Leave your views out of my campaign.
This isn't about YOUR campaign.
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.
But anyway, this is a topic that cannot be freely discussed.
Please quote me only in context, rather than taking the sentence that you want. It makes this a much nicer conversation. :)
As for the second part, I can't actually say anything tangible without getting banned, as I was on another forum. Basically, I would prefer just to leave sexuality to the GMs and Players, letting them insert topics into their campaigns at their discretion.
I play Pathfinder with people of all age categories, including young children. I would much prefer to have a minimalistic approach to sexuality, with mature groups adding in topics they are comfortable with as they see fit.
Just my 2 cents, I don't mean to offend anyone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I feel the need to chime in and say Tolkien dislike his worked being referred to as allegory. In his words, it' more "applicable", in that its themes can be applied to anyone in any walk of life, not just his own (which saw/included things like atomic power, the industrialization, and Catholicism). The Lord of the Rings originally contained lots of references to the polytheistic religion he created for Middle Earth (The Silmarillion) but he cut it during his revisions because he felt the spiritual themes of the story "spoke for themselves". An argument could be made that one simply interprets the themes of sacrifice and mercy as being Christian simply because that's where we see the most exalting of those virtues in our own experience.
The whole of Western literature is saturated with Christian ideology and themes. It is inescapable. It's a part of the way Western society collectively thinks.
Avoiding sex scenes is easy. And most have no problem with that. Avoiding all of love, romance, or at least of relationships, is a bit harder. Is everyone, including all the NPCs, single? Do the characters have parents?
And down the strawman goes!
Obviously one would not eradicate marriage or romance or relationships.
To use the Skull & Shackles as an example, the Cheliax Admiral from the 6th book, and her servant are lovers. The fact that Druvalia and Valeria were lovers really didn't add anything. You encounter them on a ship, and you kill them. Simple and easy. If a GM wished to add such a dalliance, it would be his prerogative, but in order to do that and make it meaningful, he would have to change more about the adventure than that. Plot adjustment, more "screen time" for the villains, etc.
Edit: Thank you Big Lemon, for your more eloquent explanation.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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...
I'm not sure that anyone's saying there have to be in-your-face sex scenes.
The point I, at least, was making was that explicit sex is not the same as sexuality. If you have a married couple in your game, you have sexuality in your game, even if you only briefly mention that they're married.
Unless you have no characters in any sort of romantic relationships, you aren't playing in a sexuality-neutral setting.
Saying "I don't have gay characters in my game because I don't have sex in my game" when you have characters that are called out as straight (that is, it's mentioned that they're married, or in love, or widowed, or whatever) is basically saying "straight=relationships, gay=sex" which is a) not true, and b) at best, unfairly heteronormative.
The point I, at least, was making was that explicit sex is not the same as sexuality. If you have a married couple in your game, you have sexuality in your game, even if you only briefly mention that they're married.
Unless you have no characters in any sort of romantic relationships, you aren't playing in a sexuality-neutral setting.
Saying "I don't have gay characters in my game because I don't have sex in my game" when you have characters that are called out as straight (that is, it's mentioned that they're married, or in love, or widowed, or whatever) is basically saying "straight=relationships, gay=sex" which is a) not true, and b) at best, unfairly heteronormative.
I apologize that I cannot better explain my opinion, but I was banned from another gaming forum for explaining my opinion. I oppose discrimination of any kind, but I do have certain religious beliefs that come into conflict with certain lifestyle beliefs. In keeping with this, I would prefer that reference to homosexuality be left to the GM or the players. In any event, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread, and would undoubtedly be construed as "hateful," even though I mean no hate towards anyone. Anyway, feel free to delete this explanation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize that I cannot better explain my opinion, but I was banned from another gaming forum for explaining my opinion. I oppose discrimination of any kind, but I do have certain religious beliefs that come into conflict with certain lifestyle beliefs. In keeping with this, I would prefer that reference to homosexuality be left to the GM or the players. In any event, such a discussion is beyond the scope of this thread, and would undoubtedly be construed as "hateful," even though I mean no hate towards anyone. Anyway, feel free to delete this explanation.The point I, at least, was making was that explicit sex is not the same as sexuality. If you have a married couple in your game, you have sexuality in your game, even if you only briefly mention that they're married.
Unless you have no characters in any sort of romantic relationships, you aren't playing in a sexuality-neutral setting.
Saying "I don't have gay characters in my game because I don't have sex in my game" when you have characters that are called out as straight (that is, it's mentioned that they're married, or in love, or widowed, or whatever) is basically saying "straight=relationships, gay=sex" which is a) not true, and b) at best, unfairly heteronormative.
You are free to play your games however you want, of course, and to edit material in or out of your campaigns as you see fit.
That said, as far as references to homosexuality being "left to the GM or the players," Paizo has, since the very first adventure path, included same-sex relationships and LGBTQ characters alongside straight relationships and characters in our materials. Not doing so would be a form of discrimination we're not interested in practicing.
I feel the need to chime in and say Tolkien dislike his worked being referred to as allegory. In his words, it' more "applicable", in that its themes can be applied to anyone in any walk of life, not just his own (which saw/included things like atomic power, the industrialization, and Catholicism). The Lord of the Rings originally contained lots of references to the polytheistic religion he created for Middle Earth (The Silmarillion) but he cut it during his revisions because he felt the spiritual themes of the story "spoke for themselves". An argument could be made that one simply interprets the themes of sacrifice and mercy as being Christian simply because that's where we see the most exalting of those virtues in our own experience.Tolkien also would have disliked reference to the Valar as a polytheistic religion. In all but possibly the very earliest stages of development they were far more akin to angels than to pagan gods.
From my recollection of his earlier LotR drafts, I don't think he emphasized the Valar or religion much more than in the final version.
My mistake. The point I was trying to make was that calling it "jam-packed with Christian allegory" isn't the best way of putting it.
EDIT: I haven't read all of the Silmarillion yet, but so far it really does feel more polytheistic to me. Well, just one guy's opinion.
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.
You seem to be confusing sexuality with sex scenes. IE if the parents of a kid are the same sex...that is saying something about their sexuality without delving into a scene with them making a sex.
Also I tend to find Tolkien's work meh because the lack of sexuality of the characters.
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.
I really could not disagree with you more about the mods here on these boards. I have probably had a lot of posts that they disagreed with that were not deleted. Perhaps you should at the way you say things instead of what you are saying?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying "I don't have gay characters in my game because I don't have sex in my game" when you have characters that are called out as straight (that is, it's mentioned that they're married, or in love, or widowed, or whatever) is basically saying "straight=relationships, gay=sex" which is a) not true, and b) at best, unfairly heteronormative.
And that's not what anyone is saying in the slightest. It's that it doesn't come up, because they don't think of it.
Look at it this way: I'm not Polynesian. I don't know any Polynesian people.
I don't add Polynesian people to my games. Is that discriminatory against Polynesian people? No, it isn't. It's the fact that it doesn't ever occur to me that I should because I have no connection to any Polynesians. It's not conflating "Non-Polynesian" with "Nonexistent" any more than having straight relationships but not gay ones means that straight people have relationships but gays don't.
I don't do the math and go "Exactly 10% of any relationship shown needs to be homosexual or I'm a homophobe and I wouldn't want people to think I'm a homophobe". That turns it into a "thing" and it doesn't NEED to be a "thing". It's just that hey, look these two are married and run this inn, cool anyway let's get back to the interesting stuff like kicking minotaurs in the crotch and making them cry, okay? If they happen to be straight (which they often will be) that's not excluding homosexuals. That's just how it turned out. That and the fact that I never say that unless I'm running an AP and it happens to mention something (ain't happened yet). All the sexuality comes from the players themselves (4 straight, one gay). And in my Carrion Crown game, the gay player ain't even running a gay PC (though he has one in the Serpent's Skull game), so it doesn't come up from that sector either, and he has yet to be offended by me not including homosexual couples at random intervals to fill my "quota".
Of course there's making it a "thing" in the other direction by pointedly denouncing homosexual relations, but that's not what anyone is doing here.
As well, I think I've also spewed my "Political Correctness has been taken too far" speech on here at least twice now, so I don't see the reason to go through it again.
Suffice it to say, my attitude to homosexuality is "Cool, okay" (which now I think about it were about my exact words to said gay player when he came out). I know you exist, I don't need to spend every waking moment consciously remembering to include gays any more than I need to remember to include Polynesians or Australians in my game. I just don't particularly CARE you exist, any more than I care that any other individual exists. If you're my friend, you're my friend, if you're a co-worker, you're a co-worker. If I don't know you, I don't know you, and thus won't think about you, whether you're famous or not. Now if you've got something important to say, say it. You want me to vote for gay marriage? Sure buddy I'll head right down to the library and cast my ballot.
You want to hold another rally that says "Yeah! We're here and we're queer!", then I honestly don't give a f$@+ where you are or what you do in your spare time, I'm sorry if that offends you. As I said, I don't care whether you exist or not unless I know you. And if I know you, I'm still not likely to care whether you're gay or not.
And ANOTHER thing while I'm going off on tangents, and because I don't see the PC people jumping all over this very often, why isn't it considered rude and discriminatory to make a big deal of someone's sexual orientation when they accomplish something?
Like when Obama got elected, everybody went f*+~in' NUTS over how we now had "The first black President!", and everyone made a big deal about how it was so freakin' cool because he was black.
Isn't that counter productive, and doesn't that sort of diminish the fact that he gained the presidency in the first place (which is the real accomplishment, not whether he's black or not)?
Aaaaanyway, I'm about done rambling for today. Feel free to pick this apart however you please.
Then there was the one time the party was moving going from Ravengro to Lepidstadt, and I rolled a nymph on the random encounter chart.
So Lodi Carene, halfling summoner, had his rainbow-colored, flying horse eidolon, Samantha, out scouting ahead when he lost all mental contact with her. "Yeah, but I can tell she's still on the plane, right?" he said pointing at the Core rulebook. "No," I bullshiznitted for the sake of the story.
So, he runs up ahead, looking for Samantha and runs into HAWT NAKED NYMPH sitting on the side of a waterfall, talking into some language he doesn't understand to his eidolon. The eidolon says something back in the same language (we never really explored the fact that she could talk) and the nymph was all like, "Hmm, this dream creature says she belongs to you...intriguing." Anyway, Lodi had a wicked high Cha (18?) and his player went for it, and next thing you know, Samantha's cavorting in the pool while Lodi's getting ridden within an inch of his life!
Anyway, at this point, the rest of the party has caught up and they hear Lodi screaming, so they're trying to be sneaky, but Tramora blew his Stealth roll and the nymph, startled in her throes of passion, lost control of her suppressing her blinding Lodi. Lodi failed his save, and so, never realized that his new found lover was kicking his friends asses! Nymphs are tough!
Anyway, the fight was wicked epic, but I won't bore you with the details. Suffice to say, there was a summoned elemental at one point, and all kinds of other crazyness but it ended with all of the males in the party blind and Avianna Silverplume knocked unconscious. Nymphs kick ass!
Eventually, this bedroom farce was settled, but, alas, the nymph could only cast cure blindness once per day. Fortunately for Lodi, she took him into her pandimensional cubbyhole of weird time differences and hawt sex and they petted away the next four days.
A series of Performance checks and Fortitude saves later, and indeed, Lodi was rewarded with the nymph's inspiration in the form of a lock of her hair which came in handy with its +4 Will save bonus.
Lodi, with his new +4 Craft bonus, fashioned it into a cock ring.
Rynjin,
I kind of agree with some of what you said. For example I don't include straight, cis gendered, NPCs in my campaigns. They are not a part of my life, and I honestly don't know anything about them, or think about them in any way.
But it should be pointed out that, yes, one poster on here is "pointedly denouncing homosexual relations" as you say.
Edit: Most of the NPCs in my campaign world are randomly generated. shopkeepers, innkeepers, tavern owners, etc. If I roll up the local blacksmith as being male, cis gendered, straight, and white, then he is. But I am very unlikely to make a placed NPC, like the powerful Duke male, cis gendered, straight, and white. This, perhaps makes me prejudiced, but it is certainly not because I think cis gendered, straight, white men are horrible evil people. It's because I honestly do not have any people like that in my social group.
I didn't see it, but I'll admit I skimmed over some posts.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying "I don't have gay characters in my game because I don't have sex in my game" when you have characters that are called out as straight (that is, it's mentioned that they're married, or in love, or widowed, or whatever) is basically saying "straight=relationships, gay=sex" which is a) not true, and b) at best, unfairly heteronormative.And that's not what anyone is saying in the slightest. It's that it doesn't come up, because they don't think of it.
Look at it this way: I'm not Polynesian. I don't know any Polynesian people.
I don't add Polynesian people to my games. Is that discriminatory against Polynesian people? No, it isn't. It's the fact that it doesn't ever occur to me that I should because I have no connection to any Polynesians. It's not conflating "Non-Polynesian" with "Nonexistent" any more than having straight relationships but not gay ones means that straight people have relationships but gays don't.
If you were using Hawaii as a campaign setting, then yeah, I'd call that discriminatory. When I lived in Wisconsin, I think I met one Polynesian person in the entire time I was there, so a campaign set in Wisconsin isn't really discriminating, IMO, by not having Polynesian characters. Gay people, on the other hand, are everywhere, and have been for all of history, whether or not they were acknowledged.
I believe that if you decide to create a fictional society and don't include any same-sex relationships in it, you are actively contributing to a cultural narrative that treats same-sex relationships as something abnormal, foreign or other by tacitly denying their existence in "normal" society, and therefore actively contributing to discrimination.
But I suspect we can debate this for pages and we won't change each other's minds--or, for that matter, the minds of anyone else. It's one of those things that you can try to help people notice, but you can't make them see.
|
Regarding an earlier question on whether sexuality could ever matter mechanically:
There are multiple instances of effects that hinge on the orientation of PCs/NPCs, mostly charm-style effects. Enchantress is going all "Love me and despair" and one PC is going "Okay" while another is going "lol no".
Then there's that one Calistrian spell that's all about whoever currently involved with the caster.
They're not "abnormal" in the sense of being strange or bad, but they are "abnormal" in the sense of being comparatively uncommon. That's a fact that can't really be denied.
It's really more intent than action on this subject, in my eyes.
If I don't include gay relationships in my games because it doesn't occur to me, that's not malicious. It's just me not thinking of it.
Now, if I actively exclude them from my games, that is.
The problem being that unless you can read minds you can't read intent until something a bit more overt comes along.
I guess the point being that if you tell the guy "Also, my character's gay" and his response is "Okay then, that's cool" or even "Do you want to pursue a romance at any point? I can arrange that." you know it's the former...but if it's something like "Sorry, gay people don't exist in my world, everyone is norm-I mean heterosexual. Please change that." you know it's probably at least some shade of the latter.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if i create a setting in which at first I don't include homosexuality unless it is needed, because I tend not to think or care about sexual preferences, I am a homophobic bigot. Good to know.
And here I was thinking that i had a right to give a damn about things that i choose to give a damn.
If i meet you, i will not care about your sexual orientation, a fact that you're vegan or something else that is your personal preference. I will treat you the same way you treat me. No less.
But if you choose to nag at me because I'm checking out girls, or i order meat when we are eating, i will politely tell you to f**k off, i will never judge you for your choices, i will judge you based on your behavior.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if i create a setting in which at first I don't include homosexuality unless it is needed, because I tend not to think or care about sexual preferences, I am a homophobic bigot. Good to know.
And here I was thinking that i had a right to give a damn about things that i choose to give a damn.
If i meet you, i will not care about your sexual orientation, a fact that you're vegan or something else that is your personal preference. I will treat you the same way you treat me. No less.
But if you choose to nag at me because I'm checking out girls, or i order meat when we are eating, i will politely tell you to f**k off, i will never judge you for your choices, i will judge you based on your behavior.
I don't recall claiming you were a homophobic bigot -- I said I think you're contributing to a discriminatory societal narrative. I believe there would have to be malicious intent for you to be a bigot.
It's not a binary, where either you are a completely enlightened bastion of goodness and tolerance, aware of every effect of your words and actions, or you're an intentionally privilege-blinded raging bigot. It's a spectrum, and few people are at either end.
They're not "abnormal" in the sense of being strange or bad, but they are "abnormal" in the sense of being comparatively uncommon. That's a fact that can't really be denied.
It's really more intent than action on this subject, in my eyes.
If I don't include gay relationships in my games because it doesn't occur to me, that's not malicious. It's just me not thinking of it.
Now, if I actively exclude them from my games, that is.
The problem being that unless you can read minds you can't read intent until something a bit more overt comes along.
I guess the point being that if you tell the guy "Also, my character's gay" and his response is "Okay then, that's cool" or even "Do you want to pursue a romance at any point? I can arrange that." you know it's the former...but if it's something like "Sorry, gay people don't exist in my world, everyone is norm-I mean heterosexual. Please change that." you know it's probably at least some shade of the latter.
As I said, I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on this. I think intent matters for whether or not you're a bad person. However, the results of your actions (whether or not you're contributing to discrimination) aren't altered by your intent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyway, feel free to delete this explanation.
I've been watching the thread closely, and so far the only posts that have been deleted, from what I could tell, was when I ignored the "DO NOT ENGAGE" sign on my desk and derailed the thread with religious talk.
-
So, if i create a setting in which at first I don't include homosexuality unless it is needed, because I tend not to think or care about sexual preferences, I am a homophobic bigot. Good to know.
Sarcastic, binary thinking is really unhelpful. Its a fallacy, and the only times its used in an adult conversation is when a) the person REALLY doesn't want to understand/hear the other person's side, or b) they want to shift the attention to them so that they can be the victim.
No one is ganging up on you, people are disagreeing with you; its part of the give and take of a debate such as this. To sum up the whole conversation with a dismissive "I'm a blank for disagreeing with you, got it" only forces the dialogue into a mud-slinging arena, and nobody wants that. Please try to keep a cool head - I want to hear more of your side. I may whole-heartily disagree with your position, but that doesn't discount your opinion to me; on the contrary, hearing opposing viewpoints lets me learn from you and your worldview, and I like that.
Even as someone who could care less about sexuality and supports equal rights, I'm glad to know that employees of the game are going around trying to interject their own fervent views of morality. How about the spectrum of being overly whiny and oversensitive vs. being crude and overcritical?
In the spirit of fairness how bout this? Since gnomes (and others) get a racist bonus for hatred vs. goblins..how about a race with a +2 vs. homosexuals? (no I'm obviously not being serious but making a point that it's just a game)
Just because you don't include gays in the game doesn't mean they don't exist. Homosexuality isn't at the center of medieval culture. If you don't specifically say anything about gays it would probably be assumed they exist in their normal proportion to the populace in either open or closeted relationships.
But this isn't an accurate medieval setting, as I'm pretty sure gnomes and magic and goblins never existed in medieval Europe, while homosexuality HAS.
So what makes something real (homosexuality) different to you than the fantastic (magic, elves, liches, etc)?
And again I state, whoever thinks that Pathfinder's campaign setting is extensively and EXCLUSIVELY based on medieval Europe really isn't paying much attention to the campaign setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even as someone who could care less about sexuality and supports equal rights
Supporting equal rights isn't something you vote for at a poll. It isn't something you theoretically agree with and then pat yourself on the back. It is something that affects every aspect of your life that it can. If it isn't, then your "support" isn't real and it doesn't mean anything.
Even as someone who could care less about sexuality and supports equal rightsSupporting equal rights isn't something you vote for at a poll. It isn't something you theoretically agree with and then pat yourself on the back. It is something that affects every aspect of your life that it can. If it isn't, then your "support" isn't real and it doesn't mean anything.
Support varies greatly between people, as do lifestyles and the way they let their personal opinions and interest affect them. Not sure what the previous post said, but just noting you have to be very careful when you say things like this.
Except we have quite a few post here that strongly imply that if someone's campaign doesn't feature homosexual relationships at least occasionally, then they must be a gagging homophobic bigot.This isn't about YOUR campaign.Leave your views out of my campaign.
I don't see that; please cite your sources.
What I do see is people saying that if you ignore our existence, you're saying that we aren't real in your fantasy world, and that IS a problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't vote for equal rights? Good to know.
I think what she/he is saying is that you're dismissively saying "I support equal rights but nothing in my words right now are proving that I actually support equal rights - its just a thing I say", and that's how I read it, too.
If you actually support something, you speak up when the need arises.
If you casually support something, you aren't supporting it at all.
|
That said, as far as references to homosexuality being "left to the GM or the players," Paizo has, since the very first adventure path, included same-sex relationships and LGBTQ characters alongside straight relationships and characters in our materials. Not doing so would be a form of discrimination we're not interested in practicing.
However, my original post in this thread was in response to one person telling another poster that if they weren't comfortable with exploring homosexual themes in their games, then Pathfinder isn't the game for them. Please note that there was no mention of whether The Golarion setting was suitable, they jumped full ahead to the entire Pathfinder system being unsuitable. Which is utter crap, as absolutely nothing in the rulebook line has even the hint of being either pro- or anti-homosexual. Not everybody that plays Pathfinder uses the Golarion setting.
That said, as far as references to homosexuality being "left to the GM or the players," Paizo has, since the very first adventure path, included same-sex relationships and LGBTQ characters alongside straight relationships and characters in our materials. Not doing so would be a form of discrimination we're not interested in practicing.However, my original post in this thread was in response to one person telling another poster that if they weren't comfortable with exploring homosexual themes in their games, then Pathfinder isn't the game for them. Please note that there was no mention of whether The Golarion setting was suitable, they jumped full ahead to the entire Pathfinder system being unsuitable. Which is utter crap, as absolutely nothing in the rulebook line has even the hint of being either pro- or anti-homosexual. Not everybody that plays Pathfinder uses the Golarion setting.
I believe that Jessica is speaking for a company's interests, not hers or your's. Read what you quoted again. You also said that there were "quite a few post(s)" - you only have one?
I don't even know how to respond to something so silly and absurd. I was unaware there were only two options at extreme ends and no middle ground. Apparently I can't support something to one degree or to another. I either am uber pro guns and shoot them in my yard like Yosemite Sam or I say guns in only certain circumstances (a moderate stance) which means I want to use the second amendment as toilet paper because I'm not all in so I don't support it at all.
No, what I meant by that is that if you support a cause, then you SUPPORT it, but talking about it. Support is the key word.
What it sounds to me is that you LIKE equal rights, but you don't necessarily SUPPORT it.
There's a spectrum.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except we have quite a few post here that strongly imply that if someone's campaign doesn't feature homosexual relationships at least occasionally, then they must be a gagging homophobic bigot.This isn't about YOUR campaign.Leave your views out of my campaign.
I don't see that; please cite your sources.
What I do see is people saying that if you ignore our existence, you're saying that we aren't real in your fantasy world, and that IS a problem.
Obviously you are not reading what we say either. We simply do not CARE what your sexual orientation is. It completely does not matter. It's your personal thing and as such i will not use it to form an opinion about you. So, when in my gaming group where nobody is gay we do not include gays unless it impacts the story, or the GM randomly decides that the burly innkeeper is gay, it's not because we're homophobes or because we want to believe that gays don't exist. We just don't care about sexual orientations and as such we don't pay it any more mind than necessary.
Supporting equal rights isn't something you vote for at a poll. It isn't something you theoretically agree with and then pat yourself on the back. It is something that affects every aspect of your life that it can. If it isn't, then your "support" isn't real and it doesn't mean anything.
I don't go to protests or grand meetings because i find them useless and pointless. But if somebody starts molesting another person because that person is gay/bi/trans/fat/disabled/whatever, that somebody is going to get either the cops called on their ass, or their ass soundly kicked by me. I went against guys twice my size to protect someone who was oppressed, i got beaten badly a few times because of that, but i don't care as i feel i was doing the right thing.
And if you identify yourself primarily by your sexual orientation...that is your choice. I don't nor do i put people into camps depending what gender they prefer to date.
I don't even know how to respond to something so silly and absurd. I was unaware there were only two options at extreme ends and no middle ground. Apparently I can't support something to one degree or to another. I either am uber pro guns and shoot them in my yard like Yosemite Sam or I say guns in only certain circumstances (a moderate stance) which means I want to use the second amendment as toilet paper because I'm not all in so I don't support it at all.
Like how in a few places homosexuals get partially executed. Yeah. Something like that.
Partially executed?
That said, as far as references to homosexuality being "left to the GM or the players," Paizo has, since the very first adventure path, included same-sex relationships and LGBTQ characters alongside straight relationships and characters in our materials. Not doing so would be a form of discrimination we're not interested in practicing.However, my original post in this thread was in response to one person telling another poster that if they weren't comfortable with exploring homosexual themes in their games, then Pathfinder isn't the game for them. Please note that there was no mention of whether The Golarion setting was suitable, they jumped full ahead to the entire Pathfinder system being unsuitable. Which is utter crap, as absolutely nothing in the rulebook line has even the hint of being either pro- or anti-homosexual. Not everybody that plays Pathfinder uses the Golarion setting.
That's a fair point, in that the rules systems themselves generally don't have characters (straight, bi or gay), and are setting agnostic. We try very hard to make sure the campaign setting is inclusive, but as the systems themselves are character- and setting-agnostic, they are also pretty sexuality-agnostic.
Obviously you are not reading what we say either. We simply do not CARE what your sexual orientation is. It completely does not matter. It's your personal thing and as such i will not use it to form an opinion about you.Except we have quite a few post here that strongly imply that if someone's campaign doesn't feature homosexual relationships at least occasionally, then they must be a gagging homophobic bigot.This isn't about YOUR campaign.Leave your views out of my campaign.
I don't see that; please cite your sources.
What I do see is people saying that if you ignore our existence, you're saying that we aren't real in your fantasy world, and that IS a problem.
You're still not backing up your overgeneralized statement. Give me posts where people "strongly imply that if someone's campaign doesn't feature homosexual relationships at least occasionally, then they must be a gagging homophobic bigot."
Because I don't think anyone is implying that anyone here is a "gagging homophobic bigot", but you ARE trying to make yourself look like the victim, and that's annoying.
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?
On the contrary, I had a few good nights where just a few too many red wines flowed along with the Vampires Kiss (Cointreau, Vodka, Grenadine) and thinsg got hot and heavy right there at the table and it was a blast, but it didn't much look like the RPG 'as intended' by that stage (Thanks VtM!) but it just never went that way at a D&D table.
You are going to get all ends of the spectrum and they are all legit.
What I was getting at about Straight or QUILTBAG is that to my goodself, and everyone I have gamed with bar one, none of us raised an eyebrow either way other than a healthy chuckle at the cheek in which it was sometimes played. Hence my comment about what diff does it make.
"Biffo the Barbarian retires for the night with the barmaid"
"Biffo the Barbarian retires for the night with the blacksmiths apprentice, drawn to his sweaty and glistening muscles, shock of dark tangled hair, and the ash and soot clinging to his firm chiseled body like a war-paint of lust... the scent of the worn leather apron driving Biffo wild with desire"
See, totally the same.
|
|
I've not said the gagging bigot thing, but never mind. Again, read a little more closely.
My original post may have been unfortunate in it's choice of words, but it had the effect of people jumping down my throat because of that. Now i have nothing against discussion that is not one sided, but what this thread has been is people saying their opinions, ignoring what others say (myself included in both)...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't even know how to respond to something so silly and absurd. I was unaware there were only two options at extreme ends and no middle ground. Apparently I can't support something to one degree or to another. I either am uber pro guns and shoot them in my yard like Yosemite Sam or I say guns in only certain circumstances (a moderate stance) which means I want to use the second amendment as toilet paper because I'm not all in so I don't support it at all.Like how in a few places homosexuals get partially executed. Yeah. Something like that.
What in the f*## are you talking about?