Homosexuals good. Homosexuals bad. People who like Homosexuals good. People who like Homosexuals bad. Have we covered all the points yet?
Not exactly. Personally, I don't like the flavour of including modern bourgeois attitudes to what is (in my campaign) a medieval setting. Characterizing people as "gay" or "straight" is kind of a 20th century concept, as far as I know. I'd prefer to have a close bond between two characters stated and leave the implications of that bond left as an exercise for the DM.
|
Let’s call the lesbian romance in Glorion what it really is: pandering fanboy marketing by Paizo.
Finally, a unique idea for the 4E line of products!
(Inner Voice Thinking: "If I started a thread on Homosexuality in 4th Edition would I crash the Paizo servers? Cool.")
But seriously, what's sad is sales might actually go up if that's what they really did. Sigh. I'm sure the cheesecake covers sell better too. Oh well.
| 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.
Wow! 400 posts in a few days! I'm glad the topic is still hot, so I can come add my two cents....
First off, I'm quite offended that everybody's talking about Ileosa and Sabina, but nobody's paying any attention to the numerous instances of male homosexuality in Golarion (at least, beyond the Sandpoint article). For instance, there are the Tallow Boys of Kaer Maga, a Mata-Hari-esque gang of male prostitutes-turned-information-brokers. Or the men of the Iridian Fold, who are kind of doing a gay Spartan + Aes Sedai thing. It may not be plastered all over the place (neither are our lesbian relationships), and skipping a sentence or two can remove it from your game world entirely, but as with the real world, if you look for it, it's there.
Which begs the question: If we provide a veritable buffet of salacious material, but everybody focuses on the ladies, are we being unequal in our pandering? Or is there some self-selection going on?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were openly pandering to any fan market, it'd be a whole lot more prominent and obvious.
Like Seoni's outfit?
Personally, I don't like the flavour of including modern bourgeois attitudes to what is (in my campaign) a medieval setting. Characterizing people as "gay" or "straight" is kind of a 20th century concept, as far as I know.Chaucer? Shakespeare? Bueller?
Exactly -- they could bone whoever or whatever they wanted without being categorized as "gay", "straight" or "bisexual" by contemporaries.
(Shakespeare isn't exactly medieval, but I get the point.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Exactly -- they could bone whoever or whatever they wanted without being called "gay" or "straight" by contemporaries.
More particularly, they could have very close friendships with people, even to the extent of --speaking literally now-- sleeping together, and nobody thought it odd, and nobody made any presumptions about whether they were "boning" anything.
|
|
On matters of sexuality I think self-selection is paramount. It's a little disingenuous to include two beautiful lesbian lovers as antagonists and not expect it to loom large with a majority of your straight male readership. Does the length or number of sentences really matter? You could stir up a storm of interest in just a few words. Sure, everyone's free to ignore it - but what sex and sexuality does best is focus our interest with few or no words needed.
In short, yeah, it's about self-selection. And a writer should know his audience.
Personally, I'm much more of a Valeros kind of guy, but when I read about Ileosa, I though, "Oh jeez, here we go..."
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.
Thanks for keeping me honest, Heathansson, but my comment stands for the entirety of the post. The part you quote ESPECIALLY reads as an accusation of pandering--as if anything that gets attached to an iconic must meet some other, "higher" criteria. Perhaps, I missed Paizo's admittance of pandering, but I certainly don't recall one. Sebastian seems especially vehement and negative here, and I'm not sure that it's fair, so I was seeking clarification. To each their own, I guess.
|
|
Personally, I don't like the flavour of including modern bourgeois attitudes to what is (in my campaign) a medieval setting. Characterizing people as "gay" or "straight" is kind of a 20th century concept, as far as I know.Chaucer? Shakespeare? Bueller?
Exactly -- they could bone whoever or whatever they wanted without being categorized as "gay", "straight" or "bisexual" by contemporaries.
(Shakespeare isn't exactly medieval, but I get the point.)
Ho. Yeah, no. "gay" wasn't used (except to describe a cheeful person of course!) It was worse, and they had to be *very* careful about it. See:"ingle" Something about the Church of England I recall.. I believe the character name "Ganymede" is a direct reference sexual orientation.
More particularly, they could have very close friendships with people, even to the extent of --speaking literally now-- sleeping together, and nobody thought it odd, and nobody made any presumptions about whether they were "boning" anything.
Right, that's also what I was trying to get at. My use of the word "boning" was slightly inelegant. :)
Wow! 400 posts in a few days! I'm glad the topic is still hot, so I can come add my two cents....
Less than 48 hours actually...
We'll continue to have LGB characters appear now and then in Pathfinder...
Don't forget that its actually LGBT. I happen to know a few people in the last category and I think they deserve a mention as well.
It does provide some interesting possibilities after all, for example from history you have the Roman Emperor Elagabalus who was very likely transgender and not to mention the nature goddess Cybele who had a group of male followers who castrated themselves and assumed female identities as a tribute to their god.
It's pretty simple for any DM to figure out that their game world will feature as much as his particular gaming group desires of "alternate sexual orientation"-based resource material; that may range from all to none, with the DM modifying the material as he sees fit.
No one poster's opinion will change that, nor should it.
Personally, it brings up a question for me to Paizo staff:
Over a year ago, I submitted an adventure proposal that featured a female NPC as a central character to its story arc; it was rejected on the opinion that its concept 'promoted female stereotypes' because her retention of power hinged on playing off her villainous partners against each other using her sexuality.
Have times changed?
*wondering if I should re-submit*
M
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thanks for keeping me honest, Heathansson, but my comment stands for the entirety of the post. The part you quote ESPECIALLY reads as an accusation of pandering--as if anything that gets attached to an iconic must meet some other, "higher" criteria. Perhaps, I missed Paizo's admittance of pandering, but I certainly don't recall one. Sebastian seems especially vehement and negative here, and I'm not sure that it's fair, so I was seeking clarification. To each their own, I guess.
What heathansson said. There's story elements and there's shock for the sake of politics. I buy Paizo products for their stories, not their political agenda, even when we share a political agenda.
And I highly doubt that this thread is representative of Paizo's audience given that the people who have differing political views regarding the subject have been shouted down. I considered not posting and staying silent, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Ultimately, it's Paizo's decision as to what audience they choose to please, but I've formed some good friendships on these boards, some of which are with people whom my politics are not in alignment. I'm a bit disappointed that Paizo appears to be intentionally alienating that segment of their audience.
|
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.
Buh, buh, but red heads *are* all evil.
Buh, buh, but red heads *are* all evil.
*has red hair sometimes*
If I remember correctly, in ancient Egypt, people with red hair were believe to be tied to Set, and therefore Evil. :P
And I highly doubt that this thread is representative of Paizo's audience given that the people who have differing political views regarding the subject have been shouted down. I considered not posting and staying silent, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
I don't think it's a matter of shouting anyone down; I think it's more of a matter that JJ made a point about earlier when he supressed someone's posting of inappropriate language and attitude - the Paizo forums are not the place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles.
I mean, really...an RPG forum isn't the place for it and the resolution, as far as gamers are concerned, is simple - The DM will remove or modify any material if they deem it offensive to players or themself, or they won't.
Done.
If only the real world had a DM.
M
|
|
Thanks for keeping me honest, Heathansson, but my comment stands for the entirety of the post. The part you quote ESPECIALLY reads as an accusation of pandering--as if anything that gets attached to an iconic must meet some other, "higher" criteria. Perhaps, I missed Paizo's admittance of pandering, but I certainly don't recall one. Sebastian seems especially vehement and negative here, and I'm not sure that it's fair, so I was seeking clarification. To each their own, I guess.
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.
Fine. I truly wish that you had narrowed the focus of your statement in your previous post, instead of waiting to do it now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. And neither are Paizo products the appropriate place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles. And yet, that's what we are getting.
the Paizo forums are not the place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles.
I always find the 'alternative lifestyle' tag amusing. As a gay man and a gamer I can comfortably say that the latter is much more of a lifestyle adjustment than the former. My hobby informs my purchasing patterns, what I do with my free time, the people I consider friends, the movies I like, the books I read...yada yada. Some people like to imagine that my big gay life is bizarrely divergent from their straight one, but it's not nearly as salacious and fabulous as seen on TV (is anything, really?). If I were to wear an inverted triangle it would probably be a d4 (lord help me).
If you read these boards you're probably living an 'alternative lifestyle'.
The Paizo forums are not the place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles.
Agreed. And neither are Paizo products the appropriate place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles. And yet, that's what we are getting.
I think I recall a similar thread at least a year back where you were objecting to moral viewpoints in published material, perhaps back when the issue containing "The Porphyry House of Horror" feature adventure was published.
Our points remain the same, and the same conclusion reached:
If any member of your gaming group objects to certain aspects of the material, the DM can edit or remove it. However, you have no right as a consumer to demand that Paizo cease to publish any of its content. In that, your only legal recourse is to simply not buy their product and suggest to others that they do the same.
If you find yourself in the minority, oh well; you've still said your peace and good day to you.
If I may at least critize the story. Wouldn't it have been better in a dramatic sense to have had the romance been key plot twist later in the adventure path, rather than just two throw-away sentences. That's why it just looks like fanboy titalation. You can do better.
Based on comments here, the romance will become a more important plot element later. But I can fully understand why it should be mentioned early, particularly right when Ileosa begins to flex any of her authority. Anybody remember rumors about Eleanor Roosevelt? That's pretty long ago. But how about Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady? Throughout her tenure in the White House there were rumors that Hillary Clinton was a lesbian and that's why President Bill's eye tended to rove.
So what's the relevance? Any time you get a powerful (maybe I should say assertive) woman in office or near the highest paths of power, the lesbian rumor will appear. That it actually has substance in CotCT makes it significantly more interesting.
no offense to those of you who have been in this discussion from the beginning but i just found the thread and have no intention to read the same comments over and over. but i did want to share a story from our group.
one of our gamers is gay. its never been an issue, occasionally he would find someone to shack up with over night at a pub before moving on with the adventure. one time however he was suppose to lure two guards down and ally so we could jump them. so jason takes off running down the street and just shouts "Its an emergency" in the most flaming voice i had ever heard, way out of character. then takes off down the ally. we fell out of our chairs laughing. we even got a cake the next week for him. probably had to be there but considering this subject will probably never come up again... had to tell it. sorry for wasting the time of anyone who read this.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think I recall a similar thread at least a year back where you were objecting to moral viewpoints in published material, perhaps back when the issue containing "The Porphyry House of Horror" feature adventure was published.
You recall wrong.
Our points remain the same, and the same conclusion reached:
If any member of your gaming group objects to certain aspects of the material, the DM can edit or remove it. However, you have no right as a consumer to demand that Paizo cease to publish any of its content. In that, your only legal recourse is to simply not buy their product and suggest to others that they do the same.
Who are you talking to? It sure isn't me. I gave my opinion, I stated it as an opinion, and I made no demands or threats. But thanks for condescending, it really helped communicate your point (or, at least I assume it did, since you weren't actually responding to anything I said, I can only guess that the person to whom you were talking found what you were saying insightful and relevant.)
If you find yourself in the minority, oh well; you've still said your peace and good day to you.
Got it. The preferences of the majority always are superior to the preferences of the minority. Thanks for the info.
|
|
And neither are Paizo products the appropriate place to be debating the social question of alternative lifestyles. And yet, that's what we are getting.
Alternative to what? The potential problem with such an approach is ending up reflecting nothing much, or more likely a bog-standard medieval setting with no real-feeling characters. I'm not hanging round the gay clubs to prove I'm right-on, but I don't mind if there are gay characters in Pathfinder.
But I'm not overly interested if there are gay characters in Pathfinder either - these issues don't actually rear in my personal version of D&D. I also agree with Hogarth's point (made above) that "homosexual" is a very 19th/20th century term, which has almost codified the way society fells it "ought" to see same-sex relationships, and probably doesn't reflect the medieval mindset of exotic cultures which are being evoked here.
I guess my point is two-fold - I don't care if there are gays in Pathfinder, and I don't care if there aren't gays in Pathfinder. There does seem a smidgen of editorial axe-grinding, but on the other hand there are other controversial things they have done, like the violence and darker nature of some of Runelords (I'm looking at you, Logue) or even Seoni's giant breasts on a cover and a load of interior art, and I don't see this as especially different. What bothers me (like Hook Mountain) and other people (gay queens - well, you know what I mean) is down to taste and expectation of what D&D is, which varies.
Paizo is freed from the shackles of the vanilla requirements of WotC, and the team are experimenting. And they want to sell product, and a bit of controversy helps that too.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I always find the 'alternative lifestyle' tag amusing. As a gay man and a gamer I can comfortably say that the latter is much more of a lifestyle adjustment than the former. My hobby informs my purchasing patterns, what I do with my free time, the people I consider friends, the movies I like, the books I read...yada yada. Some people like to imagine that my big gay life is bizarrely divergent from their straight one, but it's not nearly as salacious and fabulous as seen on TV (is anything, really?). If I were to wear an inverted triangle it would probably be a d4 (lord help me).If you read these boards you're probably living an 'alternative lifestyle'.
Don't get me going on my "playing D&D is like being a cross-dresser" analogy again...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If this thread doesn't end up being the subject of a PHB PSA, I'll be disappointed.
...you have the Roman Emperor Elagabalus who was very likely transgender and not to mention the nature goddess Cybele who had a group of male followers who castrated themselves and assumed female identities.
Transgendering has to be much less a deal in a world where Valeros can be reincarnated as a woman, let alone a female gnome or a centaur mare. Or polymorphed into a black pudding. (And I believe there's another thread here about how to determine the sex of a black pudding.)
Marvel comics is currently dealing with this in the Runaways title, written by Joss Whedon. What does it say about your sexual preference if your partner's a shape-shifting skrull?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I guess my point is two-fold - I don't care if there are gays in Pathfinder, and I don't care if there aren't gays in Pathfinder. There does seem a smidgen of editorial axe-grinding, but on the other hand there are other controversial things they have done, like the violence and darker nature of some of Runelords (I'm looking at you, Logue) or even Seoni's giant breasts on a cover and a load of interior art, and I don't see this as especially different. What bothers me (like Hook Mountain) and other people (gay queens - well, you know what I mean) is down to taste and expectation of what D&D is, which varies.
Generally, I agree. Like I said, what annoys me is the extent to which it reeks of editorial axe-grinding. I think the true offenders in that regard were the Sandpoint article. My posts are probably coming out more extreme than I actually feel because I keep getting responses along the lines of "how could you even question the rightness of the Paizo political position" or "you're in the minority, so stfu and deal." I am trying to voice my preference for less in-your-face politics just as you have voiced your preference for less in-your-face violence. Sandpoint was the high water mark for me, and having a gay iconic just for the sake of having a gay iconic goes over that high water mark.
I think I recall a similar thread at least a year back where you were objecting to moral viewpoints in published material, perhaps back when the issue containing "The Porphyry House of Horror" feature adventure was published.
You recall wrong.
Than I am in error and apologise.
Our points remain the same, and the same conclusion reached:
If any member of your gaming group objects to certain aspects of the material, the DM can edit or remove it. However, you have no right as a consumer to demand that Paizo cease to publish any of its content. In that, your only legal recourse is to simply not buy their product and suggest to others that they do the same.
Who are you talking to? It sure isn't me. I gave my opinion, I stated it as an opinion, and I made no demands or threats. But thanks for condescending, it really helped communicate your point (or, at least I assume it did, since you weren't actually responding to anything I said, I can only guess that the person to whom you were talking found what you were saying insightful and relevant.)
That was not directed to you nor anyone in singular; it was a statement of logical equilibrium, where all arguments will eventually average out and settle in a practical/legal sense, in the real world.
If you find yourself in the minority, oh well; you've still said your peace and good day to you.
Got it. The preferences of the majority always are superior to the preferences of the minority. Thanks for the info.
I'm sorry that you got the wrong vibe, but I'm a pragmatist. I agree with you that the preferences of the majority are not always superior to the preferences of the minority, but in most cases, it is what *will* prevail, for better or worse.
Generally, I agree. Like I said, what annoys me is the extent to which it reeks of editorial axe-grinding. I think the true offenders in that regard were the Sandpoint article. My posts are probably coming out more extreme than I actually feel because I keep getting responses along the lines of "how could you even question the rightness of the Paizo political position" or "you're in the minority, so stfu and deal."
But what IS the problem with the Sandpoint article? Gay paladin has a not so secret romance with the theater owner. Nobody minds much except the Scarnettis who see it as scandalous and seem to be really irked that nobody else cares. Is that really a big deal? Is that a significant case of editorial axe-grinding or just something interesting about the town and its social dynamic?
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.I chose not to insult my audience by stating the obvious.
Nice. But you forgot to call me a homophobe. Maybe next time.
Pres man, when you paraphrase Rick Santorum and every other dyed-in-the-wool homophobe I've ever met or read in print you have placed yourself in no position to object to me, or anybody else, drawing the obvious inference.
Creative Director
|
Personally, it brings up a question for me to Paizo staff:
Over a year ago, I submitted an adventure proposal that featured a female NPC as a central character to its story arc; it was rejected on the opinion that its concept 'promoted female stereotypes' because her retention of power hinged on playing off her villainous partners against each other using her sexuality.
Have times changed?
*wondering if I should re-submit*
M
Alas... there's not really a way to submit adventure proposals to us right now. Once we get our organized play program going, that'll hopefully change.
But also... keep in mind that when we were publishing adventures for Dragon and Dungeon, that was under a license for Wizards of the Coast; as a result, we wern't as free to try out certain types of plot elements. One other good example is the "child in peril" plotline; something we didn't do much at all (if ever) in Dungeon, but that we've probably done TOO much in Pathfinder/the modules.
That said... it's worth mentioning again that while Queen Ileosa had a female lover, she doesn't use her sexuality as a weapon at all in the adventure path. Again; the sexuality angle is a few sentances and that's it; her plot to do all the things she's doing work just as well no matter WHAT her sexual preference is. It got blown quite a bit out of proportion with this thread.
Nonetheless... I did think long and hard about whether or not to include these elements. In the end, I decided to keep the elements as the author intended, and I stand by that choice.
|
Creative Director
|
Thank you for your very honest comment.
If I may at least critize the story. Wouldn't it have been better in a dramatic sense to have had the romance been key plot twist later in the adventure path, rather than just two throw-away sentences. That's why it just looks like fanboy titalation. You can do better.
I cannot believe the number of posts that have come up in the last hour and a half since I last checked in. Perhaps a Pathfinder: Off-topic thread, or something like that is warranted.
One thing to keep in mind is that even though Pathfinder #7 is a complete book... it's not a complete Adventure Path. Just as we didn't include all the details on how the Fangs of Kazavon work or how Vencarlo's role changes over the course of the campaign, we didn't fully detail what's going on with Sabina. Her story is introduced in Pathfinder #7... but that element's really nothing more than foreshadowing for Pathfinder #12. Had I looked forward into the future and seen this thread, I would have included another sentence saying as much... but I didn't think of it at the time and didn't think it was necessary since it wasn't a big part of the adventure itself.
|
Creative Director
|
That said... it's worth mentioning again that while Queen Ileosa had a female lover, she doesn't use her sexuality as a weapon at all in the adventure path. Again; the sexuality angle is a few sentances and that's it; her plot to do all the things she's doing work just as well no matter WHAT her sexual preference is. It got blown quite a bit out of proportion with this thread.Odd. I thought ** spoiler omitted **
Yes... but that occurred before the adventure path started. I should have said, "She hasn't used sexuality as a weapon in the Adventure Path's current events," or something like that, I guess.
And to be honest... there's a pretty good chance Ileosa WILL use sex as a weapon in Pathfinder 12. Not sure yet; I'm in the process of developing and editing that adventure right now, and haven't got to the actual Ileosa parts yet.
Pres man, when you paraphrase Rick Santorum and every other dyed-in-the-wool homophobe I've ever met or read in print you have placed yourself in no position to object to me, or anybody else, drawing the obvious inference.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.I chose not to insult my audience by stating the obvious.
Nice. But you forgot to call me a homophobe. Maybe next time.
So because in a discussion I bring up comments similiar to individuals who you have a problem with, you view it as appropriate to make personal attacks on me. Wow, how mature and open minded of you. I think they have a name for that Displacement.
So because in a discussion I bring up comments similiar to individuals who you have a problem with, you view it as appropriate to make personal attacks on me. Wow, how mature and open minded of you. I think they have a name for that Displacement.
Maybe it's because of such comments that Samnell has a problem with Rick Santorum. If so, making similar comments is likely to provoke a similar response. That's not displacement.
Maybe it's because of such comments that Samnell has a problem with Rick Santorum. If so, making similar comments is likely to provoke a similar response. That's not displacement.
So because in a discussion I bring up comments similiar to individuals who you have a problem with, you view it as appropriate to make personal attacks on me. Wow, how mature and open minded of you. I think they have a name for that Displacement.
Perhaps, but in discussions it is often a mistake to assume that comments made for a particular argument is a direct reflection of the person stating it. Luckily for many debaters or lawyers. This is why on some occasions I have pointed out that I am making a Devil's Advocate argument, because some are incapable of assuming an argument could be put forth that is not strongly held by the arguer.
Just a general reminder: Thank you to everyone in this thread who have stated their opinions in a respectful and dignified manner. To everyone else - PLAY NICE. We on the staff are all about freedom of expression, and try to give the boards as much slack as possible, but if this ceases to be a Paizo discussion and just becomes a personal-attack-heavy flame war over sexuality... well, we may have to go all Rambo with the suppression function, or lock the thread entirely. And that's no fun for anybody.
As for the fundamental question of why there are gay characters in Pathfinder - the answer is as simple as the fact that some of us felt like seeing them. We're based out of one of the gay-friendliest cities in the nation, and our staff and friends are on all sides of the sexuality fence (heck, some of mine are so far out there that they haven't seen the fence in years). Naturally, the product is going to reflect that - I know that, personally, I'm a big fan of seeing gay characters in gaming because it makes the games feel more real to me. Call it agenda, call it titillation, call it disgusting, but that's how it is... at least as far as I understand it.
So let's all put down our +3 Rods of Righteous Smiting and get back to playing the game we love, eh?
|
As for the fundamental question of why there are gay characters in Pathfinder - the answer is as simple as the fact that some of us felt like seeing them. We're based out of one of the gay-friendliest cities in the nation, and our staff and friends are on all sides of the sexuality fence (heck, some of mine are so far out there that they haven't seen the fence in years). Naturally, the product is going to reflect that - I know that, personally, I'm a big fan of seeing gay characters in gaming because it makes the games feel more real to me. Call it agenda, call it titillation, call it disgusting, but that's how it is... at least as far as I understand it.
Thank you! I really enjoy and appreciate seeing these statements from the staff (among others) in support of various kinds of diversity. You know, like it is in the real world, even if it sometimes is (by design or just coincidence) not always obvious.
It's amazing to me how random, very tiny mentions of various kinds of non-hetero sexuality are instantly labeled "in your face politics" by some posters in this thread. I'd almost hate to see the reaction if some of the topics discussed in this thread were truly as "in your face" as these few things have been made out to be.
Hi there, your friendly neighborhood thread-locking maniac moderator here just to back up what James Sutter had to say two posts up: I'm watching this thread now. Its dangerously close to being shut down. Let's play nice, shall we?
Perhaps, but in discussions it is often a mistake to assume that comments made for a particular argument is a direct reflection of the person stating it. Luckily for many debaters or lawyers. This is why on some occasions I have pointed out that I am making a Devil's Advocate argument, because some are incapable of assuming an argument could be put forth that is not strongly held by the arguer.
Nor can we realistically assume the opposite, unfortunately.
The trouble is, with a lot of messageboard arguments, people do a lot of hiding behind "Devil's Advocate" defenses in order to say the most outrageous things that they recognize are socially unacceptable. In a debate among friends, you can do this sort of thing credibly because you've usually already established your bona fide feelings on the matter. But without that being established, how do we know you're just wearing the title or hiding behind it?
My advice would be, if you don't want to be saddled with the opprobrium due a distasteful position that you don't hold, then don't mention that argument. Leave that to the schmucks who actually do hold that position. Make your statements true to what you feel.
As for the fundamental question of why there are gay characters in Pathfinder - the answer is as simple as the fact that some of us felt like seeing them. We're based out of one of the gay-friendliest cities in the nation, and our staff and friends are on all sides of the sexuality fence (heck, some of mine are so far out there that they haven't seen the fence in years). Naturally, the product is going to reflect that - I know that, personally, I'm a big fan of seeing gay characters in gaming because it makes the games feel more real to me. Call it agenda, call it titillation, call it disgusting, but that's how it is... at least as far as I understand it.Thank you! I really enjoy and appreciate seeing these statements from the staff (among others) in support of various kinds of diversity. You know, like it is in the real world, even if it sometimes is (by design or just coincidence) not always obvious.
It's amazing to me how random, very tiny mentions of various kinds of non-hetero sexuality are instantly labeled "in your face politics" by some posters in this thread. I'd almost hate to see the reaction if some of the topics discussed in this thread were truly as "in your face" as these few things have been made out to be.
I still don't quite understand why we haven't seen much in the way of mixing of races (whether heterosexual or homosexual or whatever). I mean there are 7 races in the PHB alone, let alone all the different things in the MM. This whole human-on-human centric sexual dealings seems pretty narrow minded to me. Where are the halflings that like dwarves? Where are the elves that secretly like half-orcs? Human-on-human relationships, whether hetero or homo, are very conservative, I would think.