| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't see why trans* people shouldn't be included, and why you feel that these people are a "movement" and not simply fellow human beings with a different gender identity.
I'm not challenging your preference, I'm challenging your reasoning.
But, I know that you're just arguing and arguing and arguing because your only hobby seems to be arguing over the internet and ruffling feathers.
|
Did anyone say that "shopkeeper #543" needs to be gay?
No.
Stop using hyperbolic examples to prove your point - its silly.
I keep hearing that the characters need to have a story reason to be gay - guess what? Irabeth and her wife do have reasons that develop their characters. Why don't you try starting there before attempting to conquer some fake concept such as "should I tell ALL of my players that an NPC is gay????! I don't want that!!!".
It is included for these characters in their backstories to flesh them out for the GMs; unless the PCs ask the characters directly, there is no storyline reason why the PCs should ever have to find out.
I AM saying that without reason they are neither gay nor straight in my games. Unless there is a reason it can go either way and not be an issue
Perpetually uncertain shopkeeper?
Faceless npc!?
I still don't see why trans* people shouldn't be included, and why you feel that these people are a "movement" and not simply fellow human beings with a different gender identity.
I'm not challenging your preference, I'm challenging your reasoning.
But, I know that you're just arguing and arguing and arguing because your only hobby seems to be arguing over the internet and ruffling feathers.
I'll put it succinctly this way, are you in Golarion? Your self and identity, all of it, are you in Golarion?
You are not.
Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.
Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.
Clear? Reasoned out?
I still don't see why trans* people shouldn't be included, and why you feel that these people are a "movement" and not simply fellow human beings with a different gender identity.
I'm not challenging your preference, I'm challenging your reasoning.
But, I know that you're just arguing and arguing and arguing because your only hobby seems to be arguing over the internet and ruffling feathers.
It isn't all arguing, I also like agreeing, sharing stories and rolling dice.
*Evil enemy npc adds more background. Do you smite Y/N?*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By your reasoning, humans shouldn't exist, trees shouldn't exist, straight people, children, mothers and cats shouldn't exist because all of these exist in the real world already and shouldn't be included in a fantasy world.
Clear? Reasoned out?
Just out of curiosity, are there any antagonists in Golarion who are LGBT? Not as in "you are gay and therefore are evil" but a bad guy that just happens to be gay?
Or would that unintentionally reinforce the negative stereotype?
Yeah, have to be careful of that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, well as I stated so far back, not against gay or bi characters, I've used them, thrown them in. My gripe is with trans in Golarion, and the movement and its ideas ported over directly (and the demand being that this happen, and anyone that opposes this is a... insert adjective of vilification. This is less on topic for this thread though).
In a strict sense, trans issues are certainly off topic for a thread putatively about "homosexual" characters, yes. But given the public perception of them as inextricably bound up (despite the difference between gender and sexual-preference), as well as the fact that trans people are part of the broader LGBT movement, it's-- perhaps-- germane.
I see no reason why people who transition gender should not be part of the setting. Historically there are countless examples of what are, from our perspective, people who change gender in one form or another. Why not in Golarion? As to your complaint that some of us impute unkind motives to the opposition, well, as I've said before, in the absence of a coherent argument that amounts to more than purely subjective opinionmaking, few other conclusions can be drawn, sadly. It's simply a matter of lacking data, you see.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.
Clear? Reasoned out?
At what point has anyone at Paizo credibly proposed to take away your DM discretion?
Lol, well as I stated so far back, not against gay or bi characters, I've used them, thrown them in. My gripe is with trans in Golarion, and the movement and its ideas ported over directly (and the demand being that this happen, and anyone that opposes this is a... insert adjective of vilification. This is less on topic for this thread though).In a strict sense, trans issues are certainly off topic for a thread putatively about "homosexual" characters, yes. But given the public perception of them as inextricably bound up (despite the difference between gender and sexual-preference), as well as the fact that trans people are part of the broader LGBT movement, it's-- perhaps-- germane.
I see no reason why people who transition gender should not be part of the setting. Historically there are countless examples of what are, from our perspective, people who change gender in one form or another. Why not in Golarion? As to your complaint that some of us impute unkind motives to the opposition, well, as I've said before, in the absence of a coherent argument that amounts to more than purely subjective opinionmaking, few other conclusions can be drawn, sadly. It's simply a matter of lacking data, you see.
Did you just say, well that's just like your opinion man, and try to gloss it up?
Of course I am talking opinion, we are discussing settings and what goes into our games and Golarion. As for the T movement and its members trying to get it more into Golarion, that is not opinion, it is happening. They think it is right (of course they do, it accords with their political cause).
At what point has anyone at Paizo credibly proposed to take away your DM discretion?
Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.
Clear? Reasoned out?
I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My view on Homosexuality in Golarion.
Traditional Cheliax- Basically one should carry on the family name otherwise have at it.
Traditional Taldan- I see similiar to Cheliax but I see it much more commonplace to have same sex lovers as a mistress or consort.
Traditional Ulfen- I see most countries of Ulfen society as a meritocracy anyway, I therefore forsee that it if someone disapproves of my husband he will see my axe, sort of scenario :P
Traditional Varisian- Now in a nomadic setting I see it is very nonchalant same-sex relations even nonchalance toward transgendered folks, even mystical reverence toward it at times. In a kingdom setting I see it very close toward Taldor but with more openness in the legalities of inheritance.
Traditional Vudran- I see again fairly open homosexuality and mystical reverence toward transgendered folks in vudrani society.
Traditional Mwangi- as the Mwangi are not a unified group and have dozens of tribes varying belief systems, I will say it will vary between hostility toward homosexuality, to openness toward it.
Traditional Keleshite- I am unsure of I would like to say low tolerance of homosexuality but I have yet to see too much on Kelesh and the Padishah empire of Kelesh, so I have little basis for that assumption.
Tradational Garundi- I see as generally low tolerance with exceptions here and there.
These are just my personal perceptions of the setting and my commentary. Feel free to discuss.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.At what point has anyone at Paizo credibly proposed to take away your DM discretion?
Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.
Clear? Reasoned out?
As you have been repeatedly told that was a statement to Paizo's Contributors, not GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.
I did say "credibly proposed" and that doesn't pass muster. (I was thinking more, fabulous gay & lesbian Paizo ninjas crashing through your skylight and disrupting your game. But go ahead, crush my dreams!)
((That was a joke))
Point being, however, nothing is being taken away from you. The source materials are authoritative, yes. I won't deny that. They set a tone, and they set the official canon, and version of events. But if you object to *that*, then you are objecting to the presence of LGBT (or in your case, just trans) people in that source material, and making a credible argument for *that* proposition requires more than you're giving (at least, if you don't want to be called all manner of "adjectives of vilification" ;) )
At any rate:
Traditional Cheliax- Basically one should carry on the family name otherwise have at it.
Traditional Taldan- I see similiar to Cheliax but I see it much more commonplace to have same sex lovers as a mistress or consort.
Traditional Ulfen- I see most countries of Ulfen society as a meritocracy anyway, I therefore forsee that it if someone disapproves of my husband he will see my axe, sort of scenario :P
Traditional Varisian- Now in a nomadic setting I see it is very nonchalant same-sex relations even nonchalance toward transgendered folks, even mystical reverence toward it at times. In a kingdom setting I see it very close toward Taldor but with more openness in the legalities of inheritance.
Traditional Vudran- I see again fairly open homosexuality and mystical reverence toward transgendered folks in vudrani society.
Traditional Mwangi- as the Mwangi are not a unified group and have dozens of tribes varying belief systems, I will say it will vary between hostility toward homosexuality, to openness toward it.
Traditional Keleshite- I am unsure of I would like to say low tolerance of homosexuality but I have yet to see too much on Kelesh and the Padishah empire of Kelesh, so I have little basis for that assumption.
Tradational Garundi- I see as generally low tolerance with exceptions here and there.
This is quite interesting; brilliant, even. It's very sociologically apt, I will say. Different societies will have different approaches. I have no problem with portraying homophobia/transphobia in game, as long as there's no cultural skyhooking of it (i.e. it exists for no reason at all). I also think that (and this may seem counterintuitive for some) religious veneration of trans people is one of the best ways to write us into a given fantasy setting. There are a lot of real-world historical examples of this, and a number of religious traditions have incorporated transitioning people. From the Gallae of Rome whose will to transition was born of dreams granted by the goddess Cybele, to the winkte of the Lakota tribe whose visions of Double Woman undergirded their identities, there are a lot of cultural models to hearken to. In RP campaigns I've run, everywhere from high fantasy to sci fi, religion was always fertile ground for writing trans people into the culture.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.
Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.
As my posts were getting deleted some days ago, I was mid-post and saying I am not in Golarion, my identity and its many parts are not in, so I don't get why others want to be in Golarion. I will also not be backing a political entity that tries to copy itself across.White, heterosexual, cisgendered European male is pretty much the default fantasy hero trope. Are you saying that you are none of those things? Or that you are all of them, plus some other things?
Folks who want to make basic biological facts disappear are usually the ones who can be most accurately described as political.
I wouldn't bet on any of your posts or replies to them surviving. Which you should probably take as a hint that what you are doing is not okay here.
Not white, not anglo, don't consider myself heterosexual (it does seem rather bland doesn't it? It doesn't represent what I am exactly), you use cisgendered like an insult and I don't claim that either and I have changed a bit in regards to identity since birth, and I am not European. :D
And Tanith, your posts on this got deleted before. You know I am not the topic yeah? So you can try to attach these labels which you are trying to use as some sort of insult (you are normal, you mountebank!), but they don't really fit for me and who I am; and who I am is not on topic. :P
Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.
Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.At what point has anyone at Paizo credibly proposed to take away your DM discretion?
Golarion is not here, it is not us. Now a group can demand to be included, we want representation! They can indeed do that, and the gaming company that produces the setting can get very political and side with one group over another. All this is what I consider undesirable (as a dm, as a player). For ported identities, it should be entirely up to the dm as to what goes in, so that there will be games with LGBT and games without T, and games with none of them where sexuality is entirely unimportant, in the older style which Andrew seems to favour. The company producing the setting should stay right out of this, make some notes and suggestions and never try to force any dm or player, to play their politics.Of course it is still up to the dm at the end of the day, but voices that threaten to be inclusive or face our wrath and scorn are tyrants.
Clear? Reasoned out?
As I think you know very well, he was referring to instructions to the freelancers that write the adventures, not to players or GMs.
I have already covered this. Jacobs saying "make sure they're included", not, put them in if you wish and think they fit, "make sure". That is anti-choice, of course it cannot be enforced, but I didn't like it one bit.I did say "credibly proposed" and that doesn't pass muster. (I was thinking more, fabulous gay & lesbian Paizo ninjas crashing through your skylight and disrupting your game. But go ahead, crush my dreams!)
((That was a joke))
Point being, however, nothing is being taken away from you. The source materials are authoritative, yes. I won't deny that. They set a tone, and they set the official canon, and version of events. But if you object to *that*, then you are objecting to the presence of LGBT (or in your case, just trans) people in that source material, and making a credible argument for *that* proposition requires more than you're giving (at least, if you don't want to be called all manner of "adjectives of vilification" ;) )
At any rate:
...Traditional Cheliax- Basically one should carry on the family name otherwise have at it.
Traditional Taldan- I see similiar to Cheliax but I see it much more commonplace to have same sex lovers as a mistress or consort.
Traditional Ulfen- I see most countries of Ulfen society as a meritocracy anyway, I therefore forsee that it if someone disapproves of my husband he will see my axe, sort of scenario :P
Traditional Varisian- Now in a nomadic setting I see it is very nonchalant same-sex relations even nonchalance toward transgendered folks, even mystical reverence toward it at times. In a kingdom setting I see it very close toward Taldor but with more openness in the legalities of inheritance.
Traditional Vudran- I see again fairly open homosexuality and mystical reverence toward transgendered folks in vudrani society.
Traditional Mwangi- as the Mwangi are not a unified group and have dozens of tribes varying belief systems, I will say it will vary between hostility toward homosexuality, to
Lesbian ninjas reminds me of Tenchu.
You had my curiosity, now you have my attention. :{D>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.
I cannot adjudicate on what characters you decide to use in your own games. I'd like to be clear about that. You do you. But if you're arguing that trans people cannot be in the printed source material of Pathfinder, then you'll have to make a stronger case than this just-so story you've been repeating.
Not white, not anglo, don't consider myself heterosexual (it does seem rather bland doesn't it? It doesn't represent what I am exactly), you use cisgendered like an insult and I don't claim that either and I have changed a bit in regards to identity since birth, and I am not European. :D
None of those terms were insults, though it is interesting that you saw insults in those rorschach adjectives. Without getting distracted by the will o'the wisps of identity politics, it's more than safe to say that Tanith's point was that you are, in various ways, more than likely represented in various places throughout the source material. All fantasy draws from reality, and it is shaped by the various sociological textures of that reality. It is not created entirely sui generis. That was Tanith's point-- and they further suggest that you are taking this for granted whilst mocking trans people for desiring similar representation, which comes off as hypocritical.
And no, I don't think you quite rise to the level of mountebank. *winks*
If I was at your table, I would like to see what you were running and play in your games, I wouldn't be disrupting it, but contributing.
I am glad that you get that I am very much pro dm and designer choice.
"for this product represent the full range of biologically normal and possible human sex and gender orientations in the game."
Do you know how much work there would be, to put them all into an adventure path? You would have to make it like ticking boxes of everything that is out there.
As I said, not everything fits into a game, a setting or an adventure path. Sign up to represent them all, and you are agreeing to tedium.
Yes, and not all peoples and politics fit into Golarion, or Golarion as realised through dm's games.Trans folks are people. People are not "politics." End of story.Echoing that. We really must get past this notion. It's not only tedious but profoundly insulting.I cannot adjudicate on what characters you decide to use in your own games. I'd like to be clear about that. You do you. But if you're arguing that trans people cannot be in the printed source material of Pathfinder, then you'll have to make a stronger case than this just-so story you've been repeating.
Not white, not anglo, don't consider myself heterosexual (it does seem rather bland doesn't it? It doesn't represent what I am exactly), you use cisgendered like an insult and I don't claim that either and I have changed a bit in regards to identity since birth, and I am not European. :DNone of those terms were insults, though it is interesting that you saw insults in those rorschach adjectives. Without getting distracted by the will o'the wisps of identity politics, it's more than safe to say that Tanith's point was that you are, in various ways, more than likely represented in various places throughout the source material. All fantasy draws from reality, and it is shaped by the various sociological textures of that reality. It is not created entirely sui generis. That was Tanith's point-- and they further suggest that you are taking this for granted whilst mocking trans people for desiring similar representation, which comes off as hypocritical.
And no, I don't think you quite rise to the level of mountebank. *winks*
I am not represented in fantasy, or any setting I have come across. Probably because of my strange background. I'm cool with that though, roleplaying is about playing different roles and characters to myself.
*wink wink nudge nudge*
|
|
As I asked above 3.5 Loyalist, what part of your identity is not represented in Golarion in one way or another?
Since you said you're not Anglo-Saxon, perhaps you're Australian Aboriginal? Sarusan almost certainly is an analogue to Australia/the Dreamtime, except actually occurring, so I imagine we'd see some Aborigine-inspired humans living there. (I really would like to see more about Sarusan!!) Pretty much every other ethnicity I can think of offhand is pretty prominently represented somewhere already, I believe.
I think it's important to be able to play whatever you like, whether that's something similar to yourself or something different to yourself. That includes trans* people and gay people and analogues of every ethnicity and culture, because every aspect has things to offer.
Alice,
That is a insult to Aboriginal culture, to attempt to compare the Aboriginal Dreamtime and its rich tapestry of stories as being represented in the scant detail of a fantasy setting. :'(
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, random thoughts on sexuality, and inclusiveness, in Golarion;
It might be 'inclusive' to include a society that is prudish about matters of sexuality, or 'non-traditional' (i.e. 'queer') sexuality.
Real world medieval families (the vast majority of them, anyway) slept all together in a single room (or yurt, whatever), and parents had sex in front of (presumably sleeping!) children.
Perhaps in Soviet Prudelandia, they have special rooms for that sort of business, maybe even like windowless bathhouses in the center of the village that various parents would skulk to visit late at night to do their unmentionable baby-making deeds, and then walk-of-shame back to their house, faces properly veiled, so as not to flaunt their filthy deeds. Unmarried couples would obviously never be allowed into the babymaking hut. Scandal! (So those wanting to have the sex with other than their spouses, or before being married, would have to sneak off to have secret assignations, perhaps hiding in the loft of someone's barn, or at a disreputable inn outside of town that turns a blind eye to unmarried couples wishing to 'rent a room' for a half hour or so.)
Other aspects of the culture would revolve around their discomfort around the topic of sexuality, such as special barns on farms in which the farmers quickly isolate any female animal that appears to be going into heat, and then introduce a male as necessary, if they wish to have more of said animal, so that no innocent passerby be scandalized by the shocking sight of animals copulating in the field. There's nothing to be done about wild animals doing what wild animals do, all out in the open, but, they'd sigh, 'That's just one of the challenges the gods have set before us, and a reminder of how inferior the lesser beasts are to us civilized men!'
Like Victorian urban legends about table legs being covered up because it was considered scandalous to look at something *called* a 'leg,' even if it was just a stick of wood, spellcasters in Prudelandia might have special cloths that fit over the heads of wands, rods or magical staves, because an uncovered wand is considered as offensive as dropping trou. Funky patterns and designs (the wizards arcane mark, perhaps, or the holy symbol of the local church, or the nations flag) would adorn these wand-drapes, and it would be something of a cottage industry, that might even spread to some local nations, who find the reasoning behind it mockable, but occasionally find a neatly-crafted wand-drape with their own insignia to be fashionable.
In Golarion, the most likely nation to adopt practices of this sort would be Geb, whose (mostly) undead rulers often find organic reproductive methods revolting and unnecessary, something that only slaves and lesser beings do, and should never do in the sight of their betters, who have evolved past that messy grunting nonsense. Those still 'young' enough to remember fondly whatever sex they had in life are similarly put off by still-living persons flaunting the sex they can still have, in front of their undead 'betters' who had to give it up to earn immortality.
(Superstitions might exist, relevant to the nation, to discourage public displays of 'lewdness,' such that slaves whisper to each other that children conceived in the sight of another invite possession by evil spirits, so terribly common in Geb, or that the sight of mortals have sex drives vampires and ghouls into hunger-frenzies, where they devour the offenders.)
Reproductive sex, as a means to make more slaves, or breed livestock for the farms, might be considered an ugly necessity, to be gotten done and over with behind closed doors, with as little mention of it as possible. Non-reproductive sex might be considered wildly inappropriate, to the undead, just 'being offensive for the sake of being offensive,' and so, in a society ruled by the sexless dead, same sex sexual relations would be seen as outrageous acts, meant to shock and offend.
Since undead are primarily sexless, and biological gender means little or nothing to them, transsexual or gender-identity issues would, officially, mean little or nothing to them, as a society. As long as one's sexual characteristics are vestigial and meaningless in your new existence as an undead, what possible reason would one have to want to trade them in for a different set of equally meaningless (and functionless) sexual characteristics?
That said, individual undead don't magically become more rational or open-minded with their own 'transition,' so there would likely be plenty of leftover prejudices (priestesses of Urgathoa who think that male priests of their order are inherently less 'favored' as they cannot become 'Daughters of Urgathoa' or whatever, lich-wizard-fuddy-duddies who aren't convinced that women have the cold reason necessary to make great strides in arcane research, for whatever antiquated misogynist reason that his own society abandoned centuries ago) and would therefore still react as if there was some meaningful difference between a ghoulish gentleman and a ghoulish lady.
The Prudelandia-as-Geb thought exercise put it into an evil place, where the discomfort-with-sexuality was a product of dislike-with-human-biology, but it could be theoretically possible to have a non-evil society that is uncomfortable with some aspects of sexuality.
A reincarnation based society, a strong believer in karma and paying in this life for sins of a past life, and accepting your current state as just one turn of the wheel, that, if accepted, will lead to a more preferred life on the next turn of the wheel, could see someone engaging in same sex relations or attempting to alter their birth gender as defying the challenges they've been handed down by the gods as the 'ordeal' they must endure to earn a better life (in the 'right' gender) the next time around. A strict version of this sort of society could hold that any attempt to 'change your circumstances' or 'go outside your station,' including changing careers or marrying someone of a different social status, would be defying the circumstances of your birth and the 'lesson' you were supposed to learn in this life, with possible dire repercussions for your *next* incarnation!
I haven't seen any sign that this exists in Vudra, or among the Samsarans, which seems the most karma/reincarnation friendly aspects of Golarion, but, even if it's not a general concept, there could certainly be groups of Samsarans, or groups of Vudrans who strongly believe such things, and would be very unfriendly to 'queer' characters, who they see as defying the gods by acting in ways they consider gender-inappropriate (or rejecting their physical gender entirely). It wouldn't be all about gender, obviously. These same sorts of believers would freak out just as strongly if a person attempted to change their race, dated outside their race, or even just acted and dressed like another race. (Wearing too much dwarven jewelry, or elven silks, or dying their hair like a gnome, or using halfling slang words, could be seen as a sign that a human is 'missing the point' of having been incarnated as a human, for instance.) Similarly, activities taken out of one's role or class or even Character Class, could be seen as deviating from the plan the gods set before you, so that a fighter who multi-classes as a wizard could be seen as some sort of waffling fence-sitter, unwilling to commit to the path set before him, and taking all sorts of risks with his afterlife. Women would be encouraged to shun him, because marrying someone who defies their own path in this manner could be seen as encouraging or accepting such defiance, and be risky to one's own next incarnation!
Could be a cool bit to add to Geb yeah.
I am not represented in fantasy, or any setting I have come across. Probably because of my strange background. I'm cool with that though, roleplaying is about playing different roles and characters to myself.
*wink wink nudge nudge*
It depends on what you mean by "representation." My exact source code of identity, if you like, (that is, the sum total of my individual characteristics, history, identity) will never be represented in an RPG. But certain highly general dimensions of it (non-white, woman, transgender, lesbian) very easily *can* be. The process of relating to a character is always one of bridge building between who you are and who they are. I do not have to be presented with a character who fits all the above characteristics in order for me to relate to them. I have RPed as or DMed men, white people, cis people, and hetero people. I have also taken as role models many of the same.
The argument advanced by myself and others is that it would be *nice* to see other archetypes as well. Anevia Tirabade is actually not at all like me in many ways, but I do relate to the story of her transition; it brought an empathetic smile to my face, and gladdened my heart to see that this well-written and sympathetic short story might find its way to gaming tables around the world. They are vanishingly rare and precious, and on top of all that it was neatly woven into the game world. So, I do not see, at all, why it never should've been written.
Making a suggestion-- that LGBT people exist in this world and that should not be forgotten as one writes in the setting-- is the exact opposite of "monstrous." It is, first of all, analogous to a reminder that, say, "dryads exist in this setting, so keep that in mind," and secondly very strange and quite hyperbolic to suggest that it is a monstrosity. What is morally questionable is arguing for exclusion on a capricious basis.
|
|
Alice,
That is a insult to Aboriginal culture, to attempt to compare the Aboriginal Dreamtime and its rich tapestry of stories as being represented in the scant detail of a fantasy setting. :'(
Not sure if sarcasm or not.
If not: I'm sure when they get around to detailing Sarusan it will be as culturally sensitive and well done as all the other cultures represented.
(Personally my homebrew campaign setting takes more than a little inspiration from the Dreamtime. That culture is woefully underrepresented in fantasy.)