Yes it did! Honestly, I think it's gone pretty well over all. This type of thread can get so much uglier so easily.
Truth.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now I feel like I stepped out of the proverbial room just in time to avoid a grenade blast.
*dusts self off*
Did I get any shrapnel on me?
Ahem, right. Back on topic.
In response to the lack of Hispanics and Pacific Islanders post, I'd wait until Arcadia and Sarusan are fleshed out more to see them. Although the Hispanics would probably be more akin to the native Taino, Caribs, and Central American ethnicities rather than current-day Spanish influenced Hispanics. Though I could see them combining a bit of both. That's what I've done in my home setting.
|
And there are some overweight NPCs, for those that mentioned that. In Pathfinder Society, the Taldor faction leader Lady Gloriana is described as "full figured" when first introduced in First Steps, part 3, though the only picture I've ever seen of her is just a head shot, so it's tough to tell.
Another demographic that's a little surprising to see represented in the iconics is middle aged people. They're a larger portion of the player base these days, and Ezren represents them directly.
So I'd say Paizo does a pretty good job of diversity. I have no complaints.
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.
Sorry - AFK for some time.
Yes it is a baiting question - but one I'm happy to address.
1. Please quote my "bigoted" words.
2. You're here to ridicule my position as opposed to enter into a discussion. This says to me you aren't actually prepared to listen so much as simply looking to twist my words to what you want to the inevitable cry of "redneck!"
3. No, Paizo don't have to justify their position. But this is a discussion board. Paizo, as a diligent and forward thinking company, is open to discussion regarding their products.
4. My ulterior motive of calling it PC BS? Because I hate PC BS. Adding one of each type (which is where the thread was going)...
It's cool. Back then I had a terrible temper and a chip on my shoulder so I ended up smashing his minis and punching him in the face. Which, in retrospect, didn't help my case... but I felt a lot better after that ;)
Sad thing is that Andrew is really starting to sound a lot like that guy from the Gaming Store. He always made false equivalence and hyperbole about letting race into D&D would "open the floodgates" for homosexuals and other "liberal bullshit" to come in. Don't get me wrong, as a fat guy, I'd be okay with a fat iconic. But I understand that in terms of identity, I and most people use gender, races, and sexuality more as an identifier, not their weight. Plus, I've never been discriminated against for being fat. And honestly, I can always just not be fat (working on that). I can't stopping being Puerto Rican or stop being heterosexual.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is something I don't get...I'll remind you I am all for characters of variety of sexual orientation and other areas of diversity....
Why does it matter that your role models...or people who you look up to have to be exactly like you? Personaly I look up to people in history or literature because of who they are and what they did...not who they love or the color of their skin, etc. I am not saying you are wrong...just trying to understand it.
Also...the only thing I don't like about having the Iconics sexuality defined at all is because there GMs who use them as pre gens for new players...and I rather have that new player definer that character. Though I don't mind them exploring these characters more in the comics book and giving them depth.
Still waiting on Andrew's "Who is the lefthanded, BDSM furry, lobster boy iconic with a speech impediment?" thread.
The Funny part how much that looks like me...
left handed:...check though actualy I suffer from mixed dominance(IE my hand eye coorindation is off).
BDSM:...while I have never been in any type relationship...I defintly have a interest in it...
furry: I admitt I think cat (and other animal-girls) girls are hot...I don't know about dressing up though...
Lobster Boy...don't know what this...probably not though.
Speech impediment: Yup got that thanks to brain damage I was born with(that also gaved me mixed dominance).
The only thing of the above I would like to see in a iconics is somebody that is mentally challenged that is not a super stupid guy with super strength...or the socialy inept guy with super intelligence..etc.
But I doubt that will happen..it is still ok to treat people like me like crap or worse pity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is something I don't get...I'll remind you I am all for characters of variety of sexual orientation and other areas of diversity....
Why does it matter that your role models...or people who you look up to have to be exactly like you? Personaly I look up to people in history or literature because of who they are and what they did...not who they love or the color of their skin, etc. I am not saying you are wrong...just trying to understand it.
Also...the only thing I don't like about having the Iconics sexuality defined at all is because there GMs who use them as pre gens for new players...and I rather have that new player definer that character. Though I don't mind them exploring these characters more in the comics book and giving them depth.
Because when you're young and you're pushed around all the time for being a different race or sexuality, or you're being the butt of sexist jokes, it's good to see someone like you in fiction to relate to and look up to. And when people around you tell you that you're worthless because you're not white, or not straight, or a woman, it can really make a difference to see a positive role model that proves society wrong and shows that being a hero transcends race, gender, and sexuality.
It's certainly better than what scraps we have in video games these days. I guess I can look forward to being the foreign sidekick, or the foreign minions of an evil guy.
There is something I don't get...I'll remind you I am all for characters of variety of sexual orientation and other areas of diversity....
Why does it matter that your role models...or people who you look up to have to be exactly like you? Personaly I look up to people in history or literature because of who they are and what they did...not who they love or the color of their skin, etc. I am not saying you are wrong...just trying to understand it.
Also...the only thing I don't like about having the Iconics sexuality defined at all is because there GMs who use them as pre gens for new players...and I rather have that new player definer that character. Though I don't mind them exploring these characters more in the comics book and giving them depth.
It's not so much that all your role models have to be exactly like you, it's when there aren't any that it becomes hard.
To take it to the extreme, if all the postive role-models available, everyone who's held up as a success, as someone to emulate, are straight white men, it's much harder for the gay black female to see herself having a chance at reaching that goal. While that's an extreme example, it isn't that long ago it was fairly accurate, at least for women who didn't want a traditional female role.
So it's not so much, all my heros have to be gay, for example, but it's nice if there's an example showing that gays can be heros.
When you're a straight white male, as I am, you're so surrounded by examples of people like you that it's easy to take to role models who don't match you, because you're overwhelmed with those that do.
Now imagine growing up gay and never reading a book, never seeing a movie or TV show with a gay hero.
Adding to that, imagine if you were gay and all you saw in fiction were terrible stereotypes or effeminate bad guys. Or being a woman and all you saw in fiction were either damsels in distress or radically proportioned and wearing a napkin. Or being colored and all you saw were the plucky, sometimes inept sidekick, or worse, the evil foreign bad guy and his minions. Or being non-existent in almost all anime.
Don't let my doom and gloom get to you though. Things are getting better, especially in the RPG scene for women and the Comic industry for colored people. And that makes me happy. Because while I love Batman and Solid Snake, I'm also happy I got acquainted with El Mariachi from the Mexican series at a young age.
Also, I'd like more options for cosplaying besides Johnny 2x4 :p
Because when you're young and you're pushed around all the time for being a different race or sexuality, or you're being the butt of sexist jokes, it's good to see someone like you in fiction to relate to and look up to. And when people around you tell you that you're worthless because you're not white, or not straight, or a woman, it can really make a difference to see a positive role model that proves society wrong and shows that being a hero transcends race, gender, and sexuality.
It's certainly better than what scraps we have in video games these days. I guess I can look forward to being the foreign sidekick, or the foreign minions of an evil guy.
I get that...I have brain damage that gaved me a speech impediment. So I know how it is to be pushed around and picked on...and throw in a good measure of pity also. Heck I am in my late thirties and I still deal with that crap.
So I can defintly empathize with what you went through...and if having posite role-models that are like you helps...I will say it is defintly a good thing.
Thank you for answearing my question...
Also thanks to thejeff for also answearing the question.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry - AFK for some time.
Yes it is a baiting question - but one I'm happy to address.
1. Please quote my "bigoted" words.
You haven't used any; my mention of bigotry was only in reference to John Kretzer's prediction that I was planning on calling you one.
Which isn't to say that you're clean, here. I suspect that your reason for objecting to the inclusion or highlighting of homosexuality in Pathfinder is grounded in bigotry (especially since, if it weren't, you would be the first person to be objecting for reasons unrelated to personal bigotry).
2. You're here to ridicule my position as opposed to enter into a discussion.
The discussion has been had. Now, you could clarify your position and explain exactly how your reasons for not wanting to include homosexual relationships in Pathfinder is not bigoted. That would be cool.
But, frankly, I think any such explanation would ring hollow. There are a lot of things you have said that don't make much sense.
This says to me you aren't actually prepared to listen so much as simply looking to twist my words to what you want to the inevitable cry of "redneck!"
I'm not sure where the "redneck" bit comes from, but go ahead, explain your reasoning.
3. No, Paizo don't have to justify their position. But this is a discussion board. Paizo, as a diligent and forward thinking company, is open to discussion regarding their products.
If they don't have to justify their position, why was your first post in this thread a demand for justification for including homosexual iconics?
4. My ulterior motive of calling it PC BS? Because I hate PC BS.
You're in luck, then! This isn't PC BS!
Adding one of each type (which is where the thread was going) smacks of PC as opposed to genuine interest in the inclusivity of their products.
Okay, so, just out of curiosity, how would you tell the difference between "PC BS" and a genuine attempt at inclusiveness?
Furthermore, it's pretty clear from Paizo's (surprisingly impassioned) response to bigoted criticism of their decision that they are not doing this for reasons of political correctness, and rather are genuinely supportive of equality, tolerance, and inclusiveness.
The logical conclusion of my question can be seen in the previous 50 or so posts. Why include LGBT? Why not include the others? Why include it at all?
Because adding interesting details is what fictional world creators do, and a character's sexuality is an important aspect of their person, and because it lets members of the Pathfinder LGBT community know their sexual orientation exists in the game world and is largely accepted. I don't want to speak for Paizo, but I wager that one of the primary purposes of the iconics is to provide characters that players think are interesting and identifiable.
People are free to add their own flavour. If anything, it's more restrictive.
See, this right here is how I know these aren't your real reasons for opposing the inclusion of homosexual iconics. This, right here. Because you could have just used that line in reference to anything.
"Why mention the iconics' skin color? Just illustrate them with line drawings. That lets people add their own flavor. Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
"Paizo shouldn't give the iconics genders. Don't bother illustrating them, just describe them in written form with gender-neutral pronouns and let us add the rest of the flavor. Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
"You shouldn't describe the iconics' voices, Paizo. What if we want one of the male iconics to have an uncharacteristically high-pitched voice, but you've told us in their write-up that they're a solid baritone? Let us add the flavor! Why be restrictive like that, Paizo?"
I should hope you can see where I'm going with this. You don't complain about the above examples, because it's stupid to complain about them. Paizo writes fiction, and the iconics are designed to be whole, fictional people. There are other aspects of the campaign setting and other NPCs for whom you can flex your creative muscles to "fill in the blanks", but not the iconics (though, of course, it's your game; if you wanted to make your Valeros an Asian-esque woman, Paizo isn't going to arrest you).
So, of course, that begs the question: Why are you specifically complaining about this in reference to sexual orientation? I mean, using your "logic" you should object just as forcefully to Paizo telling you what skin color the iconics have, what their gender is, or how their voice sounds, because by providing you with that information they are restricting you. And yet here you are, complaining about sexual orientation (and only sexual orientation).
So come on. Be honest. That's not why you care about the fact that the iconics have their sexual orientation buried somewhere in the mounds of fiction written and illustrated about them. Your real reason is something else entirely. So why don't you tell us what it really is? You say you want a discussion, but it's tough to take what you say at face-value when you pull out these sorts of inconsistencies.
If I want to play a lesbian-paladin, why is paizo telling me she's actually waiting for gender re-assignment?
Paizo isn't telling you anything of the sort, unless you decide you want to play one of the iconics. Which is basically identical to choosing to play a Star Wars RPG as Han Solo and complaining because the writers told you he's human, and not an Ewok.
5. Plenty of people gave me justification AFTER I asked the question. That's the whole point. I even favourited a few. They made me realise some of the players appreciated Paizo's efforts and felt more included as a result. Amazing what an open discussion yields.
So why would you automatically leap to "PC BS" by default? Why is political correctness with reference to non-heterosexuality even an issue for you, considering how marginalized the LGBT community is in most of the country (and the world)? Even if it were for the sake of political correctness (which it obviously isn't), why would you care? What damage could it possibly be doing to you, or to your Pathfinder game? And if you're objecting on behalf of the LGBT community, is that something you have the right to do, considering that LGBT forum members have (at least to my knowledge) universally supported and lauded the inclusion of homosexual iconics?
RE: The "PC Bull" meme that's been voiced a few times in this thread, I understand that reservation. Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's always frustrating when something is shoehorned into a work simply because the creator wants it to be there. Add to this that everyone brings their preconceived notions of what Fantasy should be with how they absorb setting material.
This, however, is Paizo, and Golarion is one of the better put together campaign settings on the market right now. Its designers are old hat at this. They know what they're doing, and as yet I have seen very little in their work that shows a lack of thought about how these things should fit within the world. Even if they are doing these things simply for the sake of inclusiveness (and arguing that they shouldn't really isn't going to get you anywhere), there's no evidence to suggest that they're not perfectly capable of making what they put in the setting FIT in the setting.
Beyond this, to step into personal territory, it really bugs me when the only response to someone structuring their playground differently from previous playgrounds is "No you can't do that because it makes me uncomfortable that this is here."
Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's always frustrating when something is shoehorned into a work simply because the creator wants it to be there.
As opposed to the creator including something he doesn't want to be there?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's always frustrating when something is shoehorned into a work simply because the creator wants it to be there.As opposed to the creator including something he doesn't want to be there?
Badly phrased on my part. It would have been better to say "when something is in a work without any rational justification for it to be present other than the author's preferences, without their bothering to make it fit with the rest of the world.
But that's also a lot more words.
Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's always frustrating when something is shoehorned into a work simply because the creator wants it to be there.As opposed to the creator including something he doesn't want to be there?Badly phrased on my part. It would have been better to say "when something is in a work without any rational justification for it to be present other than the author's preferences, without their bothering to make it fit with the rest of the world.
But that's also a lot more words.
True enough.
The only value in threads like this one is to populate ignore lists.
I dont know. I got a fair bit of insight out of both the homosexuality in Golarion thread and the one about making the game more female-friendly. I didnt really change my opinion in some grand sense, but they did give me pointers on moderating my own behaviour (not always referring to RPGamers as 'he' for example).
Agreed. These are important. Somebody learns something every time. It's also always an interesting read while the discussion is civil, which seems to be most of the time here (thank you paizo staff!)
John, I agree that characters with brain trouble are under-explored and over-stereotyped. They basically go straight from autistic genius to lisping sycophant minions to brutes with hearts of gold who dunt know ow ter talk good with nothing in-between.
That's my fault, I got caught up in the moment and took the bait, and I know better.
Agreed. These are important. Somebody learns something every time. It's also always an interesting read while the discussion is civil, which seems to be most of the time here (thank you paizo staff!)
John, I agree that characters with brain trouble are under-explored and over-stereotyped. They basically go straight from autistic genius to lisping sycophant minions to brutes with hearts of gold who dunt know ow ter talk good with nothing in-between.
Its true; when I heed the "do not engage" sign I have on my desk, I do learn a lot from opposing viewpoints; sometimes, I even change my positions on some topics.
The unfortunate side of these threads is that there can be a lot of anger, a lot of hurt feelings, and then the mods have to clean up after us to keep the peace around here.
| 12 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.
I'd be shocked if the percentages of LGBT persons within tabletop gaming circles wasn't a multiple of the figure within society at large. Gaming tends to attract people outside of the cultural mainstream as it is, and well, LGBT folks are going to typically fall outside of the mainstream crowd as much or more so than nerds and goth kids, etc.
It's not PC BS as some have suggested, it's being kind to a likely not small chunk of your audience and providing them examples of characters like themselves that mainstream entertainment generally treats as either invisible or as token cliches. It's a really cool thing to do on Paizo's part.
Pretty much was Todd said.
Unrelated, but I always feel bad that whenever I've talked to you on the messageboards, since they've been in regards to things I didn't like in The Great Beyond hehe :D Which, I really liked the book, so right on!
Arrow, dude, there's an immense difference between an indication of a character's identity or preferences and a "sexual reference". How could you avoid all mention of romance, attraction and marriage across an entire campaign setting? Why on earth would you want to?
Confirmations that characters aren't exclusively gay and implications that they are straight come up continuously in pretty much all fictional worlds. The only realistic options are to represent queer people or pretend they don't exist.
Eh... there are rather... "adult"... elements within the Pathfinder modules and adventure paths. Although not explicit in sexual action, there are pretty explicit elements in the background of Paizo's material.
I can understand people objecting to that sort of thing.
That said, I think that they've handled it well and subtly enough that many don't notice, or it's easily excised from the game (or younger audiences won't get it).
In the comics... I don't know, as I've not read them.
In any event, over-all, I approve of Paizo's directions. I don't always agree with them (as in, I'd make different ones myself), but I approve of them (as in, I don't judge them specifically wrongful for doing so).
I'd be cool with adult content, though I certainly wouldn't want to do anything sexy with my group. Obviously there are good reasons not to produce it though, or at least not to put it in ordinary pathfinder books.
As far as adult content in RPGs goes I think Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World has it about right. It has rules for the social implications of sex, because how people relate to each other has a mechanical effect on how they work together and each class has a social role and personality type associated with it. Sex might never come up in your whole campaign, but if it does it'll cause something interesting to happen.
Unfortunately its reputation is pretty much defined by that one line on each character sheet that relates to sex, which puts damn near everyone off.
Come to think of it, it also has "ambiguous" and "transgressing" tick boxes right next to "male and "female", and the rules assume all NPCs are bi, so it's actually kinda semi relevant here? Whatever. Buy three copies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well the problem is that after Hook Mountain Massacre was released there was a massive outcry (including, IIRC, the aforementioned phone calls) and ever since Paizo got tamer with their publications. Sure there are some elements here and there, but nothing ever again got close to the walls to balls gross-out gore level of Grauls.
I'm not arguing that gore for gore's sake is something that should appear in every AP, but the occasional shock and awe to remind the players why monsters are monsters and why evil is Evil, that's something I'd love to see more.
Don't like anything published in a Paizo product? Rewrite it at your table, or spend your money elsewhere. Maybe try letting Paizo know by telling someone who works there instead of identifying yourself to the community as someone incapable of taking a marker to your own books. (And Paizo'll probably politely accept and discard your reasoning anyway as long as they're making enough money and/or believe they're doing the right thing in the end.)
The only value in threads like this one is to populate ignore lists.
So you're basically saying...
Don't like rogues? - rewrite it.
Think pally's are OP? - change it.
Believe color spray should be level 2? - house rule it.Certainly there'd be fewer discussions. Oh wait, you've participated in many of these type of discussions.
Changing, say the sexual orientation or gender of a character, versus house-ruling classes, spells, etc is not comparable. If you don't like a character because of his orientation, the only thing you need to do is ignore him (if its a minor character), don't bring up the orientation with your group, or just change the gender to something you are comfortable. I would guess most GMs make far far more radical revisions to APs and modules than what I listed above, so why should this be such a huge problem.
and all the while Paracountess Zarta Dralneen is achingly yours
Don't like anything published in a Paizo product? Rewrite it at your table, or spend your money elsewhere. Maybe try letting Paizo know by telling someone who works there instead of identifying yourself to the community as someone incapable of taking a marker to your own books. (And Paizo'll probably politely accept and discard your reasoning anyway as long as they're making enough money and/or believe they're doing the right thing in the end.)
The only value in threads like this one is to populate ignore lists.
So you're basically saying...
Don't like rogues? - rewrite it.
Think pally's are OP? - change it.
Believe color spray should be level 2? - house rule it.Certainly there'd be fewer discussions. Oh wait, you've participated in many of these type of discussions.
Fluff is ALWAYS easier to rework than mechanics.
That line of argument that "if you don't like the backstory of an LGBT character, just rewrite it" is equivalent to "If you don't like how rogues are balanced, house rule them" falls apart when you take into account that the latter requires a crapload more work, and is, thus, a more valid line of objection.
The former? Not so much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think almost everyone, including those most in favor of more LGTBs would object to anything explicit in official material.>_>
<_<
I can literally hear the perviness of your brain activating.
Congrats, you've raised emoting text to a whole new level of communication.