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.
I was just responding to 3.5 Loyalist's assertion that James Jacobs is somehow forcing Paizo writers to add LGBT characters to adventures when they don't want to. (Or at least, that's how I read his "tyranny" comment.)
In other words, yeah, I was assuming that what you're saying here is the case.
Okay, so what about swords and horses? Why are those in Golarion? Why paladins? Why lances? None of those are human cultural universals. But they are all in Golarion.
Check out Tekumel for examples of aliens that are somewhat relatable, but only just barely playable. I mean that in the most admiring way.
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.
Jacobs' statement seems to describing an informal company policy (he said it's not something written down somewhere), rather than dictating to players what they can and cannot include in their own games. How does his statement restrict the choices of players about what NPCs appear in their own games? If players do not wish to encounter LGBT characters in published adventures that contain them, surely they can speak to their GM about removing them? (Just as, I think, you said your GM removed or did not refer to a gay character in one of the early Adventure Paths - do I have that correct? Though that seems to have been done without your knowledge, I think you said.)
How is a creative director directing his writers about the creative content of their published work an example of tyranny? Isn't that just a creative director doing his job? It's not so much the "tyranny of the progressive" as it is the way things work in many a creative field.
Further, given that Jacobs had a hand in the creation of the setting, knows it quite well, knows the intentions behind the setting, and is actively involved in the development of the setting, doesn't he get to have some input on whether or not LGBT characters are present within Golarion, and whether or not that presence is reflected in the published products?
Something else to think about:
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.
There's a lot within the setting and within the rules that does not affect 90% of players, or 90% of NPCs, or 90% of anything.
In the early days of the setting (in terms of publication, not in terms of the Age of Darkness and all that), almost everything was set in Varisia, correct? If that was the case, if the rest of the world, at that point left undetailed, was not necessary for the functioning of the various adventures or the enjoyment and experience of the players, did that mean Paizo should never have expanded past Varisia? Should they have not expanded past the Inner Sea? Should lower Garund remain forever unmapped? I don't think very many would argue that that is the case.
Or put it another way. Take any single character class. Given that there are 11 base classes, every single base class must necessarily run afoul of your "missing from... 90% of paizo npcs" criterion. If the numbers of NPCs are evenly distributed between the base classes, less than 10% of Paizo NPCs must be druids, and 90% of NPCs don't mention druids in their description or make use of any druid-specific rules. Should we therefore remove the druid from the game? And of course, the percentages drop further once you include the various later classes. Does that mean there should be no witches, no gunslingers, no magi? Should they have even been added in the first place?
The presence of LGBT characters within Golarion is like both of those things, geographic diversity and class diversity. In the case of the current discussion, the more recent more regular inclusion of trans characters is like including details about previously unexplored sections of the map, something a lot of Adventure Paths do. The implication is they've always been there, and simply have not been focused on until more recently. (Also, as indicated by the post from Jacobs that Hitdice dug up a couple of pages back, Paizo's valuing of diversity within Golarion is not a new thing.)
No one is saying that every single NPC (or PC) needs to be LGBT. No one is asking for that. What many people are asking for is that LGBT people be part of the weft and warp of the Golarion tapestry, just as we are in the real world. And that does include trans people. And bi people, since they seem to be coming up in these discussions a lot as well.
We're asking for the opportunity to run into these sorts of characters from time to time. We're asking for them to be part of the story, just as we LGBT people are part of real life. That's what much of this discussion is about. And it's really not asking so much.
So as far as I can see the majority of us have no problem with GLTBIQ characters, the fact that they have been part of Paizo products since the beginning and Paizo is a resounding success, proves that the majority of people who buy thier product have no issue either.
Those small few that do have a problem maybe loud and sometimes unable to let go... But they are few and I think that nobody would have a problem if they stopped buying Paizo products like the threaten to do and went away. The numbers of these people are so small I don't think Paizo would notice.
Good worldbuilding means picking what you port from the real world in an internally consistent way. Knowing where parallel evolution applies as well as where it stops is crucial.
Isn't the term "good worldbuilding" subjective? Or at the very least, isn't what you're describing simply one mode of worldbuilding? I mean, I realize that what you're referring to is part of a tradition of worldbuilding in science fiction and fantasy. But what if your creative goals are different? What if you're writing or creating a fable, whether a fantasy fable or a science fiction fable? What if you're not going for hard science fiction? Or realistic fantasy?
I've read various posts of yours about worldbuilding, and I agree that the approach is a viable one that often produces good results. (Obviously, you know your stuff.) I think the process in and of itself can be fascinating.
But at the same time I agree with thejeff that doing otherwise is not necessarily creative bankruptcy, and to label all alternatives as such seems to close down some of the possibilities and traditions of fiction (or of RPGs).
I mean, you'd have to throw out works like Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, something I'd rather not do. (And, I'd guess, something that writers who have done more rigorous wordbuilding in the Martian setting, like Kim Stanley Robinson, would not want to do. I'd guess. Would Robinson have written his Mars trilogy without Bradbury having first written The Martian Chronicles? I don't know.)
My personal favorite part of this, as an aside, is the evolution of truly nonhuman cultures and doing the really hard thinking about them without cheating and making them completely human except with wrinkled foreheads and funny ears.
I agree that that kind of thing can be annoying, but isn't that simply something that became a norm due to the technological or budgetary limitations of much of visual science fiction (that is, sci fi film and television)? After a certain point, after the appearance of enough works that use such aliens, it becomes its own tradition, or marker of a historical period within a genre, which then becomes fair game for later writers to take up, comment up, manipulate, homage, etc.
This should topic probably be in its own thread.
I mean, you'd have to throw out works like Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, something I'd rather not do.Why? How would you say that he is internally inconsistent in his worldbuilding? Or that he is cutting and pasting without thinking about what elements he's taking from the real world and why he's taking them?
Ah. I misunderstood you before. I took your underlying criterion to be one of realism and realistically motivated consistency rather than one of deliberate choice for intended effect. Apologies.
What I meant was that the Martian culture, and the early interactions between the Martians and the first... three Earth expeditions was it? That those interactions seemed to owe more to dream logic, fabulist logic, than to the plausible construction of a setting and an alien culture.
But okay, set that aside
I agree that that kind of thing can be annoying, but isn't that simply something that became a norm due to the technological or budgetary limitations of much of visual science fiction (that is, sci fi film and television)Reason yes, excuse no. I'm not buying it, in the literal sense as well as the philosophical.
I'll have to disagree there. I think the ridiculousness one sometimes finds in fantasy and sci fi can be quite lovely, partly because of its absurdity, partly because of the way that the various wide vistas of those genres can bump up against the constraints experienced by creators working in various historical instances. I think that can be worth engaging with on a creative level, as well as on the level of consuming the work.
But, personal taste and all that. I won't try to convince you otherwise, so I'll drop that.
Creative worldbuilding and depicting cities and religions and cultures and people who are not lazy cut and paste jobs from the real world or from cheesy, overused fantasy tropes is not so much a tangent to the topic of homosexuality in Golarion as very directly relevant.
How should homosexuality be depicted on Golarion? In a way that makes sense on Golarion. That is all.
I'm generally not a fan of "lazy" as a term used in criticism. Again, personal taste on my end, I suppose. I think it's used in written criticism too frequently these days, where it often seems to indicate a dislike of choices made by a creator more than anything else, and too easily elides the work that can go into even an ineffective story, film, what have you. And cheesy can be good sometimes, in my opinion. But that's venturing back into forehead alien territory.
All that said, I'm not sure that cheesy, overused fantasy tropes, as a category, are necessarily endemic to worthwhile depictions of homosexuality, in Golarion or otherwise. If you're talking about certain, specific overused fantasy tropes (the always straight white male conqueror hero, maybe, or something along those lines), then, maybe.
However, I think the issue of how homosexuality should be depicted in Golarion is more a matter of making decisions about the world you are depicting, what you include within that depiction, what you exclude, and what meaning is contained within the various inclusions and exclusions that you have put into play.
I'm probably not expressing this clearly, but I think a more strict or more exclusive reliance on worldbuilding logic in order to justify Paizo's depictions of homosexuals (or bi or trans people) within Golarion can serve to push aside the moral dimensions of the issue, which to me seem more significant though not incompatible with the realistic motivation you're describing.
Generally speaking, fantasy world-building begins with identifying the elements you want, then explaining them. For instance, most settings start with human cultures, and traditional high fantasy assumes swords, monarchies, and magic.
Generally speaking, fantasy world-building begins with identifying the elements you want, then explaining them. For instance, most settings start with human cultures, and traditional high fantasy assumes swords, monarchies, and magic.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was trying to get at in my long-winded fashion.
Anyone else notice how most Evil Foes in Fantasy are either an Individual or small group with numerous lesser evil underlings who are mostly evil simply for following orders or by being raised that way?
One thing I notice that is really lacking in most are the Openly evil and despised Factions when people are World Building.
I mean an old official D&D Setting only had a single faction that was openly Evil and didn't try to hide behind a mask... Though that was interesting in that they were lead by a Closet Gay Sorcerer and his Closet Lesbian Queen. But the rest of the World was made up of Good Factions with the Odd Lich, Dragon, Demon, or Devil that would appear and stir up trouble.
Contributor
|
Generally speaking, fantasy world-building begins with identifying the elements you want, then explaining them. For instance, most settings start with human cultures, and traditional high fantasy assumes swords, monarchies, and magic.They end with human cultures as well. Because we don't have any experience of what it's like to be any other form of sentience. So just about any race you can point to, you'll find at least distorted aspect of humanity within it.
Isn't this implicitly a good thing? I mean, all anthropological fiction is really about us. As is all human mythology. Dragons are human greed along with everything else.
Monarchies, likewise, are about families, good and bad.
This is the genius that is Bradbury. ...
Yeah, I agree with that reading of the stories, it matches my own understanding of them. Again, I was working from an initial misunderstanding of your world building criteria. Just wanted to explain why I brought him up within the context of my initial misunderstood understanding.
I'm a big Bradbury fan. Good stuff. Thanks for taking the time to write that out.
Pretty much what I said. How homosexuality is depicted on Golarion should make internal sense for the setting. It should not be influenced by deities or historical figures that never existed in the world you are depicting. It should be a logical progression based on the religions and cultures that you have chosen to exist in that world. Oh, and you have vertebrate organisms that otherwise obey our world's basic laws of biology and evolution? Then you have an LGBT percentage. Deal with it, or explain why you aren't, in a believable way that has internally consistent logic within the setting.
Well, I don't disagree with what you're saying here, but that's not quite what I was saying. I was trying to get at how the final effect and experience of a given work is shaped by the creative choices that went into the formation of the work.
I'm thinking of the way exclusions and inclusions feed into expressivity on the part of the creator, and the way both the results of their choices, and the consumer's awareness of their choices inform one's understanding of the meaning of a given work. (By consumer, I mean consumer of a given creative work rather than a customer in the sense of a Paizo customer.)
I was talking on a more general (but compatible) level, I think. The idea being that the decision to include LGBT characters within a fantasy setting can certainly rest upon realistic motivation, as you're describing, but it can also rest on a decision to express something about the setting, the genre, our culture, what have you. (And one could either start with realistic motivation or work back to it once the decision has been made. Or hold both motivations simultaneously.)
Do you think that bigots care that their behavior is morally wrong, or do you think that they are pretty good at convincing themselves that they are morally right? Arguing with people on that level is a complete waste of time, so I'd prefer to zing them with something more practical. Specifically, that it's very bad science to deny that there is a consistent percentage of vertebrate organisms that show behaviors on this spectrum, and it's very bad storytelling to make up reasons for pretending otherwise if you lack any justification in the world setting.
It's really a question of tactics, isn't it? What one thinks will best convince someone. What one thinks is or is not a waste of one's own time.
I'm less convinced that a direct, factual approach will work with someone who's more deeply dug in. People sometimes dismiss facts pretty easily. I think that approach works better with someone who is indifferent, or at least not deeply committed to LGBT exclusion. Someone relying on faulty logic or misinformed science rather than emotion in choosing that position. (I've successfully used that approach in the past with people who are at that more mild level.)
However, what do I know? I wouldn't say that your approach shouldn't be applied to the problem, it's a worthy tack to take. And each individual concerned with this issue has to decide how best to spend their time on it.
I appreciate the things you bring to these sorts of discussions.
Anyways, I think that's it for me tonight. Thanks for the discussion.
Tanith, this may be a bit of a derail, but have you ever read The Chronicles of Tornor, by ELizabeth R. Lynn? I get the feeling you would enjoy that trilogy, but sadly out of print.
Generally speaking, fantasy world-building begins with identifying the elements you want, then explaining them. For instance, most settings start with human cultures, and traditional high fantasy assumes swords, monarchies, and magic.The point of a detailed, shared-creation original fantasy world like Golarion is that we actually want to do better than staying stuck with, "Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away...."
It is my impression that you are being very precious. Even a world like Tekumel has swords, monarchies, and magic. There is no reason to assume I was suggesting every fantasy RPG needs to be set in the world of Sleeping Beauty. This is not the first time you've taken pains to prop up your lectures by acting as if you've demonstrated the simplicity of my viewpoint, which of course you have not. I'm glad you take a deeper approach to world-building, and I appreciate your fidelity to both aesthetic truth and practical game play. But you are not the first person to have these ideas. In all honesty, I find myself getting irritated, which is really unnecessary because I entirely agree with many of your points.
Bringing this back around, world-building serves the game, and the game should be built around themes, and this is done using elements. So, really, the elements come first. Whether it's swords, monarchies, elves who are actually sentient clouds of gas inhabiting shells made out of flower petals, or a diversity of sexual practices, these choices are not accidents. They are choices by the creator. It is not immature to simply decide to include a character who is, simply, gay. It is just a choice.
Further, importing real world identities into game world analogs is not immature. Not only is it a choice, but it is a necessity that you do this in some fashion. Even something as simple as assuming the people of Golarion follow Western marriage traditions means you are importing a bit of Roman law into the setting. And that's really okay. It's not cut-and-paste cheating. It's called, not re-inventing the wheel. It's called storytelling. It's called focusing on the novel elements, rather than wearing out familiar elements by overthinking them.
What I am talking about is not leaning on cliches. It is good, classic, largely irrefutable worldbuilding advice, and it is just as relevant as everything you have to say about taking building blocks and working out logically from there. Both have to be done. The setting has to be logical, but its elements should be deliberately chosen.
Anyone else notice how most Evil Foes in Fantasy are either an Individual or small group with numerous lesser evil underlings who are mostly evil simply for following orders or by being raised that way?
One thing I notice that is really lacking in most are the Openly evil and despised Factions when people are World Building.
I mean an old official D&D Setting only had a single faction that was openly Evil and didn't try to hide behind a mask... Though that was interesting in that they were lead by a Closet Gay Sorcerer and his Closet Lesbian Queen. But the rest of the World was made up of Good Factions with the Odd Lich, Dragon, Demon, or Devil that would appear and stir up trouble.
I think that's in part because one of the tropes for evil is "doesn't play well with others."
So villains are okay with having underlings, but the sort of compromise and cooperation that is required for building a faction are sort of antithetical to who we assume evil people to be.
I'm not saying that the assumption is necessarily true -- I'm just saying that it's overwhelmingly prevalent.
It's one of the reasons I like having neutral antagonists in my homebrew. It seems more plausible to me that they'd be able to get lots of other people to work with them, and it prompts my players to be more creative in how they approach dealing with antagonists, since many of them aren't bad people, and don't necessarily deserve to be wiped out -- they just happen to have goals that are opposed to the PCs'.
Anyone else notice how most Evil Foes in Fantasy are either an Individual or small group with numerous lesser evil underlings who are mostly evil simply for following orders or by being raised that way?One thing I notice that is really lacking in most are the Openly evil and despised Factions when people are World Building.
I mean an old official D&D Setting only had a single faction that was openly Evil and didn't try to hide behind a mask... Though that was interesting in that they were lead by a Closet Gay Sorcerer and his Closet Lesbian Queen. But the rest of the World was made up of Good Factions with the Odd Lich, Dragon, Demon, or Devil that would appear and stir up trouble.
I think that's in part because one of the tropes for evil is "doesn't play well with others."
So villains are okay with having underlings, but the sort of compromise and cooperation that is required for building a faction are sort of antithetical to who we assume evil people to be.
I'm not saying that the assumption is necessarily true -- I'm just saying that it's overwhelmingly prevalent.
It's one of the reasons I like having neutral antagonists in my homebrew. It seems more plausible to me that they'd be able to get lots of other people to work with them, and it prompts my players to be more creative in how they approach dealing with antagonists, since many of them aren't bad people, and don't necessarily deserve to be wiped out -- they just happen to have goals that are opposed to the PCs'.
Well put. There are a lot of reasons to oppose the PCs / their goals besides just alignment. When I do have evil antagonists planned the Law-Chaos part of the alignment is key. Lawful evil, big organizations possible (but not mandatory) often minions are LE / LN. Chaotic evil, not so much. Probably individuals or small groups of various evil alignments. Neutral evil, users whose minions are probably a mixed bag with various alignments. Variation comes with the level of the opponents. A high level CE villain is more likely to have a larger footprint in the world than a low level one. High level LE, well there could be an army on your trail... Culture and race play a part in the type / level of organization (if any) as well.
Anyone else notice how most Evil Foes in Fantasy are either an Individual or small group with numerous lesser evil underlings who are mostly evil simply for following orders or by being raised that way?
One thing I notice that is really lacking in most are the Openly evil and despised Factions when people are World Building.
I mean an old official D&D Setting only had a single faction that was openly Evil and didn't try to hide behind a mask... Though that was interesting in that they were lead by a Closet Gay Sorcerer and his Closet Lesbian Queen. But the rest of the World was made up of Good Factions with the Odd Lich, Dragon, Demon, or Devil that would appear and stir up trouble.
I have no idea what world you were talking about.
(...)
It probaably wasn't the Forgotten Realms either. The Harpers were certainly not "good", although individual Harpers certainly were. And there were quite a few evil and repressive empires to go around.
Large evil organizations: Wizards Of Thay, Cult Of The Dragon, Zentharim, worshippers Of Bane, worshippers of Cyric, some others of lesser magnitude. Nope, not applicable.
And it certainly wasn't Eberron by any stretch of the imagination, where even the Gods weren't checking to see if their clerics were going astray, even in matters of alignment.
Eberron does not have clear cut borders between the good, the bad and the ugly. It's shades of gray fitting noir aspects of the setting.
Dragonlance: Openly evil organizations - Black Robes prior to War Of The Lance. Minotaur empire could be disputed to be this as well. Cults of evil gods once the return of the gods is revealed.
Planescape: It's complicated...
Ravenloft... Where to start... Well, every damn domain is ruled by evil master but many of them are either masquerading as not-evil or not obvious. Not much for organizations here, though beyond a few evil rules with more developed hierarchies (Azalin Rex and Kargat, his secret police is primary example).
The thing with those are they acted good to the majority of the populace last I checked. They might have been cruel but they still acted good.
Just a wild shot in the dark, but by official D&D setting...he doesn't mean AD&D settings...D&D's official setting was Mystara???
Wasn't it???
|
The thing with those are they acted good to the majority of the populace last I checked. They might have been cruel but they still acted good.
I'm not sure what kind of organization you're referring to with your question. Do you mean an apologetically evil group that wears its cruelty on its sleeve? Because Rovagug cultists are all over that. Nobody likes them. If word gets out a cult's gotten started somewhere, the local good AND evil churches will team up to beat the crap out of them.
I feel it may be a better question to ask in its own thread, though.
Sorry not that good with conveying this thought... What I am thinking is an organization that doesn't hide in the shadows and is willing to do no matter what to achieve their goals.
And by Official I mean it was an Official Setting from the main Publisher at that time. I can't remember if it was a TSR or Wizard's Setting though...
Sorry not that good with conveying this thought... What I am thinking is an organization that doesn't hide in the shadows and is willing to do no matter what to achieve their goals.
And by Official I mean it was an Official Setting from the main Publisher at that time. I can't remember if it was a TSR or Wizard's Setting though...
Maybe such organizations hiding in the shadows becomes the usual route because it allows for a longer period in which the PCs have to figure out what's going on, thus creating a longer adventure with either an investigation period or a period in which the PCs battle their way through several fronts or lower minions, each time learning there's a larger power behind this.
Think of it that way, and it's a narrative delaying tactic built into the setting not unlike the various delaying tactics built into a lot of fiction (e.g. It's a long way to Mordor, one does not simply walk in, unless you have to, in which case it takes a long while, and people will stop you along the way, particularly if you've got three movies to fill and you need to stretch things out a little further.)
Maybe the idea or perceived benefit of creating longer campaigns of this sort (or individual adventures of this sort) creates a selective pressure on the worldbuilding choices with regards to the various evil organizations. At some point, the response to that pressure becomes the expected or common approach, and thus you have the situation you're talking about.
It certainly lends itself to RPG videogame construction - you can expand the plot by adding more and more episodes (episodes in the general sense of episodic narratives - somewhat modular sections of the plot, extended quests, chapters, what have you) in order to create a desired run-through time for the game, and to allow for a later sequel if the first game (or module) is successful enough.
I've never played through an Adventure Path, but there's probably something like that going on there as well. (Okay, first you got to go here and do the thing. Now, you got to go do the other thing. Wait, now there's another thing you got to do, so go way the heck over there. Now come back. Okay, there's the big bad guy. Fight.)
(I hope that doesn't read as a criticism of the Adventure Paths.)
Sorry not that good with conveying this thought... What I am thinking is an organization that doesn't hide in the shadows and is willing to do no matter what to achieve their goals.
And by Official I mean it was an Official Setting from the main Publisher at that time. I can't remember if it was a TSR or Wizard's Setting though...
Hellknights?
Sorry not that good with conveying this thought... What I am thinking is an organization that doesn't hide in the shadows and is willing to do no matter what to achieve their goals.
And by Official I mean it was an Official Setting from the main Publisher at that time. I can't remember if it was a TSR or Wizard's Setting though...
Scarlet Brotherhood? They were found in Oerth, which TSR/WotC briefly re-visited during the ramp-up to the launch of Third ed, but otherwise pretty much completely ignored during Second ed days.
