| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we have married couples? Parents? Children? Then we have sex. Just because the sweaty, grunting bit doesn't get shown doesn't mean it isn't there, or relative.
You cannot put our moral constraints and issue on Golarion - remember, in our world several of the largest and most persuasive religions have anti-anything heterosexual normal views. In Golarion, we have three Godesses having sex.
But at it's core - every type of person, regardless of colour, sexuality and such deserves to be represented. Paizo have decided to do that with gay an trans people. Just because it doesn't statistically make sense in our world, doesn't mean it doesn't there - and even if it doesn't it's still quite possible. Certainly more so than creatures weighing several tons flying around.
If you want to tackle misrepresentation in media, may I suggest you try TV first? The percentage of average white males on TV far outweights the number of white males in the US. There should be far more coloured, female and non-cis people than is currently being shown, and has been clinically suggested that it's literally causing problems in young, non-white, non male children - a much bigger problem than the Iconics being too inclusive, I think everyone can agree.
How is a persons sexuality mature content? I know some people will argue the idea that two people of the same gender loving each other is somehow far worse than two people of different genders loving each other, but unless it's going on onscreen I wouldn't call it mature content. It's just a relationship, one many children are now being 'exposed' to. Unless you object to any relationships, of course, but again - unless your world is a world of the clone people, relationships have to happen.
By your argument, no character should ever be gay unless it somehow affects the plot? I'm not quite sure I get it.
Yes, the Iconics were never said to be straight - but since the majority of people are they would assume they were, too. Honestly? It's nice to see Paizo possibly being too inclusive rather than the main stream 'not nearly inclusive enough'. I honestly cannot think how it could possibly be a bad thing, especially compared to how these things are normally portrayed.
Two points that I haven't seen come up before in this thread, or even in the infamous 250+-page "Homosexuality in Golarian" mega-thread:
1: By definition, adventurers are *not* statistically typical of their societies. Seems to me that you're going to find a lot more special cases and misfits among their ranks than you would in the general population*.
2: Same comment, but replace "adventurers" with "people who play tabletop RPGs". Particularly for an RPG that was created partially as a reaction against an attempt to make "The World's Most Popular RPG"<tm> more "mainstream".
So, both from an in-world verisimilitude and a real-world cater-to-players POV, whatever the "normal" LBGT percentages are in Golarian and in the real world, it makes sense that the iconics might exceed them.
*For example, the incidence of non-humans in PC adventuring parties seems to be much higher than traditional fantasy-world demographics would suggest.
It is worth noting that Paizo itself probably has a far higher percentage of non-cis people within it than the average society - proof that such groups can occur, if nothing else.
It's also worth noting that, even if you're trying to apply numbers from how a real life country works (which is, again, a flawed assumption that a world with Elves would be the same as ours) you're using figures of people who are openly gay, transexual, bisexual and such. It's impossible to say how many people don't publicly admit to such things. Since there is much less of a stigma in Golarion, the numbers are likely to be much higher.
The more I think about it, the more I feel that the idea that over representing minorities in a media like this is, if anything, a good thing. If nothing else it helps make up for the atrocious shortfall in other kinds of media. It's not as though they're trying to make everyone gay, trans, bi, or even the majority - A whole 20% of the iconics aren't 'normal', maybe higher. They're still a minority. But at least they're being represented.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wouldn't shock me to find that non-traditional sexuality is a higher than normal percentage among the smallish subset of humanity that likes to pretend they are elves.
As a comic book fan, I'm also not terribly surprised to find out that fans of comic book costumed superheroes who live colorful secret lives full of excitement and danger by night, and have 'secret identities' as 'just another dude' during the day seem to have a disproportionate number of gay fans.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're here, they're queer, get used to it for heaven's sake the 70:s ended more than 30 years ago!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what, how about instead of explaining why it's good for people with a non-traditional sexuality or who are transgendered to see representations of their particular deviation from the norm is a good thing, those who think they shouldn't get to see that can explain why the hell they shouldn't‽
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here, I'll tackle the questions one by one as candidly as I can.
My question is... why? What possible reason do the developers have for including transgender or sexual orientation in the back story? Considering pure statistics - out of 21 (or whatever) iconics it's most likely that at most only 1 (assuming golarion society reflects USA) are gay and none of them are transgender.
Reason One: Because regardless of the fact that LGBT demographics and their actual size with regards to the actual population in the real world is a subject for debate, they are fairly well represented in tbe broader gaming/geek community, which has itself always tried to be a haven for people of every creed, race, gender, orientation, what-have-you, even when it doesn't always live up to that promise as well as it could. I know a lot of LGBT people who game. There are also LGBT people on Paizo's staff. It makes perfect sense from a business perspective for them to be inclusive. It also opens up storytelling opportunities.
Reason 2: It's thematically appropriate to the setting. Golarion, and many other fantasy settings of the D&D mold from which it draws its traditions, has a very ancient-world sensibility to its religious and social constructions, along with the kitchen sink of other real times and places it's thrown into the mix. It is not a serious stretch to imagine members of numerous cultures in the setting being fairly open to gender/sexual relations very different from what's generally considered standard in modern mainstream western culture. If you do some reading on a lot of the real world source material from which Golarion draws its inspiration.
Reason 3: The Iconics are adventurers. Adventurers are almost always the exceptions to the rule. They are, by their nature, individuals who go against the grain and step outside the norm. It is not remotely a stretch to think that statistics with regards to LGBT numbers could be considerably different from the general population.
From another thread, it's pretty clear the consensus of gamers do not protray sex in their games (it's a fade to black moment even if it does occur).
If a male or female character is predisposed to feel affection for the same sex vs the opposite sex is a pretty important part of their psychological makeup, doncha think? If not, I'd advise reconsidering and taking a hard look at what motivates 99.9% of humanity in some part of their lives or another. Yes, most games don't get into the nitty gritty details, but love is one of the most - if not THE most - powerful motivators in any story. Who one loves is rather important, I'd think, for any character wherein it's what drives them to take up the sword or spell and start adventuring in the first place.
James - I would love a real explanantion of why you would throw this out there? The majority of your gamers clearly don't need this for their games, and the rest smacks of PC running stupid
I'd hesitate to say that "the majority" needs or doesn't need "this" in their games. And even if they do or do not, this isn't a democracy, it's a business, and Paizo is selling a product, and it behooves them to make that product accessible to as many people as possible.
If you don't like this aspect of any of the iconics, it's really, really easy to leave it out. I only know about it because it apparently came up in non-core-material stuff that fleshed out their backstories. My honest reaction was to shrug, say "Huh, interesting" and then continue on my merry way because I don't use the iconics.
But that by no reason means that I think they shouldn't be however Paizo and its staff want them to be, or that their choice to diversify them a bit is a bad thing.
Cheers,
~TWP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of many reasons is that gay and transgendered players exist. It sucks to always be treated like an outsider. Just ask non-white players of early editions. Inclusiveness (and treating people like people) is not political correctness.
Well, it is, but the thing is that there's been a long and successful bit of social engineering designed to move the idea of political correctness from "being a decent human" to well, "PC BS."
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it's nice to have an iconic or superhero that has something in common with you. Lord knows I wish there was a Hispanic hero I could look up when I was young. D&D-wise, I related more with half-orcs because they were always the subject of hate and racism and it reminded me of what I had to deal with in high school. Sadly, the D&D community wasn't much more accepting of me than the people at my high school. I actually had someone say something similar (but not nearly as offensive) to what Broken Arrow said, saying, and I quote, "Why do we have to cater to these n~%++*s and c@!%&s? They don't run the world, we (whites) do! They don't get to ruin D&D like they've ruined everything else!"
Imagine being 12 and having an adult tell you that. Imagine being by yourself as everyone at the table was in agreement with him. This was in a public gaming store too, not someone's house. These people actually thought that non-whites shouldn't be iconics or illustrated in any D&D book because it would "ruin D&D". I wish I was making this up, I honestly do. I would never want someone to grow up and go through that. But that moment changed my life forever and I knew I didn't want to be like them, nor do I want a gaming company to listen to people like them who balk at the all-inclusiveness of a role-playing game.
There's nothing politically correct about including a demographic, not even in the slightest. And it won't ruin people's "precious Tolkien fantasy" of singing elves, drunk dwarves, and dancing hobbits if there's a black paladin or a lesbian cleric or transgendered wizard in the mix, no matter what any one says. And frankly, I hope Paizo continues to be all-inclusive and break the standard tropes of gender, race, and sexuality, so that women aren't just princesses to be saved, colored people aren't just sidekicks or bad guys, and those of alternative sexual preference are either non-existent or the bad guys. I'd rather Paizo "cater" to a new way to do fantasy rather than "pander" to those that would continue to bar others like they were outsiders. And if that makes me PC, then so be it. I'd rather be politically correct than some prejudiced c$%# that feigns some form of elitism to keep my precious game exclusive.*
*Not saying you are this kind of person, Broken Arrow, nor anyone else in this thread.
And like Jon Garrett has said, if you can have a heterosexual couple in a game and not allude to sex, then you can certainly have a homosexual couple in a game and not allude to sex. Being homosexual doesn't automatically mean you're going to be making the beast of two backs in every waking moment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My question is... why? What possible reason do the developers have for including transgender or sexual orientation in the back story? Considering pure statistics - out of 21 (or whatever) iconics it's most likely that at most only 1 (assuming golarion society reflects USA) are gay and none of them are transgender.
Do you consider pure stastics when creating a single character? What does stastics has to do with it? I mean that should mean by logic if you have made 10 characters in your life only one should have anything outside of a NPC only class and that is greatly pushing it.
Does any author consider pure stastics when making any invidual character? Perhaps you are looking at the 21 or so iconics as a group...and not as inviduals.
From another thread, it's pretty clear the consensus of gamers do not protray sex in their games (it's a fade to black moment even if it does occur).
But how many games don't include marriages? Theme of love? Etc. Including sexuality does not mean you need to go into X-rated territoy.
James - I would love a real explanantion of why you would throw this out there? The majority of your gamers clearly don't need this for their games, and the rest smacks of PC running stupid.
I will not speak to James....who I believe he and others from Pazio has said why they have done this multiple time...in this thread even.
But I will argue against "the 'majority' of your gamers don't need this"...since you like pure stastics lets look at how many people play the game...and than how many post on these message boards(already a vast minority) and look at how many people posted on that particular thread. I think taking anything on these message boards as evidence of a clear majority is pretty silly.
Also again I will say that the majority of those people have ran games with married couples, ex-lovers out for vengence...etc Or even if they leave it to fade to black...you still have the flirting, the pick up lines, or the exchange of money and servces, etc.
I will agree with you PC can be a silly dangerous thing...but this is no way a case of PC. No one forced Pazio to do this. They did it of their own free will...which is their right. PC is something ,in my opinion, something completely different.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better question is: why does Broken Arrow really object to this sort of characterization?
I've actually had people complain about Paizo's paladin for "pandering" to the African American crowd. In 2012, this argument still happens. Amazing.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A better question is: why does Broken Arrow really object to this sort of characterization?
I have to completely disagree here. This is not a batter question. It is baiting. It is so you can cornor him or her...and declare Broken Arrow as bigot or whatever label you want to throw him into a group.
Which fails on so many levels...
1) Treating people as 'groups' instead of inviduals is why we have racists and bigots today. Commiting the same sin to somebody who disagrees with you does not make you a better person.
2) You throwing them into the group x does not actualy allow for discussion or widening of peoples perceptions. It the same thing that keeps people in the narrow ways of thinking...that leads to racism etc.
This is why PC can be a bad thing...it eleminates communication and discussion. This is why treating anybody in a group rather it is American rednecks, gays, or hispanics is a bad thing. Treat everyone as a invidual first.
I've actually had people complain about Paizo's paladin for "pandering" to the African American crowd. In 2012, this argument still happens. Amazing.
On the other hand, it's also telling how often it doesn't happen in comparison to how much it might have several years ago.
The loudest objectors of any kind are rarely representative of majority opinion.
|
|
I've actually had people complain about Paizo's paladin for "pandering" to the African American crowd. In 2012, this argument still happens. Amazing.
I would've been far more accepting of Seelah as well if well there was an Aryan paladin, not to denote racial superiority but just to display that sort of idealized English Knighthood of Sir Lancelot and the like that I've grown to love.
Then I found the Cavalier Iconic Alain, and was more than happy to see that hole was filled with a cliche I love.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually had people complain about Paizo's paladin for "pandering" to the African American crowd. In 2012, this argument still happens. Amazing.On the other hand, it's also telling how often it doesn't happen in comparison to how much it might have several years ago.
The loudest objectors of any kind are rarely representative of majority opinion.
That is a good point. I am glad people these days are more accepting of other settings and people in those settings.
I've actually had people complain about Paizo's paladin for "pandering" to the African American crowd. In 2012, this argument still happens. Amazing.I would've been far more accepting of Seelah as well if well there was an Aryan paladin, not to denote racial superiority but just to display that sort of idealized English Knighthood of Sir Lancelot and the like that I've grown to love.
Then I found the Cavalier Iconic Alain, and was more than happy to see that hole was filled with a cliche I love.
That word actually doesn't mean what you think it means. What you're thinking of is a more Germanic look. Which honestly, I'm personally glad they didn't go with that stereotype for the Paladin. But it is cool to see them do it with Alain. Just like there's nothing wrong with me wanting a Native American iconic, there's nothing wrong with you wanting a white iconic. We all like heroes we can identify with :)
|
I believe James "threw this out there" because Paizo wants people to know that the iconics are not all heterosexual white cisgendered males.
The skin colour and the apparent sex are rather obvious on pictures. The rest is not, so it must be stated.
I imagine a line-up of iconics in complete darkness. If someone said : BTW the Paladin is a black woman, should it be considered PC BS too ?
I have to completely disagree here. This is not a batter question. It is baiting. It is so you can cornor him or her...and declare Broken Arrow as bigot or whatever label you want to throw him into a group.
Which fails on so many levels...
1) Treating people as 'groups' instead of inviduals is why we have racists and bigots today. Commiting the same sin to somebody who disagrees with you does not make you a better person.
Since when is calling someone a bigot for their bigoted actions or words the same as using racist/homophobic/whatever stereotypes? There's no such thing as the sin of accurately labeling someone.
I'm not throwing him into a group and then judging him based on perceptions of that group. I'm trying to expose his rationale, and use that underlying rationale to ridicule his position.
He is demanding justification for things that require no justification, so instead of providing him with the justification he claims to want (which, mind you, plenty of people have given him already), I'm more interested in finding out why he is demanding justification for something that doesn't require justification. I think that's far more interesting, because it gets to the heart of why he cared enough to question it in the first place.
So calm down.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of many reasons is that gay and transgendered players exist. It sucks to always be treated like an outsider. Just ask non-white players of early editions. Inclusiveness (and treating people like people) is not political correctness.Well, it is, but the thing is that there's been a long and successful bit of social engineering designed to move the idea of political correctness from "being a decent human" to well, "PC BS."
Word.
The assumption that being filled with hate or fear is somehow normal, and that attempts to encourage more empathy and compassion for our fellow humans is part of some sinister wussy liberal fascist 'PC' agenda is indeed pernicious.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the iconics' sexuality entirely necessary for them to be played or run as NPCs? No, probably not.
Does having that information make for a more fully developed character for the PCs to encounter? Yes it does.
Bottom line is, the more information that one has for a character, the more fleshed out they become and the more "realistic" the encounters with them. It helps determine how interactions with the PCs will play out, what the scene will look like based off of the in game society the game finds itself in, etc.
The argument could be made that each GM should be able to determine these aspects for themselves. And they can. However, the characters in questions are Paizo's and as such having them flesh out the iconics in any way they deem appropriate is no reason for anyone to pitch a fit, b++~~ and moan, complain about how it "does not conform the statistics", exclaim PC to be running rampant, etc.
Personally, I love the fact that the iconics are inclusive to representing all aspects of Paizo's audience. And I love the fact that more and more information for the iconics is being developed (kudos on the comics on this front).
If, however, you don't like the way they have described the iconics, guess what: You can change it for your home game. Because this is a game after all and the rules can always be adjusted as those who play it see fit.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way: in the very first Pathfinder adventure, Paizo wrote a LGBT paladin.
Not only was that against the "no icky sexual orientation stuff" unwritten policy of most D&D material, it also was a potential grenade into a gas tank full of "Paladins = Christianity therefore Paladins can't be homosexual as it's against their code" people.
Ever since, they printed dozens of LGBT iconics/NPCs/heroes/villains.
And if really the majority of gamers were against having this stuff in gaming material, Paizo wouldn't be the industry leader. It's capitalism. People vote with their money. If something is on the top, then it means that majority of the market embraces or doesn't give a flip.
|
Why stop here
Where is the BDSM iconic?
The furry iconic?
An obese one (most gamers can identify with that one right?)
One missing limbs? (i mean they fight constantly and that happens)
There are so many groups beyond gay that get ignored but then again is that because of marketing or because of who paizo staff are? Is it really a matter of "these people are really out there so we have them in our games" or "This is who WE are"?
I am happy to see a gay character, a black one etc. but WHY are so many of them so set on sexual orientation/gender issues and not continuing to make more diverse ones that go beyond the lgbtyopweyugerf golfbag of gay/gender and real world racial politics?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Why is it wrong to want to have non-heteronormative iconics?
2) Why does wanting something to represent me devolve into a slippery slope telling me that we should open the floodgates to allow amputee/furry/other non sequitur examples to distract the conversation?
3) Why should I be told that I shouldn't get a heroic character representing me in a fantasy world simply because someone's statistics tell that I'm not an important portion of the real world population?
4) Why is it "PC BS" for me to have strong, heroic characters who are like me, and represent me, in a fantasy world that I enjoy?
5) Why is it "PC BS" for me to want others like me to experience role models who aren't negative stereotypes?
6) Why should I be denied something because you don't think I'm important enough to deserve it?
|
|
1) Why is it wrong to want to have non-heteronormative iconics?
2) Why does wanting something to represent me devolve into a slippery slope telling me that we should open the floodgates to allow amputee/furry/other non sequitur examples to distract the conversation?
3) Why should I be told that I shouldn't get a heroic character representing me in a fantasy world simply because someone's statistics tell that I'm not an important portion of the real world population?
4) Why is it "PC BS" for me to have strong, heroic characters who are like me, and represent me, in a fantasy world that I enjoy?
5) Why is it "PC BS" for me to want others like me to experience role models who aren't negative stereotypes?
6) Why should I be denied something because you don't think I'm important enough to deserve it?
So the other groups do not need an iconic but there must be 2 gay and a bisexual iconic and god only knows how many gender issued to make you feel included? Is the obese kid to be told he doesn't need a hero like him? the physically deformed or mentally challenged? why must the only groups that need "one of us" to be legitimized be sexuality/gender or race?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way: in the very first Pathfinder adventure, Paizo wrote a LGBT paladin.
Not only was that against the "no icky sexual orientation stuff" unwritten policy of most D&D material, it also was a potential grenade into a gas tank full of "Paladins = Christianity therefore Paladins can't be homosexual as it's against their code" people.
This reminds me. Speaking of folks that are happy to see characters they relate to, I know of at least some religious homosexuals that were downright thrilled that Kyra is gay. :)
Also, we already have BDSM iconics. Seelah and Seltyiel.
(Laori Vaus don't count. She doesn't know how to SSC)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe because being obese or dressing in furry suits isn't a crime or target for hatred or discrimination round the world while race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and religiob most certainly are?
Or maybe its because no one can or wants to honestly admit why they don't like it, and would rather deflect the conversation to absurd examples that in no way further the conversation in a constructive manner.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, I actually would like to see some heroes with unconventional looks out there. I think the world is plenty ready for a Jack Black-built rogueish type.
But their current absence in no way means that the presence and appreciation of LGBT characters is wrong.
If you want iconics of a certain type, push for them. But one can do that without pushing for other types to be kept out. That's what gets me about the "but what about X" argument. Push for X. But you don't have to poopoo on Y's parade to do it.
|
|
Hell, I actually would like to see some heroes with unconventional looks out there. I think the world is plenty ready for a Jack Black-built rogueish type.
But their current absence in no way means that the presence and appreciation of LGBT characters is wrong.
If you want iconics of a certain type, push for them. But one can do that without pushing for other types to be kept out. That's what gets me about the "but what about X" argument. Push for X. But you don't have to poopoo on Y's parade to do it.
Why "Y" has a parade long enough that no one else can have one it can become an issue. It is cool to have a gay character to show inclusion and diversity. but one gay man, a gay female, a bi of each and a trans of each starts to cut a bit deep into the pool of iconics. and before you can say "well they can be more than just that" look back to the people panicking about the black woman cannot be trans for instance.
So the other groups do not need an iconic but there must be 2 gay and a bisexual iconic and god only knows how many gender issued to make you feel included? Is the obese kid to be told he doesn't need a hero like him? the physically deformed or mentally challenged? why must the only groups that need "one of us" to be legitimized be sexuality/gender or race?
Because paizo are responsive to their fans and give them what they ask for.
Were there frequent requests for an obese iconic, I'm willing to bet they'd include one. They have received predominantly positive feedback from their gender-inclusive approach. The fact there isnt such a groundswell of excluded, overweight RPG fans demanding representation indicates that the analogy isn't appropriate.