder on your worldbuilding skills and the internal consistency of your settings.

If some fundamental piece of basic biology is not interesting enough or commonly visible enough to focus a story arc on, that doesn't mean it isn't there. You are only allowed to say it isn't there if you have a good reason that fits the story and the world you are building. No good reason? Then either it's in there in a way that makes sense, or you look pretty silly for having injected yourself and your agenda into the story at the expense of consistent worldbuilding.

Yes, that means one or two in every twenty or thirty characters you encounter are going to be some flavor of LGBT. Will it become part of the story arc in any relevant way? Not necessarily. I don't consider it something that is a good idea to either showcase on purpose or ignore on purpose.