Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

4,101 to 4,150 of 5,778 << first < prev | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Hakken wrote:

so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?

When Paizo does include homosexual people and makes them like Miss Feathers it may offend some homosexual people. Others may like her. I don't know if there is any way for everyone to be happy. Best recourse is to give people the benefit of the doubt until you know for sure they meant to insult.

Speaking of Miss Feathers, for those of you who know Miss Feathers--him or her? I guess if you look above, I automatically went with her--that may offend some, but it would not have been intended.

If you are asking what in-world words we would use in our games, I think the term "queer" would probably be the less offensive terms that people on Golarion would use for describing LGBT people. There are the more archaic forms, such as calling a gay man a "Molly" and a lesbian woman a "Tommy." But I don't think I would break out the more offensive terminology unless it is being uttered by a particularly crass villain.

Silver Crusade

I may have played a trans* character. Whether this qualifies as 'trans*' or not I'll leave you to judge.

D&D 2nd ed. Boxed set of Dragon Mountain. Intended for PCs of 10th to 15th level, IIRC. There is only one player (me) and one DM. We decide that we will have a six-person party and I will create three of them and he will create the other three as DMPCs.

I decided that one of my PCs would be dual-classed. This was different from multi-classed (where you start as a multi-class PC and gain levels in both as you gain experience); dual classed meant starting as one (single) class, adventuring for a time (at least 2nd level), then stop using that class' abilities and start being a second class! If you fell back on using the old class' abilities then you got no experience for that encounter. Only after your levels in the new class exceeded your levels in the old class could you mix abilities without penalty, but you never again gained any levels in your old class.

I decided that this PC's old class was fighter 7th, and his current class was transmuter(specialist wizard) 12th. My backstory was a macho warrior-type who, at 7th level, found out that his new Girdle of Giant Strength was actually a Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity!

He was very male, and didn't want to be a damned woman! He was quite chauvinist. He stopped being a fighter and started being a transmuter simply so that he could eventually find a way to magically return him to his old body.

When it came time for him to learn the polymorph spell, he failed his roll! He was stuck.

As the adventure begins, he has learned some measure of humility and is in a relationship with another of my three PCs, a female elf fighter. The fact that this meant that it seemed like a lesbian relationship was not a problem for a straight male player like me.

After the world-saving second campaign ended, they settled down and retired, seemingly at peace with the female body.

Does that count as 'trans*'?

Shadow Lodge

My gay friends hate the word queer and instead want to be called gay. Queer, especially for males refers to much of feminized, while gay is used commonly used for two unrelated things.

Neutral for homosexual, both male and female, and stupid/dumb/uncool/unfun, (easily distinguished by context),and having nothing to do with homosexuals or sighting them. People are different?


Abraham spalding wrote:
So I recently attended a cultural sensitivity class (we have plenty we are required to attend) and it made me thing of what such a class in Golarion might look like.

Oh lord, that'd be a complete trip. How would Rangers attend the class? I'm imagining Dwarves and Half-Orcs in the same class, making backhanded compliments at each other the whole time. Trying to learn all the proper terms for a kobold den, etc etc. Could you just imagine a group of Pathfinder Society recruits sitting in on this?

Actually I could see Clerics and Inquisitors and others interested in religion to take the class, not because they want to become more sensitive, but because they want to learn more about opposing religions so they can find them and root them out easier.

Shadow Lodge

Nah, it's more like understanding how their religion, or similar ones act and believe in other parts of the world.


As mentioned upthread, I'm rather fond of linguistic turns of phrase for everything, not just specific sexual orientations.

This did, however, bring something odd to mind in regards to the a certain Empyreal Lord and the insistence on being Transgendered (which, to me, seems almost a misnomer/inapt analogy as celestial beings would default to a non-gendered stated barring an established sense of self-identity) by creator of said. As a concept, I absolutely approve of Arshea, both in regards to liberated thinking and life-positive hedonism. As a personal taste, not so much. I have characters I could see serving Arshea, but would be more akin to being in specialized cults that don't provide for all aspects directly, as much as serve the greater concept and focus on one part without explicitly excluding the rest.

This probably comes of one particular bit of bigotry that I suffer, not out of malice, but out of a frustration with science and how it impacts my thought process, regarding certain amounts of binary interpretation.

Most of my philosophical workings are default to 'shades of grey' instead of 'black and white'. Most of my observations that result, however, are prone to more direct opposition and either-or-ness. My own orientation is a very clearly established heterosexuality, even as I support my Alphabet Soup friends and their friends and even total strangers. I lack same-sex attraction, but my outlook as a result is, simply put, I don't flirt with men; the interest isn't there, so why lead someone else on? I'm opposed to discrimination against people based on orientation, support equal marriage rights and access, and frankly agree with the 'don't like gay marriage? Don't marry a guy if your a guy or a gal if you are a gal' crowd. I've had a few misguided sorts mistake my rejection of their advances as a phobia, when simply put I don't have to accept advances that don't interest me, and equal opportunity only applies to the equally interested.

For all of that, I'm not offended by Arshea being transgender-centric; it just loses something for me, which is probably my loss. Then again, I encourage my friends who want to transition, or identify as their mental gender, but the physical gender tends to be what I respond to, resulting in an unpleasantly cavalier callousness in regards to some strangers and how I interpret their struggles. To me, the true transitions will come when we can clone a body, tweak the secondary X/Y so that it's the other chromosome necessary for the desired results, and then transfer the mind into the new shell - until then we can do a lot of modifications to the chassis to more accommodate the occupant, but it's still an extravagant case mod, and not a full-on correction. Putting a classic PowerPC into a generic x86 case doesn't make it any less a PowerPC, just as back in the day one couldn't really run MacOS on classic Intel architecture without emulation. Nowadays, of course, both run on Intel hardware, and you can run Windows on a Mac via BootCamp or Parallels, and that's closer to realizing the ideals that could be applied to gender, were it not for the limitations of our firm-/wet-ware (and that's meant in the non-pervy sense).

I can accept that this makes me less tolerant than I personally aspire to be. It does not mean I get to discriminate on that basis, and frankly I'd rather not. It does lessen my appreciation for Arshea inasmuch that I would not be too interested were I somehow magically transported to Golarion; but then, if magic were involved, real world logic would no longer apply.

The part that I guess I could say I'm happiest about is that there's no particular compunction against servitors who find their sense of beauty to be either specifically-gendered or not-inherently-androgynous, though it's an understandable expectation that such sorts would be more attracted to Calistria's worship, instead.

Would such views be seen in Golarion as 'square'? 'Staid'? Derided as unadventurous? I do wonder.


Arshea seemed epicurean to me.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Arshea seemed epicurean to me.

I could see that - best of all worlds/options, given the opportunity. The dogma matches, too.

I just wonder if that might interfere in some regards with the acquisitions of servitors who might agree, but don't parallel the tastes so broad-spectrum.


Louis Lyons wrote:
Hakken wrote:

so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?

When Paizo does include homosexual people and makes them like Miss Feathers it may offend some homosexual people. Others may like her. I don't know if there is any way for everyone to be happy. Best recourse is to give people the benefit of the doubt until you know for sure they meant to insult.

Speaking of Miss Feathers, for those of you who know Miss Feathers--him or her? I guess if you look above, I automatically went with her--that may offend some, but it would not have been intended.

If you are asking what in-world words we would use in our games, I think the term "queer" would probably be the less offensive terms that people on Golarion would use for describing LGBT people. There are the more archaic forms, such as calling a gay man a "Molly" and a lesbian woman a "Tommy." But I don't think I would break out the more offensive terminology unless it is being uttered by a particularly crass villain.

see that is good to know. I have always thought that homosexual was the term that was preferred. Whichever term you hear me use--know it will not be meant to offend---I just don't always know which one is preferred.

I got roped into Gming a game last minute and one of the players at my table was a male playing a female character. As it was last minute, I was having to basically read and GM the scenario as I went along and I a couple of times referred to the character as a him (since a male player was playing the character--ie comments such as "you notice him staring vacantly at the corner--character was confused)

The player got very upset at me because I was getting his characters gender wrong---even though it wasn't on purpose. I did not even ever get caught up enough to learn what classes each person was really playing--so just defaulted to looking at the players when calling out initiatives--thus the gender mistake on character. I found out 10 minutes ahead of time I would be GMing a scenario instead of playing it.


TheAntiElite wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Arshea seemed epicurean to me.

I could see that - best of all worlds/options, given the opportunity. The dogma matches, too.

I just wonder if that might interfere in some regards with the acquisitions of servitors who might agree, but don't parallel the tastes so broad-spectrum.

Well ideally if you are epicurean you don't want to force others into something they don't want, as that's not enjoyable/the good life.

As such you would just accept they are at a different point than you are and continue to lead by example even if they aren't up to that ideal yet.


Abraham spalding wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Arshea seemed epicurean to me.

I could see that - best of all worlds/options, given the opportunity. The dogma matches, too.

I just wonder if that might interfere in some regards with the acquisitions of servitors who might agree, but don't parallel the tastes so broad-spectrum.

Well ideally if you are epicurean you don't want to force others into something they don't want, as that's not enjoyable/the good life.

As such you would just accept they are at a different point than you are and continue to lead by example even if they aren't up to that ideal yet.

I'll buy that.

I should try applying that, in a non-Golarian example, to people in regards to the character of Poison from the Final Fight franchise. The transgender aspect spawned from a single flippant comment, and that comment became canon, and it annoys me to no end because the distinction is important enough to impact my feelings about the character.

TL;DR lady is post-op transgender in America because of a concern of portraying violence against women, so Capcom Japan said, 'No it's cool, it's really a new-half (pre-op/non-transitioning with breasts performing a 'tuck' type maneuver). The cause for it is why it is a point of appalled disgust, divorcing completely from the way some people would go 'lol trap'.

Also, part of me wonders, given that all faiths have room for unpleasantries in direct violation of the board's rules and tenets, if those who holds what would be considered moderately traditional choice of aesthetics would be derided or dismissed as being somehow 'less devoted' to the ideal. To wit, inevitable schisms of whether the ideal is the androgyny, the sensuality, or if the two are mandatory in their conjoining.

Webstore Gninja Minion

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed off-topic posts. Let's be 100% clear on this: If you want to talk about real-world LGBTQI issues, we have other threads on these topics. Many of them, in fact. This thread is about how homosexuality (and related issues) are viewed in GOLARION, a fantasy world. Please keep your discussions about the real world in the appropriate thread. Continuing off-topic posts in this thread will be nuked.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Nah, it's more like understanding how their religion, or similar ones act and believe in other parts of the world.

Fair enough.

Actually, I could seriously see this being a thing in Pathfinder Society, if only to keep the field agents from trying to kill each other. I mean hell, you throw Andorans in with Chelaxians, Paladins in with necromancers, superstitious barbarians in with wizards, etc etc.

AAAAnyway, back to homosexuality, I distinctly remember one PFS scenario involving a prominent homosexual couple, although it was rather tragic (and had an irritating chase scene but that's a discussion for another time). I think there was even a response from one of the npcs if you brought it up. And no one answered my question earlier on whether or not the Qadria faction head is gay or not.

Liberty's Edge

FanaticRat wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Nah, it's more like understanding how their religion, or similar ones act and believe in other parts of the world.

Fair enough.

Actually, I could seriously see this being a thing in Pathfinder Society, if only to keep the field agents from trying to kill each other. I mean hell, you throw Andorans in with Chelaxians, Paladins in with necromancers, superstitious barbarians in with wizards, etc etc.

AAAAnyway, back to homosexuality, I distinctly remember one PFS scenario involving a prominent homosexual couple, although it was rather tragic (and had an irritating chase scene but that's a discussion for another time). I think there was even a response from one of the npcs if you brought it up. And no one answered my question earlier on whether or not the Qadria faction head is gay or not.

Short answer to your question regarding the head of the Qadiran faction is yes.

Paizo Employee Editor

FanaticRat wrote:
And no one answered my question earlier on whether or not the Qadria faction head is gay or not.

He's married to a man, so gay or bi (I don't think we've specified).

Edit: Ninjaed!


Much appreciated doctors, was all I needed. Gay marriage canon, eff yea.

Oh yeah, and the scenario was The Midnight Mauler, if any of you were interested in that.

Shadow Lodge

FanaticRat wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Nah, it's more like understanding how their religion, or similar ones act and believe in other parts of the world.

Fair enough.

Actually, I could seriously see this being a thing in Pathfinder Society, if only to keep the field agents from trying to kill each other. I mean hell, you throw Andorans in with Chelaxians, Paladins in with necromancers, superstitious barbarians in with wizards, etc etc.

AAAAnyway, back to homosexuality, I distinctly remember one PFS scenario involving a prominent homosexual couple, although it was rather tragic (and had an irritating chase scene but that's a discussion for another time). I think there was even a response from one of the npcs if you brought it up. And no one answered my question earlier on whether or not the Qadria faction head is gay or not.

I think you are referring to the Midnght Mauler, one I really want to play in <Ustalav>, but haven't. I believe the old Qadira leader, who retired was gay, or bi, but I'm not sure.

As far as the cultural awareness, I agree, to a point. I'm pretty sure A.S. and I have to tke the same class, and for the same reasons, and I kind of enjoy it. It's informative and practical. A better idea would be to have a little briefing on the subject prior to each PFS mission. :)


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Nah, it's more like understanding how their religion, or similar ones act and believe in other parts of the world.

Fair enough.

Actually, I could seriously see this being a thing in Pathfinder Society, if only to keep the field agents from trying to kill each other. I mean hell, you throw Andorans in with Chelaxians, Paladins in with necromancers, superstitious barbarians in with wizards, etc etc.

AAAAnyway, back to homosexuality, I distinctly remember one PFS scenario involving a prominent homosexual couple, although it was rather tragic (and had an irritating chase scene but that's a discussion for another time). I think there was even a response from one of the npcs if you brought it up. And no one answered my question earlier on whether or not the Qadria faction head is gay or not.

I think you are referring to the Midnght Mauler, one I really want to play in <Ustalav>, but haven't. I believe the old Qadira leader, who retired was gay, or bi, but I'm not sure.

As far as the cultural awareness, I agree, to a point. I'm pretty sure A.S. and I have to tke the same class, and for the same reasons, and I kind of enjoy it. It's informative and practical. A better idea would be to have a little briefing on the subject prior to each PFS mission. :)

Yeah, Ustalav. I figure if a craphole like that place is cool with you batting for the other team then it's probably real good in other places.

I could imagine like Ambrus what's-his-name starting briefings off with, "Remember, as Pathfinders I expect you to be on your best behavior, and be respectful to the Dwarves culture. It's very rich and magnificent, and if I receive one more report of someone leaving shaving razors all around a Sky Citadel..."


TheAntiElite wrote:
Lots of stuff

I haven't read "Chronicle of the Righteous" yet, but I was under the impression that Arshea's worshipers are not required to reject binary gender identities. I thought that instead, freedom from the bonds of conventional gender identities was one aspect of Arshea's more general focus on liberation, albeit one that is reflected by Arshea's expression of hir own gender identity.

So unless I'm misunderstanding this particular Empyreal Lord, or you, (which I may very well be), I guess I'm not understanding why you would find that off-putting, or why it might throw you out of the setting a little bit. (Note: I'm not trying to say you're wrong for your dislike, just saying I don't understand it.)

(I won't get into some of your other comments on real world transition - that's a topic for the other thread.)

TheAntiElite wrote:
a certain Empyreal Lord and the insistence on being Transgendered (which, to me, seems almost a misnomer/inapt analogy as celestial beings would default to a non-gendered stated barring an established sense of self-identity)

What if being androgynous, or genderqueer, or transgender, represents Arshea's established sense of self-identity? A lot of people (self included), think of gender as a spectrum rather than a binary. Maybe Arshea places hirself within that spectrum rather than at either end, and does so strongly.

Or maybe, by consciously remaining in that in-between state, Arshea is in a better position to be able to provide hope, comfort, or support to people in Golarion who themselves do not fit into the binary, or find themselves on the wrong side of the binary.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FanaticRat wrote:
Yeah, Ustalav. I figure if a craphole like that place. . .

You are hereby Banish-ed and excommunicated.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
Yeah, Ustalav. I figure if a craphole like that place. . .
You are hereby Banish-ed and excommunicated.

I thought Ustalav was a craphole, canonically, since the royalty left?

Not to mention when I played Carrion Crown, it didn't seem like a nice place...

Project Manager

KSF wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
a certain Empyreal Lord and the insistence on being Transgendered (which, to me, seems almost a misnomer/inapt analogy as celestial beings would default to a non-gendered stated barring an established sense of self-identity)

What if being androgynous, or genderqueer, or transgender, represents Arshea's established sense of self-identity? A lot of people (self included), think of gender as a spectrum rather than a binary. Maybe Arshea places hirself within that spectrum rather than at either end, and does so strongly.

Or maybe, by consciously remaining in that in-between state, Arshea is in a better position to be able to provide hope, comfort, or support to people in Golarion who themselves do not fit into the binary, or find themselves on the wrong side of the binary.

You'll note the angel Empyreal Lords don't have gender in their stat blocks.

My understanding is it's not that Arshea has an "insistence on being transgender" (Arshea is, like most angels, not inherently gendered), but that while many angel Empyreal Lords choose to present themselves as male or female (that is, they choose to appear most frequently in a form that has a discernible gender), Arshea doesn't.

From the Bestiary:

Quote:
Their natural shapechanging ability means they may appear to mortals as male or female, depending on their personal preference or the will of their deity. As they are spiritual creatures given a physical form rather than creatures of flesh born of other creatures, their gender is mutable; some angels always use a male form, some strictly a female one, and others use either or both, or prefer an androgynous or sexless shape.


Just a side note: While I was reading through agathions section I noticed that draconals, while having specific gender, are potentially capable of changing it if they decide to change their color.

Spoiler:
In addition to actual genders draconals also have continuum of masculinity/femininity related to their color. Draconal gender usually is in accordance with their color; change of color changes their personality and might change their physical gender.

Red: strongly masculine.
Green: slightly masculine.
Black: balance between masculine and feminine.
Yellow: balanced between masculine and feminine.
White: slightly feminine.

There is noticeable lack of strongly feminine color. Would that be blue? Violet? Orange?


Jessica Price wrote:
Stuff

Thanks. That'll learn me to comment on material from books I haven't read. :)

Project Manager

KSF wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Stuff
Thanks. That'll learn me to comment on material from books I haven't read.

It was actually in support of what you were saying! Sorry if that didn't come across. What I was trying to say is "Being genderless is actually natural for angels." :-)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Hakken wrote:
[so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?

I don't think anyone has addressed this issue better than George Carlin


Jessica Price wrote:
KSF wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Stuff
Thanks. That'll learn me to comment on material from books I haven't read.
It was actually in support of what you were saying! Sorry if that didn't come across. What I was trying to say is "Being genderless is actually natural for angels." :-)

That newfangled gender thing... It won't catch on. *shrug* Who would it apply to anyway? Mortal life? *pokes a puddle of primordial soup*

And the word was made flesh...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
KSF wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Stuff
Thanks. That'll learn me to comment on material from books I haven't read.
It was actually in support of what you were saying! Sorry if that didn't come across. What I was trying to say is "Being genderless is actually natural for angels." :-)

Actually, the clarification is closer to, and better phrased than, my take on how I would feel if I actually existed as a character in Golarian, and the ideal I would like to subscribe to, but admit wholly that I have feelings about gender being binary (which is not something I can exert as fact any more than I can confirm the existence of dragons or Buddha's Supernatural Hole-Staring Powers) because my experience is binary, and the science is not sufficient to accomplish the ideal I perceive...which dosn't mean I want to deny anything from anyone who feels it is a spectrum, only that I have a disagreement that in no way should impact how they live their lives, because seriously, what do I know?

And I'm not even remotely traditionalist, or Erastil-follower-like, or anything like that. It isn't cognitively dissonant to me, or impossible for me to reconcile, which is why I am eager to happily support equality, and representation in Golarian, and being more than capable to approve of the representation and availability, even where I may not necessarily understand or agree.

I would not be surprised if people feel some of my views are wrong - it's one of the few things I'm more than willing the possibility of being wrong. But the possibility of my wrongness should not lead to or be use for the potential oppression, mistreatment, or otherwise life, lierty, and pursuit of happiness of others. In Golarian, people can be good, evil, lawful, chaotic, neutral, and all sorts of shades and degrees of sapient and sentient. Evil can have loved ones, Good can hate without succumbing to hatred, and people can live and disagree without it necessitating some manner of alignment conflict save in the absolute - and even there it becomes more of a catalyst for compelling tale-telling than merely another table to roll against.


LazarX wrote:
Hakken wrote:
[so I think you said you prefer the term queer Kitty? Cause the friends I have which are gay, hate that term. That is kind of what I mean. It is hard to know what term to use or what to say. That is why I don't know if this is all off topic. When talking about homosexuals in Golarion (which I do not have a problem with btw) we have to talk about what to call them. I think we all know that calling black or African-americans the N word would never be acceptable. I guess I always thought the word queer was always unacceptable also. It goes back to what SissyL said--only the offended person will ever know what will offend them. Some white males wont be offended by white jokes, some will. Same with any other group. How do we handle that situation?
I don't think anyone has addressed this issue better than George Carlin

Carlin is brilliant. As for homosexuality in Golarion, I've put it in, and I don't mind it there, but I question the use of the terms of gender and sexuality today from the here and now (when they are not accepted or stable even amongst the groups they are meant to be representing) being applied to and for Golarion. Golarion after all, is not now.

Some writers do this better than others, the language fits the setting, it isn't American euphemistic language from the period of 2005-2013. By all means a dm can put homosexuality in and a player can play a homosexual, but consider how that would come across and be described in that world. For a dm, would there be separate terms for cross-racial homosexuality, and consider whether this happens and what it means. What are the responses to it (doesn't always have to be hate either). Perhaps a human empire, say Molthune, encourages romance between soldiers and elves so as to get some of the elven men on side, and then use them as mercenaries and volunteers (their intel could be useful). Or for more hetero relationships, more creation of half elves so as to gradually assimilate Kyonin, and the easy welcoming of any elven outcasts into Molthune. Somewhere in the upper echelons, this comes down as a good idea (homo and hetero), and it may also improve the longevity of Molthunians and make their empire more stable over time.

While considering that, be cautious that the game does not become too fixated upon this and away from adventure, less you lose something else by improving and developing one area. G is in gender and gp, but players will always really want gp and xp.

Now I want to write the Molthunian assimilation initiative. lol.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Immortal Greed wrote:
Carlin is brilliant. As for homosexuality in Golarion, I've put it in, and I don't mind it there, but I question the use of the terms of gender and sexuality today from the here and now (when they are not accepted or stable even amongst the groups they are meant to be representing) being applied to and for Golarion. Golarion after all, is not now.

It's not then... but it most assuredly is now. It's a product of modern fictional culture. Unless you want to invoke the rules of the late unlamented Fantasy Roleplay and insist that the only suitable profession for female characters is to be found in the nunnery.

You can't argue for modern values in one area and then use the modern argument to dismiss against modern values in another.

And for that matter people have been writing about the LGBT presence in culture since the time of the ancient Greeks, so that argument doesn't apply no matter which perspective you take. Unless you wish to impose Catholic and/or Westboro standards on Golarion as well.


Jessica Price wrote:
KSF wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Stuff
Thanks. That'll learn me to comment on material from books I haven't read.
It was actually in support of what you were saying! Sorry if that didn't come across. What I was trying to say is "Being genderless is actually natural for angels." :-)

Well, at the very least, that was more accurate than what I was saying. Again, thanks.


LazarX wrote:
Immortal Greed wrote:
Carlin is brilliant. As for homosexuality in Golarion, I've put it in, and I don't mind it there, but I question the use of the terms of gender and sexuality today from the here and now (when they are not accepted or stable even amongst the groups they are meant to be representing) being applied to and for Golarion. Golarion after all, is not now.

It's not then... but it most assuredly is now. It's a product of modern fictional culture. Unless you want to invoke the rules of the late unlamented Fantasy Roleplay and insist that the only suitable profession for female characters is to be found in the nunnery.

You can't argue for modern values in one area and then use the modern argument to dismiss against modern values in another.

And for that matter people have been writing about the LGBT presence in culture since the time of the ancient Greeks, so that argument doesn't apply no matter which perspective you take. Unless you wish to impose Catholic and/or Westboro standards on Golarion as well.

Not Catholic, not Westboro but sometimes modern ideas and modernity doesn't fit very well at all. Zombie and goblin overrun Lord of the Flies Isger isn't anything like today. Fantasy isn't replication of now, it can be a lot more than that. As in, fleshing out a rumoured people in the Forgotten realms, I created a mixed Drow race of slaver-pric** mixed from a range of despotisms from far history in one grouping, with a lot of fantasy ideas thrown into the mix (to get away from humanity). They were real blighters, and great villains/enemies on the horizon.

Now on the other side, to mix the very much modern (tech) with the very old, I've got a people I am working on, Golem using cowardly tyrants (and the people that support said tyrants) that use the golems to spread their empire without many casualties. A bit inspired by the U.S military drones and Jewish myth turned to conquering ends so is is only partially recognisable though as modern inspired, and fits smoothly into the fantasy world I am making (so far).

A few questions, what did Fantasy Roleplay say exactly on women? Did they make the nunnery point and if so, where? Are you misrepresenting them?


Man this thread died.

Um, well, in my Wrath of the Righteous game, we're going to be meeting Anexia's wife pretty soon, so I'm kinda excited about that. No one in the party has reacted to that, though...I have no idea if that's a big thing in WotR or not.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The adventure makes nowhere near as big a deal of it as the Internet has. They're just a married couple who happen to both be women and who have unusual backstories. Certainly not the overpowering roles people have been complaining about.


Ah, I see. That's cool. Still excited to actually meet them; stuff like that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Immortal Greed wrote:
A few questions, what did Fantasy Roleplay say exactly on women? Did they make the nunnery point and if so, where? Are you misrepresenting them?

Fantasy Roleplay was an old school one book RPG which said exactly that there was NO place for women characters in a fantasy game modeled on medieval europe. And quite literally the only roleplaying options for a female character would be found in a nunnery. It's an old out of print book with charts printed in horrid small type of the early days of gaming, that I've got somewhere in my collection. In it's defense, it did have some funky concepts such as summoning your own spirit. But on the whole, it's a deservedly forgotten footnote in the history of roleplaying games.

And you seem to have ignored the other part of my statement. Gay and Trans characters have been featured in literature dating back to the plays of Euripides. Where one man asks another man whose distinctive feature is his cleanshaven looks archly, "Can I borrow your razor? You must always have one with you." In the culture of Ancient Greece, a culture noted for a misogyny great enough to the extent that women were kept in isolated darkened rooms, a man who kept his face clean shaven was generally considered to be exhibiting feminine traits. In other writings, a general made commentaries on the benefits of having homosexual troops. (soldiers would be motivated to greater performance in sight of their lovers)

The point I was making is that an argument that the exclusion of LGBT characters in Pathfinder fantasy on the grounds that it's a "modern" concept that doesn't belong, holds exactly no water. As it's a trope that's almost as old as dirt.

Grand Lodge

Paul Watson wrote:
The adventure makes nowhere near as big a deal of it as the Internet has. They're just a married couple who happen to both be women and who have unusual backstories. Certainly not the overpowering roles people have been complaining about.

And that's the usual tactic. Take a character who is fundamentally nothing unusual and pretend that they are.

Shadow Lodge

You trying to convince us or yourself?


DM Beckett wrote:
You trying to convince us or yourself?

Are you saying there is something fundamentally unusual about Anevia and her wife, within the adventure as presented? Because as Paul Watson says above, there isn't.

Or are you saying Kittyburger is incorrect about what she describes as a common tactic? Because the latter does seem to be true, as several posts in this thread indicate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was about to post about the male gay couple in the "Rival Guide," and then I noticed the thread had been going for 5 years and had 4,000 posts. Keep it up! There's a prize if we get to 100 pages!

Shadow Lodge

KSF wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
You trying to convince us or yourself?

Are you saying there is something fundamentally unusual about Anevia and her wife, within the adventure as presented? Because as Paul Watson says above, there isn't.

Or are you saying Kittyburger is incorrect about what she describes as a common tactic? Because the latter does seem to be true, as several posts in this thread indicate.

I am saying that some people do have issues with the character and the common tactic is to just outshout them. Also, a vast amount of posts about his had been censored from this and the product page.

Dark Archive

ElWongo2 wrote:
I was about to post about the male gay couple in the "Rival Guide," and then I noticed the thread had been going for 5 years and had 4,000 posts. Keep it up! There's a prize if we get to 100 pages!

I would assume the OP gets the prize in that case.


Would it be possible to have some gay non-humans?

Maybe gay Dwarves or something?

4,101 to 4,150 of 5,778 << first < prev | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.