I'm going to make a guess here, again, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and assume you're part of the majority. So, it's really easy to say, "we know this thing exists, there's no need to confirm it", when you've never needed self confirmation. You're the majority. You see yourself everywhere, really easily. The minority doesn't have that.Maybe they play their first game in high school. Surrounded by your average human being at that age, gay is probably a pretty commonly used word for bad. They feel attraction to others of their same gender, they feel they're "bad" too, because they've combined the two connotations of the word. They play a straight, white hero, cause that's what heroes are, right? And then they meet the heroic, gay, NPC. Mind blown, for the better, right there.
You can say that the heroic, gay NPC exists out there already, somewhere, and doesn't need to be stated. But for that young person, suppressing themselves for fear of how others will see them if they come out of the closet, that shining example, brought to the light of day, will mean the world to them, like you and I will never truly know. Because, once again, majority.
We're all in some form part of a minority. I know I was when growing up and going through school. Something you do isn't always socially awesome by the majority. I sought refuge in the internet and became a better person, far more confident in myself than I ever was.
We live in a different age now. If you want acceptance or peers you can find them, rather easily. I knew several gay people in high school and one of my best friends whom I play RPGs with is gay. Things aren't so bad anymore.
I ran the RPG club in high school. My previously mentioned friend came to sessions, we had a group of about 8 people. Never did sexuality come up. Tabletop Roleplaying is already such a niche group, I doubt you won't find acceptance at a table so long as you're not a jerk. Playing a healer is a good way to get in good graces from past experience heh.
So I'm going to chat with my friend for awhile and see what he thinks about all this.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
I'm not talking about a sexual predator. I am not even talking about sex at all.
I am talking about someone who would spend more time at the table talking about LGBT issues, and talking about the alleged lack of LGBT representation in Pathfinder, instead of playing the damn game.
I don't have a problem with the political issues. I don't have a problem with people. I have a problem when we spend more time on the issue than we do playing the game.
Digital Products Assistant
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is what Crystal wrote over in the MM2 AP product post:
"First of all, Ptemenib was originally going to be a trans man, and when I approached Rob about the idea I found out that Amber Scott had just turned over an adventure, The Worldwound Incursion, with a prominent trans woman.
All three of the appendix NPCs are bisexul, and an earlier draft of the tomb level had an encounter with the ghosts of two of Nebta-Khufre's lovers--a man and a woman--who died on the trek to Wati."
Now we already have two homosexual characters in the first book and if things had gone Crystal's way we would have had these characters as well. I'm as far out as you can get from any kind of "phobe" but this is too much. Moderation, as they, is the key.
Before I get accused of hating I want to point out that, for the record, I ran WW with the characters exactly as written and it was no big deal.
Few things in this world discourage a writer from talking to her fans quite like a bigot latching on to one or two comments to prove some ill-thought-out persecution complex.
Those who fear that content may cross that line would do far better to adjust their own consumer habits than to take issue with Paizo's inclusion of LBGT customers.What age are we talking about?The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
Could be any age, the age doesn't matter.
Legally, any sexuality inclusive material could be considered inappropriate for anyone 17 and under in some states. Not that I wanna go there with this discussion.
The point is that the parents should be the ones who decide what age is appropriate to introduce this stuff, not Paizo.
I am fine with representation. 100%. But we have to respect those who fear the content crossing the line of representation and imposition.
This exact mentality is the problem.
The inclusion of LGBT characters is not the problem. It is the idea that LGBT players have more right to play the game than others.
I'm not saying anyone has more or less right to play the game. I'm saying that if anyone is so bothered by Paizo's inclusion of LBGT characters (and therefore players) that they can't happily play in PFS, they probably shouldn't play in PFS.
I can't speak to your experiences, but I'd be extremely surprised if anyone was forced out of PFS unless their behavior was absolutely horrible.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
A lot of times combat is just doing an abstract number crunching instead of spilling blood and crushing skulls.
Assistant Software Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not talking about a sexual predator. I am not even talking about sex at all.
I am talking about someone who would spend more time at the table talking about LGBT issues, and talking about the
alleged lackof LGBT representation in Pathfinder, instead of playing the damn game.I don't have a problem with the political issues. I don't have a problem with people. I have a problem when we spend more time on the issue than we do playing the game.
That's fair but that's actually disruptive. No one is inviting disruption. If I show up at the table with my wife though I'd expect to be able to play without someone being horrible to me because I happened to come to the table holding my wife's hand or because kissed her on the cheek when she did something nice for me like getting me a diet coke from the machine or whatever.
A lot of times combat is just doing an abstract number crunching instead of spilling blood and crushing skulls.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
Yep. Numbers, derived from dice rolls. Dice that hate all humans equally, in my experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously you peopleThe irony here is glorious.
I am for representation. What exactly are you crusading for here? That we not try and be an appropriate environment for all ages in a public game?
'This is how the world works, get over it' is just as bad as a sentiment as 'this is how I want the world to work, get over it.'
It should be noted that I am not in any way against LGBT representation in games. I am against bigots who happen to be LGBT imposing their superiority on people because they believe their righteous cause gives them the right to be a jerk.
I don't care about the content of the game, whether it includes or doesn't anything about LGBT. I think it should be a nonissue whether or not they are included.
I do have a problem with you forcing people out of the game because they do care about it, one way or the other. No one should be told they cannot play the game because of an opinion they have that has nothing to do with the game.
Who has said that?
I think I said early on "If you're going to freak out about LGBTQ NPCs in the game, you're probably not welcome at my table, because there are LGBTQ people at my table."
Does that count?How are LGBTQ people (or LGBTQ-friendly people) being bigots or jerks when the people they're supposedly bullying are saying things like "I don't want my kids exposed to people like you, even in fiction"? How are you supposed to respond to that?
Just go hide in the corner and pretend you don't exist?
I have a lot of responses to write so I am going to just reiterate my thesis here.
If you are forcing someone out because you feel he is discriminating against you, then you are guilty.
If you are telling someone that their existence is wrong and that you don't want them playing in or represented in your game, then you are guilty.
I have been preaching tolerance the entire damn time I've been in this thread.
I understand that LGBT is a very important issue, and that some people are extra sensitive to it, but that does not give those the right to pretend that their concerns are more important than a parent's, someone's who doesn't even wanna discuss politics when (s)he's trying to smash some orcs.
I said already I am not on team Wolfgang, but a lot of people I feel aren't even reading my posts, or are imposing a connotation on what I am saying to try and force me out and label me a bigot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I'm pretty impressed by how civil the LGBT side has been here. I honestly think they have been kinder than the opposition deserves.
Seriously though, if including gay people bothers you more than slicing a dude in half with a sword, I can merely say you should reexamine your priorities. I applaud Paizo for being inclusive, and for having the resolve to be unapologetic for doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone disagrees with homosexuality, they are automatically targeted, made fun of, called names and bullied out.
Nope. Only if they spew their bigoted crap out loudly. And let's be clear: Among young teenagers, you are not bullied out for being a homophobe.
Honestly, if you feel you don't want to game because you can't spew homophobic b!~~$!%+ without being called out on it, that's good game design right there.
The fact that homophobic crap can be uttered ANYWHERE without the person talking getting called out on it is the issue.
If you think the right to be a bigoted asshat should supersede the right of LGBTQ people to exist - in fiction or reality - then I really don't know what to say to you.
When the oppressive group cries because they can't act oppressive without people responding to it - when they're not satisfied with being in a position of power and being able to spew their bullcrap but also want those hurt by it to sit silent and just take it - then you know it's a depressing world.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
"imposing his sexuality on a kid" in this usage doesn't seem to mean attacking them, but more "revealing that gay people actually exist and might not even be ravening monsters."
This can be done by having LGBTQ couples in the game or worse actually showing up and playing in really life.Parents of kids who are exposed to this kind of thing can be scarred for life. The kids are usually just fine.
In game issues are not the problem, the way paizo handles representation is fine.
I said that.
Four times.
I have a problem with the hypothetical player who is trying to derail the game by talking about his opinion on the issue outside of the game.
I have just as much of a problem with someone preaching homophobia, or with someone who would attempt to kill or attack an NPC in game based on the NPC's sexuality.
Gaberlunzie, I took this thread more to be the discussion of LGBTIQ items within the pathfinder hobby itself and pathfinder gamer culture in the broadest shared sense, encompassing the material and organized play in public venues
But the "sexually inclusive material" isn't porn. It isn't explicit. It's on the level of "Heather has two Mommies".
It's not explicit sex he's objecting too, because that doesn't even come up. It's the mere presence of LGBTQ couples.
Are you supporting the argument that the existence of LGTBQ couples is not kid-friendly and shouldn't exist in anything that kids might get access to without their parents permission?
If parents want to decide their kids can introduce that, they've got to keep them in bubblewrap. Paizo isn't going to be where it comes up. Not past middle school at the latest, which is why I'm asking what age we're talking about.
I'm saying it shouldn't go farther than it is. I am fine with the representation in the game.
I said that.
Three times.
But there are adult themes in PFRPG such as prostitution, rape, and sex, and I think those themes, regardless of the sexuality, are better left in the home game and not in a public game setting where kids might be involved.
'keep it kid friendly' is in no way implicit of 'stop the gayness derp!!!'
Never once have I said otherwise.
But you jumped in on a post in which I was replying to someone explicitly talking about kid-friendly in relation to LGBTQ issues. In my post I explicitly only talked about LGBTQ issues, not explicit sex.
Nor did you make it clear in that post that you'd moved on to something else.
Is it any wonder I thought that's what you were talking about?For the record, I don't disagree with what you are actually saying, nor do I think you disagree with what I was actually saying.
I feel this happens to us a lot where we argue about us arguing, when in fact we are in agreement.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
I'm not talking about a sexual predator. I am not even talking about sex at all.
I am talking about someone who would spend more time at the table talking about LGBT issues, and talking about the
alleged lackof LGBT representation in Pathfinder, instead of playing the damn game.I don't have a problem with the political issues. I don't have a problem with people. I have a problem when we spend more time on the issue than we do playing the game.
Talking about LGBT rights or LGBT people is not imposing sexuality. Stop calling it that, because it's not.
A campaign getting disrupted with OoC stuff has nothing to do with this issue. I mean, really. I mean, you could go into any topic, any topic at all, and say "well if people where discussing this instead of playing the game, that would derail the game!"
Sure, but that has no relevance at all, to any topic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
"imposing his sexuality on a kid" in this usage doesn't seem to mean attacking them, but more "revealing that gay people actually exist and might not even be ravening monsters."
This can be done by having LGBTQ couples in the game or worse actually showing up and playing in really life.Parents of kids who are exposed to this kind of thing can be scarred for life. The kids are usually just fine.
Agreed. I love how somehow including gay characters is being a "crusader." Especially in something Pathfinder which is best played with a lot of people. The more variety there is, the more appeal there is.
If having non-heterosexual people in a game is offensive or "not kid-friendly," then you're probably a homophobe. I am not talking about graphic descriptions of gay sex here. I just mean the idea that a man loves another man the way daddy loves mommy is definitely simple and unoffensive enough idea for a child to accept without negative consequences. If you really don't have a problem with gay people, then what's the problem with having them in the game?
If this is about having any romance or sexuality in a game, that's a different story. What I would say to that is: how could you not have these things? Sexual orientation is oone of the biggest parts of anyone identity even if it's they're lack of a sexual orientation. Gay players are gonna eventually find an NPC they want to have an in-character relationship with. Having relationships is so common that most people on the planet either have one or are pursuing one. Not having orientations or relationships would just feel incomplete.
I want to emphasize that I am not picking on asexuals here. A lack of a desire for sex could be interesting to roleplay. You'd be like kryptonite to Succubi or Incubi.
On the vein of Succubi, there are times when orientation does matter in roleplay. That's why Paizo was smart in wording things loosely to allow for multiple orientations. For example, "Green Widow (Green Hag): The changeling gains a +2 racial bonus on Bluff checks against creatures that are sexually attracted to her." Think about common RP situations in fantasy like arranged marriages, rescue romances, secret lovers, etc. Non-heterosexuality adds more options and therefore opportunities and originality to those classic tropes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
"imposing his sexuality on a kid" in this usage doesn't seem to mean attacking them, but more "revealing that gay people actually exist and might not even be ravening monsters."
This can be done by having LGBTQ couples in the game or worse actually showing up and playing in really life.Parents of kids who are exposed to this kind of thing can be scarred for life. The kids are usually just fine.
In game issues are not the problem, the way paizo handles representation is fine.
I said that.
Four times.
I have a problem with the hypothetical player who is trying to derail the game by talking about his opinion on the issue outside of the game.
I have just as much of a problem with someone preaching homophobia, or with someone who would attempt to kill or attack an NPC in game based on the NPC's sexuality.
So good, we have established you dislike disruptive players. I don't like disruptive players either. I bet no one, regardless of their sexuality, likes disruptive players.
The notion that I take exception to is that queer players and characters are, by their queer nature alone, disruptive.
Few things in this world discourage a writer from talking to her fans quite like a bigot latching on to one or two comments to prove some ill-thought-out persecution complex.This is what Crystal wrote over in the MM2 AP product post:
"First of all, Ptemenib was originally going to be a trans man, and when I approached Rob about the idea I found out that Amber Scott had just turned over an adventure, The Worldwound Incursion, with a prominent trans woman.
All three of the appendix NPCs are bisexul, and an earlier draft of the tomb level had an encounter with the ghosts of two of Nebta-Khufre's lovers--a man and a woman--who died on the trek to Wati."
Now we already have two homosexual characters in the first book and if things had gone Crystal's way we would have had these characters as well. I'm as far out as you can get from any kind of "phobe" but this is too much. Moderation, as they, is the key.
Before I get accused of hating I want to point out that, for the record, I ran WW with the characters exactly as written and it was no big deal.
Whoa. I thought I was pretty clear in stating that I wasn't saying don't add these kinds of characters in future books. I was simply saying that a good balance of all types of characters should be the goal. How you got bigot out of that I have no idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we can look at some of the issues that have just come up in conversation here in this thread and see where this kind of issue comes from.
I don't think anyone is against the inclusion of LGBT in PFRPG.
I do think, that acknowledging them automatically associates with sexuality, because that is what defines them as LGBT. Even bringing that subject up opens the idea of discussion sexuality, be it outwardly spoken, or simply opening your mind to the question of which.
Specifically with children, I can understand not wanting a young child to start thinking about who (s)he wants as a partner, or what (s)he wants in a sexual relationship at such a young age. I can understand not wanting that to be brought up at all because you don't want your children to start questioning and exploring their sexuality be them straight or gay.
Putting kids in an environment where such issues are brought up is something that should be done carefully and with tact. Intoducing characters who represent LGBT for the sake of saying they are represented is not something that leads to good faith on my behalf. Having NPCs who happen to represent them who have value to the game other than their status as LGBT is exactly the kind of representation the game should have. They are not there to impose the ideology or to impose sexuality. They just are there.
When the sexuality or ideology comes up, that is when there is a problem.
I think I said early on "If you're going to freak out about LGBTQ NPCs in the game, you're probably not welcome at my table, because there are LGBTQ people at my table."
Does that count?How are LGBTQ people (or LGBTQ-friendly people) being bigots or jerks when the people they're supposedly bullying are saying things like "I don't want my kids exposed to people like you, even in fiction"? How are you supposed to respond to that?
Just go hide in the corner and pretend you don't exist?I have a lot of responses to write so I am going to just reiterate my thesis here.
If you are forcing someone out because you feel he is discriminating against you, then you are guilty.
If you are telling someone that their existence is wrong and that you don't want them playing in or represented in your game, then you are guilty.
I have been preaching tolerance the...
If someone is discriminating against me or my friends at my table, I'm going to kick them out of my table. They can still play PF, but they'll have to play it somewhere else. I'm not going to quiz them about their political opinions or anything, but if it comes up and they start saying how they think gay people are sub-human or don't have any place in the game or whatever nonsense, then they are the ones disrupting the game and they can leave. Or shut up. They'll have that chance. If they're actually insulting real live gay people at the table, not just the concept or fictional ones in the game, they can walk right then.
I'm inclusive and I'm tolerant, but only too a point.
Again, if he can sit there and pretend not to be a bigot for the length of the game, then it's fine. Hopefully, I'll never even know. But if it comes to a choice between him offending actual LGBTQ people and me offending someone who's prejudiced against them, I know where I stand.
If that's not good enough for you, then I...
See being a bigot and being homophobic are two different things.
I think that is the difference that no one itt is getting.
If someone is uncomfortable with it, they should not be forced to interact with it anymore than they have to.
Like forcing someone to watch a scary movie that doesn't like it, or someone who faints at the sight of blood.
We need to respect each other. That goes both ways.
Why on God's Earth would anyone think about trying to defend the toleration of bigotry?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"quick announcement, one person who decided to attend tonight's midnight showing of 'psycho' at the hollywood cemetery has expressed that they do not like scary movies
consequently, we have changed all of the scary parts to not be scary
thank you for your understanding on this matter"
*blink*
"quick announcement, one person who decided to attend tonight's midnight showing of 'psycho' at the hollywood cemetery has expressed that they do not like scary movies
consequently, we have changed all of the scary parts to not be scary
thank you for your understanding on this matter"
Stawman is Strawman.
If someone is uncomfortable with it, they should not be forced to interact with it anymore than they have to.
I think that is the crux of it. How we're defining "forced" in this situation is crucial.
If I purchase a Paizo AP and one or more of the NPCs are described as being gay and I don't like that idea, I can just change it. Its not as if the inclusion of such npcs was forced on me. And another GM may decide to make a few non-defined or defined as straight npcs into QUILTBAG characters. Both are acceptable.
It seems as if some people (not you, as you've said 4+ times :P) are feeling like the inclusion of those gay characters as npcs in an AP is Paizo forcing QUILTBAG issues on them.
All in all, I think the majority of the posters agree, and are just arguing due to the lack of comprehension mostly due to the medium. Text-based communication is fairly poor for communicating ideas.
Stawman is Strawman."quick announcement, one person who decided to attend tonight's midnight showing of 'psycho' at the hollywood cemetery has expressed that they do not like scary movies
consequently, we have changed all of the scary parts to not be scary
thank you for your understanding on this matter"
you live by the straw, man, you die by the straw, man
|
|
A minor point, but Pathfinder has been marketted as PG13 for content from the beginning. It is not designed for young children. So much of the outrage is apparently because people don't know this salient fact. I mean, is the existence of non-heterosexual people really controversial by age 13? Do 13 years olds not know about sex yet? Or prostitution? Or totrture? Or Kuthonite body-horror? So can we please stop with the "protecting the little chuildren' arguments? It's not a game for them anymore than the Dark Knight Rises was soemthing appropriate for those of that age without their parents' approval.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
