| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's all at least acknowledge that the inclusion of these LGBT characters wasn't some random case of the numbers just working out that way. James has specifically said that their inclusion was deliberate and with an agenda in mind. That's fine - its his product and its a worthy agenda, but let's stop pretending that people are reacting to a random aberration in demographics. They are reacting to something that was put there specifically to generate a reaction, for better or worse, and had abolutely nothing to do with the Worldwound, Mythic powers or the over-reaching story arc.
I don't think it's random at all. I think it is deliberate on Jacobs' part.
However, some of the people in this thread who are objecting to the inclusion of the second couple do seem to essentially be reacting to what they see as an intentional aberration in demographics. Otherwise, why is one LGBT couple okay, but two is not? How is a second LGBT couple one couple too far, if the first one is not?
There have also been appeals to verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief. Again, this is appealing to a particular understanding of real world demographics, and assuming a homogenous distribution of those demographics within Golarion. It's essentially imposing a quota: One couple, okay. Two couples, distracting agenda.
What I (and I think others) have been trying to point out is that it's perfectly feasible, from a standpoint of verisimilitude, to have two LGBT couples in the group. Odraude offered a real world example for comparison. It's also been pointed out that indications of NPCs' sexual orientation in Paizo's products seems not to raise an eyebrow for some of the people objecting here, provided that orientation is heterosexual. See Jessica Price's posts earlier today for this discussion. If it's homosexual, on the other hand, it seems you're now allowed one couple per AP, or it's distracting from the game or detracting from the quality of the AP.
If, as we can all agree, Paizo has decided, as a company, to include LGBT representation in their products, can we also agree that it is not the existence of such an agenda in and of itself that is creating the objection? That it is, instead, the focus of the agenda itself that is causing the objection?
If you disagree with that, consider this.
Another of Paizo's agendas is to increase the regularity and quality of representation of people of color within RPGs. This is what Inner Heru's post that I quoted earlier was about - the positive impact of that agenda for him as a player. Others on the board have expressed similar sentiments. Yet another of Paizo's agendas is to increase the regularity and quality of representation of women within RPGs. I think we can all agree these agendas, and the results of these agendas, are part of what characterizes Paizo's products.
That being the case, if you look at the diversity of representation of race and gender in the Iconics, if you look at the decision to make their first Iconic out of the gate Seelah, a woman of color (as Jacobs has discussed elsewhere on the board), ask yourself if you find that agenda objectionable, or distracting, or if it detracts from their products.
If you find it does not, why does another agenda connected to diversity of representation, in this case of LGBT people, provoke such a reaction? Is this agenda that different than the other two? The only difference I can think of is that it's more difficult to achieve with direct visual representation (the Iconics) or simple diversity of pronoun usage (as in Paizo's rulebooks), and thus requires a little bit of information in the text, not a lot, just a little, about some of the NPCs in some of their adventures.
That's really the only difference between Paizo's approach to LGBT representation and their approach to representation with regards to gender and race.
So, again, if Paizo's agenda with regards to gender and race is okay, what's the issue here? Why is the inclusion of a handful of LGBT characters, the orientation of which is very easy to change if one desires, worthy of so much pushback and complaining? Why is this agenda being "forced" or "pushed" when the other two are okay?
If it's because of the different approach required (the inclusion of a little bit of information in the text), do you therefore feel that improving LGBT representation in RPGs is an agenda Paizo cannot successfully pursue?
And if that's what you feel (I'm not saying that it is, I'm trying to speculate on where people are coming from, based on their posts in this and other threads, so I apologize if that is not the case), if that's what you feel, what does that say to LGBT players of Pathfinder, your fellow players, people who love and enjoy this game and this setting as much as you yourself do? Are we not allowed a place at the table? Is there a quota on the number of characters like ourselves that we should be allowed to see in the game? Could you please let us have a few NPCs that are like us?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The NPCs' homosexuality is not game related
It is in mine, as it's a fairly fundamental part of their characterization. The more information I get in each NPC bio, the better. Otherwise they just become a bunch of combat stats.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also it seems a lot of people here haven't read much in the way of Mercedes Lackey, or other romantic fantasy writers. LGBTQ characters are often included in such stories.
Fantasy is spun out from courtly romance, and romance is something that most tabletop RPGs sorely lack. So yes, I think there should be more attention paid to NPCs relationships. No matter the orientation.
I have lots of friends, but regularly hang out with LGBTQ ones, they don't comprise 5% of my friendship group, statistically they are an anomaly. But people aren't statistics, and neither are stories.
The key to this AP is the triumph of good over evil, and the point of having two couples in committed relationships is that committed love is a power of Good. The orientation is just a detail.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's all at least acknowledge that the inclusion of these LGBT characters wasn't some random case of the numbers just working out that way. James has specifically said that their inclusion was deliberate and with an agenda in mind. That's fine - its his product and its a worthy agenda, but let's stop pretending that people are reacting to a random aberration in demographics. They are reacting to something that was put there specifically to generate a reaction, for better or worse, and had abolutely nothing to do with the Worldwound, Mythic powers or the over-reaching story arc.
I agree to that. I just think it's silly. For me, having two homosexual couples don't break my "verisimilitude" in a world where people regularly break the laws of the universe. Why should I care if there are two homosexual couples, or two interracial couples, or even two straight couples? Who cares about demographics, as long as you're all going in together to fist fight demons? Seriously, wizards that can stop time and the existence of actual angels and devils is fine, but two gay couples? In the grand scheme of things, it's unimportant to worry about. As for a reason there are two gay couples in the Worldwound, I'd think "fighting demons" is a pretty good reason to be there. Isn't that everyone's reason for being there?
And while their background doesn't have much to deal with the main story of fighting Deskarii, let me ask you, does any of the other NPCs' backgrounds affect the story about Deskarii? Would the players ever find out about Horgus's dark secret he's been keeping and would that even impact the main story? Or even the PCs' backstories. Would they impact the war against Deskarii? Probably not. But the reason why all the NPCs have a fleshed out background is because their conflicts add story hooks for the PCs to jump on. Some players just want straight forward hack and slash, while others get attached to the NPCs and their histories and jump on any story hooks to help them. So, while their background might not mean nothing to you and your group, to others, it's a chance at meaningful side adventures and further attachment to the characters of the story. And that's fine.
Like anything else in an adventure, if it doesn't have any use for you and your group, simply remove it. It's always easier to remove things than add them in. But to complain about their very existence when others are okay with it is silly. It's like the people that complain about Asian settings, or psionics, or firearms. Don't like it? Don't use it. It's simple.
|
Also it seems a lot of people here haven't read much in the way of Mercedes Lackey, or other romantic fantasy writers. LGBTQ characters are often included in such stories.
Fantasy is spun out from courtly romance, and romance is something that most tabletop RPGs sorely lack. So yes, I think there should be more attention paid to NPCs relationships. No matter the orientation.
I have lots of friends, but regularly hang out with LGBTQ ones, they don't comprise 5% of my friendship group, statistically they are an anomaly. But people aren't statistics, and neither are stories.
The key to this AP is the triumph of good over evil, and the point of having two couples in committed relationships is that committed love is a power of Good. The orientation is just a detail.
If that was the case then other themes would have been added such as love lost, complications of a relationship during war, fera of lost, etc. NONE of those things are part of the adventure (I had to add them) and so the characteristics of their relationship (including but not limited to homosexuality) seem just tacked on as a pointless background.
If that was the case then other themes would have been added such as love lost, complications of a relationship during war, fera of lost, etc. NONE of those things are part of the adventure (I had to add them) and so the characteristics of their relationship (including but not limited to homosexuality) seem just tacked on as a pointless background.Also it seems a lot of people here haven't read much in the way of Mercedes Lackey, or other romantic fantasy writers. LGBTQ characters are often included in such stories.
Fantasy is spun out from courtly romance, and romance is something that most tabletop RPGs sorely lack. So yes, I think there should be more attention paid to NPCs relationships. No matter the orientation.
I have lots of friends, but regularly hang out with LGBTQ ones, they don't comprise 5% of my friendship group, statistically they are an anomaly. But people aren't statistics, and neither are stories.
The key to this AP is the triumph of good over evil, and the point of having two couples in committed relationships is that committed love is a power of Good. The orientation is just a detail.
To be fair, I'm actually glad that they have the building blocks of conflict and leave it up to the GM to take them and go wherever they want with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because there are different types of gamers (role players vs. roll players), some are going to eat this kind of detailed personal background information up and others are going to see it as mostly irrelevant and wasted space. Some people buy the APs and just read them like fiction rather than play them. For them, especially, such background detail is probably welcome. For story-heavy GMs, it is also probably welcome.
I recently read a one-page, very detailed description of the life, times, and loves of an evil NPC in RotRL and then watched my PCs dispatch her in a single round without talking to her at all. I have to admit I found it humorous that I spent so much time getting to know her just to see her taken out so quickly. For those who don't enjoy so much personal background detail without a solid connection to gameplay, there are other companies which cater to this style--such as Frog God Games. On their website they say, "If you want to know the flavor of eleven tea, we are not your guys. If you want to slay dragons, rescue maidens, and steal the treasure...well, we are." The downside to this, for example with Rappan Athuk, is that there isn't much of an over-arching storyline (which is fine for some).
I guess my point is that there are many excellent alternatives out there for those who don't like Paizo's approach, including companies that are not actively pushing a social agenda.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a specific reason why Anevia is LGBT, and switching her gender or negating her male-to-female transgenderness actually disrupts a specific aspect of the story:
I honestly cannot see how someone can handwave away Anevia's LGBT aspect and if Irabeth were male then that would negate some truly fantastic cover art ;) and also turn the gesture into something that suggests to be somewhat self-serving. Irabeth loves Anevia no matter what her gender is. But if Irabeth were a male and paid for it, then there is an undertone that becomes more disturbing.
The second relationship thus transcends gender. It doesn't matter what Adon's gender is, or Sosiel's. They love each other... and Adon has issues that Sosiel is working to help. Having them both be men in some ways helps lessen the stereotype of (if Sosiel were female) the girlfriend doing everything to help her "damaged" guy overcome problems. Having Adon be a girl risks suggesting that Adon was chosen because "girls" aren't as "tough" as guys. Thus from a cynical storytelling perspective, these two men HAD to be men to prevent stereotypes while still telling a compelling story.
Mind you, I'm speaking from the perspective of a writer, a critic, and a cynic. ;)
Because there are different types of gamers (role players vs. roll players), some are going to eat this kind of detailed personal background information up and others are going to see it as mostly irrelevant and wasted space. Some people buy the APs and just read them like fiction rather than play them. For them, especially, such background detail is probably welcome. For story-heavy GMs, it is also probably welcome.
<snip>
For those who don't enjoy so much personal background detail without a solid connection to gameplay, there are other companies which cater to this style--such as Frog God Games. On their website they say, "If you want to know the flavor of eleven tea, we are not your guys. If you want to slay dragons, rescue maidens, and steal the treasure...well, we are." The downside to this, for example with Rappan Athuk, is that there isn't much of an over-arching storyline (which is fine for some).
You pretty much described there why I love Paizo, just there.
I'm a story-oriented GM for whom the game mechanics are just the thing that tells me the probable result when character X attempts action Y. The fact that the Paizo staff are so openly pushing for a more-story less-boardgame approach makes me incredibly happy when I see other games doing the opposite.
Matt: I also like that Paizo is story and character focused, but sometimes I do feel like they go overboard (feels like "padding") on personal background information that I cannot see having any possible relevant connection to actual gameplay. Even though I understand why they do it (and who they do it for), it can definitely draw out adventure prep time for busy GMs. My personal tastes fall somewhere between Paizo and Frog God, which is probably why I run adventures from both.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll tell you that if I met 6 perfectly random people, let's say 6 people in a railcar, and of those people there were 2 homosexual couples, I'd think "Huh? Cool! What were the chances? Wait, isn't there a gay pride going on somewhere? I'll check up on my iPhone just out of curiosity"... it might happen that there was no such thing going on, and in fact that peculiar chance happened without anything skewing the results. Wouldn't bother me one way or the other, but I'll still be thinking about the fact and how unusual it is, just as I do when I luckily get all green lights during my trip to work (it exactly happened once in years).
I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in the USA (relevant because of your quote about percentage of LGBT in the USA). A couple of weeks ago I went to my first ever Magic: The Gathering tournament. The first guy I played was gay (his boyfriend came over to see how our game was going). The second game I played against his boyfriend. In my third match I played another guy who's boyfriend was watching the match. I have no idea the orientation of the fourth and final guy I played because it never came up in conversation and unlike the others no one came to watch our match. So, of the five people I met that night four, or 80%, were gay. I work with one transgendered person and two gay men, out of a staff of about 20, meaning about 15% of my coworkers are LGBT.
I'm slowly discovering that this sort of thing is more the norm and less unusual. Considering that Golarion appears to be a whole lot more open and accepting of LGBT than the corner of the real world that I'm familiar with is, it doesn't strike me as at all unusual to see four out of six NPCs be LGBT in an AP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those interested in the themes of LGBT people in war, I thought I would mention the Sacred Band of Thebes, a force of 150 pairs of male lovers that were the elite force of the Theban army in the 4th century BC.
Here is a good summary of the Sacred Band.
During the years of the Sacred Band’s existence Thebes gained greater and greater power in their region, even breaking free from Sparta’s dominance when the Sacred Band helped to defeat an army three times their own size.
In 338BC the Sacred Band was annihilated by Philip II of Macedon (father of Alexander the Great). According to Plutarch, most of the Theban soldiers fled in the face of Philip II’s superior military technology, but not the Sacred Band. They stood, fought, and died as one that day, and are buried together on that spot, marked today by a statue known as the Lion of Chaironeia.
Plutarch records that Philip II, on encountering the corpses "heaped one upon another", understanding who they were, exclaimed,"Perish any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything unseemly."
Plato, in his Symposium, best describes the love and determination found of the Sacred Band of Thebes, in which he wrote: "And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonour, and emulating one another in honour; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this."
I think it's a neat possibility that something similar to this might have arisen at some point during the Crusades in the Worldwound. :) Maybe an army of lovers sacred to Shelyn?
If you find it does not, why does another agenda connected to diversity of representation, in this case of LGBT people, provoke such a reaction?
I think it's badly handled here.
Example of handling "diversity of representation" well (IMO): when they said of one of their previous AP's "There's a potential romance in here, if a player wants to take it that way, and if so, make the NPC whatever orientation is needed to make that romance possible." If I were really against representation of LGBT people, shouldn't I be against that too, when actually I think it's great?
In our campaign, the rich guy (don't remember his name) left the party in a snit almost as soon as the game started. That one event made all of the laboriously developed back story of the gay couple irrelevant to the campaign (because there was no reason for it to be asked about or raised). I haven't read the module, just played it, but Paizo might as well have just said "These two characters (who happen to be female) are married" for all the difference the back story made. And meanwhile, there was almost no character development of any of the other NPC's (the Mongrelmen being the exception). Apparently it was all hanging off the back story of the gay couple. Might have been nice to know something of that silver dragon, the one who, you know, saved our lives. Nope. When we came to the gates of the keep, and the DM tells us the names of the two walking bodies, we're like "OK, whatever." He has to tell us that they're the former leaders of the Crusade in this city. Well, DM, you mentioned their names once in the first session: sorry if we don't remember three weeks later. But, hey, mentioning the name of the local leader of the Crusade twice would take away screen time from detailing the love lives of a couple of mooks, who get vastly more back story than all of the other NPC's in the city put together because they're gay mooks. Seriously, if you're going to give Irabeth so much story time
Contrast this to Kingmaker (the only other AP I'm really familiar with) where various NPC's have back stories, but the back story development is scattered widely over many NPC's, not concentrated on just two. The only thing all of whose NPCs have in common is that they interact with the PC's, which makes the PC's the central figures, not a couple of NPC's. There the relationship of the straight couple mentioned is not given any more detail than "they're a couple". Apparently that's enough detail for straight couples but gay couples need to be more central to the campaign than the PC's.
/Rant off.
I think it's a neat possibility that something similar to this might have arisen at some point during the Crusades in the Worldwound. :) Maybe an army of lovers sacred to Shelyn?
Now that actually sounds really cool. Paizo should consider hiring you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having actually read the module, I feel like your GM dropped the ball hardcore there. There's quite a bit of character development between Horgus and the Riftwarden and it seems he over did it with Horgus as well as the importance of Irabeth. Also, to me at least, Horgus has the most compelling, if not tragic, backstory of all the NPCs in Book 1. If there's a weak NPC, it's probably the Riftwarden. But even then, he has some time to shine.
Contrast this to Kingmaker (the only other AP I'm really familiar with) where various NPC's have back stories, but the back story development is scattered widely over many NPC's, not concentrated on just two. The only thing all of whose NPCs have in common is that they interact with the PC's, which makes the PC's the central figures, not a couple of NPC's. There the relationship of the straight couple mentioned is not given any more detail than "they're a couple". Apparently that's enough detail for straight couples but gay couples need to be more central to the campaign than the PC's.
I have only read it, not played it. But I felt all the NPCs were given interesting background information. I also never got the impression that any of the NPCs were more central to the story than the PCs.
Having actually read the module, I feel like your GM dropped the ball hardcore there. There's quite a bit of character development between Horgus and the Riftwarden and it seems he over did it with Horgus as well as the importance of Irabeth. Also, to me at least, Horgus has the most compelling, if not tragic, backstory of all the NPCs in Book 1. If there's a weak NPC, it's probably the Riftwarden. But even then, he has some time to shine.
Horgus would be "the rich guy"? Thing is, from reading what people have to say here, it sounds like the main mechanism for delivering the back story to the players was supposed to be the interaction between Horgus and the other main NPC's such as Anevia. But because Horgus left our group right at the start that never happened in our game. (I don't doubt that Horgus has a detailed back story! but we heard nothing of it. If he leaves early, you won't.)
James Jacobs has posted elsewhere that there's supposed to be a possibility of Horgus leaving the group because keeping Horgus in the group is intended as a test of the group's goodness. Rewarding "goodness" is something that this sort of RPG has traditionally been weak at so attempts to do so are awesome; forfeiting rewards because you don't accomplish something is fine; and it's not a fault of our GM that something that's supposed to be a possibility happened. But if I'm right and Horgus' presence is central to the exposition of the back story, then having a possibility of him leaving, with no backup plan for how exposition is going to happen if that happens, is a design flaw. Or if I'm wrong and Horgus' presence is not actually central to the exposition of the back story, then yes, our GM dropped the ball. But I've played with about 20 GM's in my time and he's one of the better ones.
I have only read it, not played it. But I felt all the NPCs were given interesting background information. I also never got the impression that any of the NPCs were more central to the story than the PCs.
That makes sense. I was exaggerating for effect about the NPC's (although I'd still say Irabeth was as central as the PC's). I also think it's fair to say that I got a distorted view of the big picture of the background information. I know from GM'ing some of "Kingmaker" that it's normal for the players to miss some (much) of the background story at the best of times, so that's to be expected. Since the gay couple are two of the three main NPC narrators, it's going to be easier for players to hear about their back story than any of the others.
Knowing that there's a lot of back story that we didn't hear changes my view on this a lot. I don't think it's anti-LGBT to think "the only NPC's in the module who had a back story were the gay couple, and that's a problem." I would have thought that just as much a problem if they'd been straight, too. I expect there to be more than 2 NPC's with back stories in a Paizo adventure. Obviously that's not what Paizo intended. I now think that Paizo just didn't think through the implications of Horgus leaving on the exposition of the story.
I admit I skimmed the last few posts, but wouldn't life be simpler if there was no sex and we reproduced by budding or something similar.Maybe... but then porn would really suck.
But think of all the time and money we would save.
Having actually read the module, I feel like your GM dropped the ball hardcore there. There's quite a bit of character development between Horgus and the Riftwarden and it seems he over did it with Horgus as well as the importance of Irabeth. Also, to me at least, Horgus has the most compelling, if not tragic, backstory of all the NPCs in Book 1. If there's a weak NPC, it's probably the Riftwarden. But even then, he has some time to shine.Horgus would be "the rich guy"? Thing is, from reading what people have to say here, it sounds like the main mechanism for delivering the back story to the players was supposed to be the interaction between Horgus and the other main NPC's such as Anevia. But because Horgus left our group right at the start that never happened in our game. (I don't doubt that Horgus has a detailed back story! but we heard nothing of it. If he leaves early, you won't.)
James Jacobs has posted elsewhere that there's supposed to be a possibility of Horgus leaving the group because keeping Horgus in the group is intended as a test of the group's goodness. Rewarding "goodness" is something that this sort of RPG has traditionally been weak at so attempts to do so are awesome; forfeiting rewards because you don't accomplish something is fine; and it's not a fault of our GM that something that's supposed to be a possibility happened. But if I'm right and Horgus' presence is central to the exposition of the back story, then having a possibility of him leaving, with no backup plan for how exposition is going to happen if that happens, is a design flaw. Or if I'm wrong and Horgus' presence is not actually central to the exposition of the back story, then yes, our GM dropped the ball. But I've played with about 20 GM's in my time and he's one of the better ones.
I have only read it, not played it. But I felt all the NPCs were given interesting background information. I also never got the impression that any of the NPCs were more central to the...
There is a possibility of him leaving, though certainly not at the very start of the campaign. Course, looking at the PDF right now, he'd have to drop to Hostile for it to happen. Actually, it says that can happen with any of those NPCs. Not to say your GM is bad (I'm sure he's awesome), just saying on this one, he may have oversold the haughty, independent aristocrat personality too much. For Horgus's backstory, since he is the only one that knows his own dark secret, then yes, he is central to that part. Though finding out about his charitable actions to the cause of fighting demons can be done in other ways that don't involve him.
That said, as a GM, I can tell you that sometimes an NPC's backstory just doesn't make it to the players. Maybe that NPC dies, or maybe it just doesn't click with the players because of conflicting personalities. This can happen in all adventure paths, since players are all different and click with different NPCs. So it's hard to fault this adventure when it certainly can't predict the PC's reactions to them.
That makes sense. I was exaggerating for effect about the NPC's (although I'd still say Irabeth was as central as the PC's). I also think it's fair to say that I got a distorted view of the big picture of the background information. I know from GM'ing some of "Kingmaker" that it's normal for the players to miss some (much) of the background story at the best of times, so that's to be expected. Since the gay couple are two of the three main NPC narrators, it's going to be easier for players to hear about their back story than any of the others.
Knowing that there's a lot of back story that we didn't hear changes my view on this a lot. I don't think it's anti-LGBT to think "the only NPC's in the module who had a back story were the gay couple, and that's a problem." I would have thought that just as much a problem if they'd been straight, too. I expect there to be more than 2 NPC's with back stories in a Paizo adventure. Obviously that's not what Paizo intended. I now think that Paizo just didn't think through the implications of Horgus leaving on the exposition of the story.
All of the NPCs can leave the group. It felt like that would be difficult to do though, as they have to become hostile to the PCs to do so, especially considering their circumstances when they meet the PCs. Not to mention the volume does also mention the possibility of them dieing. Also they are all given roughly the same amount of "NPC Reactions" content and side quests.
I suspect Irabeth's seeming so central is more your DM focusing on her than the AP. She doesn't even show up in volume 1 until pretty deep into the volume. I don't want to spoil volume 2 for you or anyone who may be playing or planning to play it, but the level of their participation really boils down to "if the PCs want them to".
Well that sounds odd, considering what happened in our game, but makes sense. But yeah, he left very early in our trip through the Underdark - I think we were still level 1 - and I can see that the adventure would have seemed a lot less focused on the two female NPC's if he'd stuck around.
"the possibility of them dieing" That is what I thought, too, but that didn't stop him running off alone in the middle of the Underdark.
It's easy to cause them to go hostile. All you have to do is Intimidate them instead of using Diplomacy.
I think it's badly handled here.
Example of handling "diversity of representation" well (IMO): when they said of one of their previous AP's "There's a potential romance in here, if a player wants to take it that way, and if so, make the NPC whatever orientation is needed to make that romance possible." If I were really against representation of LGBT people, shouldn't I be against that too, when actually I think it's great?
I don't think I've said that you're against the representation of LGBT people. The tone of this thread is very different than some of the others on the subject (which I've appreciated). I'm not seeing a lot of homophobia, biphobia or transphobia going on here (unlike in some of the other threads on the subject.)
I think what's going on, generally speaking, is a lack of awareness about privilege with regards to representation. And a lack of understanding of the potential impact and meaningfulness of representation for underrepresented peoples.
I'd also say that, while the example you're giving here is a positive one, insofar as it does allow for the potential creation of a space for LGBT characters, it's also much, much less effective than actually including specifically LGBT characters in the APs, and does not create a space for them to the same degree. It has a positive impact, but a lesser positive impact. It's only a little different than the old media reading strategy of appropriation, of applying a queer reading to a text, which for a long time was all LGBT people had to work with when it came to mainstream media. ("There's nothing in the text that says this character is gay, but I'm going to choose to believe the character is gay. I'll appropriate him.")
It also lacks the specificity of a character who is actually stated to be LGBT. Those details about how Irabeth helped secure Anevia's gender transition, that enriches the characters and enriches the story world. (Assuming your GM decides to actually make use of those details, of course.) It helps me imagine how things might go for other trans characters in Golarion. It offers some details about an aspect of the setting I (and I'd guess others) am interested in, much as the various cultural details in the settings books give us a better sense of the lives of the peoples of Golarion. I can use that as a springboard for other imaginings about the setting. (And that is much of what settings books, and character details do, provide springboards for the players' imaginations.)
Again, think of it in terms of representations of race or gender. The NPC description could read: "The NPC's gender and race can be whatever the GM thinks is appropriate for the story." That's progressive and helpful to an extent, sure. I'll take it. But that's very different, in terms of impact, from reading specifics about Old Mage Jatembe, or the Grey Maidens, or seeing images of Kyra or Sajan doing their thing.
Put it another way. Theoretically, any character in any AP could conceivably be transgender. They completed their transition, they maybe went the Golarion equivalent of stealth (cutting off ties to your pre-transition life, never bringing that aspect of your life up again). Or they're transgender but have chosen not to transition, for whatever reason (and there can be legitimate reasons not to do so). I can apply that reading to any character. (Or any poster on this message board, actually.)
But part of what's enjoyable about published adventures is that interaction between what you bring to the story, as a GM or as a player, and what the publisher brings to the adventure. Part of the reason we like Paizo's products is that there's value to what they bring to the table, in the APs, the setting guides, etc. Otherwise, why use their APs? Why use the setting? The RPG experience is a mixture of the two, and that's part of what's relatively unique about RPGs. Why limit that process by only allowing one side of the equation to bring in LGBT content? The ultimate decision over what shows up in your own game is under your control. But for those who are interested in it, for those who gain something from it, why not let them have that experience, that intersection between Paizo's storytelling and their own? As I've said earlier, there's a net positive to Paizo's approach.
At the end of the day, it still seems to me the objections here go back to real world expectations which are inaccurate or at least not as comprehensive as some believe, as DiegoV's example illustrates. If it's reasonable to have two LGBT couples, as that kind of thing can and does happen in real life, in what way is this approach "forced," as some have called it?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting a little concerned that Paizo might be trying a little TOO hard to shoe-horn in a socially progressive message..... and its starting to feel really forced and really gratuitous, to the point that I know it'll be a distraction to what looks like to be a superbly written story.
Yes. It feels that way to me frankly. I really don't care what two consenting adults(or three or four) want to do as far as a relationship. Its none of my concern or business. But when I compare it to say Oleg and Silvet? from Kingmaker. The later felt like a married couple, with his wife, her husband, Oleg and silvet intermixed. Where as the perception in Wrath is "her wife, her wife, her wife, her wife" repeated en nausuem as if their trying in big bold letters to get the message across this IS A LESBIAN COUPLE (in big bold letters)if feels rather forced and rather not as interested to pick up the next installment as its detracting from the story. But that's me.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you find it does not, why does another agenda connected to diversity of representation, in this case of LGBT people, provoke such a reaction?I think it's badly handled here.
Example of handling "diversity of representation" well (IMO): when they said of one of their previous AP's "There's a potential romance in here, if a player wants to take it that way, and if so, make the NPC whatever orientation is needed to make that romance possible." If I were really against representation of LGBT people, shouldn't I be against that too, when actually I think it's great?
In our campaign, the rich guy (don't remember his name) left the party in a snit almost as soon as the game started. That one event made all of the laboriously developed back story of the gay couple irrelevant to the campaign (because there was no reason for it to be asked about or raised). I haven't read the module, just played it, but Paizo might as well have just said "These two characters (who happen to be female) are married" for all the difference the back story made. And meanwhile, there was almost no character development of any of the other NPC's (the Mongrelmen being the exception). Apparently it was all hanging off the back story of the gay couple. Might have been nice to know something of that silver dragon, the one who, you know, saved our lives. Nope. When we came to the gates of the keep, and the DM tells us the names of the two walking bodies, we're like "OK, whatever." He has to tell us that they're the former leaders of the Crusade in this city. Well, DM, you mentioned their names once in the first session: sorry if we don't remember three weeks later. But, hey, mentioning the name of the local leader of the Crusade twice would take away screen time from detailing the love lives of a couple of mooks, who get vastly more back story than all of the other NPC's in the city put together because they're gay mooks. Seriously, if you're going to give Irabeth so much story time...
There was a change to the format of APs that happened between Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous, which it sounds like you are unaware of.
Since "Jade Regent", each volume of an AP has an appendix to the adventure section. The appendix includes some new magic items featured in the adventure, and a 1 -2 pages of detailed information (including stat blocks) for several major NPCs in that adventure.
So in the first adventure of "Wrath of the Righteous", the appendix included the stat blocks and detailed info about the four major NPC allies that the PCs meet in this adventure, and who could be strong support for the entire campaign - that's Irabeth, Anevia, the Riftwarden, and Horgus. Each of the later two recieve every bit as much detail as the former two. In addition, barely any space in the entire section is dedicated to the women's sexuality - of course the event of Irabeth selling her sword to finance Anevia's sex change is discussed several time from different view points, which is fine because it's a major event including 3 of the different NPCs in that group.
It's important to realize that EACH AP module has such an appendix, and never ONCE have I seen an NPC detailed there who's entire background and personality were strongly tied in to the current story being told. Which makes since because the NPCs are living, intelligent humanoids and they didn't spawn to serve the story - they have a life of their own, which means they WILL feel more believable.
So since this appendix thing started, NPCs are given much more extensive detailing, which doesn't always come into play. As a GM who reads those modules, I find the section very valuable. Just about no NPC in Kingmaker had nearly as much characterization as any of the 4 major NPCs here, and each subsequent adventure in the path will give us yet more NPCs.
It sounds like your GM decided to let Horgus disappear (a shame), and focus primarily on the couple for the remainder of the adventure. That's his choice and doesn't reflect the way the adventure "has" to be played. Also it seems like he didn't make a point of encouraging the players to read the player's guide, which has an article where any of the players can and should read to learn more about Kenabras, it's major NPCs, and the silver dragon who used to defend it.
The reason that the ally NPCs are getting more attention than the silver dragon is that they are relevant for the rest of the AP, while Kenabras with all it's trouble and residents is left behind as soon as module #2.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My original point was kind of lost in the shuffle in my previous post, so here it is in a single sentence:
"The reason that each member of the couple is more detailed than you are used to in Kingmaker is that now each adventure has NPCs more detailed than any NPC was in Kingmaker, and in this adventure two of them happen to be Irabeth and Anevia".
Their background is about normal size, and while differing opinions may describe it as interesting or boring, it is not less or more relevant to the adventure than NPC backgrounds usually are in the new format. Furthermore, a REALLY small part of it is dedicated to specifically address the issue of their unusual sexuality. It's less the physical space that the issue takes as a word count in the adventure, and more the fact that it grabs a lot of attention from people less used to encountering LGBTs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
/Tangant
While I don't mind having the 4 WotR NPCs getting their own section, this brings up a problem with the books that often NPCs get a section when IMO they really shouldn't. Skull and Shackles #6 had the Cheliax Inquisitor and the Hellknight bodyguard, both of them were pure combat characters and went auto-hostile as soon as boots hit the deck in the game so anything past combat stats was unneeded. Pirate PCs inching towards the lower end of the alignment scale wouldn't give two coppers about their history other than " How can we kill them quicker?'
My original point was kind of lost in the shuffle in my previous post, so here it is in a single sentence:
"The reason that each member of the couple is more detailed than you are used to in Kingmaker is that now each adventure has NPCs more detailed than any NPC was in Kingmaker, and in this adventure two of them happen to be Irabeth and Anevia".
Their background is about normal size, and while differing opinions may describe it as interesting or boring, it is not less or more relevant to the adventure than NPC backgrounds usually are in the new format. Furthermore, a REALLY small part of it is dedicated to specifically address the issue of their unusual sexuality. It's less the physical space that the issue takes as a word count in the adventure, and more the fact that it grabs a lot of attention from people less used to encountering LGBTs.
I was looking over all of the NPCs this morning, for both The Worldwound Incursion and Sword of Valor, and that's my impression as well. The LGBT characters aren't taking up any more space than the non-LGBT characters, and the details for the non-LGBT characters seem as relevant (or not relevant as the case may be) as those for the LGBT characters. The same two pages for each, with a stat block and a portrait taking up part of that space, and a background detailing who they are, how they found themselves in Kenabres, and how they might be of use to the PCs. Nothing in the LGBT characters' backgrounds seems any more immediately irrelevant to the adventure than some of the details in the non-LGBT characters backgrounds.
Also, the sexual orientation of Aravashnial, the elven wizard, comes up in his background. (He's heterosexual.) If indication of sexual orientation for NPCs is what people are complaining about as being distracting, unnecessary, or indicative of an agenda, why has no one mentioned him in these threads?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
/Tangant
While I don't mind having the 4 WotR NPCs getting their own section, this brings up a problem with the books that often NPCs get a section when IMO they really shouldn't. Skull and Shackles #6 had the Cheliax Inquisitor and the Hellknight bodyguard, both of them were pure combat characters and went auto-hostile as soon as boots hit the deck in the game so anything past combat stats was unneeded. Pirate PCs inching towards the lower end of the alignment scale wouldn't give two coppers about their history other than " How can we kill them quicker?'
Continuing the tangent...it is entirely within the realm of possibility that the PCs could have ties to these characters. It all depends on how the GM presents them, or weaves them into dropping plot hooks for later reveals. If your character happened to be a former aristocrat from Cheliax escaping the grip of House Thrune for a more carefree life in the Shackles, who's to say that said aristocrat didn't go to school with the inquisitor (or the bodyguard)? Maybe they were best friends friends—siblings even (something that I did with my character for Curse of the Crimson Throne).
The story is mutable. Once it's out of the warehouse and into your hands, the game—and the adventure—is yours, and you can make it more than what was printed. Or less than. It's all terribly subjective. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My original point was kind of lost in the shuffle in my previous post, so here it is in a single sentence:
"The reason that each member of the couple is more detailed than you are used to in Kingmaker is that now each adventure has NPCs more detailed than any NPC was in Kingmaker, and in this adventure two of them happen to be Irabeth and Anevia".
Their background is about normal size, and while differing opinions may describe it as interesting or boring, it is not less or more relevant to the adventure than NPC backgrounds usually are in the new format. Furthermore, a REALLY small part of it is dedicated to specifically address the issue of their unusual sexuality. It's less the physical space that the issue takes as a word count in the adventure, and more the fact that it grabs a lot of attention from people less used to encountering LGBTs.
I was looking over all of the NPCs this morning, for both The Worldwound Incursion and Sword of Valor, and that's my impression as well. The LGBT characters aren't taking up any more space than the non-LGBT characters, and the details for the non-LGBT characters seem as relevant (or not relevant as the case may be) as those for the LGBT characters. The same two pages for each, with a stat block and a portrait taking up part of that space, and a background detailing who they are, how they found themselves in Kenabres, and how they might be of use to the PCs. Nothing in the LGBT characters' backgrounds seems any more immediately irrelevant to the adventure than some of the details in the non-LGBT characters backgrounds.
Also, the sexual orientation of Aravashnial, the elven wizard, comes up in his background. (He's heterosexual.) If indication of sexual orientation for NPCs is what people are complaining about as being distracting, unnecessary, or indicative of an agenda, why has no one mentioned him in these threads?
Yeah, I agree on Aravashnial, especially since unlike the other couples, his has some "unnecessary" drama about it. Hell, you never even meet his ex-lover and they only mention her by name once. Seeing as that doesn't come up during the game (unless the GM pressures it), I'm surprised (but not really) that no one is up in arms about that.
|
|
My original point was kind of lost in the shuffle in my previous post, so here it is in a single sentence:
"The reason that each member of the couple is more detailed than you are used to in Kingmaker is that now each adventure has NPCs more detailed than any NPC was in Kingmaker, and in this adventure two of them happen to be Irabeth and Anevia".
Their background is about normal size, and while differing opinions may describe it as interesting or boring, it is not less or more relevant to the adventure than NPC backgrounds usually are in the new format. Furthermore, a REALLY small part of it is dedicated to specifically address the issue of their unusual sexuality. It's less the physical space that the issue takes as a word count in the adventure, and more the fact that it grabs a lot of attention from people less used to encountering LGBTs.
I was looking over all of the NPCs this morning, for both The Worldwound Incursion and Sword of Valor, and that's my impression as well. The LGBT characters aren't taking up any more space than the non-LGBT characters, and the details for the non-LGBT characters seem as relevant (or not relevant as the case may be) as those for the LGBT characters. The same two pages for each, with a stat block and a portrait taking up part of that space, and a background detailing who they are, how they found themselves in Kenabres, and how they might be of use to the PCs. Nothing in the LGBT characters' backgrounds seems any more immediately irrelevant to the adventure than some of the details in the non-LGBT characters backgrounds.
Also, the sexual orientation of Aravashnial, the elven wizard, comes up in his background. (He's heterosexual.) If indication of sexual orientation for NPCs is what people are complaining about as being distracting, unnecessary, or indicative of an agenda, why has no one mentioned him in these threads?
The problem is that while the wizard{s unnecesary drama/details are problematic as well, one can see it as an oversight or a simple mystake; however, when the designers come out and say that such unnecesary details are intentionally there in order to push an agenda then it means such things will be repeated over and over again.
The problem is that while the wizard{s unnecesary drama/details are problematic as well, one can see it as an oversight or a simple mystake; however, when the designers come out and say that such unnecesary details are intentionally there in order to push an agenda then it means such things will be repeated over and over again.
I'm not sure that everyone would agree that those details with regards to the wizard are a "mistake" or "problematic." Read some of the comments in the thread. Here's what Lord Snow said:
It's important to realize that EACH AP module has such an appendix, and never ONCE have I seen an NPC detailed there who's entire background and personality were strongly tied in to the current story being told. Which makes since because the NPCs are living, intelligent humanoids and they didn't spawn to serve the story - they have a life of their own, which means they WILL feel more believable.
It's a feature, not a bug.
Which you as GM can choose to use or not as you see fit. The background about the wizard is an option that Paizo is providing to you. Just as they provide you with an option about Irabeth and Anevia. Which, again, you can use or not use as you see fit.
There is, in terms of the impact on your play, or the impact on the space taken up in the module, absolutely no difference between including that level of detail about Aravashnial (the wizard) and including that level of detail about Irabeth and Anevia. None.
So even if there is a decision by Paizo to include LGBT characters, which there has been, and which there has been since the beginning of Pathfinder (so this is nothing new), the manner in which they are doing so is no different from the manner in which they include non-LGBT characters, such as the wizard. About which no one complains.
And that level of detail, as Lord Snow points out, is itself nothing new. Right now, I'm looking at "Curse of the Lady's Light," from Shattered Star. There are a whole bunch of details about Oriana's background. Taking up the same amount of space as the backgrounds for Irabeth and Anevia: Two pages with one stat block, one portrait, and the rest of the space filled with her background (her life story) and her role in the campaign. Same exact format that Paizo is using now.
"Curse of the Lady's Light" came out over a year ago. You say the problem is that, because of what Paizo has said about LGBT characters, this "mistake" will be repeated over and over again. But the same "mistake," as you call it, was already in effect before the increased presence of LGBT characters, was already being repeated over and over again.
All of this being the case, what is the issue with this "agenda" that Paizo has, if there is no negative impact on their products specifically as a result of that "agenda"? If the only difference in content and how it is presented is the orientation of the characters, and the frequency with which LGBT characters are presented?
Why hold LGBT characters to a different standard than non-LGBT characters? Why is it that when LGBT characters appear, people start complaining about something Paizo has already been doing, with no change, for well over a year?
Put it another way. You're going to get that level of detail, and those sorts of details, about NPCs in future AP installments, whether the NPCs are LGBT or not. Their orientation (or gender identity) has no impact on the level of detail or whether or not Paizo is going to employ that level of detail for their NPCs. So what's the problem in this case? Why is it different as soon as Anevia and Irabeth show up?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop saying "agenda" like it's a dirty word? Paizo also likes to push their agenda of making enjoyable adventures. What's the big deal if they also have an "agenda" of including characters that happen to not be heterosexual? Is there something inherently wrong about Paizo wanting to push the viewpoint that homosexual/transgender people exist and can be included in adventures? That it doesn't make you a bad person?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that while the wizard{s unnecesary drama/details are problematic as...My original point was kind of lost in the shuffle in my previous post, so here it is in a single sentence:
"The reason that each member of the couple is more detailed than you are used to in Kingmaker is that now each adventure has NPCs more detailed than any NPC was in Kingmaker, and in this adventure two of them happen to be Irabeth and Anevia".
Their background is about normal size, and while differing opinions may describe it as interesting or boring, it is not less or more relevant to the adventure than NPC backgrounds usually are in the new format. Furthermore, a REALLY small part of it is dedicated to specifically address the issue of their unusual sexuality. It's less the physical space that the issue takes as a word count in the adventure, and more the fact that it grabs a lot of attention from people less used to encountering LGBTs.
I was looking over all of the NPCs this morning, for both The Worldwound Incursion and Sword of Valor, and that's my impression as well. The LGBT characters aren't taking up any more space than the non-LGBT characters, and the details for the non-LGBT characters seem as relevant (or not relevant as the case may be) as those for the LGBT characters. The same two pages for each, with a stat block and a portrait taking up part of that space, and a background detailing who they are, how they found themselves in Kenabres, and how they might be of use to the PCs. Nothing in the LGBT characters' backgrounds seems any more immediately irrelevant to the adventure than some of the details in the non-LGBT characters backgrounds.
Also, the sexual orientation of Aravashnial, the elven wizard, comes up in his background. (He's heterosexual.) If indication of sexual orientation for NPCs is what people are complaining about as being distracting, unnecessary, or indicative of an agenda, why has no one mentioned him in these threads?
I put unnecessary in quotes to emphasize how much it really wasn't unnecessary.
Who's to say the wizard's plight isn't intentional? I'm actually pretty sure it was intentional because conflicts like that give more tools for a GM to use to inject some more RPing and plot hooks for their players, if the players are, of course, interested.
This detail has been with important NPCs since Rise of the Runelords. From the daughter of the shopkeeper in Sandpoint whose sister got in trouble, all the way to Wrath of the Righteous, It's been there. Whether its Vencarlo Orisini's duel for the love of Sabina in Curse of the Crimson Throne, to Nyrrissa's tragic love affair with an Eldest that caused her downfall in Kingmaker. It's been there. These little details breathe life into NPCs and show the world is a living place with its own histories and rivalries that the players can be a part, if they so wish. In the end, they are all tools for the GM to use or not. Not mistakes or wastes of space, but intentional plot hooks.
So, should I bring up a list of other "mistakes" of NPC history, or do you get the point? ;)
As for agendas... If the "agenda" that's being pushed is "Anyone can be heroes or villains, no matter the race, gender, or sexuality!", then I'm okay with that. It's not like they are replacing every single NPC with LGBT ones.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrug* My Two C-bills,
It looks like the OP was correct in that there was an effort to include both couples, as, to quote James, 'positive role models'.
There's also one issue I've seen addressed only a couple of times. we don't have the whole story yet.
We don't know if the elf's backstory will come up. We don't know how the girls' backstory will be impacted.
Minor fiction spoiler:
I've caught hell before for suggesting magic, rather than change the body to match the mind, change the mind to match the body. In The Worldwound Gambit, there were torments specifically designed to assault the minds of the victims (The only two I remember are the fire mage in an fire proof world, and the rogue in an inescapable trap). Imagine at some point in the abyss, Anvenia gets 'dispelled' back to a guy. He then makes the mistake of 'wishing' for a Glabrezu to fix him. Voila! He's male in body and mind. How will that impact their relationship? Does 'love conquor all?' (Which would be appropriate given the redeemd succubus and the over all theme) Can the Party's reactions influence their relationship. (Do they 'magic fixes everything?' Drive them apart? Remind them that it's the spark inside, not the protoform that matters?)
Like the OP, I got the feeling of it being forced. Like her, I live in a statistically unlikely environment, and it still felt forced. It doesn't mean that stories can come from it, but it does stick out.
Re: Agenda Everyone has an agenda. The term, in and of itself, isn't negative. When I play, my characters are left handed. The agenda is it makes it easier for me to gesture. I'm sure that if I wrote for public comsumption, making the main character left handed and detailing every little difficulty that comes from being a leftie would get annoying to the readers (and the writer) pretty quick.
To at least some of the posters, a character being GBLTALPHABETSOUP would have little or no impact mechanically* Just like being left handed. So it rates about as much space as their handiness. Doesn't make them wrong, anymore than it does that Paizo made it a priotity.
Heck, the backstory/subplot is as annoying to them as Blood of the Night not being 'the Dhampir book' was to me, or that full two page spread of art with a couple of feats stuck on it.
In the end, we're all going to have likes and dislikes. We not only can vote with our wallets, we can air our grievances here, with out hosts' permission of course.
To assume malice, as some posters have done, rather than taking words at their face value, is problematic enough. We (with a few exceptions) don't know each other. So to assume someone is lying flat out is a disservice. Let people talk, if they really are malevelolent, it will show in their words soon enough.
*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, it's not about mechanics. It's about adding a history and plot hooks to an NPC for players to sink their teeth. Some GMs will use them, while others won't. However, I like that the details are there for those that'll use it. Things like relationships, rivalries, motivations... that all can be useful to the right group. Will they know that an NPC was beaten up as a kid by half-orcs and now hates half-orcs? Maybe, or maybe not. But I like having that information in there for DMs and players that will use it.
I've also had left handed NPCs in my games where it's come up in a story. So anything is possible :)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thing is, it's not about mechanics. It's about adding a history and plot hooks to an NPC for players to sink their teeth. Some GMs will use them, while others won't. However, I like that the details are there for those that'll use it. Things like relationships, rivalries, motivations... that all can be useful to the right group. Will they know that an NPC was beaten up as a kid by half-orcs and now hates half-orcs? Maybe, or maybe not. But I like having that information in there for DMs and players that will use it.
I've also had left handed NPCs in my games where it's come up in a story. So anything is possible :)
Which goes back to my comment about not knowing the whole story.
IIRC (relying on memory here, so it's a caveat) there was some pushback on Curse of the Crimson Throne that the Queen's bodyguard being her lover felt shoehorned in, since there was no build up hinted. I think it also raised cries of "Our first lesbian is evil! How dare you!" but again it's memory. Having the backstories of NPCs could be seen as a response to that feedback.
CotCT suffered from not building up the backstory. There are people who a) feel that WotR swings too far in the other direction and b) the pushing of the role models was too overt and disrupted from the story.
Goding back to Caprica (sigh) Take two couples. Daniel and Amanda, and Sam and Larry. Both were presented as 'there' They loved each other, but Sam and Larry had no more flags pointing to them saying "They're GAY!" than Daniel and Amanda had saying "They're STRAIGHT!" Even Sister Clarice's family was seen as 'out there' but not wrong or evil. That's how I felt the couples in Reign of Winter were. "Oh, they're a couple. Ok."
I don't feel that way about WotR. MAybe the whole AP will change that, but right now, it does feel 'tacked on' or 'forced.
Another way of looking at it is celebrity marriages. We expect flash in the pan relationships and breakups. It is what gets splattered all over the entertainment 'news'. That Danny Devito has been married to Rhea Perlman for 30+ years, or that Linda Hunt has been with her partner for 26 years is seen as an aberration. So when you start reading about actors who have been married 10+ years, you go "What the Hells?"
To assume malice, as some posters have done, rather than taking words at their face value, is problematic enough. We (with a few exceptions) don't know each other. So to assume someone is lying flat out is a disservice. Let people talk, if they really are malevelolent, it will show in their words soon enough.
Is it worth pointing out that what you're asking for is what has been, for the most part, been going on in this thread? Compared how threads on this topic usually go, note that the mods have not had to step in up to this point and issue warnings or delete posts. And at least in the more recent posts, no one has accused anyone of lying, or has done anything other than take peoples' words at face value.
Seriously, this is as civil a thread I've seen on this topic when people in the thread are in disagreement.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
KSF,
Speaking as one who holds less than popular opinions, yes this thread has been civil. There have been a few who have come flat out and said "you're lying" (I just joined so I read it from start to finish, no lapsing for time. In the name of diplomacy* I didn't call individuals out, to be polite.
*
There are people who a) feel that WotR swings too far in the other direction and b) the pushing of the role models was too overt and disrupted from the story.
Well, one of the characters is a recovering drug addict who is sliding back into addiction (according to his bio). Not sure how much of a role model that is.
Could you, or anyone else, point out the parts of the adventure where the story is disrupted? And detail how they're disrupted? Someone give me a page or an encounter or a story element or something. Explain this to me. I don't get it.
but Sam and Larry had no more flags pointing to them saying "They're GAY!" than Daniel and Amanda had saying "They're STRAIGHT!"
...
I don't feel that way about WotR. MAybe the whole AP will change that, but right now, it does feel 'tacked on' or 'forced.
What are the flags that say "They're GAY!" in WotR? This is why I brought up Aravashnial. His heterosexuality is as foregrounded as Anevia and Irabeth's homosexuality. And all of this takes up about the same amount of space as Horgus' taking on a new identity. Same with Aron and Sosiel in the second adventure.
Heck, none of the LGBT characters' stories make a big deal out of their orientation. It's just presented as another element in their history. You know the characters' genders, the bios says they met someone (who, from their pronouns, you know is the same gender), and then the bios say that eventually they fell in love. Where's the big flag there? That seems exactly like what you're saying you want. These people are presented as simply present.
And as Odraude pointed out, the bit that makes clear Aravashnial's orientation is actually even less relevant to the story (as so far presented) than the indications of the LGBT characters' orientations, since his partner doesn't seem to appear in the main adventure at all (again, so far).
I've only read the NPC bios, haven't read through the adventures themselves yet, so is there something specific that's waving the flag for you? Give me a page number.
And if it's that the relationship gets foregrounded because the adventure puts a strain on it, or because one partner is concerned about the other, or one is placed in peril, or their bond is tested, or even if one expresses their love for another, how is that different from a heterosexual couple doing the same? How is that different than any other NPC having any other kind of backstory?
Help me out here. I'm trying to understand the folks who are objecting to this, and if I take homophobia and transphobia off the table, take people at their word, and assume that's not what's going on, I really don't get it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we please stop saying "agenda" like it's a dirty word? Paizo also likes to push their agenda of making enjoyable adventures. What's the big deal if they also have an "agenda" of including characters that happen to not be heterosexual? Is there something inherently wrong about Paizo wanting to push the viewpoint that homosexual/transgender people exist and can be included in adventures? That it doesn't make you a bad person?
Yeah, I also have the same feeling about "pandering." (In the sense of "you just put gay people/dragons/this feat, etc. in here to pander to [group].")
We're trying to sell stuff. That means pandering to people, in the sense of giving them what they want. I'm in favor of pandering to as many people as possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@KSF
I recommend you read James Jacob's post. Also I suggest you read the first post of the thread. That you choose to not give merit to their statements, does not make it less so.
@Jessica
I for one, freely admit you're trying to sell stuff. The seeming heavy emphasis on the gay couples annoyed me* but I looked at it as "Well, this is one the places the management and I disagree, not enough for me to drop my subscription though."
I was pleased though, that the LBEG in pt 2 can be redeemed. Like Mikaze, I'm a sucker for redemption plots. Just to point out there are things I strongly agree with in the story so far.
*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IIRC (relying on memory here, so it's a caveat) there was some pushback on Curse of the Crimson Throne that the Queen's bodyguard being her lover felt shoehorned in, since there was no build up hinted. I think it also raised cries of "Our first lesbian is evil! How dare you!"
Well, it was a couple, not a single lesbian, and out of the 2 only one was inherently evil - the other just got caught in the storm, but there's a chance to redeem her, something that's VERY rare in Paizo APs, so saying that the first lesbian is evil isn't even correct - out of the first two lesbians, one was evil and the other not.
Anyho, back on topic - obviously, something got people started about the couples in WotR when they did not react nearly as strongly (or at all!) to couples from previous adventures. I mean, in Reign of Winter there were gay couples in two subsequent adventures (#2 & #3) and I don't recall hearing any backlash about it back than.
However, I think the people who were bothered by the couples in Wrath are not entirely sure what exactly is bothering them. There were numerous complaints that made *very* little sense - like complaining about wasted space when in fact the space dedicated in the adventure to discussing the LGBT aspects of these characters was minimal. Or like complaining about how unlikely it is to encounter TWO GAY COUPLES IN A ROW, when the entire premise of just about everything concerning APs is based on far less likely coincidences.
The closest thing Iv'e seen to an actual, legitimate argument was when people said, "I don't want some strangers' politics mixed up in my game product - please don't bother me with this inclusiveness stuff, I didn't want to be lectured, I wanted to play a cool game with my friends". And here is a nearly legitimate concern - an element in the product you've bought left a sour taste in your mouth, and you fear if you won't change it, the quality of your game will be impeded. I can also believe that this was an honest bother to some - real world politics are not the reason we play Pathfinder.
I think, however, that what really bothered a lot of people was that these couple of adventures went more into detail about the relationships of the LGBT couples involved than any before - in Reign of Winter as the most recent adventure path with LGBT NPCs, their personality and role in the campaign had NOTHING to do with their sexual relationships. This differs from WotR, where the couples are expected to spend a lot of time together, and have a significant portion of their background dedicated to describing how they came to be together and the nature of the relationship.
If someone is less than 100% comfortable with LGBTs (a state strongly correlating with not being exposed to enough LGBTs), then the amount of attention those intimate relationships are getting could easily catch your attention.
@KSF
I recommend you read James Jacob's post. Also I suggest you read the first post of the thread. That you choose to not give merit to their statements, does not make it less so.
I've read the first post in the thread. I've been reading this thread since it first started. Like I specifically said, I'm trying to give merit to their statements. I suggest you reread my previous post.
I did not say "Therefore there is homophobia or transphobia here." I said "If that's not here, what's the cause?"
If it was just homophobia or transphobia, I wouldn't like it, but I understand those things exist, and I understand that a homophobe or a transphobe would be objecting to the inclusion of these characters.
However, some people, including the original poster, have indicated they have LGBT friends, including friends they game with. I do not doubt them. I just do not understand how they can object to the presence of these characters given that that is the case, and given the approach that Paizo has taken.
Hence my request for an explanation.
Edit to add: I'm not seeing how Jacobs' post is relevant to my questions in my last post. Please see my earlier posts where I point out the LGBT NPCs are being treated and being presented no differently than the non-LGBT NPCs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once more my post, I feel, is too clouded with details to deliver my main point, so I will once more dedicate a new post to delivering the punch line-
In previous occasions of LGBT characters or couples in APs, the relationship or sexuality tended to be a tiny detail of no importance to the plot. In WotR, we have not one but two couples, both presented as allies the PCs are expected to talk with a lot and learn a lot about, and in both cases the gay relationship is pivotal to the role those NPCs play in the campaign. This forces people to fully acknowledge the LGBT nature of these characters, and to read into greater detail about their relationship. It is also apparent that the relationships will be significant during play time. This in turn lead people to pay *much* more attention to the fact that those NPCs are gay, which bothered them even when before they didn't mind.
It's a mentality lots of people share, and before being exposed to a large number of LGBT individuals I kinda had it too - "I don't mind what you people do, so long as I don't have to see it" kind of mentality. There's no malice to that kind of thought, just a slight recoil at a sight of the unknown. That's why I believe people had this issue without even being aware that this is what was bothering them. This is what made it seem more forced this time - it wasn't, it's just that this time around the relationships are more important than before. That's a side effect of how much of a focus this AP puts on recurring NPCs and having meaningful relationships with them.
Once more my post, I feel, is too clouded with details to deliver my main point, so I will once more dedicate a new post to delivering the punch line-
In previous occasions of LGBT characters or couples in APs, the relationship or sexuality tended to be a tiny detail of no importance to the plot. In WotR, we have not one but two couples, both presented as allies the PCs are expected to talk with a lot and learn a lot about, and in both cases the gay relationship is pivotal to the role those NPCs play in the campaign. This forces people to fully acknowledge the LGBT nature of these characters, and to read into greater detail about their relationship. It is also apparent that the relationships will be significant during play time. This in turn lead people to pay *much* more attention to the fact that those NPCs are gay, which bothered them even when before they didn't mind.
It's a mentality lots of people share, and before being exposed to a large number of LGBT individuals I kinda had it too - "I don't mind what you people do, so long as I don't have to see it" kind of mentality. There's no malice to that kind of thought, just a slight recoil at a sight of the unknown. That's why I believe people had this issue without even being aware that this is what was bothering them. This is what made it seem more forced this time - it wasn't, it's just that this time around the relationships are more important than before. That's a side effect of how much of a focus this AP puts on recurring NPCs and having meaningful relationships with them.
That makes sense, and I agree it probably applies to some of the people who have posted here. And I agree that someone having that reaction for that reason is not exhibiting malice. As with outright homophobia and transphobia, I understand this, and would expect this to be an explanation.
But some people have said in their posts that that's not the case, including the OP, who said they have a bi player in their group. So, if we take them at their word, they have no discomfort with the reality of LGBT people. So, again, what gives?
|
|
Once more my post, I feel, is too clouded with details to deliver my main point, so I will once more dedicate a new post to delivering the punch line-
In previous occasions of LGBT characters or couples in APs, the relationship or sexuality tended to be a tiny detail of no importance to the plot. In WotR, we have not one but two couples, both presented as allies the PCs are expected to talk with a lot and learn a lot about, and in both cases the gay relationship is pivotal to the role those NPCs play in the campaign. This forces people to fully acknowledge the LGBT nature of these characters, and to read into greater detail about their relationship. It is also apparent that the relationships will be significant during play time. This in turn lead people to pay *much* more attention to the fact that those NPCs are gay, which bothered them even when before they didn't mind.
It's a mentality lots of people share, and before being exposed to a large number of LGBT individuals I kinda had it too - "I don't mind what you people do, so long as I don't have to see it" kind of mentality. There's no malice to that kind of thought, just a slight recoil at a sight of the unknown. That's why I believe people had this issue without even being aware that this is what was bothering them. This is what made it seem more forced this time - it wasn't, it's just that this time around the relationships are more important than before. That's a side effect of how much of a focus this AP puts on recurring NPCs and having meaningful relationships with them.
That makes sense, and I agree it probably applies to some of the people who have posted here. And I agree that someone having that reaction for that reason is not exhibiting malice. As with outright homophobia and transphobia, I understand this, and would expect this to be an explanation.
But some people have said in their posts that that's not the case, including the OP, who said they have a bi player in their group. So, if we take them at...
Maybe it's just me, but I feel like a single bisexual friend is not really all that much, and could easily not be enough to *really* put someone at ease about a kind of sexuality that's so different. It took me years, over which most of my closest friends turned out to be gay (3 out of 3 roommates from my high school dorm, for example, and many more), to get to that point.
Basically, I believe it's not so easy to shake the initial trepidation that a heterosexual living among heterosexuals will have about gay intimacy (not ever necessarily physical intimacy), which there is MUCH more in WotR than in previous APs.
I'm saying that despite claiming other reasons to be the major issue they have with the subject, most people who complained are not fully aware of what bothered them. I'm basing this on the fact that most of the complaints Iv'e encountered were simply at odds with the facts. The best example is the complaint about the supposed wasted space in a product, which I think has been established as "clearly not the case here, and not what got people started at all" - so if they know what's bothering them, why complain about something else that isn't true?
At this point I feel like my words might come across as extremely snobbish, and that's not my intention here. I just actually truly believe the things that I just said - it makes sense to me that people would be bothered by the new level of intimacy demonstrated in this adventure, and wouldn't realize it. Hack, I put a ton of thought into the subject and came to this conclusion only today.
I'm saying that despite claiming other reasons to be the major issue they have with the subject, most people who complained are not fully aware of what bothered them. I'm basing this on the fact that most of the complaints Iv'e encountered were simply at odds with the facts. The best example is the complaint about the supposed wasted space in a product, which I think has been established as "clearly not the case here, and not what got people started at all" - so if they know what's bothering them, why complain about something else that isn't true?
Again, I'm inclined to agree with you. But I'd also like to try and take people at their word. But that in turn leads to things not making sense. I'm about to give up trying to understand this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have all that much to add to the conversation, other than saying that I loved the characters in question and their backstories. I think their inclusion was entirely appropriate for this AP. I am very happy to see LGBT characters as positive role-models in tabletop gaming.
One of the things I find most valuable about Paizo adventures is the highly detailed backstories of NPCs and events. While they don't always make it into actualy gameplay, I love having that information at my disposal when roleplaying encounters get into NPCs' backstories and motivations.