Homosexuality in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

4,301 to 4,350 of 5,778 << first < prev | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | next > last >>

Starfinder Superscriber
Alice Margatroid wrote:
** Alice's Handy Dandy Guide to LGBT in Pathfinder **

Dear Alice, this rocks, and I have a feeling it'll need to be posted every few pages...:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tirisfal wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


Is it so bizarre that I find the way some people focus on the implicit inclusions of homosexuality as somehow a failing or antagonistic insertion as slightly weird and amusing? I ask this out of the somewhat skewed assumption that, orientation assumptions are the responsibility, province, and 'problem' of the observer, and not the observed. To wit, if someone asks me, all indignantly, 'ZOMG WHAR R UR GAYS?' I can just say, 'well, they've always been there, but you've not asked, and most haven't had any interest in you. There's a ton of NPCs for me to play, and where it isn't relevant, why would it matter who they're schtupping, unless you're planning to either seduce them, or try to do...

Its been expounded on to death here, but I'll go back over it one more time:

1) What your NPCs do on their own time is up to you - you aren't required to have your NPCs announce their sexuality to the table.

Which is, concisely, the point I was getting at. What...for lack of better phrasing, rankles me...is the implication that, if I do not meet quota on orientations in my games, I'm committing not merely BadWrongFun, but explicitly HURTFUL BadWrongFun. I try to carry the overall mindset of Paizo in games I run for others, even non-Golarion games, with the difference that instead of the default assumption that everyone is bisexual, everyone's sexuality exists in a Schroedinger's Cat-like state of undetermined until observed, because frankly as individuals their behaviors as a whole hold no bearing on whether they like the wang or the hooha. If there is enough cause, justification, and detail to have any bearing ON a relationship (be it life partners, cohorts, teammates whom with there have been intimate relations and resultant tension, fixations, obsessions, et. al) then it will get the mention it is due. Most of the time, my taverns are not so much generic, as much as the direct comparison would be knowing OF the relationships of the staff at your favorite eatery that is part of a chain. You may or may not know the manager. You might know the waitstaff. You might even know if any of them are married, seeing someone, seeking companionship, etc., but that's not a guarantee and moreover isn't really going to be plot relevant UNTIL it is.

Tirisfal wrote:
What I find wrong is when people say that they won't add the LGBT characters in their campaign because they're "not normal", yucky, or that they "don't include sex in their games" (if I mention LGBT relationships to a homophobe and they immediately think of gay sex, I can't really help them).

To your point, there has been a LOT of that in this thread, true.

What I perceive as the underlying, and just as oft-repeated, problem is that on the orientation front, at it's core, is the basis of attraction, and correspondingly the expression of same. People tend to not think of their own relationship dynamics in terms of heteronormality purely because of the fact that they are living it, and certain things that are expressions of intimacy in their minds extrapolate rapidly, if not unerringly, into sex. When the lantern-jawed hero sweeps up the ethereally-garbed maiden for that deep, cinematic kiss, the action is exactly as described - a kiss. To most people, without being disingenuous, the act is shorthand for 'in short order he will bed her and rail her like there's no tomorrow'. It may or may not be the actual case - sometimes a kiss is just a kiss - but as a culture and in some cases as a society we have taken a lot of things that are not explicitly sex and deemed they are shorthand for sex, which in turn leads to the exact problem you mention of 'homosexuality is gay sex'. In many average minds, two men holding hands is shorthand for what they do behind close doors, which frankly they are more than allowed to find icky. The distinction, however, is that the offended are not, or should not be, allowed to discriminate, antagonize, or otherwise impugn the individuals on anything more than a personally disliking level, because I'm not so naive as to think that just because the world tolerates me as a whole means I should be entitled to them liking me.

I should know. I'm used to the looks given because my girlfriend and I hold hands, and she's a rather light-skinned attractive Latina, and I'm something of a darkie, and people inevitably assume that I'm mistreating and violating her in heinous, cruel, unpleasant ways. People can think what they want, but what is happening in their heads hold no impact or import to me.

Tirisfal wrote:
This is, to me, the same as folks removing non-whites from their campaign setting because they find them repulsive - and that's offensive! We exist, and no amount of scrubbing a campaign setting clean in the name of "realism of the medieval era" is going to make you not look like a jerk. Surprise! Golarion isn't medieval England, and even if it was, we were there too!

Oh most certainly, as if anyone could deny on the basis of Othello or the like. However, existence does not mean extant, in the archaic sense. Just because there WERE darkies doesn't mean that there was an exactly cosmopolitan case of their representation being anything more than a freakish blip in the proverbial census. And the ones who were there WOULD stand out, certainly on grounds of being the Other, but beyond that there's no reason to make sure that there's at least one per city block, ten percent of the total population, or a mandatory minimum, particularly if there is not an actual justification for it. Note that it need not be an epic PC level justification - for all we know, those Garundi were from a family of traders who decided that they liked Absalom better than where they used to live. Giving depth and purpose to being in a location beyond being a special snowflake is often appreciated, and sometimes even a 'we've just always been here' is contextual explanation enough, not unlike having an alternative orientation. That doesn't mean it has to be an issue that arises, and I daresay in a setting where the default dip switch is 'bi', it should be even LESS of an issue than in the real world - people shouldn't really care. By the same token, however, players can be and often are as much of a problem for different facets of the same reason; someone who is prone to doing everything for attention on a hetero bard for purposes of wooing the appropriate gender of any and all species is just as likely to be problematic as a 'bishonen elf' as a 'flamboyant kitsune'.

Tirisfal wrote:
2) Golarion isn't your campaign setting until you sit down with your players - before that, it belongs to Paizo, and they have every right to add in LGBT characters as anyone else does in excluding them. Here's the difference: Paizo's campaign setting is global, and it is the right thing to do to add people of all types and walks into that world of heroes.

Not seeing any disagreement here. Though I do find myself wondering if, to draw from real world influences further, if people would have the same level of uproar over NPCs married to, say, inanimate objects...though golem-wives are probably going to come up at some point, and there's already enough people who 'ship' Chell from Portal with the Weighted Companion Cube, so...I guess I'd finish that statement with 'people do things that others find strange, film at 11', until it becomes a sociopolitical issue. Moreover, one that I support, even if I don't personally partake of the issue.

Tirisfal wrote:

Growing up, I wanted to be a hero, but I only saw heroes who where the opposite of me. Heroes in the 80s and 90s were always mega masculine, sometimes outwardly homophobic, and about 90% of the time some shade of misogynistic.

I don't identify with that guy.

Welcome to a good sized portion of the rest of the world, here's your nostalgia glasses. :p

Though add in a heaping helping of blaxplotation and overall ethnic minority TV characterizations pre-Cosby, and you have my views on the matter. I did not want to be Mr. T. I did not want to be Sherman Helmsly, Gary Coleman, Todd Brooks, Billy Dee Williams, Robert Townsend, or any of the members of RUN DMC. The closest I found was Avery Brooks, and even then I preferred his 90s iteration as Commander Benjamin Sisko. I was too busy identifying with Thomas Dolby, the Misfits of Science, Ricky Schroeder, the lads from Tears for Fears, Jackie Chan, Emelio Estevez, Tony Danza, and the like.

Oh, and crushing on Soliel Moon-Frye.

Tirisfal wrote:
Sometimes its nice to see a hero who's like you when you're growing up. If all you're shown about "people like you" is that they're criminals, or creepers, weirdos, or the butt of the joke, you tend to withdraw a little and feel like you can't belong anywhere.

There's no irony here at all, so I'll just smile and nod. I mean, I'm convinced I turned out decently, but I STILL think of myself as a creeper, a weirdo, frequently the butt of jokes, and overall have crap self-esteem; I get by. And while I may be of an ethnicity, I don't identify with the subculture that is associated with it, because to me that racial identity is caught up with too much negative garbage. In fact, half of the time where I have these sorts of discussions with my LBGTQIAMNOTKIDDING* peoples, a substantial frustration that arises is due to my annoyance at some of the EMBRACING of some of the more off-putting stereotypes, inasmuch that when one associates irritating or annoying behavior on the part of one's personal identity and its interactions with one's sexuality, it only gives license to people to stereotype further and encourage the idiots in their antagonism. It's why I usually develop a twitch before going into a full-tilt frothing harangue when people ask me 'why don't you act more black?', no matter how surreptitiously they make the inquiry.

This is one reason why I am so happy about Seelah; she's not some z-snapping head-swiveling ghetto hoochiemama. Someone earlier invoked 80's Mohawk Storm in this thread - I won't lie, that's the voice I heard in my head when I first saw Seelah as well.

I think maybe that's one thing that I also LIKE about how Paizo has implemented the Everyone Is Bi rule in Golarion - maybe it's what I've read, and what I've not seen, but I've been thrilled that what gays and lesbians who have shown up have not been 'Men on Film' from In Living Color, or ducktail-sporting megabutches with a chip on their shoulder. People are awesome or not by their own merits, not just because of what they are (excluding Chelaxians, 'cause, well. Cheliax.) or whom they sleep with. The entry about Garund from Humans of Golarion especially pleased me.

Tirisfal wrote:
So I appreciate it when companies like Paizo step up and say "hey, there are these people who've been playing our hobby with us for decades, and no one wants to include them - let's fix that".

First, bear in mind my statement is not a slight against you - you've made many salient points, and where we differ I'm certain I've enumerated and expanded upon where and why.

I am all in favor of inclusiveness; I hate when it's done in a token fashion however. For example, Ember the Monk from D&D 3.x always irked me, as much for the Afro Puff as anything else. Little was done with her to show in-depth personality, whereas Seelah's vignettes demonstrate not only her bravery, her steadfastness, and her determination, but also the fact that her faith is unwavering, and she is Serious Business. I find the execution to be superior in all ways.

The flip side is that certain amounts of inclusiveness are problematic not because of the formerly-excluded groups that are now granted access, as much as the misguided fantwits. White Wolf, Anne Rice, and a very inappropriate term for women who obsess over gay men immediately come to mind, and even before there was SparkleCrap, there was HOT I MEAN COLD BEAUTIFUL CORPSE ON CORPSE ACTION. While I appreciate tongue-in-cheek and understand that some might want to parody, I think I might have to pass on any Pathfinder product of official nature that approximates or emulates the Cho Aniki series of games in a serious light. :)

Then again, I trust in Paizo to not stock their adventures with stock caricatures and terrible writing. Where I hold my reservations and have my concerns is where, even though being a diverse cast of characters themselves, I'm not sure if someone is intending to spring rainbows everywhere that isn't the First World and bring out the prancing mincing jackanapes and the other horrid stereotypes, not because I think anyone even remotely believes that such is an actual representation, but because someone might actually WANT that in the game, which yes is easily excised, but I'd rather not HAVE to.

I supposed it would all come of the context; to give some of my own, I find flamboyance of the flaming stereotype annoying as hell, no matter the gender or orientation of the exhibitor, because I don't like drama queens. Histrionic exaggerations appall me as much as the Thug Life™ mentality.

Also, I hope I'm not quoting a removed post, I'd been trying to put one word in front of another all afternoon, and was distracted by work...

*Which of course is Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans/Queer/Intersex/Asexual/Monotargeted/Nonsexual/Omnisexu al/Therio/Kink/Indicisive/Disdainful/Desperate/Inquisitive/Nonplussed/Gener ous, because why the hell not.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Except that, thus far, I think they've covered the various spectrum of individuals, whether hetero or gay or something else. Paizo's been pretty good about that sort of thing, for the most part. I trust them to do a good job.

And, I'll fight tooth and nail to keep seeing people like me reflected in Paizo's setting material. You don't want to depict a trans* person in your game? Don't use them! Fine, but understand that there are people that would like to see people like them in a game. That's all it really boils down to. Telling Paizo that you don't want to see people like me (a lesbian Trans woman, I might point out) reflected in a game that I also play, tells me that you really don't see people like me as worthy of inclusion.

And yes, that's offensive to me. Do what you want in your home game, but let us have our heroes and representation too. Please.


Alexandra Pitchford wrote:

Except that, thus far, I think they've covered the various spectrum of individuals, whether hetero or gay or something else. Paizo's been pretty good about that sort of thing, for the most part. I trust them to do a good job.

And, I'll fight tooth and nail to keep seeing people like me reflected in Paizo's setting material. You don't want to depict a trans* person in your game? Don't use them! Fine, but understand that there are people that would like to see people like them in a game. That's all it really boils down to. Telling Paizo that you don't want to see people like me (a lesbian Trans woman, I might point out) reflected in a game that I also play, tells me that you really don't see people like me as worthy of inclusion.

And yes, that's offensive to me. Do what you want in your home game, but let us have our heroes and representation too. Please.

Which is I think part of where the point is missed.

A trans person is certainly not going to be excised from a Golarion game I'm running; it takes all sorts. For all my personal views on gender identity, the last thing I want is for someone to NOT have characters in the game that they feel represent them.

My anxiety (not that of those who do or don't agree with me) is that it is done well, which may seem silly to you, but is a rather big deal to me. To give as close an an analogy as I can, without making it a personal attack, I like Seelah, and would rather not see her removed, but from my personal standpoint I would ditch Golarion as a setting, though not necessarily Pathfinder as a system, if people of my ethnicity began to be portrayed in a manner akin to Somalian Pirates, Inner City Hoodlums transposed into a fantasy setting, or Jimmy G*$~~~ned Walker.

Maybe it's the subtext that's lost - is your entire identity wrapped up in the fact that you are trans? Is there more to you, as a person, than what sort of genitals you were issued with and then altered to possess, be it to line up with the mind or for whatever purpose? Do you not see more to yourself than the external appearance? Because I think that may be where the conflict and/or misunderstanding stems from. I don't know you from Adam, Eve, Lilith, or Steve, but as far as I'm concerned? Yes, you're a person. With needs that any person has. I encourage you to have them fulfilled. Were you gaming at my table, I'd certainly not veto a trans character for you, and would probably throw a few curve-balls your way to address in an entertaining fashion for your character. It would not be 'singling out', because I throw them at ALL my players, because challenges need overcoming and things need to get done.

At my table, however, unless I'm running a deliberately silly, unhinged campaign without any sort of forethought, depth, or even concerns for continuity, I'm going to veto the hell out of one-note characters, or characters created purely for the purposes of annoying the everliving bejeebus out of me. This means, terrible and horrible a person as you may think it makes me, that I am going to crack down on overt lasciviousness that strives to be derailing because 'that's just how my character is'. Sure, I've had people play 'LOLRANDUMB', but that is in games where the tone is pre-determined to be exactly the sort that allows for such. You can have a gay character without being Mister Humphries from Are You Being Served. Your trans character does not have to be a 'trap'. Similarly, one can be Tien without being the Yellow Freaking Peril, Garundi without being a FEED THE STARVING ETHIOPIANS send-up, or Andoran without being Paul Revere All Day Every Day.

You, in this sense, is the generic, not the personal direct.

I don't care if your hero/-ine has a same-gendered lover; I care how you handle the plot points coming your way, and if it happens your orientation allows for you to be the strongest link in the chain by rebuffing what was supposed to be a flawless plan to seduce the heroes and distract when villains act, with a pithy one-liner about type mismatchings or similar, sure, great. If it means you leave your loved one at home to raise your offspring, biological or adopted or summoned from beneath a cabbage leaf or planted using seeds from a dryad that you planted and watered with your seed and/or moonblood, no, that doesn't make you exempt from plots to kidnap loved ones, but might buy the advantage of security via obscurity because some villains are Not That Bright when it comes to kidnapping loved ones for ransom and other plot points.

What I'd like to say I'm trying to say is that Paizo does a great job of representing varied races and ethnicities and orientations, and in doing so making true in their products the same rules as in the forums - don't be a jerk. What I feel like I'm inadvertently saying, in my diatribe, is 'Don't Be a One-Dimensional Stereotype and for the love of Tyrannasaurs Don't Ask for Them'. Which is frustrating, because my problem is not with the Alphabet Soup Coalition; it's the most outspoken annoyances who bring to mind the Daily Show bit of 'You're Not Helping'.

It's intensely frustrating because it's a concern, and it really shouldn't be, because I BELIEVE in the Paizo team, and yet at the same time the people who ask for things are NOT the Paizo team, and there's an In so to speak via Wes (who is awesome but took me a moment to remember his name because he somehow gets transposed with Vic in my head for reasons I can't begin to fathom), and I would in no means impugn Wes for his personal tastes, but if he decided he will support one base by pandering to a certain amount of expectations in identity politics, in context of Golarion, I would find it personally distasteful.

People have different tastes. It's why I run more games in a world of my own creation than in Golarion, but Golarion is a hell of a place to visit and adventure in. I enjoy my trips there, but that's because I'm not touring during, say, the equivalent of Kanamara Matsuri or the Koovagam Festival.

Adding diversity WILL NOT turn Golarion into that, in perpetuity, and I want no one to get the idea that I believe such. My headache, in no small part due to the part of the Alphabet Soup Coalition that *I* associate with, is the same as that of ANY GM who has to deal with any official sanction from ANY official source.

Bad enough that I've had to try to break them of Chaotic Stupid - I might have to flip a table if I had to listen to whining about not liking their Flaming Queens and wanting to go on and on about it. The ones who are not the whinge-prone types keep telling me that the Identity sorts will 'grow out of it', but it's been a slog.

Tangent - for those of you who have seen it, and vis a vis race and gender relationships, what I keep hearing, and the reason this topic keeps being a thing for me, even where I support while dissenting, is because of the scene from The Butler that keeps getting previewed everywhere, where the titular character and his wife Oprah are talking about In the Heat of the Night. His son basically starts talking smack about Sidney Poitier, and Lee Daniel's character prepares to pitch him out on his ear, when his son goes too far and Oprah gives him the jack-slapping of a lifetime. The argument has come up on numerous occasions among my gay friends, with the Rich Uncle Tom comment being re-purposed into Captain Closet type sneering dialogs.

I personally find people who associate their orientation with the more extreme ends of the Pride Parade as their normal about as annoying as I find people who have a mindset that does not go beyond hustling, hoes, and the hood. To me, orientation is not the end-all and be-all of self-definition, and for that much I do apologize if I'm coming off as 'hostile' or 'not getting it'. For me, one's orientation should be as much an informing of a person as their racial makeup - that is, none at all.

Which is why I find myself frustrated at not being able to convey the simple 'why can't people be people' feeling I have on the matter without it turning into "WELL YOU JUST HATE X". I don't.

I want EVERYONE to be find what they enjoy in Golarion.

I wish that it were just accepted and not an issue at ALL.

I keep dreading that people who are more strident than I will feel that the representations thus far are insufficient, and will proceed to demand increasing exaggeration of representation. I expect people will call bigotry on that, and that's fine. That's why I point out that people can be people without being defined by melanin content, or who they interface genitals with, or even what genitals they possess.

Liberty's Edge Digital Products Assistant

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at, AntiElite, so forgive me if I misinterpret, but if I'm following you, you're upset that Paizo is writing their sexual and gender minorities as one-note characters? Because I personally don't usually see that. Anevia has a whole backstory about escaping from a hostile home nation and falling in love that relate to but aren't defined entirely by her being trans, and Irabeth has many factors beyond being a lesbian or being a half-orc or being a paladin. Neither character exists solely to be a two-dimensional insert for a given minority.

Alexandra's identity isn't LIMITED to being trans, just like mine isn't LIMITED to being gay, but those are still important aspects to who we are. We wouldn't be the people we are without those elements, and we can be proud of those parts of our identity. The philosophy of "why can't people be people" is fine, but we all have those things that define us and we all like to see a little bit of ourselves in the media we consume. To that end, I'm not sure why more inclusion in Golarion would be a bad thing.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The fact that people are more concerned about being negatively perceived than about actually considering the effects of their beliefs and behaviors is... concerning, you know?

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

What Crystal said. Am I worried that characters will become one-note parodies? Always. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. So far, they've been handled incredibly well. Anevia is one of my favorite new characters, and I find her entire backstory, regardless of the gender aspect, to be well-done and interesting.

Is being reduced to parodies a worry? Of course. But Paizo seems capable enough of handling things, and portraying interesting, multifaceted characters that don't fall back on tired stereotypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I'm reading what he's saying correctly, TheAntiElite is saying that he is all for inclusiveness and thinks Paizo does a good job, but at the same time is worried that he will be castigated for mentioning a dislike of stereotypes or a fear that people will ask for stereotypes. Also, he seems to be worried that if you disagree on any part or if you find one particular aspect commonly associated with being queer annoying, then you're labeled a bigot even though you're disliking someone for acting in an annoying way, rather than who they are.

At least I think. I just got off work and am a bit too tired to think at the moment.

Shadow Lodge

FanaticRat wrote:
Also, he seems to be worried that if you disagree on any part or if you find one particular aspect commonly associated with being queer annoying, then you're labeled a bigot even though you're disliking someone for acting in an annoying way, rather than who they are.

Seems to me it's less a nebulous fear and more a case of having quite a few examples of that in this very thread.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Fergurg wrote:

Here's how my Golarion handles it - I don't have them.

It's simple to me: introducing homosexuality to a medieval fantasy world does not add value. All it does is make a real-world declaration of, "See? LBTQX is normal." Characters do not gain depth because they like others who have the same parts. They could have depth anyway, but the homosexuality, at best, does not change anything. At worst, it becomes a crutch.

However, for example, the relationship between Queen Iliosa and ** spoiler omitted **

Tell me something when the only expression of a person's LGBT nature is that at first you meeet one character and then find out that their married spouse is of the same gender, what do you do? Do you change the gender of that NPC or the other? Why? Does it "add value" for you to do so? If so what value is it other than the preservation of your desired blinders? Is the relationship of these two people that much more frightening because they are of the same gender? Even when that expression is nothing more than the statement that they are a married loving couple?

How about the tendency of AD+D races to be aligned along the nature of color? The "good" elves being all blonde and fair skinned and the "evil drow" being well you know.... black as coal? Gygax and his crew were white... and so were the Brits who put the Drow into the Fiend Folio with skin and armor ebony black. What do you tell the child that asks about this? Or do you just bleach them along with Seelah's skin?

Our fantasies have never been truly separate from reality. The faeries of midieval Europe? of Britain? and Ireland? Anthropomorhically speaking, they're really just shadow memories of the people that once dwelled in those lands until they were pushed out and exterminated by people with more modern weapons..... weapons made of iron. Hence the traditional aversion and weakness of faeries to cold iron.

Thing is... blinders are for horses... not people. We don't do ourselves, our friends, or our families a favor by keeping them on.


Fergurg wrote:
It's simple to me: introducing homosexuality to a medieval fantasy world does not add value. All it does is make a real-world declaration of, "See? LBTQX is normal." Characters do not gain depth because they like others who have the same parts. They could have depth anyway, but the homosexuality, at best, does not change anything. At worst, it becomes a crutch.

Tell that to J.K. Rowling, whom by your lights clearly knows nothing about what adds value to a fantasy world and a good plot.

Seriously, you must be pretty creatively bankrupt if you can not think of a single awesome plot hook to hang on a non heterosexual NPC relationship. There is so much amazing story material to be mined in all kinds of NPC relationships, and it only limits your storytelling and risks making it cliched and one-dimensional if you force every character into a single sexual mold. Living organisms just don't tend to work that way, and people and cultures that all look the same just don't offer much good storytelling fodder.

If you want to honestly admit that you don't feel inspired to tell these kinds of stories because they make you uncomfortable, that's one thing. But telling everyone else they don't add value is, IMO, a lame way to try to limit other people or say things simply that aren't true about the stories that you personally feel too uncomfortable to tell.


Kthulhu wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
Also, he seems to be worried that if you disagree on any part or if you find one particular aspect commonly associated with being queer annoying, then you're labeled a bigot even though you're disliking someone for acting in an annoying way, rather than who they are.
Seems to me it's less a nebulous fear and more a case of having quite a few examples of that in this very thread.

I don't even know, man. To be honest, I've been skipping most of the walls of text in this thread.

On an unrelated note, I have to wonder; has anyone here ever had problems running LGBTQ characters in games? I mean like, I once ran a game in which one of the NPCs employed the PCs to be protection from his ex-boyfriend, and I was a bit worried but none of the players batted an eye about it so I was like "cool."


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

Let's throw political correctness to the side for a moment. Heterosexual sex is a biological imperative. It is required for a species to continue to exist.

So yes, in a purely biological sense, I think it's allowable to say that heterosexual relations are more "normal".

Life does not exist in a vacuum. The prey population without predators outstrips its ecosystem and dies. Trees alone without pollinating insects can not reproduce as well or as often. Social mammals without a non-reproductive percentage of economically contributing adults - read, homosexuals - raise fewer surviving children that are less well nourished.

Heterosexuals without homosexuals are at something of a reproductive disadvantage. A group of social mammals would not actually be "normal" if it did not have a small but consistent percentage of naturally nonreproductive adults who functioned as lateral rather than direct genetic transmitters.

I do not think that word means what you think it means. You should probably read more.

Project Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a bunch of rape threat jokes and related discussion. Do not do that here.


TanithT wrote:

Life does not exist in a vacuum. The prey population without predators outstrips its ecosystem and dies. Trees alone without pollinating insects can not reproduce as well or as often. Social mammals without a non-reproductive percentage of economically contributing adults - read, homosexuals - raise fewer surviving children that are less well nourished.

Heterosexuals without homosexuals are actually at something of a reproductive disadvantage. A group of social mammals would not actually be "normal" if it did not have a small but consistent percentage of naturally nonreproductive adults who functioned as lateral rather than direct genetic transmitters.

In between tossing rocks and logs at me to get me ready for the world, back when I was a kid my mother told me that my father's tribe had these traditions where the men and women that couldn't have children with their mates tended to serve another role for those that could. She said the word for them and how they related to the children connected to them was something in-between "uncle" or "aunt" and "godparent".

Their hunting and labor brought a little bit more extra to help keep the tribe's young safe and healthy. Helped keep the tribe more close-knit too, I guess.

Hell, I wish I had one growing up. Probably would have talked my mother into easing off on the daily obstacle courses. A little, maybe.

Shadow Lodge

TanithT wrote:
Tell that to J.K. Rowling, whom by your lights clearly knows nothing about what adds value to a fantasy world and a good plot.

That argument would carry more weight if Dumbledore had been revealed as gay in the actual books, and not after they had finished seemingly as an afterthought.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
TanithT wrote:
Tell that to J.K. Rowling, whom by your lights clearly knows nothing about what adds value to a fantasy world and a good plot.
That argument would carry more weight if Dumbledore had been revealed as gay in the actual books, and not after they had finished seemingly as an afterthought.

Why would it even make sense to overtly reveal his sexual orientation in the series as it was written, which was from the POV of his young students?

People complain loudly when an LGBT character's sexuality is made an obvious plot point, because that's obviously political. They also don't seem happy when it's NOT made an obvious plot point, since there are so many other things about the character and the story and the way it is told that take precedence.

His being gay fits absolutely perfectly into the metaplot arc and makes a huge amount of sense. It wouldn't have made a lot of sense to focus on it actively in the story, though, so that isn't what happened.


I hope more people on Golarion are gay, as the horrid-earthly-over-breeding on this current planet is horrible.

There are too many people with too many wishes on earth, I wish more people were gay, there is enough breeding as it is, no need for more.

I can't believe some people actually fear the all-gay=human-extinct thing, with so many people being born everyday... really insane argument if you ask me.

Shadow Lodge

Gancanagh wrote:

I hope more people on Golarion are gay, as the horrid-earthly-over-breeding on this current planet is horrible.

There are too many people with too many wishes on earth, I wish more people were gay, there is enough breeding as it is, no need for more.

I can't believe some people actually fear the all-gay=human-extinct thing, with so many people being born everyday... really insane argument if you ask me.

I don't fear it. There's about 7 billion people on the planet, and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual.

Silver Crusade

Crystal Frasier wrote:
I used to date this dwarven chick.

I never thought you'd stoop so low. : )

(Hah! See what I did there?)


Kthulhu wrote:
Gancanagh wrote:

I hope more people on Golarion are gay, as the horrid-earthly-over-breeding on this current planet is horrible.

There are too many people with too many wishes on earth, I wish more people were gay, there is enough breeding as it is, no need for more.

I can't believe some people actually fear the all-gay=human-extinct thing, with so many people being born everyday... really insane argument if you ask me.

I don't fear it. There's about 7 billion people on the planet, and the overwhelming majority of them are heterosexual.

You think so? The majority is only heterosexual because they fear coming out of the closet, so many many gays are acting hetero because they fear of being killed, hurt or abandoned.

I actually "dated" more "hetero" guys than gay gays, when around other men they act very manly, but when they work with you alone they change and want sex and other stuff like that.

So don't believe ever heterosexual you see, i've been there too many times when I was around 18 and all men looked like real soccer-loving, car collecting guys who never would do anything with another guy, they even had wife an children.

So wrong they are.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gancanagh wrote:
[You think so? The majority is only heterosexual because they fear coming out of the closet, so many many gays are acting hetero because they fear of being killed, hurt or abandoned.

Yeah, dude, that's what happens when you conduct your poll in San Francisco during the Gay Pride Parade.

If you seriously think that the human population is over 50% homosexual, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.


I think rather 80% is bi-curious or bi-sexual. Just look at prisons and that kind of places :-p

When a man wants sex he wants sex, boy or woman, they don't care if they are desperate enough.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gancanagh wrote:

I think rather 80% is bi-curious or bi-sexual. Just look at prisons and that kind of places :-p

When a man wants sex he wants sex, boy or woman, they don't care if they are desperate enough.

I'm sorry, but this sounds uncomfortably close to rape apologism...


Kittyburger wrote:
Gancanagh wrote:

I think rather 80% is bi-curious or bi-sexual. Just look at prisons and that kind of places :-p

When a man wants sex he wants sex, boy or woman, they don't care if they are desperate enough.

I'm sorry, but this sounds uncomfortably close to rape apologism...

I'm not a big fan of it either.


That phenomenon is not exclusive to men, from what I've heard.

Human beings of both genders are equally capable of doing such things.


Icyshadow wrote:

That phenomenon is not exclusive to men, from what I've heard.

Human beings of both genders are equally capable of doing such things.

Well its much rarer for women to behave that way.


Rare or not, it's enough that it occurs.

Anyway, this is starting to get off-topic again.

So, are people still debating who is the gay iconic?


I'm going to put in my vote for Lem because no one has voted for him yet.

Grand Lodge

FanaticRat wrote:
I'm going to put in my vote for Lem because no one has voted for him yet.

Well, we know he has that war flute...

Dark Archive

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual. Hopefully this will change when I next run something, but it seems the stories I make, love and sexuality just aren't part of them :/

That is something I like Paizo for bringing up different sexual orientations in their modules/adventure paths, at least it brings the possibility of romances/conflicts/ect using such basic feelings.

Now we need to see non-core race NPCs being LGBT, especially a gay/trans/bi goblin!

Liberty's Edge

It happens in my games reasonably regularly - the fact that most of my friends are some breed of LGBT probably has something to do with that, though. My players tend to enjoy connecting with random (and usually utterly irrelevant...) NPCs and go out of their way to do so, regardless of their character's sexuality. We've also had inter-party romance (and inter-party rivalry over romance!) as well.


Like I said, I did it once (albeit not in Pathfinder) so it didn't seem to be an issue.

If I ever do run another home game of Pathfinder that doesn't die a slow agonizing death due to players not showing up there will probably be a few lgbtq characters. Maybe evern a lgbtq goblin, although you wouldn't be able to tell because they set your horse on fire like all the other goblins.


Crystal Frasier wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at, AntiElite, so forgive me if I misinterpret, but if I'm following you, you're upset that Paizo is writing their sexual and gender minorities as one-note characters? Because I personally don't usually see that. Anevia has a whole backstory about escaping from a hostile home nation and falling in love that relate to but aren't defined entirely by her being trans, and Irabeth has many factors beyond being a lesbian or being a half-orc or being a paladin. Neither character exists solely to be a two-dimensional insert for a given minority.

Alexandra's identity isn't LIMITED to being trans, just like mine isn't LIMITED to being gay, but those are still important aspects to who we are. We wouldn't be the people we are without those elements, and we can be proud of those parts of our identity. The philosophy of "why can't people be people" is fine, but we all have those things that define us and we all like to see a little bit of ourselves in the media we consume. To that end, I'm not sure why more inclusion in Golarion would be a bad thing.

Thank you for patience - I've had to go help someone who screwed me over in the past, and didn't get to make it back to the conversation 'til the morning.

To your point, I agree - and I don't have a problem with the representation in general, something others don't seem to get. I like that there's a little something for everyone, even if it causes substantial backlash, like summoners. :)

Okay, the levity is a bit forced, and I'll admit it, but I felt it was needed.

Where my specific complaint begins, and in many ways ends, is in what appears to be, from an extremely vocal portion of the fanbase, a demand for representation that may or may not be out of convention for the world but is subject to the whims of the product editors who, honestly, are entitled to change the world as they see fit and have demographics match their personal ideal.

Again, that part I'm okay with, but would be personally put off by dialing the 'gaytio' of the populace up to, for example, 35-45%, with all of the socio-political ramifications that so accompany. I like politics in games, and I like socio-political activities in games, but to me, in a world where bisexuality is supposed to be the default, I find that making LGBTETC. issues into a thing to skirt verisimilitude. There are in-setting justifications here and there, though to me they seem vanishingly small and often forced; some have pointed out the possibility, for example, of Erastil and Sarenrae having fringe-bigots, but I for one would not see the fun or enjoyment of having those groups present. Aren't such offensive organizations bad and/or prevalent enough in the real world?

I know a portion of the game can be done as wish-fulfillment, but I would think a more tolerant world would be more of a fulfillment than having such close-minded sorts represented as something with hit-points for smiting in-game.

Also, Crystal, I do have a question, that I would prefer to take to PM rather than ask it openly, because given that many people are already on the 'he dissents so he must be a bigot' bandwagon the last thing I want to do is feed their sense of Aggrieved Identity Politicking. If, after asking, you feel it is not inappropriate, then by all means feel free to reply publicly, and if you feel it is justified call me out on it.

I once more thank you for your question and your lack of assumptions. Where there is a misinterpretation, I am more likely to fault my own failure at communication due to heightened emotional and personal bias, and my incredibly awkwardness with reconciling the concept of support in contrast to any personal reservations I have.


Alexandra Pitchford wrote:

What Crystal said. Am I worried that characters will become one-note parodies? Always. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. So far, they've been handled incredibly well. Anevia is one of my favorite new characters, and I find her entire backstory, regardless of the gender aspect, to be well-done and interesting.

Is being reduced to parodies a worry? Of course. But Paizo seems capable enough of handling things, and portraying interesting, multifaceted characters that don't fall back on tired stereotypes.

FanaticRat actually came closest to putting my spiel into plain English.

To your point, my worry is made complicated because of the fact that I'm pro-inclusion, even of things I personally am not fond of, because of the fact that Paizo handles it so well. The inevitable 'but' that has been left hanging is that I'm looking from the perspective of past as prologue, and the last time I saw an RPG company make such strides, they turned into something that I came to loathe, as much for the pandering as the fans that were pandered -to-.

Specifically, the White Wolf fandom. White Wolf listened to the most vocal portion of their fanbase, and their products suffered for it, and while that's probably a personal bias, I stopped buying from them because I am a proponent of voting with my dollars, and for my supernatural gaming fix I went to SJGames and In Nomine because I was repulsed by the Crawling In My Skin Mallgothliness that permeated WoD. There were other things, but this is not the thread to go into those. I want to continue to support Paizo, ESPECIALLY in their inclusiveness, but it would be difficult to do if inclusion gave way to pandering on an internal bias of shared background.

It's a frustrating thing to be marginalized, I know this. It's feeling kinda vexing to support the marginalized and have them marginalize you in return, in conjunction with the people who are marginalizing THEM.

I want to have faith in Wes, and Crystal, whose reply helped make my morning. I want Paizo to continue including people and building characters with actual depth. I don't want it all lost in a tidal wave of Identity Politics.


FanaticRat wrote:

Like I said, I did it once (albeit not in Pathfinder) so it didn't seem to be an issue.

If I ever do run another home game of Pathfinder that doesn't die a slow agonizing death due to players not showing up there will probably be a few lgbtq characters. Maybe evern a lgbtq goblin, although you wouldn't be able to tell because they set your horse on fire like all the other goblins.

I am not planning to wall-of-text here, but I MAY cause accidental offense to some who read this, so I'm just apologizing in advance.

I've run lots of 1E, 2E, 3.X, Pathfinder, and other settings and system games with a number of friends. I've had the full spectrum of orientations in my games, and no shortage of fetishization.

I have had to dismiss a number of players, who invariably make accusations of bigotry when they are 'voted off' by the rest of the table. They are not voted out for being gay, or vocal about it, or being campy flaming twinks. It wasn't even for them being among the worst ends of the Furry stereotypes.

Every time, they've been voted out of games for being oblivious buttmuppets who have made the game unenjoyable for the rest of the table, which has on more than one occasion included other OUT AND OPEN LGBT people. Sometimes a closeted one or two. Basically, they broke main board rule, and were called out on it.

Fortunately, that's been rare, and most of the time the games are a blast once the problem people are dealt with. That's a problem that has never been limited to orientation - 'That Guy' knows no race, creed, or lifestyle limitation. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ulgulanoth wrote:
On a side note, who here has run gay/trans/bi/etc characters in their home games set on Golarion?

.

Tabletop? My tabletop games include pre-teens & rather...
conservative (Yeah, I know) parents, so all the romance happens very off-camera.
PbP I have a Changeling Paladin who is Lesbian (actually bi, but refuses to acknowledge her attraction to men because that gets her thinking about her biological parents probable 'relationship').

ulgulanoth wrote:
Now we need to see non-core race NPCs being LGBT, especially a gay/trans/bi goblin!

Technically we have already gotten that in the last two AP's. Shattered Star had a bi Catfolk & a Lesbian Harpy while Reign of Winter had a bi Changeling.

Liberty's Edge

ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

To answer your question, most of the sexuality in games I run is implicit, this does mean that for the most part I have had little representation for LGBT in games I run. I ran Curse which has a lesbian couple, but aside from that I can think of no examples in games I have run. Answering this question is the first time I have realized that fact. It isn't an active choice, it is more just not considering it. That is something I will have to try to keep in mind in the future.

PC wise, I can think of no characters that I have played where I played a non hetero character. Almost all were only that way from implicit sexuality, very few were actually in situations where there sexuality was mentioned. The only character that even comes close in my memory, and this is a far stretch, was a concept for a Kindred of the East game. I and a friend had a Brother/Sister paired character concept, where the characters were in the each other's body. In retrospect, as envisioned in my head the character concept was a bit juvenile. That said, I still see value in the idea and the exploration possible via that concept.

EDIT: edited to actually answer the question.


graywulfe wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

I wonder if this is where a substantial part of the problem arises.

There's the old joke about marriage being the end of sexuality, but that's not the point.

I often wonder if a lot of the grievance expressed comes about purely because there's not enough over hand-holding and bearded ticklykisses shown in adventure paths.

I made mention earlier about how the biggest complaint that comes up in regards to the whole 'sexuality includes having parents/couple that owns the tavern' argument seems to be the confusion of homosexuality with gay sex, and that the reason why it seems so imbalanced in representation is because of the inordinate amount of 'shorthand' that goes on in stories without explicit intimacy, and the desire for more of that seems to stem from that, while at the same time making the easily-scandalized immediately follow the same shorthand cues and reach the 'OH NOEZ TEH GAY SEXORZ' overreaction.

Then again, my solution on the 'tavern couple' scenario is that they're 'beards' for each other because people are more likely to spend at a 'couples' tavern than one owned by two guys or two ladies they can't 'pick up'.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

I wonder if this is where a substantial part of the problem arises.

There's the old joke about marriage being the end of sexuality, but that's not the point.

I often wonder if a lot of the grievance expressed comes about purely because there's not enough over hand-holding and bearded ticklykisses shown in adventure paths.

I made mention earlier about how the biggest complaint that comes up in regards to the whole 'sexuality includes having parents/couple that owns the tavern' argument seems to be the confusion of homosexuality with gay sex, and that the reason why it seems so imbalanced in representation is because of the inordinate amount of 'shorthand' that goes on in stories without explicit intimacy, and the desire for more of that seems to stem from that, while at the same time making the easily-scandalized immediately follow the same shorthand cues and reach the 'OH NOEZ TEH GAY SEXORZ' overreaction.

Then again, my solution on the 'tavern couple' scenario is that they're 'beards' for each other because people are more likely to spend at a 'couples' tavern than one owned by two guys or two ladies they can't 'pick up'.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this post. I you saying that you think the people asking for inclusion, or really thanking Paizo for the inclusion that is present, are asking for more explicit sexuality?

Or are you saying that you think that people complaining about inclusion are under the impression that more inclusion means more explicit sexuality?

Dark Archive

Crystal Frasier wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

Let's throw political correctness to the side for a moment. Heterosexual sex is a biological imperative. It is required for a species to continue to exist. If all homosexuals and bisexuals were to disappear of the face of the earth, the human race would continue. However, if all heterosexual and bisexual individuals were to cease to exist...then either the remaining homosexual individuals would have to begin engaging in hetrosexual sex, or the human race would end with that generation.

So yes, in a purely biological sense, I think it's allowable to say that heterosexual relations are more "normal".

Countdown to this being deleted....

You have a very confused understanding of "normal". Non-heterosexual behavior is common in all mammal species, as well as birds. It's a part of life. Very few higher-order animals have sex solely for the purpose of reproduction, and asserting that sex should only exist for reproduction is the abnormal, politically-charged opinion.

Secondly, as a lesbian I am not physically incapable of having sex with a man. Even a gay man. I know how making babies works and could happily become pregnant without stopping being a lesbian. If penis-in-vagina sex magically made you straight, I would've gone straight in college.

I can be impregnated either by having penis-in-vagina sex with a dude, having lesbian sex with a trans woman, or in vitro fertilization. The hetero-essentialist claim that straight is "normal" because only straight people can reproduce is contrived at best, and insulting.

Cookie for you...

Alice Margatroid wrote:
** Alice's Handy Dandy Guide to LGBT in Pathfinder **

...and cookie for you!


graywulfe wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:

On a side note, who here has runned gay/trans/bi/ect characters in their home games set on Golarion?

I ask, because it may show how often sexuality comes into play in the most free-form games. For example, in none of my games has sexuality of any characters come up, thus all the NPCs I've ran over the years have always been asexual

So none of your NPCs were ever married? There is implicit sexuality there. We just don't think about it because it is the "norm".

I wonder if this is where a substantial part of the problem arises.

There's the old joke about marriage being the end of sexuality, but that's not the point.

I often wonder if a lot of the grievance expressed comes about purely because there's not enough over hand-holding and bearded ticklykisses shown in adventure paths.

I made mention earlier about how the biggest complaint that comes up in regards to the whole 'sexuality includes having parents/couple that owns the tavern' argument seems to be the confusion of homosexuality with gay sex, and that the reason why it seems so imbalanced in representation is because of the inordinate amount of 'shorthand' that goes on in stories without explicit intimacy, and the desire for more of that seems to stem from that, while at the same time making the easily-scandalized immediately follow the same shorthand cues and reach the 'OH NOEZ TEH GAY SEXORZ' overreaction.

Then again, my solution on the 'tavern couple' scenario is that they're 'beards' for each other because people are more likely to spend at a 'couples' tavern than one owned by two guys or two ladies they can't 'pick up'.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this post. I you saying that you think the people asking for inclusion, or really thanking Paizo for the inclusion that is present, are asking for more explicit sexuality?

Or are you saying that you think that people complaining about inclusion are under the impression that more inclusion means more explicit sexuality?

Not quite either, if I'm parsing you correctly; I'm saying that the people who ARE complaining about inclusion are equating the inclusion with increased sexuality (which is inaccurate), and that people who complain about the presence of heteronormative periphery sexuality (that is, the obvious parents, the tavern-owning couple, and non-sexually explicit expressions of same-sex attraction/existence) are getting mad about it because they don't see as much same-sex periphery sexuality, when the reason for this is because, to quote without malice...

Tirisfal wrote:
What I find wrong is when people say that they won't add the LGBT characters in their campaign because they're "not normal", yucky, or that they "don't include sex in their games" (if I mention LGBT relationships to a homophobe and they immediately think of gay sex, I can't really help them).

.

I don't apologize for the complainers - I'm trying to translate their statements and understand them without casting aspersions.

Maybe the words I'm looking for are Sexualism versus Sexuality?

In essence, I don't assume the absence of gay or lesbian couples, only more discretion than the average dippy hetero couple in puppy-eyed stupid-love sucking face in public if not on-the-cusp of overt dry-humping for all to see.

Liberty's Edge

TheAntiElite wrote:


In essence, I don't assume the absence of gay or lesbian couples, only more discretion than the average dippy hetero couple in puppy-eyed stupid-love sucking face in public if not on-the-cusp of overt dry-humping for all to see.

I think the way Paizo handled it in "The Worldwound Incursion". They established the back story of the relevant characters, including their Gender preference, etc. Nowhere in the book are you instructed to be explicit about anyone's sexuality.


graywulfe wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


In essence, I don't assume the absence of gay or lesbian couples, only more discretion than the average dippy hetero couple in puppy-eyed stupid-love sucking face in public if not on-the-cusp of overt dry-humping for all to see.
I think the way Paizo handled it in "The Worldwound Incursion". They established the back story of the relevant characters, including their Gender preference, etc. Nowhere in the book are you instructed to be explicit about anyone's sexuality.

Which is the point - Paizo handles it well, and to date includes details of all sorts when it's relevant to the situation and backstory.

At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

I jest in this example, yet the underlying kernel of truth within is that I hope that Paizo can keep up the awesome example they've set, without weighing things excessively in the OTHER direction, not because I'd quit Pathfinder, but because Golarion would lose something if Identity Politics became outsized on one axis as opposed to all the others (race, class, wealth, alignment, core races versus expanded, nationality).

Also, having not played the Worldwound Incursion, purely based on what has been discussed so far it's been more tactful than any number of hetero relationships, so it doesn't disprove my joking supposition of LGBT in my games having more tact than the average hetcis. :)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be honest... I don't think anyone is seriously demanding a sudden sharp increase in the number of LGBT individuals. I mean, I certainly expect at least 90% of NPCs to not be... which I think is what we have about now.

I think it just gets amplified a little for two reasons:

1) Many LGBT people tend to be pretty happy to see "themselves" in materials and so focus on it a bit more than usual. It's something to celebrate in many cases.

2) Anti-LGBT types will hone in on one example for one reason or another.

Neither camp is likely to care so much about a random straight pair, although we certainly see plenty of those too :)

Liberty's Edge

TheAntiElite wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
TheAntiElite wrote:


In essence, I don't assume the absence of gay or lesbian couples, only more discretion than the average dippy hetero couple in puppy-eyed stupid-love sucking face in public if not on-the-cusp of overt dry-humping for all to see.
I think the way Paizo handled it in "The Worldwound Incursion". They established the back story of the relevant characters, including their Gender preference, etc. Nowhere in the book are you instructed to be explicit about anyone's sexuality.

Which is the point - Paizo handles it well, and to date includes details of all sorts when it's relevant to the situation and backstory.

At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

Here is where the disconnect occurs for me from what you say. Specifically, I do not see a demand for an increased percentage of representation. I spend a ridiculous amount of time reading the boards, and I have yet to encounter any posts that could, in my opinion, be interpreted as demanding more. I suspect most of the posts you have seen are trying to defend Paizo's current rate of inclusion. After "The Worldwound Incursion" came out a vocal minority of "fans" complained about the inclusion and how it was "forced". The arguments that grew out of that got bigger and louder and spread all over the place to the point that people have, supposedly, stopped being customers in protest of Paizo's policy of inclusion.

People rightly feel the need to defend their existance.

I will worry about Paizo's inclusiveness becoming a caricature when I actually see any evidence of it going anywhere near that point.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:
At the same time, there's the demands for more LGBT NPCs, and the idea is sound, with precedent established. At present, my worry is that as the demands get increasingly vocal, there may come with it an oversampling of demographics and a decision to start pandering to overcompensate for all the other companies that do it wrong, and my (in this case comedic) over-exaggerated expectation that in a well-intentioned attempt at inclusion gives way to Golarion being fan-wanked into World of Yaoifangirlcraft.

It's 'fan-wanked' if there is any catering to the gay male and female heterosexual gaze, but just the normal way of things if a large percentage of female character depictions are wearing a sexy getup rather than actually effective adventuring gear and posing in sexy ways that stick their boobs and butts out, even on the battlefield?

It's easy to disparage the gaze you don't personally share, but what I am reading here is a strong sense of entitlement. Unless you have equally disparaging things to say about how stupid it is when the heterosexual male gaze is catered to, you really need to ease up on the nasty comments about how bad it would be if an RPG company catered to female and gay male gaze more of the time.

Because honestly, it comes off like a whiny kid crying that he's not getting it ALL HIS WAY, ALL THE TIME, when you complain about an already highly marginalized minority who gets maybe ONE even vaguely homosexually themed pretty-boy depiction in published RPG artwork for every 10,000 or more busty female depictions. This is not an amount worth your b*%!*ing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:
Then again, my solution on the 'tavern couple' scenario is that they're 'beards' for each other because people are more likely to spend at a 'couples' tavern than one owned by two guys or two ladies they can't 'pick up'.

Why would that even be a thing on Golarion? Why would anyone care, if the culture they originated from did not give a hoot whether someone was gay or bi or straight? I don't see homophobia being canon anywhere in the Paizo materials. There is no particularly good reason to assume it exists.

And, gay bars. Just saying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TheAntiElite wrote:
and that people who complain about the presence of heteronormative periphery sexuality (that is, the obvious parents, the tavern-owning couple, and non-sexually explicit expressions of same-sex attraction/existence) are getting mad about it because they don't see as much same-sex periphery sexuality

No. You are misunderstanding.

No one is "getting mad" that heteronomative peripheral sexuality, such as that implied by the mere mention of heterosexual couples, exists in Paizo's gaming products. We are drawing a parallel, in order to illuminate the hypocrisy of people who get mad at the existence of LGBT couples and then justify it by claiming that discussions or endorsements of sexuality have "no place in a fantasy game".

The obvious response to this is twofold:

1) Discussions and endorsements of heteronormative sexuality are already in the fantasy game, in that they are implied every time a heteronormative couple is depicted;

2) Depictions of LGBT couples imply no more discussion or endorsement of sexuality than the heteronormative depictions do; thus, why is one acceptable and the other not?

It's a means of exposing a double standard employed by several people who have objected to depictions of LBGT relationships in the gaming material. If you're interpreting it as "complaining" that there is too much heteronormative sex in the books, then you are missing the intent.

4,301 to 4,350 of 5,778 << first < prev | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Homosexuality in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.