Some of them only get hard when they're wrestling a ravenous ooze monster. Whatever.I suddenly feel the need to hide all my jelly...
Thread exploded a bit overnight (thought so), although for a lot of you I suppose it wasn't night.
As for the evolution/religions comment:
Historically, the Israelites were a struggling ,very small nation of people who were the odd ones out in that they believe in only a single God. Their laws were created with this in mind. This is the only reason why homosexuality was mentioned at all: men were married at 14 and expected to start producing heirs in the next year so their nation could grow. The reasons for not allowing beef and milk to be consumed together (even though they didn't know what bacteria was, they knew these two together would make them sick easier).
In contrast, the large, established polytheistic cultures of the time did not prohibit homosexual expression because they didn't need to. Ancient Greece being perhaps the best example. When these religions faded to the background and monotheism took over, the old tenets stayed, even though they weren't needed, and today, some monotheists, unlike myself, are having trouble putting these tenets in their historical context and letting them go as they no longer affect us.
Golarion, and most fantasy settings, are taking a different historical track: What if the polytheistic religions stayed in the limelight? Technology, fashion, and other aspects of culture followed a very similar track, but religion did not, and so the moral beliefs of the culture did not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of my games, I had a pair of gay oracles living on a hill. They'd met due to each of them receiving one half of a vision and seeking the other. They had their share of quests, then in old age settled down in the countryside to give advice to young adventurers that stopped by on their way to the monster-filled mountains.
I never once said they were gay, but from the portrayal of their interaction with each other and the party, one of the players commented, "Huh, those dudes were probably married."
After a shrug all round, the game went on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Find the idea of running any kind of campaign without any sexual angle quite strange - characters form relationships, things progress, don't they?
I find the idea of running a dating sims campaign quite strange :P
Find the idea of running any kind of campaign without any sexual angle quite strange - characters form relationships, things progress, don't they?I find the idea of running a dating sims campaign quite strange :P
Try playing World Of Darkness - it's either this or throwing cars around. Or mix of both :P
I've always assumed WoD was more akin to Lovecraft/Ghost Stories. I bought a bunch of the books intending to play such adventures, but have never been able to get a group together. The game seems to have quite the reputation...
If your game is a beer and pretzels friday night dungeon bash it probably doesn't come up.
If your game isn't a beer and pretzels friday night dungeon bash it just might.
I think my cashiers at the market are in trouble. When I buy beer or pretzels, they never check my ID for Lesbian (or Bi or Trans or Curious or whatnot) or straight. ;)
In either setting, what difference does homosexuality make?
If it brings depth to the PC (or NPC) and informs their actions (or inactions), then it's important to the story, whether it's LGBT or straight. As an often-lazy GM, I don't worry about filling in that blank (or all the other backstory) on all NPCs until/if it comes up, but the option remains there anytime relationships are involved as story hooks or plots. Anything in the toolbag that gets/keeps the players' and GM's engaged in the game is an option. Since RL humans are usually highly social beings, relationships often and repeatedly come up.
It's not like your gaming session is going to LARP out the nookie right there on the table, or even engage in a while lot of steamy smut talk, but hey if it does you have probably left the gaming session behind and you now have an impromptu swingers party unfolding, and perhaps the tequila slammers pre session weren't such a hot idea.
Just because my groups (and I assume, yours) never roleplayed this out at the table, doesn't mean that sexy roleplay is somehow "playing the (kleptomaniac murder hobos) game" wrong. Neither is playing a rules light, or heavily-houseruled, or LARP, or MLP:FiM version... if everyone has fun at the table, why should anyone not at the table care how they have fun?
TL;DR - How is 'Gay' still even a hot topic worthy of a raised eyebrow?
I dunno, but it seems to have pushed certain people's buttons.
I'm incredibly new to tabletop gaming, and attempting to DM a game for the first time. My players are about to finish the first book in "Legacy of Fire", and the issue of romance has come up a couple of times.
One PC is a male dwarf fighter. Rowdy and hits on any attractive female he sees. But he spent the night with the male gnome ranger PC before the latter's untimely demise (while both were rip-roaring drunk), and he frequently bemoans the loss of said PC.
Another is a male half-orc barbarian. He's planning to romance Undrella, the female harpy, because she took a liking to him. That player is my boyfriend, and the other players joke that when I roleplay encounters with her, in which Undrella becomes rather flirty, it's like foreplay. Though he's also mentioned wanting to possibly woo Dashki - he's taken a stance of his character being attracted to, quite simply, whoever he finds attractive. Or whoever finds him attractive - he does quite a good job of roleplaying a narcissistic half-orc with a charisma penalty.
Our female human barbarian hasn't shown any interest in romantic involvement whatsoever. Likewise for the female half-elf druid, who hasn't seemed to even form strong platonic relationships with the rest of the party, instead devoting all her attention to her wolf companion.
The female human cleric hugs everyone, regardless of gender - Dashki, Father Zastoran, the freed members of the Lions of Senara, Garavel - and the player has mentioned that he wants her to try romancing Almah, the merchant princess.
So from what we've encountered so far, we have two characters who simply aren't interested in sexual relationships, one who wants to pursue a homosexual relationship, one who's bisexual, and one who's heterosexual, but could be a repressed homosexual, which he and the other players joke about frequently.
As for how I as the DM handle this in my campaign: the players of the uninterested characters aren't comfortable with sex being part of the game, so we don't describe it. I describe the way Dashki awkwardly hugs the cleric with one arm as she embraces him, I describe the way the harpy caresses the half-orc's cheek with one claw with her eyes smouldering, but I don't describe what happens when the half-orc spends the night with the harpy in the old tannery, just like I won't describe what happens when Almah invites the cleric into her tent and requests that nobody disturb them. I'll roleplay romantic relationships to an extent everyone's comfortable with, but sex is glossed-over and hand-waved. You can romance whoever you like (and if they're interested in you, you'll know), just don't ask me for the details. It makes some of the players uncomfortable, and I have no desire to exclude them. (Also, my boyfriend is in the group, and he disapproves of me taking romatic role-playing too far! :P)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half Orc + Harpy + Old Tannery has got to be the smelliest combination possible!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had fun describing the way various NPCs reacted to him showing up the next morning, covered in deep scratches and reeking to high heaven. The way the other PCs reacted was great, too - the cleric offered a remove disease spell, the dwarf offered a high-five.
I suppose another reason it didn't come up is we're "a bunch of Christian kids." :/
|
May I suggest that if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality then Pathfinder, a game with a strong pro LBGT slant and NPC's actively engaged in such relationships, and with a heavily pro (and actively) LBGT staff, may not be a comfortable fit for you?
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, if the person likes the system, and even the campaign setting, then it's pretty easy to ignore/change the NPC homosexual relationships, and it's even easier to not really give a damn what the staff does in their own free time as long as they keep making the game.
Maybe you can correct me, but I can't think of any examples of NPCs that their homosexuality is such a basic part of their character that they would be ruined if they were changed to be heterosexual. And I'm pretty damn sure there are no game mechanics that hinge on the staff's sexual orientation, or tolerance thereof.
At this point, I've pretty much accepted the game's authors are coming from a postmodern perspective. I have no qualms with the homosexuality portrayed in the game.
I let the players decide. Usually I include at least a few homosexual and transgender NPCs because I tend to draw inspiration from my real life friends.
Whether or not it ever comes up...well that is up to the players of the game. Just like everything else they have to invest in learning about each NPC to get that kind of information about them.
Thread exploded a bit overnight (thought so), although for a lot of you I suppose it wasn't night.
As for the evolution/religions comment:
Historically, the Israelites were a struggling ,very small nation of people who were the odd ones out in that they believe in only a single God. Their laws were created with this in mind. This is the only reason why homosexuality was mentioned at all: men were married at 14 and expected to start producing heirs in the next year so their nation could grow. The reasons for not allowing beef and milk to be consumed together (even though they didn't know what bacteria was, they knew these two together would make them sick easier).
In contrast, the large, established polytheistic cultures of the time did not prohibit homosexual expression because they didn't need to. Ancient Greece being perhaps the best example. When these religions faded to the background and monotheism took over, the old tenets stayed, even though they weren't needed, and today, some monotheists, unlike myself, are having trouble putting these tenets in their historical context and letting them go as they no longer affect us.
Actually the more common theory behind Old Testament attitudes towards sexuality is that the Canaanite religions they were competing with were fertility cults that included sexuality in their worship.
Edit: It's not as if the attitudes towards homosexuality in Ancient Rome or Greece really affected their population growth. It tended to be in addition to marriage and sex for procreation.
That's a good point. I always viewed the dichotomy between their views on sexuality vs. Babylon's or other nations as coming from these already established beliefs, not the cause of them. Worth reading into.
My group and I have never played through a character romance, so sexuality is largely ignored.
This.
Find the idea of running any kind of campaign without any sexual angle quite strange - characters form relationships, things progress, don't they?I find the idea of running a dating sims campaign quite strange :P
I find both of these extremes quite strange >.>
I suppose another reason it didn't come up is we're "a bunch of Christian kids." :/
One of my players is gay and Christian (one of my best friends actually). He has never thought that there was a conflict there. His pastor is gay. A third of the sponsors of our gay pride parade are christian churches. So I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.
|
It's not an issue in my games. I treat it no differently than I treat Hetero relationships.
Mostly if the player wants a romantic interest, and starts role playing that..I go with it. Sex is fade to black. Romance is the part for role playing.
I don't see an issue with it either way. 80% of the game is killing things and taking their stuff. The other 20% I work hard to accommodate players wishes to make it an interesting game for them.
|
Maybe i didn't express myself properly enough.
To me and my players, it just doesn't matter if an NPC is gay or not, unless it has an impact on the story. And since we're in the process of going through several dungeon crawls with little RP of any kind, there is absolutely no need to have any kind of sexuality in the game.
I have included gay and bi NPCs before, but in the end, since it didn't have an impact on the story (sexuality really shouldn't, it's a personal choice and preference), it doesn't really matter.
If a time comes when one of my players is gay, and he/she chooses to play a gay character, i will gladly diversify my NPC base, but until then, i see no need for it, as, simply put, we don't care.
I suppose another reason it didn't come up is we're "a bunch of Christian kids." :/One of my players is gay and Christian (one of my best friends actually). He has never thought that there was a conflict there. His pastor is gay. A third of the sponsors of our gay pride parade are christian churches. So I'm not quite sure what you are getting at here.
How about this. "A bunch of non-Unitarian Christian kids."
If we want to have a civil religious debate between two members of the same religion, let's not do it in this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my most memorable gaming moments this past year (playtesting a Pokemon RPG, not Pathfinder) involved this short woman who ran a store that each of the player's stopped at, and each one of them tried to sweet-talk her and failed except the final character, a woman, who met her at the local diner.
We had a Spy On the Date episode where the other characters bought disguises, convinced the waitress to play along, and proceeded to mess with the two of them.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the important thing about adding characters of all walks of life into your writing has nothing to do with being "politically correct". It has to do with showing a spectrum so that no one is left out. Growing up bi (even worse, bi MALE), I've NEVER had good role models for a person such as myself, mostly because bi characters are either portrayed as polygamistic or polygamistic. Usually, the bisexuality is added to a character to show that they want to sleep around, or that they don't want to be in a committed relationship; that's a fallacy. I've been with the same person for 8 years now, and am the most monogamous person I know.
Do I still give Michael Fassbender "the eyes"? Hells yes. But no more than if I was a straight guy and had a favored female celebrity (which I also do).
I just think that offering a spectrum of different kinds of people (straight, gay, masculine, feminine, racial, etc) should be something all writers strive towards. Not because its "inclusive for the PC brigade", but because it gives later generations something to latch on to. I wouldn't have felt so alone and scared if I had just ONE good role model who was like me. A character who was super awesome by their actions and merits, and who was incidentally attracted to others (they sorta gave me Captain Jack later in my life, although he's still the "I'll sleep with all the things!" trope).
And if you think this effects anyone at your table, it isn't true.
1) You don't know everyone's sexuality.
2) You're continuing tropes that need to end.
By continuing tropes in your writing and at your table, you're giving authority to those tropes, and the people at your table are more likely to walk away and continue the problem in their own writing.
Dropping a little diversity normalizes things - even if none of your players are gay or whatever, they still exist in a world where its a thing, and to gloss over it, I think, takes away some of that normalcy. You have to expose people to normal things in order to reinforce the fact that its normal.
I suppose it is fair enough to say that I have no use for homosexuality in my games, it is out there in the world but not something that is common and will usually not play a major part in any adventures, I don't feel especially bad about not including homo sexuality in my games, I just don't feel the need.
Common enough that several of my friends are gay. And more casual acquaintances. Common enough that I've hit on a girl only to find out she was a lesbian. (And not just lying to turn me down either)
I wouldn't expect it to play a major part in adventures very often. Unless one of the PCs was gay. Assuming the fantasy society wasn't prejudiced against homosexuals, I'd expect to see the occasional gay couple. In pretty much the same places and with the same emphasis you'd have straight couples. Maybe running the bar. Or a store. Or the town.
Obviously it is far more common in modern / real life society, I was referring to fantasy settings I tend to play in, it is out there but not so common as to be the norm or close to it.
To play the devil's advocate for a moment, if the person likes the system, and even the campaign setting, then it's pretty easy to ignore/change the NPC homosexual relationships, and it's even easier to not really give a damn what the staff does in their own free time as long as they keep making the game.Maybe you can correct me, but I can't think of any examples of NPCs that their homosexuality is such a basic part of their character that they would be ruined if they were changed to be heterosexual. And I'm pretty damn sure there are no game mechanics that hinge on the staff's sexual orientation, or tolerance thereof.
It's possible, of course. The mechanics at least should transfer to any setting, although you might need some tweaking.
The setting itself would be more difficult. The gentleman was essentially arguing that since it's medieval level technology you would have to have medieval values, and that the only reason we survived as a species was anti-homosexual prejudice (which was a remarkably poorly thought out argument, I personally think) but Golarion, as written, doesn't work that way. Not only is he assuming that human evolution could only possibly result in us the way we are (a pretty laughable concept to anyone with more than a passing familiarity with the fossil records, as my job has given me) but that both multiple intelligent races and the presence of magic would both have no effect on human development.
Since his argument is that in medieval times that anti-gay prejudice was required to make sure humans as a species continued to breed, then the presence of both Gods that will answer prayers and magic needs to be removed - as both of these would allow homosexual characters, especially women but men could probably do so too, to have children.
Equally, his argument almost automatically calls for the idea that women must be classified as a weaker, less able sex and made to stay at home. That was how most medieval societies functioned - the women were required to stay at home, to keep it running and prove for the children.
And I can't even begin to think of the ramifications of trying to impose medieval racial values on Golarion would be. 'Not pretty' is probably the fastest answer.
In essence, Golarion - which has demonstrated a remarkable level of equality thanks to multiple races and cultures in close proximity, and various divinities being both female and homosexual meaning that bias against them is...unwise - is a lot less suited to a homophobic setting than, say, FATAL.
Although I would argue that any multiple race, high magic system would equally invalidate the posters issues - it would be 'better' for him to run a low magic setting which more historically reflects our world if he truly feels that such an element as homophobia needs to be there to add 'realism'. His table, his game, his rules - and I'm thankful I'm nowhere near it, honestly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it quite interesting that one assumes that all in the Old Testament still applies.
"We like our poly-blend fabric, so toss out that no-mixing-textiles bit, but homosexuals are icky, so keep the no-gay-people part."
Removed some posts. This isn't the place for a debate about Christianity.
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.
I can't tell whether this means "Gay people don't exist in my campaign," or "We've never had cause to highlight a character's homosexuality, so it's never gotten any 'camera-time'."
Neither is particularly admirable, though.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.I can't tell whether this means "Gay people don't exist in my campaign," or "We've never had cause to highlight a character's homosexuality, so it's never gotten any 'camera-time'."
Neither is particularly admirable, though.
The second. We're not playing our games to be admirable. Honestly, i don't have anything against gay or bi or trans people...they're just people. I just eliminate work i don't particularly need when prepping a game. And unless we're playing an immersive roleplaying game with politics and lots of character interactions, it means less work for me, which is good because my free time is very finite.
Generally by default I start with a "PG-13 game set in an NC-17 world." All the really grown-up stuff is assumed to happen, but off-stage. But, as a much-derided "permissive DM," I don't have a problem with gay/bi/straight/none/all/anything else if it comes up.
One player once said she wanted her character to spend the night in the stables.
"Oh! You're afraid of an ambush at the inn!"
"No, it's because I figure that centaur NPC is hung like a horse!"
I personally thought it was hilarious.
Then we had the group in which Cadogan (a notorious womanizer, part of his character) kept trying to hit on Sheraviel (an elf fighter who was NOT interested), and it seemed like the player was getting REALLY tired of it. I finally had to say, "OK, Cadogan realizes that if he says one more freaking word, Sheraviel will put her sword through his head, and then cut his manhood off and feed it to the goblins."
It all depends on the players. If they really want freaky kinky naughty stuff between dungeons, I don't have a huge problem with that. If they want everything straight-laced and Rated G, I can do that, too. But in either case, I assume some of the stuff that's happening -- on screen or off -- is probably not strictly hetero.
Pathfinder is a set of rules created to facilitate gameplay. How you utilize said rules is up to you. Thousands of people play RPGs, from satanists to Christians. Wildly different games, using the same ruleset. If you would like to have sexuality in general enter your campaign as more than an aside, that is your decision. Leave your views out of my campaign.
People don't purchase Pathfinder to see the designer's views on social issues. J.R.R. Tolkien managed to create a wonderfully intricate world and an amazing story, without ever having a sex scene. In my humble opinion, I would prefer it to be such. A mild reference to love or lust here and there, and then right back into the adventure.
But anyway, this is a topic that cannot be freely discussed. It is impossible to have one of these threads without mods wildly deleting posts for content that they disagree with, or don't think is pertinent.
J.R.R. Tolkien managed to create a wonderfully intricate world and an amazing story, without ever having a sex scene. In my humble opinion, I would prefer it to be such.
Yet he managed to jam-pack it with Christian allegory, which I notice is AOK with you. I'm also guessing that's not a coincidence...
Leave your views out of my campaign.
This isn't about YOUR campaign.
But anyway, this is a topic that cannot be freely discussed.
It can, and is being freely discussed. If YOU don't want to discuss it, don't post. It's your choice to read this and post on it, and if that offends you, it's your problem. Don't assume that what you want (not to talk about it) is what everyone wants.
A mild reference to love or lust here and there, and then right back into the adventure.
Which is always in a heterosexual context. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED HERE.
J.R.R. Tolkien managed to create a wonderfully intricate world and an amazing story, without ever having a sex scene. In my humble opinion, I would prefer it to be such.Yet he managed to jam-pack it with Christian allegory, which I notice is AOK with you. I'm also guessing that's not a coincidence...
J.R.R. Tolkien used Christian allegory. But so did John Steinbeck, who was an agnostic. In fact, Biblical principles and concepts appear everywhere, in the work of Christians and atheists alike.
Lord of the Rings was a wonderful story, and the reason I use it as my example is that it did not contain sex scenes of any kind, and yet was every bit as well-written and excellent as say, George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones, which was full of sexual scenes.My point is why? Why do we need in your face scenes of sex in basic PF? If someone wants that, its easy enough to roleplay in. I do applaud the designers though, for they have kept the rulebooks as rulebooks, and have only added sexual content to more obscure things, such as the Adventure Paths.