I'm feeling some guilt over my homosexual pedophile villain now.
In my defense, the campaign setting of my imagination has lots of gay people, it's just that my players happen to have fallen victim to a psycho.
I admit I kinda skipped pages 3-7, but heres my "Sexuality in Gaming" Portfolio.
A homebrew I DMd where a main PC (played by a very straight man) was a gay lumberjack... named Jack. Everyone knew (though not at first), nobody cared. It helped that none of the other PCs were his "type".
Age of Worms: Buckle up for this one. My male half-ogre gets an irrevocable curse put on his legacy weapon sword by the Fountain of Fortunes Folly. The curse? You guessed it: Gender Swap. So he is now a she. Being a druid, and already used to shapeshifting into different genders (look it up, how do you think you get antlers in Elk form if your a female druid?) this was no biggie. Other PCs were a bit wierded out by the easy acceptance, but players were fine with it. But the spelltheif in the party, a fairly meek and cowardly sort who had always been very grateful to my character for being kind to him when others weren't, found himself having "odd thoughts" now that my physical form actually matched the personality that had often come through. End result: After the defeat of Kyuss, the Spelltheif and my PC ended up married, with kids (4 of them, I think).
Savage Tide: No real winners here, but the party was sure that Captain Amellia was at least bisexual, because they were also sure that Tavey Nesk was a girl, due to the illustration. Additionally, an Ice Troll PC got into a serious relationship with Limae from the Jade Ravens. Yes, an Ice Troll. The Frost Mage in the party managed to spend an evening with Tyrilandri at Scuttlecove as well, right in the middle of his ascent to a homebrew elemental lichdom.
And the Bard himself (my drow PC of great awesome) received a curse from a mischeif diety to spend a third of his life in female form. When he accomplished the dieties task, he specifically requested the curse not be lifted, so that he could experience life as a woman and thus better understand the people around him.
And as for me? Well, my wife will tell you I'm obnoxiously sexual. And since its with her, then it must be heterosexual. But I was trained as an artist to appreciate the human form, both of its genders and all of its variety. And I'll freely admit there are a few men who I would "go gay for, if only for a night". Like David Boreanaz from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Course, I'd also love to just be around the guy, hang out, whatever. I suppose for me, attraction is generated by the amount I respect, admire, and enjoy the person's presence in my life. That attraction and appreciation can then be displayed in whichever form is most comfortable and pleasing to the individual in question.
I posted this before, but now that Black Bard has mentioned it.
I played a gay sniper in a GURPS special ops Cthulu campaign and it was a riot once the other players got over the initial shock. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one to do this.
Then there's my planescape character, a blonde Ysgardian woman who got it on with a Briaur, who just happens to be played by another dude on these boards....
So for those that are wondering: yes, some gamers do have sex in their campaigns.... and toilets... and love... and homophobes... and so on.
As I wrote, my concern was based on balance of representation. So, I'm curious: what are these other NPCs you're referring to? I've read the entire thread up to this point and all I've seen was the background Sandpoint relationship.I believe there was a gay halfling in Rise of the Kobold King.Confirmed. And for the life of me I can't help but think the alignment for him was listed wrong, at least when taking only his character description as presented in RotKK into account.
And as for all the talk about transgendered characters: Did anyone ever bring up Gozreh?
Could you give me a page citation here? I've read the Crown of the Kobold King twice and I've not found anything like a reference to Edgrin's sexuality.
Aubrey, I don't think that you are giving my argument a fair reading.
Yes, but remember what medium we are talking about - an RPG scenario. The sweet gay romance in Sandpoint is fundamentally less interesting to players because the guys are not villains - they don't even really appear in the scenario, they are barely "dungeon dressing". So they get a couple of sentences. Queen Ileosa is the main villain, much more interesting to the PCs, and so gets more limelight - though the gay stuff is still only a sentence or two. This might look like the bad gay is emphasised over the nice gay, but that is more about RPGs and how they work than subconscious attitudes.
If Ileosa was having loads of heterosexual sex, no one would be even having this conversation. Don't get me wrong, I understand your concern, though I don't agree that the Paizo guys should consider censoring themselves to the extent you seem to be suggesting. In my view, we need to get away from the notion of gays as victims, and treat them (in this medium) as people. Times have changed, and your approach...
Thanks. In general, most situations on these boards involve two people trying to get to valuable ends by different means. That seems to be the case here. As you'll read later on in the thread, I figured that I'd be better off raising the issue now and be wrong than after the fact.
The Paladin thing is quite simple: The guy is gay. He can still smite. That means his god doesn't think it's a vile abomination or anything. Paladins have to live up to very high standards, so you can assume that if they're doing it without their aura turning grey, it's okay for you to do, too.
And yeah, for the record, I do think extramarital sex, drug use, drunkenness, and smoking are wrong.
Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?
I promise never to misspell pork again, guys. I swear! ;)
Let that be a lesson to you: If you make such an exploitable typo, make it somewhere without a lot of immature bastards like me ;-P
Brilliant ideas about edible porn, BTW. Both of them.
I think I'll have to look into what resolution you can get with food colouring on edible paper. Or I'll just leave them a bit hazy and call it artsy porn to eat. Not the common grub you use to sate your hunger, but something to quietly enjoy.
They got edible undies just FYI. :)
I know. Did they add the note that you shouldn't wear them a all day when it's warm and you're doing sports or heavy work, as it kinda spoils the taste?
Could you give me a page citation here? I've read the Crown of the Kobold King twice and I've not found anything like a reference to Edgrin's sexuality.As I wrote, my concern was based on balance of representation. So, I'm curious: what are these other NPCs you're referring to? I've read the entire thread up to this point and all I've seen was the background Sandpoint relationship.I believe there was a gay halfling in Rise of the Kobold King.Confirmed. And for the life of me I can't help but think the alignment for him was listed wrong, at least when taking only his character description as presented in RotKK into account.
And as for all the talk about transgendered characters: Did anyone ever bring up Gozreh?
I believe Nick revealed this in a Pathfinder chat... I don't think it's in the text itself.
- Ashavan
Your "hate the sinner, not the sin" argument ignores the fact that drug use is a choice, homosexuality isn't. At least not according to the data I've seen.
So people choose to be addicted to drugs? Yup, its those Native Americans fault for the rampant alcholism on reservations.
StuffI think that GentleGiant has a point above. Even if nobody brings out scripture, if we assume that most opposition to homosexuality is the result of religious conviction, and Golarion does not have any of those religions, the likelihood of religious opposition to 'alternate sexuality' is much less likely.There exists objections to homosexuality beyond religion. There are non "Moralistic" issues.
Issues of gender ("That isn't what a REAL men do!"). THis comes up a lot; men calling eachother slurs relating to homosexual, because the implication that one is becomes a threat to his identity, his credit with other men, and his identity.
Neanderthal/group think. Immaturity/lack of education. Fear of the unknown. Insecurity (often in one's own sexuality).
Basic human psychology, we tend to "demonize" that which we don't understand.Doesn't make it objectively wrong.
The issue of Power (as discussed above); the Romans and the Vikings had the attitude of "If you're the top, that's cool. You are the MAN of the situation."
So homosexuality is OK as long as you're the top/man/masculine party of a relationship?
Still doesn't make it wrong.The issue of "Ew, that's icky." A rejection on the grounds that something makes you uncomfortable.
It might make some people uncomfortable, but does that automatically make it wrong?
If that is the case, then in my world religious teaching/indoctrination of children is "wrong" since it makes me extremely uncomfortable, but I'm sure a lot of people will argue that it isn't "wrong."
Your "hate the sinner, not the sin" argument ignores the fact that drug use is a choice, homosexuality isn't. At least not according to the data I've seen.So people choose to be addicted to drugs? Yup, its those Native Americans fault for the rampant alcholism on reservations.
No, they choose to use drugs which they know to be addictive. Huge difference between this and sexuality.
If you want to say you can't love the sinner while hating the sin... ...can you love a family member with a severe drug problem while still acknowledging that it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them and lobbying for them to STOP taking drugs? Because that's a very good example of a nonsexual instance of that in play.
Whoa there! Totally faulty example, since what you're basically saying is that homosexuality is "it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them" on the same level as drug use. Sorry, but that's an extremely untrue and hurtful comparison.
|
Your "hate the sinner, not the sin" argument ignores the fact that drug use is a choice, homosexuality isn't. At least not according to the data I've seen.So people choose to be addicted to drugs? Yup, its those Native Americans fault for the rampant alcholism on reservations.No, they choose to use drugs which they know to be addictive. Huge difference between this and sexuality.
If you want to say you can't love the sinner while hating the sin... ...can you love a family member with a severe drug problem while still acknowledging that it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them and lobbying for them to STOP taking drugs? Because that's a very good example of a nonsexual instance of that in play.Whoa there! Totally faulty example, since what you're basically saying is that homosexuality is "it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them" on the same level as drug use. Sorry, but that's an extremely untrue and hurtful comparison.
Not making that exact comparison at all, really. In fact, I was almost making the opposite comparison; I deliberately took something FAR worse than homosexuality would be in the eyes of anyone but the most extreme of zealots as my example. In other words, "if you can still love someone who's utterly ruining their life and the lives of everyone around them, it's certainly possible to love someone who's doing something harmless, but maybe not moral by your worldview." It's just an example of how you can disapprove of something someone is doing without hating them for it. One could say the same of someone with a drinking, gambling, or shopping problem, somebody who spends too much time playing video games, wastes all of their time on message boards, doesn't save as much money as they should, games too much, picks at scabs, picks their nose, collects toenail clippings, has awful fashion sense, drives a gas-guzzling SUV, or undercooks foods that may contain Salmonela. Take your pick. The point is, you can disapprove of something that somebody is doing without hating them.
Whoa there! Totally faulty example, since what you're basically saying is that homosexuality is "it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them" on the same level as drug use. Sorry, but that's an extremely untrue and hurtful comparison.
Sorry, critical failure. He was talking about the idea of "love the sinner, not the sin", not that drug use and homosexuality are on the same level.
|
Could you give me a page citation here? I've read the Crown of the Kobold King twice and I've not found anything like a reference to Edgrin's sexuality.As I wrote, my concern was based on balance of representation. So, I'm curious: what are these other NPCs you're referring to? I've read the entire thread up to this point and all I've seen was the background Sandpoint relationship.I believe there was a gay halfling in Rise of the Kobold King.Confirmed. And for the life of me I can't help but think the alignment for him was listed wrong, at least when taking only his character description as presented in RotKK into account.
And as for all the talk about transgendered characters: Did anyone ever bring up Gozreh?
I believe Nick revealed this in a Pathfinder chat... I don't think it's in the text itself.
- Ashavan
Wait, here it is.
It's not Edgrin I'm thinking of, but
|
|
The Paladin thing is quite simple: The guy is gay. He can still smite. That means his god doesn't think it's a vile abomination or anything. Paladins have to live up to very high standards, so you can assume that if they're doing it without their aura turning grey, it's okay for you to do, too.
Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?
And yeah, for the record, I do think extramarital sex, drug use, drunkenness, and smoking are wrong.
Yes, but before you go attacking me, you'd better account for the very next sentence (and the ones that follow it) in the post you're quoting. Taking this one statement out of context and using it to blast me (if that's what you're intending to do) is playing pretty dirty.
|
|
Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?
Actually, I believe the term in that case is 'premarital' since you've never been married. Extramarital specifically deals with having sex with a partner that isn't your spouse, while you ARE married. I'm sure if I am wrong on this, someone will correct me; but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Could you give me a page citation here? I've read the Crown of the Kobold King twice and I've not found anything like a reference to Edgrin's sexuality.
I believe Nick revealed this in a Pathfinder chat... I don't think it's in the text itself.
- Ashavan
That's not something that I'm going to count, then. If it's not in the text and it's not something a poster with almost 200 posts knows about... That's pretty closeted.
Props for rescuing children and using a cub body type. That character alone would have gone a long way towards providing balance.
Edit: oops not that halfling, then, I guess.
Is it extramarital if I never intend to marry?Actually, I believe the term in that case is 'premarital' since you've never been married. Extramarital specifically deals with having sex with a partner that isn't your spouse, while you ARE married. I'm sure if I am wrong on this, someone will correct me; but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Actually it would be amarital if marriage isn't an option.
I find religion abhorrent. I think it is a weakness of the imagination, and a shackle for the mind. Part of the reason for my take on religion is the intolerance and bigotry that seems to accompany it.
While it is true that it is human nature to do evil to one another, I would characterize religion as a tool for allowing the worst in of us to seize control and do far more damage than they otherwise would have been able to do.
But, wait, my religion actively accepts all sexual orientations (as well as all diversity of views and lifestyles), so where does that leave me? :(
Anyway, I just like to thank Paizo for being inclusive as well. It's a really cool step forward. :)
And as an aside...
The dead creature template makes you immune to all damage, anyway, so *beats Dead Horse some more*
You wouldn't be referring to the dead template from the Portable Hole Full of Beer would you? (Had too much fun writing that template.) Don't forget as a large creature, a dead horse is considered a huge bludgeoning weapon as well. :)
I can't imagine having a Greyhawk topic like this.
I don't think this is true at all, Guru... I think it is highly dependant on they type of game a person is running/involved in. It is just that Paizo is now given free reign to explore any facet they think improves a story in print. There is lots of space for the spectrum of desire in Greyhawk, just not under TSR or WoTC. If Paizo was given Oerth as a sandbox, I think that similar themes might emerge... Was Otiluke such a jackass because of his discomfort with his sexuality and possible love for one of the Circle members? While Otto, that bon vidant, offers many interesting opportunities for the social circles he travels in Greyhawk City. And that's not even tupping the ewe of Iggwilv's sexuality...
I think the "____________" can't be done in "______" setting arguement is pretty straw-mannish (or straw-woman or straw-trannie). It can be done, but might take some work and collaborative effort to do on the DM and player's sides. Granted that comes from a guy who played a halfling rent-boy on the docks of Dyvers at one point in my gaming past.
This should've been intrepreted tongue-in-cheek (i.e; a joke). This thread needs to lighten up a bit.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Although Cyrdak enjoys flirting with all of Sandpoint's young women his romantic relationship with Jasper (area 40) is one of the town's worst kept secrets."
Judging from the fact that Sir Jasper is still considered a paladin of good standing and is holding a day job as the manager of a prestigious business (The Sandpoint Merchantile League) I'd say that Sandpoint natives have little or no scruples whatsoever regarding homosexuality.
I tell you: the homosexual aspect isn't the point that's confusing to me. It's the "pre-marital relationship". Has the relationship passed the "courting" stage?
Why aren't Cyrdak and Sir Jasper simply married? If the relationship is officially illicit, then I have a problem with Jasper reatining his paladin standing, because he's committing an un-lawful act, the same as I would if he were illicitly shacked up with a girl.
--
For what it's worth, medieval European marriage laws were intertwined in salic rights of inheritance and feudal obligations. I imagine that a D&D world --where great-grandpa can be resurrected decades after his property is distributed, and where clones, people reincarnated as badgers, and undead wreak havoc with what it means to inherit-- doesn't place the same kinds of emphasis on the legitimacy of marriage.
(Now that brings up an odd set of laws: if you're married to someone, and he becomes a lich, is the marriage automatically dissolved? If you're married to someone, and she dies and is then resurrected after you remarry, is your second marriage voided?)
A half-orc barbarian, a half-elf bard, a cleric of Asmodeus, and a gay paladin walk into a bar.
The bartender looks up and says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"
I'll be here all week folks!
|
You know, none of the 'Psycho Lesbian' cliches really apply to Queen Illosa, or even Sabine. Queen Illosa is evil because she's utterly ruthless and will stop at nothing to get what she wants, which is power. I think she's a fascinating character, almost a Cersei Lannister with red hair. Which is awesome. I've got a few interesting theories on Queen Illosa, and her relationship with Sabine, which I'll be happy to share later, perhaps on a thread in the CoTCT forum.
Her Bisexuality has nothing to do with her evil ways. It's like saying that because she's got red hair, she's evil.
Anyway, going back to the original point, I too would love to see more detailed articles on the various cultures of Golarion, of which how they treat sexuality would be one aspect. Similarly, I'd love to see detailed articles on the various faiths, and how they deal with sexuality. The Faiths of Greyhawk articles were one of my favourites back in Dragon, so more of those would be great.
Not making that exact comparison at all, really. In fact, I was almost making the opposite comparison; I deliberately took something FAR worse than homosexuality would be in the eyes of anyone but the most extreme of zealots as my example. In other words, "if you can still love someone who's utterly ruining their life and the lives of everyone around them, it's certainly possible to love someone who's doing something harmless, but maybe not moral by your worldview." It's just an example of how you can disapprove of something someone is doing without hating them for it. One could say the same of someone with a drinking, gambling, or shopping problem, somebody who spends too much time playing video games, wastes all of their time on message boards, doesn't save as much money as they should, games too much, picks at scabs, picks their nose, collects toenail clippings, has awful fashion sense, drives a gas-guzzling SUV, or undercooks foods that may contain Salmonela. Take your pick. The point is, you can disapprove of something that somebody is doing without hating them.
My apologies for misreading it!
It just seemed that because of the example you used, you were comparing homosexuality to drug use because you would hate both things without hating the person doing them. I hope you can see how I got to that conclusion.I would like to ask you then:
Why do you consider homosexuality a sin (and I take it that you mean it as a biblical sin)?
And others can join in for this one:
Why is the biblical sin of homosexuality given so much weight compared to all the other sins you can commit according to the bible?
Whoa there! Totally faulty example, since what you're basically saying is that homosexuality is "it's ruining their life and hurting everyone around them" on the same level as drug use. Sorry, but that's an extremely untrue and hurtful comparison.Sorry, critical failure. He was talking about the idea of "love the sinner, not the sin", not that drug use and homosexuality are on the same level.
Read my reply as to why one could misconstrue what he wrote. Critical failure on your part on not being able to see it from another side?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: replying to Gentlegiant
It is people who have taken the Biblical view of homosexuality as a sin and chosen to make it their banner sin to wage a campaign against.
The Bible says, "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" in the Book of Romans. All. Everyone.
Biblically, one isn't condemned to hell for being gay anymore than one is condemned to hell for murder or covetousness. It is for falling short of God's glory in whatever form.
Which is why the Bible teaches Jesus offered himself as our substitution.
Not trying to preach, but folks who single out homosexuality and focus on it and crusade against it are really losing track of the bigger picture and probably not looking closely enough at themselves (i.e; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and no stones got thrown that day).
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'd prefer my rpg's to be free of political axe-grinding, no matter the flavor. The Crimson Throne relationships are good stories and don't stick out like a sore thumb. "Let's make a gay paladin and good doctor that provides abortions" and "one or more of the iconics is gay" strikes me as intentionally sticking the same sore thumb in the collective eye of people who are bothered by those ideas. Does Paizo really need to take a stand on these issue? What's next? Militant vegan iconics? Anti-union iconics? Does one iconic support the closing of the Chilexian border?
I could really do without yet another media outlet sneaking in their unrelated editorial bias. For what it's worth, I'm generally inclined to agree with the Paizo editorial bias, but that's not really the relevant question. The question is whether Paizo is serving the story or their political ideology. If it's the former, I'm groovy (I'm looking at you Crimson Throne), if it's the later, I'm a little disgusted (a gay iconic). Just as I would encourage my fellow posters to air their political views in the appropriate forums or threads, so too would I encourage my friends at Paizo with regards to their beliefs. I don't give a rat's ass what the sexual preferences of the iconics are in a vacuum - if you've got a story to tell and it involves those issues, I'll listen, but I can do without the pithy political soundbite and attempts to beat people with an unwelcome ideology, regardless of whether its my ideology or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Militant vegan iconics?
You don't want to wear a mink stoal around Bucket O' Blood Girl, lemme tell ya! She wields a bottomless bucket/symbiotic alien!
At this point with all the furor and all...I'll be surprised if they ever do actually name one of the iconics to be gay.
Or they'll just play it "safe" and say Seoni is bi.
Looking over the general trend of the last page or so...
why don't we just wrap this thread up and let it go?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other news, all homosexual social issues solved on gaming website. Film at 11
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd prefer my rpg's to be free of political axe-grinding, no matter the flavor. The Crimson Throne relationships are good stories and don't stick out like a sore thumb. "Let's make a gay paladin and good doctor that provides abortions" and "one or more of the iconics is gay" strikes me as intentionally sticking the same sore thumb in the collective eye of people who are bothered by those ideas. Does Paizo really need to take a stand on these issue? What's next? Militant vegan iconics? Anti-union iconics? Does one iconic support the closing of the Chilexian border?
...
I don't understand. Why is an interesting or complicated iconic "political axe-grinding," but if it's a quiet little snippet in the background, it's OK? Why are contentious issues suddenly forbidden? I think a story on "militant vegans," for example, is a great idea--a meaty subject even (couldn't resist). Maybe you agree, I can't tell, but why shouldn't that story be allowed for an iconic? Must all iconics be milquetoast?
Conflict is story. When the stories get boring and predictable, what's the point? It's all fair game or none of it is.
Not trying to preach, but folks who single out homosexuality and focus on it and crusade against it are really losing track of the bigger picture and probably not looking closely enough at themselves (i.e; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and no stones got thrown that day).
Very true. Though it can be understandable why homosexuality gets so much more "press". I mean when was the last time you saw a "I cheat on my spouse" pride parade? There is a push to make homosexuality more widely acceptable, good or bad, and thus there is of course going to be some social resistance to any kind of change.
I don't understand. Why is an interesting or complicated iconic "political axe-grinding," but if it's a quiet little snippet in the background, it's OK? Why are contentious issues suddenly forbidden? I think a story on "militant vegans," for example, is a great idea--a meaty subject even (couldn't resist). Maybe you agree, I can't tell, but why shouldn't that story be allowed for an iconic? Must all iconics be milquetoast?
Conflict is story. When the stories get boring and predictable, what's the point? It's all fair game or none of it is.
I think the issue was whether there was a meaningful reason for it, or is it just pandering.
|
|
I don't understand. Why is an interesting or complicated iconic "political axe-grinding," but if it's a quiet little snippet in the background, it's OK? Why are contentious issues suddenly forbidden? I think a story on "militant vegans," for example, is a great idea--a meaty subject even (couldn't resist). Maybe you agree, I can't tell, but why shouldn't that story be allowed for an iconic? Must all iconics be milquetoast?Conflict is story. When the stories get boring and predictable, what's the point? It's all fair game or none of it is.
Sorry, but I think you missed this part.
....if you've got a story to tell and it involves those issues, I'll listen, but I can do without the pithy political soundbite and attempts to beat people with an unwelcome ideology, regardless of whether its my ideology or not.
Taking this one statement out of context and using it to blast me (if that's what you're intending to do) is playing pretty dirty.
What can I say, I'm an underhanded bastard. I'm not trying to blast you, though.
Actually, I believe the term in that case is 'premarital' since you've never been married. Extramarital specifically deals with having sex with a partner that isn't your spouse, while you ARE married. I'm sure if I am wrong on this, someone will correct me; but I'm pretty sure I'm right.
Oh, I thought he was talking about sex before marriage, and my question is supposed to be "is it 'sex before marriage' if I never intend to marry"?
Extramarital sex is another thing, though. I would agree that it's wrong in most cases. The exceptions would be those cases where your partner is okay with it. Which I can't see happening all that often.
You wouldn't be referring to the dead template from the Portable Hole Full of Beer would you? (Had too much fun writing that template.) Don't forget as a large creature, a dead horse is considered a huge bludgeoning weapon as well. :)
I would. And am.
Anti-union iconics?
If he's from Korvosa....
Nice. But you forgot to call me a homophobe. Maybe next time.
I chose not to insult my audience by stating the obvious.
I chose not to insult my audience by stating the obvious.
Nice. But you forgot to call me a homophobe. Maybe next time.
And that is why the term is all but meaningless now. It is so over used, and often incorrectly, as in this case, that it loses any kind of value it ever had.
Homosexuals good. Homosexuals bad. People who like Homosexuals good. People who like Homosexuals bad. Have we covered all the points yet? Really? I mean, are we even close to the original topic anymore?
The world is not going to spin off its axis and fly into the freaking sun because two dudes are humping each other from behind. Can we kill this thing yet?
I mean when was the last time you saw a "I cheat on my spouse" pride parade?
I believe it was a few years ago. Let me look it up.
There you go.
the world's first and only Swinger's Pride Parade down Bourbon Street
Isn't google cool?
Very Good! Though I think that most of the people that have problems homosexual behaviour wouldn't find that behaviour any more desireable. Though I wonder if you could actually call that "cheating".
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let’s call the lesbian romance in Glorion what it really is: pandering fanboy marketing by Paizo. This was all but confirmed when Mr. Jacobs teased that some of the iconics were gay too, but didn’t say who. The only reason this volatile, off-topic thread is still here is because Paizo is gauging customer demographics for further targeting.
If Mr. Jabcobs reads this, I assume there will be a long-winded denial. Even if your editorial beliefs agree with your marketing, please surprise me, and admit to this.
This thread IS one of many tools I'm using to gauge the public reaction. You're right. And for the most part, customer reaction has been very positive and reassuring. We'll continue to have LGB characters appear now and then in Pathfinder, and it's good to see that the majority of our customers seem to be okay with that. At the same time, we have no plans for doing an "all gay, all the time" adventure path, so if there's secret worries about that, don't worry.
And anyone who's read Curse of the Crimson Throne knows that the "lesbian romance" angle more or less amounts to one or two sentences. VERY EASY to excise from your game, in other words, without really impacting the adventure itself.
|
|
Not that this conversation isn't fascinating but, as a topical tangent, has there been any mention of marriage traditions among any of the god write-ups? I can't imagine framing the issue of coupling in game without an idea of how the people of Golarion approach marriage.
Erastil, Shelyn and Pharasma seem to be the only good(ish) gods who have any direct concern for family, love or birth.
Maybe I haven't read the pertinent materials, but it seems odd to me that I know how clerics of a certain god dress, and what the avatar's stats are, but I couldn't tell you how people get indoctrinated, 'christened', hitched or buried.
I’d like more make-believe information with which to form my make-believe characters’ opinions. The real-world approach seems to be going nowhere.