He's good. He does appear to have faded out of these forums--spends most of his time on Tumblr nowadays.
What a punk! Well, tell him he is dearly missed by at least one Bolshegobbo.
I have stated more than once and I will repeat again. I do not think you are consciously determining anything about homosexuals in your game. I am not accusing you of bigotry or anything like that.I would argue that you have determined the position of homosexuals in your game world, without consciously doing so. They don't exist. For all practical purposes there aren't any. The world defaults that way, just by not putting any in it.
And my argument is that you are making a mistaken assumption, as you are equating the default thought process with all the potential thought process involved. If, by standard reflex, I make random NPCs heterosexual due to the way my particular thought process as an individual is wired when relating to D&D stories, that does not mean I am pre-determining that homosexuals are non-existant in my game worlds. I can still put homosexuals in the story, but since the particular subject of an NPCs sexual orientation is not something I consider relevant to my stories, I don't worry about that particular detail. But this says nothing about whether homosexuality exists within the internal paradigm of the story or not.
If a player goes and asks "Are there homosexuals in this country?", then my most likely answer will be "Yes". If they go asking in the local market about homosexuals, I will most likely end up putting homosexual NPCs. These are not typical questions from my players, so it is not something I have to consider on a regular basis, but the point is that it is not pre-determined.
I'm pretty sure Boromir had to go to the bathroom sometimes, despite Tolkien never making even the slightest mention of there being a toilet in Middle Earth.
I'm curious, following up on Alice's post: Do you do the same thing with women? Do NPCs default to men unless there's some plot reason or world role that a particular character needs to be a woman?
Actually, a big chunk of my NPCs tend to be women. Probably, if I did a statistical analysis on all my random NPCs, most innkeepers and kings would be male (just as most dwarfs would have orange beards in my stories. I blame Warhammer), but women NPCs come to my head as naturally as male NPCs do.
And given that this is fantasy, do you do the same with fantasy races? If you're putting together a town that's supposed to be mostly human, with a large minority of halflings and a smattering of the other races, do all the named, notable NPCs wind up being human unless there's some particular reason they need to be another race? Even if that winds up not reflecting the population at all?
That would depend, I think. Unless I'm playing Planescape (where humans are probably the thing you see the least), my stories tend to develop in either human-only settings or human-dominant worlds, so non-humans are usually the exception. There are some tropes I tend to fall back into pretty often, though, such as the clever orc smith, the pompous dwarf merchant, and the lofty elven priestess.
Notable NPCs, however, those I rarely make up on the spot, so there tends to be a conscious choice to make them one way or another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm going to hide the thread, too. The past few days have basically been:
1. New Poster says they don't think about homosexuality when making games/they dont include sex/etc.
2. Recurrent posters point out that you can and do include sexuality in games without sex via couples.
3. Discussion/argument ensues with varying degrees of etiquette.
4. Repeat Step 1.
What I'm taking away from this: we should all (myself included) at least acknowledge the number of times we've included hetero couples in our games and only introduced homo characters as single/available to PCs, if at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what happens when you let the subject drift: people don't bother reading back because there's so much silliness to sift through.
I think this is one of the most painfully semantically threadjacked threads on this subforum. I'd like to put forth a motion that we all Hide this thread and never speak of it again, but whether or not anybody else does, that's what I'm doing. :P
Kinda late to the party here but...
I don't 'handle them' in any way when I've run.
If it adds more to the NPC to be gay, then he or she is.
If not, then he or she isn't.
I don't do math to figure that 1-5% of my NPCs need to be homosexuals, or anything for accurate representation...
It's all about the story.
If a player wants to play a gay character, I'll accomodate it, with in reason, usually fade to black in most cases, but if the character needs to pursue a relationship, I'll make it happen.
No biggie.
Which part?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The iconic fighter is ambidextrous. Does that count for anything?
Nope. :P
See, here's the thing. Basically, James and James both pointed out that you *can't* have a left handed iconic, or a right handed one for that matter. Because of the nature of the medium sometimes art gets flipped. (Case in point, look at Seelah in the CRB, and then the cover of Champions of Purity.)
I don't think it is some Right-Wing conspiracy. I don't see Paizo as anti-sinister, nor as it being 'Dextro-normative'. That Paizo hasn't gone to exceptional steps to make a definitive left handed iconic, despite making iconics that cater to a much smaller population, isn't a slam on we Southpaws.
It is that they've not worried too much about it.
All these people who are lamenting the 'default' of straight white males, how many lefties do you have? How much thought do you give to it? Likely the exact same amount of thought some people give to GBLTALPHABETSOUP interests.
The only time it becomes an 'issue' is when it is plot related. If I'm playing with players who like a CSI: Golarion story, the issue of handiness will come up in murder scenes. It means I can paint a character guilty as sin, and the deciding factor in his innocnence is that the attacker was right handed, while he's left.
If (generic) you want to make sure there's the occasional gay couple, fine. If (generic) you want to make the island Lesbos, knock yourself out. Don't assume that because some people don't think about it, it's a slight on you.
Not surprising looking back. I quoted it to make it different from my added comment, but I should have emphasized it some other way.
Nope, no difference. Which was pretty much my point.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Street scene in a cloudy Riddleport.
Assistant: "But, if the murderer was left-handed, then our suspect must be innocent! Why do things go wrong for us?"
Detective: *removes glasses*
Detective: *pauses badassfully*
Detective: "No, finally something goes right."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
YYYYEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
If you're bringing handedness up, then you should strive for some kind of balance. If people are only lefthanded when it's a clue to prove them innocent (or guilty) of something then that breaks it for me. It will make me look hard at anyone who's handedness is mentioned, if nothing else.
The difference I've been trying to point out, without much success apparently, is that while at first glance there seems to be a parallel between bringing up sexual preference and bringing up handedness, the comparison falls apart when you look at how often heterosexuality comes up without intent. Thus my constantly mentioning married couples and similar things. It's just that, because it's so normative we're all kind of blind to it.
In a more visual medium, the parallel would be closer because you'd be able to see the handedness of the people depicted. As you can see the sexual orientation of many people in a game without it ever being explicitly stated.
Respectively, I disagree.
If you're looking for same sex couples, then the lack of them is an issue for you. If you're looking to include same sex couples, in the name of 'diversity' then where do you stop?
If something comes up 'without intent' then what's the issue? If something stand out, it will draw attention. For you it's handiness, for someone else, it's Bill and Ted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, friends, I am trying to get to perfect PC land, but I haven't got there yet.
In my campaign, the party, sentenced to a Galtan gualg, is being preyed upon by a brutal prison gang called the Savage Nation. I know that two of my players are planning on attempting to unite the other prisoners against SN and take them out as a prelude to their long-term plan of pulling an Attica.
So, among the Sczarni criminals and bandits and oppressed religious minorities that I drew up to flesh out the other prisoners, I decided to write up some chickenhawks: Vlad, Dimir and Nabokov.
I've decided that, in order to get these three prisoners' assistance and loyalty, the party must undertake a quest to clear the showers of the thugs who torment the skinners and thereby earning them three 1st-level warrior allies.
I swear, when they get out of the camp, I will make sure and put in lots of positive gay families to balance out my sins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's totally horrible. I love it.
Thank you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My default assumption is that the population demographics match the real world.
In fact that would be the majority of peoples assumptions as they have no other reference point.
If your assumption = real world demographics then you by default included QUILTBAG and left handed people in your world.
Therefore the majority of people automatically make provision for gay people in their world.
If the owner of the Salty Dragon is female and her best friend the barman is male and they flirt and tell dirty jokes with each other and yet she goes home to her female partner and her children and he is single in in love with priest of Abadars daughter is not relevant to the story - then I don't tell the players unless they ask the right questions.
Maybe its because I have gay friends and family, maybe its because I live in Sydney and maybe its because of my upbringing, but gay people have always been part of my life so for me gay people arent unusual, or rare and the only difference is the gender of the people that they prefer to be intimate with.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe its because I have gay friends and family, maybe its because I live in Sydney and maybe its because of my upbringing, but gay people have always been part of my life so for me gay people arent unusual, or rare and the only difference is the gender of the people that they prefer to be intimate with.
If you keep letting them know we're just ordinary, boring people with ordinary, boring lives, I'll never get enough donations through my front companies to build that big lavender mountain with a giant reservoir tip on it, let alone enough to install the world's largest fountain in that reservoir tip to create brief, artificial rainfalls over the god-fearing neighborhoods downwind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would it be covered in lavender flowers or painted lavender? Or both because that would be fabulous ;-)
Purple Rain? And will it make Doves Cry?
Do you have a kick starter because I'm in.
Would it be covered in lavender flowers or painted lavender? Or both because that would be fabulous ;-)
Both.
Purple Rain? And will it make Doves Cry?Do you have a kick starter because I'm in.
A light purple, but yes. Almost pastel. And it'll make doves puke heart-shaped rainbows.
I thought the main project was the Gayroller 2000... or did someone already build that?
Would it be covered in lavender flowers or painted lavender? Or both because that would be fabulous ;-)Both.
A light purple, but yes. Almost pastel.
Purple Rain? And will it make Doves Cry?Do you have a kick starter because I'm in.
How light purple? Light enough to be taken for pink?
Was watching the beginning of Soylent Green last night. Now there is a positive portrayal of a happy gay couple!
|
Just because my fantasy setting vaguely resembles medieval Europe, why should I include elements of medieval Europe I consider wrong?Because it is fun to play in settings which feel authentic. Bigotry exists in the real world, so it makes sense for it to exist in a fantasy setting. Also, it gives the players an opportunity to stand up for the oppressed minority and to champion human rights. If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!
Actually, that bigotry exists in the setting in all its forms does not have to be reserved for NPCs.
I have a lot of fun playing PCs that are basically good guys (or girls) but share some of the bigoted beliefs of their culture and society. Because such a character is a stereotype and I love playing stereotypes.
Also, I feel that if I misrepresent a bigot, I have no moral obligations to IRL bigots to change my roleplay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
B-b-b-but aren't you afraid that playing a bigot is reinforcing a bigoted worldview, and will result in you becoming a bigot in real life?!
Just because my fantasy setting vaguely resembles medieval Europe, why should I include elements of medieval Europe I consider wrong?Because it is fun to play in settings which feel authentic. Bigotry exists in the real world, so it makes sense for it to exist in a fantasy setting. Also, it gives the players an opportunity to stand up for the oppressed minority and to champion human rights. If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!
Actually, that bigotry exists in the setting in all its forms does not have to be reserved for NPCs.
I have a lot of fun playing PCs that are basically good guys (or girls) but share some of the bigoted beliefs of their culture and society. Because such a character is a stereotype and I love playing stereotypes.
Also, I feel that if I misrepresent a bigot, I have no moral obligations to IRL bigots to change my roleplay.
The nature of a fantasy world is such that it likely introduces entirely new classes (of people, not character classes) - magic users, worshipers of a particular deity, inter-species (race) relationships, half-breeds, etc. - that you can likely tune into in order to develop a character harboring prejudices common to his culture. I don't really see choosing to play someone bigoted against gay people, with all of its associated real-world complications, as ideal when you have plenty of other (and arguably more interesting) options available to you.
B-b-b-but aren't you afraid that playing a bigot is reinforcing a bigoted worldview, and will result in you becoming a bigot in real life?!
Do you think people actually believe this, or something?
Do you think people actually believe this, or something?
It's quite clear from posts in this thread that some people do.
It's possible some do. It's also possible you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there.
I, for one,do not believe "that playing a bigot is reinforcing a bigoted worldview, and will result in you becoming a bigot in real life?!"
I forgot the <sarcasm> tag.
I, too, think the idea of playing a bigot, thereby reinforcing a bigoted worldview, and risking becoming a bigot yourself, is a crock of feces.
Conversely, I think that failing to include a particular group in your fantasy world does the same thing (the very idea of which has been posited in this thread) is an equally large, if not larger, crock of feces.
|
|
I think having bigotry in the setting is all fine and good, but only as long as everybody's having fun. I know from experience that a character can stop being fun to play if the narrative gets derailed by NPCs going out of their way to treat them poorly wherever he goes. It's one thing to say generally "well, you're a half-orc/tiefling/kobold/transvestite/etc, so you're used to getting suspicious glares and bad service," and quite another to push it to the point where the guy has to sulk outside the city walls while his adventuring buddies go shopping or meet with the king or whatever. It might be more true-to-life in some cases, but at the end of the day this is a game, so it's probably best to just leave it at weird looks and occasional off-color jokes.
Since I've been one of the more vocal proponents of what I think you're talking about, I'll clarify it again. I don't think leaving out homosexuals means you are a bigot. I don't think it will make you one.
I do think it reflects and reinforces a bigoted worldview. I think it's a fairly minor thing, compared to all the other influences in life. I do think it's worth thinking about.
So, you can have a bigoted worldview, but not be a bigot? How does that work, exactly?
I'm sorry are we playing an RPG setting or a Disney setting? Because if we're throwing out things that realistically occur (whether it be homosexuality, racism, or bigotry) to make Unoffensive Land then its time to throw out Mr. Paladin which is a ridiculous reinterpretation of what knights actually were...warmongering noble thugs that exploited, abused and raped common people and got away without because of the institutions that exhalted and protected them.
I'm having a really hard time seeing how you're capable of defending the purposeful exclusion of homosexuality, while simultaneously attacking people for suggesting that you maybe purposefully avoid the inclusion of real-world bigotry that some people might find tough to deal with.
It's also possible you're reading things into people's posts that aren't there.
you're soooooo close to a breakthrough here. Now turn the logic around juuuuust a bit...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, you can have a bigoted worldview, but not be a bigot? How does that work, exactly?Since I've been one of the more vocal proponents of what I think you're talking about, I'll clarify it again. I don't think leaving out homosexuals means you are a bigot. I don't think it will make you one.
I do think it reflects and reinforces a bigoted worldview. I think it's a fairly minor thing, compared to all the other influences in life. I do think it's worth thinking about.
I think the difference he is making is that between an indivual with bigoted views and a cultural milieu in which may not condone, but may not exactly discourage, bigotry in people across the board. I think that's quite an easy disctinction to make. If I might take a different example, I've noticed that disabled kids have begun appearing in lots of children's programmes on TV (here in the UK, anyway). This helps other kids get used to the idea that not all kids are able-bodied, and are otherwise normal except for their particular issues - i.e. they are just kids. Before you hardly ever saw that - certainly not when I was a kid. Simply not bringing up the fact that there are disabled kids in the past didn't, in my view, make all of the previous programme makers anti-disabled bigots - it was more a factor of time and place. But their inclusion now makes (hopefully) anti-disabled bigotry less likely in future. And I think you need to get a bit careful with slinging the B-word around, since you can probably otherwise be labelled as some sort of anti-minority bigot by simple omission of the minority du jour, and then it just starts getting a bit silly and reductionist. I've never included Nepalese in my games - am I an anti-Nepalese bigot? I've also, as it happens, never included homosexuals - but my players are all heterosexual (as far as I know) married men who want to pretend to kill goblins, not break down the barriers of society. And as a non-gay man myself, would I really be doing it justice when I really don't have any significant insight into gayness - the struggles, prejudice, the scene or lifestyle - without maybe coming up with some stupid crude stereotype? On the other hand, if it's good for other people, it's fine with me.