There's a time and a place for that, and it's called 'prison'.We roll the dice to determine if an NPC is going to decide to ignore their sexuality?
Or 'bordello' - some people are willing to do quite a lot against their nature when offered large enough sum of money (the roll would be Diplomacy check to negotiate actual price).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
[The Avatar movie brought the term "Race-bending" into play as it's choice of actors pretty much undid the depiction progressiveness of the cartoon. I won't go into the ugly story here, feel free to google it. Take a very very close look at the casting of the Water Tribe characters. Them be the whitest looking Eskimos I've ever seen. The only "oriental" looking characters are the heavies.
I almost suspect it was deliberate, so that we could overlook the generally horribly choreographed bending fight scenes. Samalyan's obsession with soft focus really doesn't help in a 3D movie either.
(To me) amusing racial tangent from the weekend.
So I guess it's all relative. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to live with this sexy roller derby chick, Ariel, and she had a friend from the team--I can't for the life of me remember her name--who tried to pick her up.
It's been bothering me on and off for the past six months, so I know it must be bothering all of you, too. Her name is Mel.
Well, a gentleman never comments on a lady's weight and even though I'm not a gentleman...Besides, Mel is pretty tough. She beat me two out of three in an Indian leg wrestling match that I got snookered in to at a party once. Alcohol may have been involved...
I haven't ever described any gay charecters in my campaign.
Why?
Because i never thought about it.
I'm asexual, and heterosexuals make up the majority, so when i make improv (90% of my campaign) heterosexual couples tend to be of the majority- simply because they are the first thing called to mind when i think "couple".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general, people are very unwilling to look past their "comfort zone". That means when people's comfort zone is wildly out of sync with the real world, they prefer to ignore the problems and differences in the real world.
People actually think that racism is dead in America
People actually think that sexism is dead in America.
Some people even think discrimination against sexual preference is not a concern.
The danger with not including homosexuals in the game world is that it shows that you consider homosexuality something weird, unusual, and that you have to think about to even remember. It makes the assumption that "normal", "default" people are straight, and not being straight is (if not bad) an unusual thing that only happens for cool plot purposes (like hiding the identity of a secret lover).
The argument that "I do not include sex" means gayness is not an issue is similarly short sighted. It means that you actually consider having sex as the important part of a (different than your) sexual identity. Since sex is not being shown, might as well assume all people are straight. Since straightness is normal, it does not even register that being straight involves just as much required discussion of sex as being gay does. This is why (for example) banning the discussion of "non-traditional" families in elementary schools is such a scary thing. When a teacher teaches about families (having a mommy, a daddy, and sometimes you even have brothers and sisters!), it is perfectly alright, but there is a huge number of people who refuse to let a teacher say that all families are different (some have two daddies, some have two mommies, some have one daddy and two mommies, many have one mommy and one daddy, but sometimes families even have only one parent) somehow involves teaching children about the sin of homoerotic sexy-times. This point has been very astutely pointed out many times!
Now, I understand that some people who did not realize their unconscious biases (remember, it is possible to be biased and not be a bad person) have a very strong reaction when it becomes presented to them. The easiest reaction is denial, and even more common online is outright attack, claiming that somebody saying that it's prejudiced against "differently-sexual" people to ignore everyone but straight people somehow constitutes an attack against the "goodness" of the person. It is not. If you were not aware how limited your world was, if you unconsciously equated homosexuality with sex rather than sexuality, if you thought not including gay people was ok because all your players were straight, you were being prejudiced. Now it has been pointed out, and there is an opportunity for you to very easily and without any problem work to lessen on an individual basis the prejudice that occurs, and the bias that is present against non heterosexuals. Make a few NPCs gay, in a way just as unobtrusive as every single other NPC is a non-sexually deviant heterosexual NPC: give them a partner, give them a family, have them talk about how hot some other NPC is, or whatever it is your normal NPCs do. Surely, unless are not actively anti-gay or truly think that homosexuality is a sin, you can make that small change to your world. It will not occupy any more important a place than your characters' sexuality did before. What it will do is make the world (the real world) a place that is slightly more aware, slightly more tolerant, and slightly more open and welcoming to people who are being pushed to the fringes of society, stereotyped, discriminated against, and (most sadly) ignored.
EDIT: there was a word-order issue that drastically changed my point in the last paragraph!
Yes, i know unconscious bias is why i don't make characters gay. But since i typically don't build worlds in advance, it's hard to deal with the bias.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I, as a DM, expand upon a game world by describing its NPCs I do not make them Gay, or Straight. They were born that way.
All my experiences with homosexuals don't reflect what Hollywood portrays them as.
It's funny, my experience agrees with this part, though not with the rest of it: of my own coworkers who were homosexual, almost all of them were extremely flamboyant in ways that are... not captured by most anything I've seen portrayed in the media. It's actually peculiarly difficult to explain how, exactly. As an example, one of my bosses was homosexual, a great guy, and was about as near-to-stereotype as you could get but was juuuuuuuuuuust off of any stereotype you might want to pin on him (except, perhaps, his "fan-girly" squealing, as he put it, to some of his favorite broadway and music stars) as to make most others really confused when trying to figure him out. I always loved hanging out with him.
Living in Miami may have had something to do with the general nature of my coworkers, though I couldn't really say.
I've actually had substantially fewer real-life experiences with homosexual females than males, to the best of my own knowledge.
In any event, homosexuality in my games, as a result, is rare, and usually isn't a thing, unless heterosexuality would be (or is) also a thing in the same situation if genders were different.
(I actually once tried to get a more multifaceted sphere-grid-thing for sexuality, where you had moral/ethic alignment, sexuality/sensuality alignment, and religious alignment. I occasionally use these to describe my characters or NPCs to myself.)
Ethics: law/neutral/chaos; Morals: good/neutral/evil
-> you know this one!
Sexuality: androsexual, bisexual, gynosexual; Sensuality: lusty, moderate, chaste
-> allows you to bypass the homosexual/heterosexual and clears up a lot of confusion in the case of the rare thing like Belt of Gender Reversal; also, although "chaste" is a word I've never been satisfied with (it's not what it means), it gets the point across
Religious: highly, moderate, a-religious
-> Being "religious" actually can apply to many things other than "worship of divine entities", and one of the more interesting NPCs I had was a highly religious genuine atheist in Eberron
Regardless of all that, though, a strange tendency is for the male homosexual NPCs (or occasional GMPCs) that I run to be lawful good and/or paladins and relatively quiet about it. No particular reason that I can discern or think of myself.
(This is not to say that all of my lawful good characters, NPCs, GMPCs, or paladins of any kind are homosexual or male, nor is this to say that all homosexuals are paladins or lawful good or male, but rather that the majority of male homosexuals tend to be lawful good and/or paladins.)
As others have said, while some are more solidly "sexually aligned" as noted above, I mostly treat NPCs as "potentially bisexual unless proven otherwise".
As to the level of romance that develops in games, my wife and I tend to play high amounts of romance (awesome), and it's certainly an option in other games I've run. The "depth of detail" varies highly between games based not just on player presence (and comfort level), but also on the kind of game run.
Kind of like most things that aren't related to sexuality: it's a point when it's a point and inspires a particular story, not because it's <insert specific thing here>.
Or that the rather chaste paladin who died against a dragon might become a (lawful good) ghost and haunt one party member because he couldn't get over his love toward another lawful good (straight) man, but couldn't face him as he'd fled heaven to warn his love of impending doom, but suspected he'd never be accepted; thus he chose the female PC instead, because the other man loves her. Requires a specific set of gender and sexual assumptions. Not actually the point of the story.
Or the one paladin who, because he was in love with a woman who was also in love with an elf, ended up in a complicated, open, threesome-relationship (later a foursome relationship with another woman), and who loves the (lawful good, again) elf man freely (though it must be admitted, he usually notes when this is pointed out, "that doesn't really count" even though he has all sorts of pet names for the guy).
So, to sum up, if it creates something useful or fun, awesome. If it doesn't... okay, I don't care. Homosexuality is just like everything else in this regard.
* created by home brew before Invokers existed; he's just known as a "Chosen" in our game
** combination of 1/4 orc, 1/4 dragonborn, 3/8 drow, and 1/8 devil
*** the male dragonborn raider (tolerated drow, hated orc), the male orc chieftan (hated everyone, homophobic), and the female drow cleric (tolerated dragonborn, hated orc, "lawful" kind of Evil); through patience and deceptive interpretation of facts the orc became convinced that the dragonborn and especially the drow was plotting against him (as she's clearly one of the "those filthy people"), and his plot (learned by his untrusted informant, the PC) was given to the drow... who interpreted it as a power-play made by the orc against all the "leaders" except the Dark Queen due to the dragonborn's own subtle machinations. One bloody orgy of violence later, my character has convinced the orcs to take up Bjorker <think "dumbed-down more-violent less-protected football"> and get the pinkskins to literally throw money at them for beating each other up while "sexy" orc women cheer them on instead of dying in raids to get the same thing; the remaining dragonborn are now each in charge of "teams" (that swap players every once in a while) and merchandising, and the remaining drow control the betting pools and shipments. I (and my teammates) will own all the charisma-based skill challenges. All. Of. Them.
EDIT: huh, how did, seventeen pages... what? I somehow missed that, badly.
|
|
The danger with not including homosexuals in the game world is that it shows that you consider homosexuality something weird, unusual, and that you have to think about to even remember. It makes the assumption that "normal", "default" people are straight, and not being straight is (if not bad) an unusual thing that only happens for cool plot purposes (like hiding the identity of a secret lover).
Again with this. I simply do not think about an NPCs sexual preference untill it becomes important. And then i flip a coin.
To me, homosexuality is simply normal and i do not dwell on it at all. It doesn't concern me and i don't pay it any heed, unless a guy tries to chat me up or someone asks me about my opinion. Or if there is a poll or a protest of some kind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The danger with not including homosexuals in the game world is that it shows that you consider homosexuality something weird, unusual, and that you have to think about to even remember. It makes the assumption that "normal", "default" people are straight, and not being straight is (if not bad) an unusual thing that only happens for cool plot purposes (like hiding the identity of a secret lover).Again with this. I simply do not think about an NPCs sexual preference untill it becomes important. And then i flip a coin.
To me, homosexuality is simply normal and i do not dwell on it at all. It doesn't concern me and i don't pay it any heed, unless a guy tries to chat me up or someone asks me about my opinion. Or if there is a poll or a protest of some kind.
And Hama, that is perfectly fine. To say it is normal, and include it is the only thing I suggested. That was not against you in any way, though you did seem to think it was.
As to Jaelithe, that sort of comment is not very helpful for a number of reasons.
1) What plot? I simply said ignorance of a problems leads people to not realize there is a problem. I also said the reactions to being told there is a problem can range from unconcern to denial.
2) Do you think there is a problem with raising awareness? Describing an appeal to (if it is not a big deal to you) make sure to remember a group of people when playing a game as an attempt to "portray unconcern as some insidious plot to demean grows tiresome" seems like a little bit of an extreme paraphrase?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, like anything its based on individual preferences and then a shared narrative. If the GM knows I don't want same sex npcs hitting on me, but I'm fine with the concept in general, then that's how play gets modified. If the tone of the group is not interested or opposed to it, there's no benefit in forcing the issue. I do notice the Adventure Path stuff seem to throw that in with same-sex pairings. I don't mind, but its more because in general I consider NPCs to be...ahem...interchangeable for more than sexuality. I don't care what their gender is, or race, more like...what alignment are they and are they going to try to backstab us? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jaelithe, once you know something is an issue that concerns people (not necessarily the people you are playing with, but maybe even a society as a whole), pretending it does not exist is a choice.
"Requiring that inclusion in some highly noticeable fashion simply "because it should be there!" is in my opinion pushy at best and oppressive at worst."
--> more hyperbole for effect?
1) Simply existing is highly noticeable? Having even 1 in 10 taverns/shops/inns/etc manned by two women (heh) or run by two men counts as "addressing [homosexulatily] more in depth" "in a highly noticeable fashion"?
2) Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. The question was if you realize that any sort of exposure that brings a sense of normalcy and acceptance to a marginalized and discriminated against cultural group, and all it would take is changing the name of an in-game NPC to "Paula" instead of "Paul" and switching the M to an F on the notes, why not take that opportunity every now and then. Adding talk about forcing and requiring and pushing reflects some internal thought-process of your own.
3) Hyperbole is a technique use to win over crowds in an public debate. Its appeal is the impact of the exaggeration more than the actual content or opinion it represents. If you are replying to an actual comment, hyperbole shows a marked lack of concern about the actual position someone else holds, preferring to win rhetoric points.
As to your previous position, I did read the thread, but it is hard to link names with statements. Looking back, I find
I can fundamentally disagree with someone's choices, yet pick up an M-16 and stand a post in support of their right to make those choices, whatever they are (as I did in my youth). So don't tell me that if I don't endorse your pet cause (no matter how near and dear to your heart) with the same rabid and unrelenting fervor you do that I'm a hater, a homophobe or whatever other dismissive verbiage you like to use when striking out at people who aren't interested in kowtowing to any kind of tyranny, whether currently in vogue or not.
I bolded the parts that stick out here. Where have I struck out? Where did I call names? Where did I require tyrannic kowtowing?
I am not even arguing that calling human rights a pet cause is offensive. I am saying if you feel like helping normalize a largely discriminated, stereotyped, and ignored part of the population have some non-obtrusive, realistic representation in the real world, why not take an almost effortless step to make the small difference.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
pretending it does not exist is a choice.
Nobody's pretending it doesn't exist. You're attributing too much to simple non-usage. To me, someone's sexuality does not matter, (unless I am attracted to them, of course).
People are people. And unless it is relevant to the story, I don't see why anyone should make a point of specifically addressing stuff like that.E.G. "You go into the inn, you can see the innkeeper."
"Ok, we get food...etc"
Sexuality never addressed, no need to address it just so that I include a oppressed minority.
E.G.2 "You go into the inn, you can see the innkeeper."
"I try to seduce the Innkeeper"
[dice roll]
"Sorry, the innkeeper seems much more interested in that handsome guy sitting near the fire.
Sexuality addressed. Because it was relevant.
I don't make a point of addressing things that have no relevance to the story just to make a token gesture. There is no point in that. And it doesn't make me homophobic in any way.
Yes, Hama, I think you are doing great. I think I said so too, but just in case, I will say it again :) You are doing great!
Jaelithe, thank you for your reply. I am quite satisfied by what you said. ~~~~~
I did not go back for any reason other than to see what you had previously stated (since you suggested I check it out), and in fact I agree with most of what you said (notice, the entire first paragraph had nothing bolded :P). The reply to my initial comment however, and the use of hyperbole to conflate my position with several of the ones you were taking a position against in that previous post in your next reply, was what prompted me to ask in what manner I was engaging in those behaviors I had bolded. Since I was not (aware that I was) doing any of the things you disapproved of, I was wondering why you were employing the same rhetoric as if I was. Similarly it was that confusion of mine which prompted me to assume your direction of me to the previous point was to explain what you thought I was trying to do.
I now realize that you were not in fact accusing me of those behaviors, and so I apologize for any untoward aggression that crept into my post because of my assumption.
~~~~~
Your campaign setting sounds quite impressive. As a classicist I am still trying to find ways of incorporating the Pathfinder system and as many player options into a early Roman Empire-themed world, which of course gives me a rather different in-game perspective of the prevalence and ease of presenting homosexuality.
Not to speak for Jaelithe, but in my home campaign I try to include all the mores you mention, but assume that the (even novice) adventurers have already broken those barriers by traveling, say, five miles from their place of birth; that means all bets are off in a pseudo-medieval world!
When I run games of late, though, they're set in a quasi-historical fantastic Europe and the Middle East during the Crusades. As a historian and theologian usually would, I've familiarized myself as best I might with the societal mores of various cultures from that era; I have represented sexuality as accurately as I may, with the caveat that I lean towards inclusiveness as a matter of conscience and personal preference.
It's often telling, which historical throwbacks fictional world creators arbitrarily decide to include, and which they decide to reject.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imma just copy-paste my last post from a thread revolving around pathfinder and homosexuality, cause I can't really say it any better:
I've always made it a point of order to try and include some degree of homosexual characters in the world. Not for any particular reason or expression, but because I feel it adds a tiny degree of realism to the game. Homosexuals are a thing, they aren't unnatural, so I'm not sure why in any world where they aren't hunted like dogs that they wouldn't exist. In fact, in several campaigns, I've had small plots based around the rights/protection of homosexuals, such as a nation that suddenly decided to exterminate them (a la Hitler), and the PC's getting the call to action to defend the innocents. The PC's ultimately made me chuckle when they ousted the monarchy and set up a new king who was homosexual, just to make a point.
I've also been willing to let a PC enact a homosexual relationship if they wish to pursue it, even if it isn't strictly comfortable for me. PC relationships don't come up often, but when they do it can sometimes be a small point of contention for my players. Some of them expect the NPC wife/husband to just bow to their every whim. I showed them recently that this would never be the case, when a Deck of Harrowing gave one of my stronger players a Marriage card, and he got saddled with a Shaitan wife, who was very pleased when he spent every penny he had on his wedding. It wasn't until later when he started begging favors of her that he learned that he hadn't simply earned a powerful cohort, because she started making him pay for her services with various favors, or just outright bribes. Give the lady a nice big emerald, she might just be up to plane shifting you and your party to where you want to go.
I like how Jaelithe is all, like,
"You know what's tiring? People casting aspersions on you because they presume stuff about you." (Or rather, using different words to the same effect*.)
Followed by a lot of people casting aspersions on him because they presume stuff about him. Especially those who came after he engaged in a conversation that satisfied someone who disagrees with him!
That's really classy, Paizo Forums. That's... really classy.
(The above statement may or may not be a lie.)
In any event, here's hoping that I start getting some of the heat with this post, Jaelithe! It helps to share stuff sometimes. :)
EDIT: I'd much rather the whole thing be "dropped", but, you know, this being the internet and all, I don't hold out much hope.
* It seemed entirely comprehensible a response from posts made, to me, and not out of place.
Not to speak for Jaelithe, but in my home campaign I try to include all the mores you mention, but assume that the (even novice) adventurers have already broken those barriers by traveling, say, five miles from their place of birth; that means all bets are off in a pseudo-medieval world!I wouldn't expect traveling 5 miles would have any effect on expected gender roles or on prejudice against homosexuals, though you might be able to go back into the closet if you'd been outed.
Nor is it as likely to affect your class status as you might think. People won't recognize all the peasants beyond a few miles away, but the nobility will know each other. And probably even the gentry.
Speaking only for my own campaign setting, but someone who travels as much as PCs do, with the obvious signs of wealth (in a pseudo medieval world, I'm not talking about magic swords, I'm talking about shoes) that PCs have access to is going to be so far outside the norms that prejudice against homosexuals just won't be an issue. Class is the primary differentiating factor, and anyone new in town (well, depending on how large/cosmopolitan the settlement is) is going to warrant a dinner with the local noble, where they'll be treated as peers by said noble.
In my own campaign world, heterosexual and homosexual aren't a part of the conceptual landscape the way they are in modern america. Same sex partnership exists, but most cultures don't have a term for homosexuality they way we don't have a term for someone who sleeps exclusively with brunettes. (Paizo forum posters, please don't go all crazy listing such terms, it was just an example.)
In my own campaign world, heterosexual and homosexual aren't a part of the conceptual landscape the way they are in modern america. Same sex partnership exists, but most cultures don't have a term for homosexuality they way we don't have a term for someone who sleeps exclusively with brunettes.
One of the reasons the orientation "alignment" I crafted and posted up there works the way it does.
What happens if, say, a homosexual male becomes a female (a very real possibility in these games)? Is she still homosexual? Does that mean she's into women?
Using an orientation that speaks of your preference instead of your person means that, unless some outside influence alters your mind, you're still you underneath, regardless of what happens to you. Much like alignment. The question is answered inherently. It provides a framework for anything that might occur. There are a few gaps not covered by such things (asexual creatures, or creatures with more than two sexes) but it functions well enough as such things go.
So not going to cast aspersions on people, but for those who run quasi-realistic campaigns, how can you accomodate human racism if you have creatures like Otyughs, goblins, or elves running around? It seems that when you have creatures which obviously are not human, and may have drastic differences in ecology, intelligence, and psychology, it's really hard to argue for discrimination based on skin tone or slight facial characteristics. The only way I could imagine intrahuman racism would be if there are no-nonhuman races, the nonhuman races are not sapient, or if they were extraordinarly rare as to be though of as mythological.
I can apply a similar argument toward sexism/homophobia. If alignment exists in your setting, and Gods are real entities with alignment, how can people justify mistreating others, as the worst offenders are going to ping evil and Gods actually can tell people to cut it out.
Using an orientation that speaks of your preference instead of your person means that, unless some outside influence alters your mind, you're still you underneath, regardless of what happens to you. Much like alignment. The question is answered inherently. It provides a framework for anything that might occur...While that's an intriguing and thoughtful methodology, it, too, speaks of sexual orientation in a particular fashion—one with which not all players would agree. The union of mind, body and soul is (or should be), arguably, unpredictably changed (or not) by the magical alteration of sex, such that a DM might say to a newly-female character, "You look at your wife now, and feel absolutely nothing in the way of physical desire for her. In fact, you're repulsed at the very thought." You could even go about it in the opposite fashion, telling a player that their now-male paladin still finds males desirable, and wants her/his husband now more than ever. A DM can tell a player any of this and it's reality; the player him or herself would have to decide how to act on that information.
These constitute very mature and difficult themes, and might make players or DM profoundly uncomfortable, even (in the former's case) openly resentful. While it could be a tremendously rewarding role-playing experience for all concerned, it might also lead to the kind of argument that ends sessions, play groups, or even friendships; so going there, or at least going farther once you've gone there, had best be by mutual consent, either spoken or not. I know I'd be pretty shaken were I suddenly sporting cleavage and cleft, and while magical events might be more common in a Pathfinder or even home-brew campaign, it'd still likely be quite the shock.
Tread carefully, or not at all.
Actually, in case it's not clear, that's exactly what I mean. Without a guidepost, these things are entirely arbitrary. If it does affect the mind, then you can have a greater source of internal consistency. Thus, a Polymorph any Object spell, a Girdle of Gender Reversal, or a simple Alter Self could have similar or different consequences based on internal consistency. What those consequences are ultimately come into individual campaign interpretations. But by having a standard, it sidesteps possible issues and suggests answers. If an alter self spell changes orientation as well as form, it suggests something about transformation magic in general. Similarly, in the 3.5 book Lost Empires of Faerun the spell that gave you half-fiend template changed your alignment to evil. Internal consistency.
If, on the other hand, you decree things differently, having an internal consistency based on a reasonable metric lowers the need for arbitration across the board. Either way, the one system covers it. Which is really its point: to be versatile and provide internal consistency in ways not normally clear in-game now.
But yes. In all cases, tread carefully. It's how these things should be handled. Also, thinking, much less typing, with a toddler literally climbing on your head, is REALLY hard. :)
Hi, new to the thread. I'll admit, I've only read the first page and last few pages. But in the interest of keeping stuff in the same place, I'd like to ask some questions here. Feel free to throw links at me if this is a bit redundant.
Background: myself and my gaming groups consist only of traditional genders, and are only white and non-LGBTQ. In the years I've been GMing, in my campaigns, sexual identity was handled as strictly heteronormative (though I certainly didn't use that term at the time), and only included gay aspects if I was making a particular plot point around aberrant behavior (a la Game of Thrones). So I'm here to learn.
I've never included gay material otherwise because "it didn't make sense" and "people didn't openly do that in medieval Europe". Now, in light of recent politics and this thread and whatnot, I'm willing to reconsider, but I need someone to walk me through that doorway, because I don't see why/how on my own.
Most of my objections boil down to "nowadays, we have technology that allows for a LGBTQ lifestyle, and back then, they didn't." But to elaborate:
In my games, there isn't much of a middle class. There's commoners and nobles. But both have the same need: perpetuating their family line and having someone take care of them when they are older. From what I've read of the medieval era (and is still true today in Asia), if a person showed LGBTQ interests, they were told "knock it off, deny yourself, do what's right for your (extended) family, and get a spouse and make babies." Basically, dynasty and obligation trumped happiness and personal freedoms. Now, once a person is married, they can certainly have additional sexual relationships, but that's adultery, which should generally remain a cultural taboo.
So how do I include openly LGBTQ characters given this paradigm? I see a couple ways forward.
1) mimic technologies such as IVF and sex-assignment operations via magic (and make available to the masses)
2) adultery is culturally permissible
3) get rid of things like "birthright" and "inheritance" and let everyone in the setting be comfortable with adoption supplanting birth
I'm guessing the answer is #3, which saddens me, because that undermines or eliminates many classic plotlines and stories (for example, King Arthur). And as a Crusader Kings II player, I greatly enjoy those intrigues. It also begs the question as to where all these adopted kids are coming from. (Assuming 10% of the population is LGBTQ, and that's a lot of orphans to adopt.)
My other objection (that I'm looking for help to overcome), basically boils down to "how far do we go with this inclusiveness thing?"
Here's how it plays out with me: first we noticed all our heroes were men, so we made women heroes too. Then we noticed all heroes were white, so we made some of them black. Then we noticed all heroes were straight, so now we're making some of them LGBTQ. How far does this go? Specifically, in America the Latino/a population is currently growing, and I'm having a lot more Latino friends in my life. Surely, they will soon ask "I see white heroes and black heroes, where are the Latino heroes?" And then I'm stuck. Because my response is going to be "well, there's no Catholicism nor tacos in my campaign world, so you'll have to settle for another brown-skinned race that is otherwise utterly unlike what you're looking for." Obviously, that's the wrong response. But I include it here because when I think of including LGBTQ for inclusiveness's sake, I feel the same way: "Nothing like that is in my world, so settle." I'm looking for someone to help me with that.
Thanks!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's how it plays out with me: first we noticed all our heroes were men, so we made women heroes too. Then we noticed all heroes were white, so we made some of them black. Then we noticed all heroes were straight, so now we're making some of them LGBTQ. How far does this go? Specifically, in America the Latino/a population is currently growing, and I'm having a lot more Latino friends in my life. Surely, they will soon ask "I see white heroes and black heroes, where are the Latino heroes?" And then I'm stuck. Because my response is going to be "well, there's no Catholicism nor tacos in my campaign world, so you'll have to settle for another brown-skinned race that is otherwise utterly unlike what you're looking for." Obviously, that's the wrong response. But I include it here because when I think of including LGBTQ for inclusiveness's sake, I feel the same way: "Nothing like that is in my world, so settle." I'm looking for someone to help me with that.
I think you're confusing race and culture. Obviously, there are no tacos in most fantasy campaign settings, and no Catholicism, and honestly, there's no strict formula for inclusiveness. The point is a lot more nuanced than that, and the questions we should all be asking ourselves are a lot less cut-and-dried.
Are all the heroes white people from American-ish or European-ish cultures?
Does the campaign world draw only from Western European history, culture, and mythology?
If the campaign world does draw from non-European history/culture/myth, how are those elements portrayed? E.g. are those the cultures of the villains? Are they portrayed as savages in comparison to the European-derived cultures' sophistication? Are they portrayed only as comic relief/sidekicks/servants/props for white heroes or rulers?
If there are non-white characters, do they play into real-world racial stereotypes?
And that's all not even to say that you can't create a campaign world that addresses real-world issues around race. You absolutely could do a critique of such things, although it's a lot harder to do in a way that's respectful and not treating such things as normative.
And it's not to say that there's anything wrong with doing a story based on a very limited/isolated setting that deals with one culture. If you want to do a story about a far-north, Vikingish tribe that doesn't travel much, and basically just fights with their neighbors and the occasional ice dragon, I don't see any issue with everyone being Nordic. But when you travel around and your whole world is white, or the non-white people only show up as slaves or servants or savages, then there are some questions I think you should be asking yourself.
The tricky thing is, being able to answer these questions in the negative and having good, thought-through reasons for the ways in which you address race aren't a guarantee that you're doing it in a way that's respectful and inclusive.
They're the first step. They're the minimum of self-examination that we should be doing of the worlds we create.
It's hard to do right. Most of us don't get it right even most of the time, and I don't think anyone gets it right all of the time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying, though, and it's worth remembering that trying and failing isn't the worst thing in the world -- it helps you continue to calibrate and get better.
I had brunch (that's breakfast with alcohol) with my sexy roller derby girl this morning. She's doing good out in SF, recovering from a broken ankle, back out on her skates, has branched into stand-up comedy since I saw her last.
Anyway, turns out (shocker!) Mel and Lloyd have separated. They are currently converting their home into a duplex so Lloyd can live in one half and Mel and her now over-a-year-girlfriend can live in the other and the children can roam as they please.
See, I said, New Hampshire is hip like San Francisco, it just takes a while to catch up. Like, 100 years.
"Calibrate and get better."
That's one of the most beautiful things I've ever read.
Here's how it plays out with me: first we noticed all our heroes were men, so we made women heroes too. Then we noticed all heroes were white, so we made some of them black. Then we noticed all heroes were straight, so now we're making some of them LGBTQ. How far does this go? Specifically, in America the Latino/a population is currently growing, and I'm having a lot more Latino friends in my life. Surely, they will soon ask "I see white heroes and black heroes, where are the Latino heroes?" And then I'm stuck. Because my response is going to be "well, there's no Catholicism nor tacos in my campaign world, so you'll have to settle for another brown-skinned race that is otherwise utterly unlike what you're looking for." Obviously, that's the wrong response. But I include it here because when I think of including LGBTQ for inclusiveness's sake, I feel the same way: "Nothing like that is in my world, so settle." I'm looking for someone to help me with that.I think you're confusing race and culture. Obviously, there are no tacos in most fantasy campaign settings, and no Catholicism, and honestly, there's no strict formula for inclusiveness. The point is a lot more nuanced than that, and the questions we should all be asking ourselves are a lot less cut-and-dried.
Are all the heroes white people from American-ish or European-ish cultures?
Does the campaign world draw only from Western European history, culture, and mythology?
If the campaign world does draw from non-European history/culture/myth, how are those elements portrayed? E.g. are those the cultures of the villains? Are they portrayed as savages in comparison to the European-derived cultures' sophistication? Are they portrayed only as comic relief/sidekicks/servants/props for white heroes or rulers?
If there are non-white characters, do they play into real-world racial stereotypes?
And that's all not even to say that you can't create a campaign world that addresses real-world issues around race. You...
Erik, you might find the links from this discussion thread illuminating: Metafilter: "People of Color are not an anachronism".
And logically, if much of the history of non-Caucasian peoples has been lost/forgotten in Europe, who is to say the same hasn't happened to the history of LGBT people?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So not going to cast aspersions on people, but for those who run quasi-realistic campaigns, how can you accomodate human racism if you have creatures like Otyughs, goblins, or elves running around? It seems that when you have creatures which obviously are not human, and may have drastic differences in ecology, intelligence, and psychology, it's really hard to argue for discrimination based on skin tone or slight facial characteristics. The only way I could imagine intrahuman racism would be if there are no-nonhuman races, the nonhuman races are not sapient, or if they were extraordinarly rare as to be though of as mythological.
I can apply a similar argument toward sexism/homophobia. If alignment exists in your setting, and Gods are real entities with alignment, how can people justify mistreating others, as the worst offenders are going to ping evil and Gods actually can tell people to cut it out.
How can you justify including racism with all that fantasy stuff running around? Same way we justify it now - different = inferior. Just because somethings are more different than other creatures doesn't mean those other creatures aren't still different. It probably suggests that the racism against creatures that fit the bill for more different will be more extreme.
As far as sexism/homophobia and other lack of niceties, Jesus is reputed to have said a lot of good things about peace and love. People have ardently believed in his divinity and read his words for thousands of years - believed in him just as much as a character in Golarion would believe in their gods - and yet there are thousands of years of history indicating that people screw that up repeatedly.
So how can I justify the existence of these things in a campaign setting? I've got plenty of real world cognitive dissonance and hypocracy as examples to draw from. It's easy. Including other fantasy races, gods, nations, and religious groups just gives me many more tools to work with.