There's two same-sex marriages in WOTR, I think, one of which is two very important NPCs, Irabeth and Anevia (Not really a spoiler since you meet the latter in the very first scene of the adventure, and the former is on the AP cover). There's a long-term relationship, not quite a marriage, in ROTRL. I don't recall any others offhand.
Newest AP has a gay couple in one of the competing adventuring groups. They're probably not going to make it into book 2, however.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought about it and remembered that Loy and Latrica's marriage isn't pivotal to the plot and can easy be made professional partners in running Tatzlford, so there is a good example of a marriage that can be ignored.
I haven't read WotR yet, but like to hear that there is one there.
This isn't to say that all of my games exclude relationships. Relationships are very important in some of the more roleplay heavy games where the players actually care about character background and wish to create and develop all forms of relationships.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to say that if there is a something in any kind of media or entertainment simply to have that something, or to include it for the sake of inclusion, I don't care for it.
It seems in these days that the current something is homosexuality. I find that sad, because often including it for the sake of inclusion makes things weaker and not stronger.
If Paizo is including any type of relationship just so they can say they included it, and not because it contributes to the plot, story, or character, I honestly feel that is worse than not including it at all. That's pandering for the sake of pandering and tends to make things weaker overall. Romantic relationships can be powerful tools, and as all powerful tools they can either enhance or scar what they are used on.
An example in an AP where a homosexual relationship makes things stronger is in RotRL with the gay couple in Sandpoint. I don't have access to my book at the moment so I can't say who exactly is involved, but it really strengthens the characters involved and creates some interesting problems with other NPCs. In fact, it is the whole reason the characters are in Sandpoint to begin with, and is a motivation behind not only their actions but the actions of others as well.
An example in an AP where including the homosexual relationship adds nothing to the story would be in Kingmaker with the two dead bandits in the first book. When I learned they were gay lovers I shrugged and felt it was inclusion for the sake of inclusion, and in both groups that I ran the AP for it was completely ignored. The relationship just doesn't add anything to the already dead characters, and all that the party needs to know is that they knew each other. In fact, a relationship where they grudgingly worked together and ended up betraying each other would have been a much better choice. At least it would explain the reason for one or both of their deaths.
So do the first thing, not the second, please. I certainly hope no one in Paizo is looking at a manuscript and thinking, "Now how can I include LGBT just to satisfy people?" In fact, I hope that isn't happening for any detail, be it class, race, gender, or monster. I certainly hope (and kind of know from talking to Paizo people,) that the thought is, "Will that thing make this a stronger adventure and story?"
Romantic relationships can be powerful tools, and as all powerful tools they can either enhance or scar what they are used on.
An example in an AP where a homosexual relationship makes things stronger is in RotRL with the gay couple in Sandpoint. I don't have access to my book at the moment so I can't say who exactly is involved, but it really strengthens the characters involved and creates some interesting problems with other NPCs. In fact, it is the whole reason the characters are in Sandpoint to begin with, and is a motivation behind not only their actions but the actions of others as well.
Yep - I'm running Runelords currently (third session was last night!) and the relationship stuff there really is brilliant (especially if the PCs are mostly straight male humans or near-humans :D) - Sandpoint is just incredibly well done in general, a real gem. I wish all APs were like this! :) As you say though, unfortunately often they're not, and stuff that was cool & quirky in Rise of the Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne can become poorly done and tokenistic in later APs. I think the trick is not to get worked up about canon, keep your editorial blue pencil handy, and change stuff as desired to get whatever feels right. I'm planning to run Skull & Shackles after Runelords & Crimson Throne; I can see it will take some work to create a functional relationship web similar to what Sandpoint or Korvosa give me out of the box.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the problem for many is that they simply don't engage in fantasy role-play with the intent of pursuing (or having catered to) a particular political or social agenda. I have nothing against gay couples - I don't want issues like abortion or gun control in my campaigns either. The idea of one NPC selling a family heirloom so that another NPC can have a sex-change operation might seem romantic or noble, but there is absolutely nothing about it that says 'fantasy adventure' to me.
I get that Paizo is a progressive-minded company and that's laudable, and I get that these kinds of discussions are a deliberate driving force behind these kinds of NPC's - above and beyond simple inclusion, they 'raise awareness' - but its my position (admittedly no more valid than anyone else's) that they should reflect those beliefs in their hiring practices and in their work environment, which I'm certain that they do, and focus more on crafting superb fantasy adventures than pushing social agendas. Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous and now Mummy's Mask - Paizo's M.O. has become pretty clear. Sure, we can alter the NPC's however we wish, and we often do, but doesn't the same hold true for predominantly LGBT groups? Aren't they just as capable of altering the NPC's to suit their group's preferences?
Actually, it is "fantasy" in that a simple (if expensive) potion can bring about a switch in gender. It also suggests to me that if a thief was trying to escape the law and had enough money, a permanent gender change could be a path the thief with money could go for. (Then again, when I was running AD&D I created my own poison chart... which included a poison that over a couple minutes would transform the person to the opposite gender. But if you hit them with a Cure Poison mid-transformation, then they'd be stuck with NO gender. I wonder where I ever put those rules....)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the problem for many is that they simply don't engage in fantasy role-play with the intent of pursuing (or having catered to) a particular political or social agenda. I have nothing against gay couples - I don't want issues like abortion or gun control in my campaigns either. The idea of one NPC selling a family heirloom so that another NPC can have a sex-change operation might seem romantic or noble, but there is absolutely nothing about it that says 'fantasy adventure' to me.
I get that Paizo is a progressive-minded company and that's laudable, and I get that these kinds of discussions are a deliberate driving force behind these kinds of NPC's - above and beyond simple inclusion, they 'raise awareness' - but its my position (admittedly no more valid than anyone else's) that they should reflect those beliefs in their hiring practices and in their work environment, which I'm certain that they do, and focus more on crafting superb fantasy adventures than pushing social agendas. Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous and now Mummy's Mask - Paizo's M.O. has become pretty clear. Sure, we can alter the NPC's however we wish, and we often do, but doesn't the same hold true for predominantly LGBT groups? Aren't they just as capable of altering the NPC's to suit their group's preferences?
This is a very well-stated summary of my feelings on this subject.
-Skeld
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, very much like and appreciate the level of diversity that Paizo is showing with NPCs in its published materials.
I hope they keep including just as much diversity in their character portrayals going forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, for one, very much like and appreciate the level of diversity that Paizo is showing with NPCs in its published materials.
I hope they keep including just as much diversity in their character portrayals going forward.
I'm not sure that 'diversity' is their intent so much as including a very specific group of people whom they happen to champion as often as they realistically can in an effort to get them front and center.
Ask yourself - how many sets of siblings (for instance) have we had in the last few AP's? How many people with physical handicaps? How many heterosexual couples, especially relative to the number of specifically LGBT couples? Considering that, does it seem like they're genuinely trying to put forth a realistic representation of the world as it is, or even the gaming community as it is? Are they simply making an effort to be inclusive to all people... or are they advancing a specific group, one that only happens to make up approximately 3.8% of the population?
Again, I'm fine with anyone at my table and I'm fine with any type of character in my game (except gunslingers, hate gunslingers). I just prefer to be the one to decide what's appropriate for my group rather than have it force fed to me in a manner that seems to deliberately distract from the story and the purpose of gaming as a whole.
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the problem for many is that they simply don't engage in fantasy role-play with the intent of pursuing (or having catered to) a particular political or social agenda.
The existence of gay people is not a political agenda. Some of the modern events surrounding the struggle for gay rights probably are, but those events haven't shown up.
The same is actually true of the existence abortion, which has also shown up. There's a Good aligned woman in Sandpoint who performs abortions and Pharasma is strongly anti-abortion (though pro-birth control). Again, going into extensive stuff about a legal battle regarding abortion would be bringing politics in, the fact that people get them and a few reactions to it? Not so much.
Sure, we can alter the NPC's however we wish, and we often do, but doesn't the same hold true for predominantly LGBT groups? Aren't they just as capable of altering the NPC's to suit their group's preferences?
Okay, you're straight, right? Me, too. I'm a straight white guy, actually. This means if I want a positive role model, or hell any fictional character who reminds me of me, I have a very easy time finding one. The same is not true of gay people, transgender people, and even people of color or women to a somewhat lesser extent (though this is gradually getting a little better). This is a problem, and one Paizo is working to help overcome.
Do you change black characters in your games to be white? Is Seelah's existence 'pushing a political agenda'? If the answer is 'No.' and/or you realize how unfortunate the implications would be of such a decision, think carefully about why you're applying different standards to a different group.
Including gay characters in fiction helps to, y'know, actually normalize them, and potentially give real gay people someone to relate to better in fiction. Both of which are laudable goals that require all the help they can get.
Now, yes, a gay GM can make one or more NPCs gay who weren't before...but a lot of straight GMs won't even think to do this. Even if they have a gay player. And, frankly, why should they have to? Gay people exist, having them show up doesn't strain suspension of disbelief in any individual AP (especially since there's a whole two couples in WotR...and I'm pretty sure no more than one such couple anywhere else).
Heck, I'm pretty sure more than half the APs lack such couples as major characters altogether...now the fact that three in a row have had them is interesting, but probably no more than a statistical anomaly (especially given that half the APs are developed by one person, the other half by another, alternating).
I'm not sure that 'diversity' is their intent so much as including a very specific group of people whom they happen to champion as often as they realistically can in an effort to get them front and center.
Uh...have you looked at a Paizo book recently? Lots of female and non-white characters there to go with the gay ones...
Yeah, I'd say diversity is a fair thing to say they're aiming for.
Ask yourself - how many sets of siblings (for instance) have we had in the last few AP's?
Not many...but are people with siblings really a minority? I wasn't actually aware of that...
How many people with physical handicaps?
You mean like Alahazra, the Oracle Iconic? Or Vencarlo Orsini with his missing fingers? Or the various pirates in Skull and Shackles? Not from the last couple of APs I admit...but they certainly exist.
How many heterosexual couples, especially relative to the number of specifically LGBT couples?
Quite a few...we discuss this up-thread, actually. They tend to crop up more in city descriptions than APs, admittedly, but then, APs aren't the entirety of Paizo's business, are they?
Considering that, does it seem like they're genuinely trying to put forth a realistic representation of the world as it is, or even the gaming community as it is? Are they simply making an effort to be inclusive to all people... or are they advancing a specific group, one that only happens to make up approximately 3.8% of the population?
No, they're pretty clearly trying to include everyone. Perhaps focusing slightly on groups that currently suffer discrimination in real life because, well, those people might need heroes a bit more, don't you think?
Again, I'm fine with anyone at my table and I'm fine with any type of character in my game (except gunslingers, hate gunslingers). I just prefer to be the one to decide what's appropriate for my group rather than have it force fed to me in a manner that seems to deliberately distract from the story and the purpose of gaming as a whole.
How does the existence of a particular group detract from your gaming experience? Would you say the same about black characters, which I'm pretty sure are at least as common, likely more so?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think the problem for many is that they simply don't engage in fantasy role-play with the intent of pursuing (or having catered to) a particular political or social agenda. I have nothing against gay couples - I don't want issues like abortion or gun control in my campaigns either. The idea of one NPC selling a family heirloom so that another NPC can have a sex-change operation might seem romantic or noble, but there is absolutely nothing about it that says 'fantasy adventure' to me.
I get that Paizo is a progressive-minded company and that's laudable, and I get that these kinds of discussions are a deliberate driving force behind these kinds of NPC's - above and beyond simple inclusion, they 'raise awareness' - but its my position (admittedly no more valid than anyone else's) that they should reflect those beliefs in their hiring practices and in their work environment, which I'm certain that they do, and focus more on crafting superb fantasy adventures than pushing social agendas. Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous and now Mummy's Mask - Paizo's M.O. has become pretty clear. Sure, we can alter the NPC's however we wish, and we often do, but doesn't the same hold true for predominantly LGBT groups? Aren't they just as capable of altering the NPC's to suit their group's preferences?
The position that LGBT people don't belong in 'fantasy adventures' is a political stance as well. A rather odious, bigoted one. The excuse that you want to avoid controversial social agendas is bogus -- your existence is not a controversial social agenda. The existence of LGBT people shouldn't be one either, but apparently it is.
Wiggz, did you seriously like your own post?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The position that LGBT people don't belong in 'fantasy adventures' is a political stance as well. A rather odious, bigoted one. The excuse that you want to avoid controversial social agendas is bogus -- your existence is not a controversial social agenda. The existence of LGBT people shouldn't be one either, but apparently it is.Honestly, I think the problem for many is that they simply don't engage in fantasy role-play with the intent of pursuing (or having catered to) a particular political or social agenda. I have nothing against gay couples - I don't want issues like abortion or gun control in my campaigns either. The idea of one NPC selling a family heirloom so that another NPC can have a sex-change operation might seem romantic or noble, but there is absolutely nothing about it that says 'fantasy adventure' to me.
I get that Paizo is a progressive-minded company and that's laudable, and I get that these kinds of discussions are a deliberate driving force behind these kinds of NPC's - above and beyond simple inclusion, they 'raise awareness' - but its my position (admittedly no more valid than anyone else's) that they should reflect those beliefs in their hiring practices and in their work environment, which I'm certain that they do, and focus more on crafting superb fantasy adventures than pushing social agendas. Reign of Winter, Wrath of the Righteous and now Mummy's Mask - Paizo's M.O. has become pretty clear. Sure, we can alter the NPC's however we wish, and we often do, but doesn't the same hold true for predominantly LGBT groups? Aren't they just as capable of altering the NPC's to suit their group's preferences?
I regret that you were unable to understand my post. No one has said that LGBT people don't belong in fantasy adventure. No one. Instead of antagonizing, I would like to suggest that you discuss the points being made rather that re-interpreting them into something 'odious and bigoted' and then arguing against that instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wiggz, did you seriously like your own post?
Generally I like my posts, and I did indeed like the one you linked - wouldn't have posted it otherwise - but in this particular case I realized that I had posted it in the wrong thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I regret that you were unable to understand my post. No one has said that LGBT people don't belong in fantasy adventure. No one. Instead of antagonizing, I would like to suggest that you discuss the points being made rather that re-interpreting them into something 'odious and bigoted' and then arguing against that...
Plenty of people have said that LGBT folks don't belong in fantasy adventures. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many discussions on how to "normalize" or "handle" WotR.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I regret that you were unable to understand my post. No one has said that LGBT people don't belong in fantasy adventure. No one. Instead of antagonizing, I would like to suggest that you discuss the points being made rather that re-interpreting them into something 'odious and bigoted' and then arguing against that...
The idea of one NPC selling a family heirloom so that another NPC can have a sex-change operation might seem romantic or noble, but there is absolutely nothing about it that says 'fantasy adventure' to me.
I'm pretty sure you don't mind the idea of selling a family heirloom -- that happens all the time in lots of fantasy adventures. I also assume you don't mind magic that causes changes in a person -- healing magic, magic to change appearance, etc. because that's all over pathfinder and similar fantasy genre stories. I also would assume that you don't mind romantic and noble gestures from one person to the person he or she loves, because, again, that's all over fantasy.
I'm left with the magic being specifically sex-change magic as what you object to. I.e.: Trans people don't belong in 'fantasy adventures'.
Bigotry masquerading as 'I just don't like politics in my fantasy!' is still bigotry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking
I appreciate the tone and detail with which you responded. Oftentimes such discussions can become emotional and antagonistic and I'm thankful that neither of us are so inclined.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth because the minutia of the debate simply isn't worth the time in my estimation - I don't see anyone on the boards changing their minds - or even their perceptions - any time soon and I feel my concerns have been adequately voiced to the powers that be.
I would like to say that you repeatedly reference a 'political agenda' in your response, where I specifically said 'political or social agenda' - in my opinion the latter is much more applicable. You go on to point out many times that this is indeed a social agenda on the part of Paizo:
"This is a problem, and one Paizo is working to help overcome."
"Including gay characters in fiction helps to, y'know, actually normalize them, and potentially give real gay people someone to relate to better in fiction. Both of which are laudable goals that require all the help they can get."
"Not many...but are people with siblings really a minority? I wasn't actually aware of that..." (no, they aren't - but if diversity rather than pushing acceptance of a particular minority was the intent, as a part of the majority, wouldn't they be better represented?)
"No, they're pretty clearly trying to include everyone. Perhaps focusing slightly on groups that currently suffer discrimination in real life because, well, those people might need heroes a bit more, don't you think?"
Moving forward, based on the quotes above, I think we can both agree that Paizo is indeed pushing a specific social agenda of acceptance of LGBT lifestyles. James Jacobs himself has acknowledged as much. And I don't think the major NPC's of the past three AP's are statistical anomalies, I think they represent a deliberate choice of direction, something JJ has also acknowledged.
So that point put to bed, I'd also think we agree that its a laudable position to hold as a company. Discrimination in the workforce over such things is and should be criminal. What we disagree on is whether or not such social agendas are appropriate for the gaming products we buy. Predictably, people who share that same agenda think its absolutely appropriate... and just as predictably (though not by you), people who do not share that agenda are immediately labeled 'bigoted and odious'.
As mentioned, in our game we kept Anevia and Irabeth as a lesbian couple and they've been tremendous NPC's with their sexuality something most of the group took completely in stride. Including a magical sex-change operation on the other hand was fringe enough that it would have been a distraction to the story. We replaced Aron and Sosiel with what our GM believed were better characters and the story of the battle against the Worldwound hasn't suffered in the slightest, reinforcing the point that aspects of these characters were not put in to advance the story, they were put in to advance the subtextual agenda. We didn't care for that inclusion, so we changed it (as I suspect many have). We changed lots of things in the AP of which this was just one and certainly not the biggest or most significant.
At the end of the day, my point is that these AP's are starting to be written, not to cater to the heterosexual crowd nor to the LGBT crowd, but rather to cater to Paizo's desire to see acceptance of a lifestyle that is in the minority. I'm not debating the validity of that lifestyle, I'm simply debating the appropriateness of using gaming material to push the agenda. Including the presence of LGBT characters is natural, in my opinion, but doing so in a manner that they are defined by their sexual orientation (and the struggled that come with it) take away from the story and inevitably veer role-play off course.
I'll put it this way - when I bump into a gay guy at a bar, we talk about work or the economy or the local sports team or what the weather's been like - we don't talk about the trials he had to endure to get the sex change operation he's been longing for... because he's not a GAY person, he's a whole person. He's not defined by being gay any more than I'm defined by being straight, and the heroic qualities that he admires in others aren't ignored or lost on him if the individual in question isn't of the proper sexual orientation.
Ugh... I'm going on and on when I meant to withdraw from the conversation completely. My apologies if you've gotten this far. Again, I appreciate your response, and I'm comfortable that I've voiced my concerns. That's all I've got.
EDIT: I do feel the need to make the point that I find it preposterous that for a gay person to have a hero the hero needs to be gay, or for a transgendered person to have a role-model, that role-model needs to be transgendered. I think you'll agree that virtues like loyalty, faith, temperance, fortitude, etc. exist independently of sexual orientation and that no LGBT person would be blind to them or unable to relate to them simply because they came from someone who was straight.
Okay, THAT'S all I got. Again, sorry for going on and on.
The conclusion I come to when looking at the numbers is that Bisexual and Homosexual people (and their relationships) are simply much more common in Golarion than thy are in the real world.
Considering views the various gods influencing the world, that conclusion makes perfect sense.
It's probably not a good idea to look at any demographic of Golarion using real-world statistics as a metric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conclusion I come to when looking at the numbers is that Bisexual and Homosexual people (and their relationships) are simply much more common in Golarion than thy are in the real world.
Considering views the various gods influencing the world, that conclusion makes perfect sense.
It's probably not a good idea to look at any demographic of Golarion using real-world statistics as a metric.
Agreed. Which is why its probably not a good idea to use those statistics as the reasoning behind their inclusion in the first place. LGBT characters aren't being included to properly reflect or represent the real world, they're being included because Paizo feels that its important to include them.
I just take it that Golarion reflects the fantasies of Paizo staffers (& possibly freelancers) just as Hyborea reflected RE Howard's own fantasies, or Game of Thrones reflects GRR Martin's & the other HBO writers. Personally I like playing with (or reading/viewing) other peoples' fantasies, and I can always change them if I prefer. I don't mind that it's not realistic or plausible IRL - it's a fantasy, not real life. Fantasies can occasionally become harmful when they're believed to be real, but no one can force me to believe Paizo's fantasies.
Agreed. Which is why its probably not a good idea to use those statistics as the reasoning behind their inclusion in the first place. LGBT characters aren't being included to properly reflect or represent the real world, they're being included because Paizo feels that its important to include them.The conclusion I come to when looking at the numbers is that Bisexual and Homosexual people (and their relationships) are simply much more common in Golarion than thy are in the real world.
Considering views the various gods influencing the world, that conclusion makes perfect sense.
It's probably not a good idea to look at any demographic of Golarion using real-world statistics as a metric.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I also don't think any sort of real world demographics were the reason for their inclusion. It's clearly just something the authors felt was important to add as part of the setting.
In any case, normalizing non-standard relationships in just about any form (minus the inherently abusive or exploitive ones of course) is a good thing in my book.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Deadmanwalking
I appreciate the tone and detail with which you responded. Oftentimes such discussions can become emotional and antagonistic and I'm thankful that neither of us are so inclined.
I always strive to remain polite and coherent, but it is nice to see it acknowledged I admit.
I'm not going to get into a back and forth because the minutia of the debate simply isn't worth the time in my estimation - I don't see anyone on the boards changing their minds - or even their perceptions - any time soon and I feel my concerns have been adequately voiced to the powers that be.
Alright.
I would like to say that you repeatedly reference a 'political agenda' in your response, where I specifically said 'political or social agenda' - in my opinion the latter is much more applicable. You go on to point out many times that this is indeed a social agenda on the part of Paizo:
I'm not sure the inclusion of any particular group of people is ever an agenda. Pushing for such a thing can be, though, and I suppose if you want you can call that a social agenda...but singling out gay and transgender people specifically as Paizo's 'agenda' when they focus significantly more on, say, people of color or non scantily-clad women...both of which are at least as much social agendas in their own way. Why only complain about the gay and transgender ones?
Moving forward, based on the quotes above, I think we can both agree that Paizo is indeed pushing a specific social agenda of acceptance of LGBT lifestyles. James Jacobs himself has acknowledged as much. And I don't think the major NPC's of the past three AP's are statistical anomalies, I think they represent a deliberate choice of direction, something JJ has also acknowledged.
As much as they're pushing the idea of a black woman Paladin, sure. More? Not notably.
So that point put to bed, I'd also think we agree that its a laudable position to hold as a company. Discrimination in the workforce over such things is and should be criminal. What we disagree on is whether or not such social agendas are appropriate for the gaming products we buy. Predictably, people who share that same agenda think its absolutely appropriate... and just as predictably (though not by you), people who do not share that agenda are immediately labeled 'bigoted and odious'.
Not wanting a particular minority group of people to be included in anything is, if not bigotry, at the very least prejudice and discrimination, and thus somewhat unpleasant.
As mentioned, in our game we kept Anevia and Irabeth as a lesbian couple and they've been tremendous NPC's with their sexuality something most of the group took completely in stride. Including a magical sex-change operation on the other hand was fringe enough that it would have been a distraction to the story.
Why?
Any more than any other subplot that isn't directly part of the main story, anyway.
We replaced Aron and Sosiel with what our GM believed were better characters and the story of the battle against the Worldwound hasn't suffered in the slightest, reinforcing the point that aspects of these characters were not put in to advance the story, they were put in to advance the subtextual agenda. We didn't care for that inclusion, so we changed it (as I suspect many have). We changed lots of things in the AP of which this was just one and certainly not the biggest or most significant.
Of course it didn't. None of the NPCs personal relationship details or memberships in minority groups are essential to the plot of any AP. I'll ask again: Would you have replaced Sosiel if he were straight, just for being black? If not...why the difference?
At the end of the day, my point is that these AP's are starting to be written, not to cater to the heterosexual crowd nor to the LGBT crowd, but rather to cater to Paizo's desire to see acceptance of a lifestyle that is in the minority. I'm not debating the validity of that lifestyle, I'm simply debating the appropriateness of using gaming material to push the agenda.
And again, what makes gay characters more of an agenda than black or non-sexualized female characters?
Including the presence of LGBT characters is natural, in my opinion, but doing so in a manner that they are defined by their sexual orientation (and the struggled that come with it) take away from the story and inevitably veer role-play off course.
Wait, what? I have no idea what character you're talking about who is 'defined by their sexual orientation'? Seriously, I can't think of a gay, straight, or otherwise NPC who's had difficulty based on their orientation.
If you're talking about the transgender character in WotR...firstly, that's not a sexual orientation, it's a gender identity, and second I'd strongly argue that it doesn't define her at all. It caused her some hardship in the past, but in the present she has much bigger problems, as do the PCs.
I'll put it this way - when I bump into a gay guy at a bar, we talk about work or the economy or the local sports team or what the weather's been like - we don't talk about the trials he had to endure to get the sex change operation he's been longing for... because he's not a GAY person, he's a whole person. He's not defined by being gay any more than I'm defined by being straight, and the heroic qualities that he admires in others aren't ignored or lost on him if the individual in question isn't of the proper sexual orientation.
Uh...backstories always go into the trials the character has faced. And never go into the economy or local sports. Look at Horgus Gwerm's background for example. That deals extensively with his traumatic history...it doesn't happen to involve his sexuality, but it's the kind of thing equally unlikely to be brought up in casual conversation.
It's not suggested the character in question bring up her history and go on about it casually in conversation, y'know? It's just mentioned what said history is so the GM knows if they care. Which they should, since history informs behavior.
Ugh... I'm going on and on when I meant to withdraw from the conversation completely. My apologies if you've gotten this far. Again, I appreciate your response, and I'm comfortable that I've voiced my concerns. That's all I've got.
I'd honestly like to hear your response to this post, so I hope you come back to do that, at the very least.
EDIT: I do feel the need to make the point that I find it preposterous that for a gay person to have a hero the hero needs to be gay, or for a transgendered person to have a role-model, that role-model needs to be transgendered. I think you'll agree that virtues like loyalty, faith, temperance, fortitude, etc. exist independently of sexual orientation and that no LGBT person would be blind to them or unable to relate to them simply because they came from someone who was straight.
Okay, and here's where the dreaded word privilege rears it's head, because I don't have a better word for the concept. This is a very privileged attitude.
It's not about them not being able to have a hero who's not gay or transgendered, it's about the idea that if they (or straight cisgendered folks, for that matter) never see a hero who is gay or transgendered they get the impression that people like that can't be heroes, at least subconsciously. And that in today's media they pretty much don't get to ever see such people as heroes. Especially action-hero types.
The same used to be true of black people and women, and still is to some degree (though to a much lesser degree than gay or transgender people at the moment). Minority demographic representation in media is important to the people of that minority, as it effects both people within that minority's self-image and how people outside that group view the minority in question, and shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I do feel the need to make the point that I find it preposterous that for a gay person to have a hero the hero needs to be gay, or for a transgendered person to have a role-model, that role-model needs to be transgendered. I think you'll agree that virtues like loyalty, faith, temperance, fortitude, etc. exist independently of sexual orientation and that no LGBT person would be blind to them or unable to relate to them simply because they came from someone who was straight.Okay, and here's where the dreaded word privilege rears it's head, because I don't have a better word for the concept. This is a very privileged attitude.
It's not about them not being able to have a hero who's not gay or transgendered, it's about the idea that if they (or straight cisgendered folks, for that matter) never see a hero who is gay or transgendered they get the impression that people like that can't be heroes, at least subconsciously. And that in today's media they pretty much don't get to ever see such people as heroes. Especially action-hero types.
The same used to be true of black people and women, and still is to some degree (though to a much lesser degree than gay or transgender people at the moment). Minority demographic representation in media is important to the people of that minority, as it effects both people within that minority's self-image and how people outside that group view the minority in question, and shouldn't be dismissed as meaningless.
Thanks for replying to that point. I couldn't find it in myself to be coherent. It's just... Wow. Really. He actually went there.
For myself, I am cisgendered male and white, so there were never any shortage of heroes who look like me in fiction. But I am also bisexual, and reading depictions of bisexual protagonists, notably in the works of R. A. Heinlein (which of course are tremendously problematic in many ways, but nonetheless were important to my teenage self accepting my sexuality) was very helpful to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's one thing I would prefer to see in Pathfinder -- a refutation of the BDSM = evil trope. So far it's been played straight with, e.g. Paracountess Dralneen's bedroom, and Kuthite religion. There's some signs of it with Calistria but I'd like to see a LG paladin who relieves the stress of fighting evil by having his wife whale on him with a flogger on the weekends.
|
That's one thing I would prefer to see in Pathfinder -- a refutation of the BDSM = evil trope. So far it's been played straight with, e.g. Paracountess Dralneen's bedroom, and Kuthite religion. There's some signs of it with Calistria but I'd like to see a LG paladin who relieves the stress of fighting evil by having his wife whale on him with a flogger on the weekends.
Seconded on that. Positive portrayals of BDSM folks in RPGs are vanishingly rare. In Golarion, I imagine such things would fall under Shelyn, Arshea, and Lymnieris' domains, though it probably wouldn't be a focus. (Vildeis has the aesthetics and mood, but I imagine her followers are not expected to be enjoying themselves)
Honestly, the one explicitly positive example I can think of is that LG goddess /tg/ made up. Which actually makes a sort of sense really, alignment-wise. You'd absolutely want someone empathetic and trustworthy in such activity...
|
|
That's one thing I would prefer to see in Pathfinder -- a refutation of the BDSM = evil trope. So far it's been played straight with, e.g. Paracountess Dralneen's bedroom, and Kuthite religion. There's some signs of it with Calistria but I'd like to see a LG paladin who relieves the stress of fighting evil by having his wife whale on him with a flogger on the weekends.Seconded on that. Positive portrayals of BDSM folks in RPGs are vanishingly rare. In Golarion, I imagine such things would fall under Shelyn, Arshea, and Lymnieris' domains, though it probably wouldn't be a focus. (Vildeis has the aesthetics and mood, but I imagine her followers are not expected to be enjoying themselves)
Honestly, the one explicitly positive example I can think of is that LG goddess /tg/ made up. Which actually makes a sort of sense really, alignment-wise. You'd absolutely want someone empathetic and trustworthy in such activity...
Thirded.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wiggz, you've said you've voice your concerns, so I don't expect you to reply to this post. (I'm not on the boards much at the moment, so I'd probably miss the response anyways.) I would ask that you read it and give it some thought, if you're so inclined.
I do feel the need to make the point that I find it preposterous that for a gay person to have a hero the hero needs to be gay, or for a transgendered person to have a role-model, that role-model needs to be transgendered. I think you'll agree that virtues like loyalty, faith, temperance, fortitude, etc. exist independently of sexual orientation and that no LGBT person would be blind to them or unable to relate to them simply because they came from someone who was straight.
I don't think anyone has said that gay people can only have (or only seek out) gay characters as fictional role-models, or that transgender people only seek out transgender characters.
Speaking for myself as a trans woman, of course I can admire or see something of myself or identify with a non-trans character. There are many non-trans characters that I have cared about deeply and found to be sustaining (in the way that good fiction is sustaining). Otherwise, I wouldn't be getting much out of fantasy fiction/RPGs/movies/whatever, because trans characters in such works are, by and large, few and far between.
But I can tell you, the rare occasions where I see a positive depiction of a trans character, and further, a trans character taking on some variation of the hero role? That's kind of a huge thing. Anevia (for example)? Huge. If characters like her had been around when I was a young kid playing D&D back in the day? Again, huge. If you yourself can't understand that, or find the inclusion of such characters to be of little value, please understand and accept that it's important to those of us who, generally speaking, have been excluded on a very basic level from this genre that we love. Please understand and accept that it has meaning and value to us, even if it doesn't to you.
You say that it's preposterous to suggest that an LGBT person can only identify with an LGBT character, and I agree with that specific statement. Can I ask whether or not you yourself are able to identify with LGBT characters, particularly when they are presented with the various virtues you list? Anevia used to have a male body prior to Irabeth's sacrifice. After Irabeth's sacrifice, that changed. Does that element in the character's past somehow impinge upon your RPG experience, or prevent you from enjoying your interactions with the character during the game?
Something else to think about. Your description of Anevia's backstory as being "fringe enough that it would have been a distraction." From some of your past posts, I understand that you're not intentionally coming at this issue from a homophobic or transphobic perspective. But think about what you're saying when you say that someone changing their sex, presented as what is essentially a fantasy analog to a real world experience that a significant number of people undergo, is too fringe for a setting with perpetual hurricanes, undead kaiju, crashed spaceships, a giant unstoppable elephant monster, super-intelligent squids launching meteors at the planet, vast underground civilizations, elves from outer space, gnomes from another dimension, etc.
I'm not debating the validity of that lifestyle, I'm simply debating the appropriateness of using gaming material to push the agenda.
Being trans is less of a lifestyle, and more of a treatable medical condition, actually. But this probably isn't the thread to debate that.
I'll put it this way - when I bump into a gay guy at a bar, we talk about work or the economy or the local sports team or what the weather's been like - we don't talk about the trials he had to endure to get the sex change operation he's been longing for... because he's not a GAY person, he's a whole person. He's not defined by being gay any more than I'm defined by being straight,
While his orientation is not the whole of his self or his identity, it's certainly going to be a part of it, just as being straight is a part of yours. That you're able to think of your orientation as being something that doesn't define you at all is, as Deadmanwalking put it, a result of straight privilege.
Which doesn't make you a bad person, obviously. I've got white privilege. I don't have to think about race to the same extent that non-white people do. I could go all day without thinking about being white. (I actually do think about it a lot, but I don't have to.) It might never come up in a conversation at a bar. But it's still part of my identity, one part of my whole person.
That guy at the bar is going to have his own backstory, so to speak, whether it comes up in the conversation or not. If he's a gay man who, as you say, had to endure many trials in order to get a sex change operation that he longed for, for example, he's most likely a trans man, and part of his identity is shaped by how and when he became aware of that, how and when he began to express it, if he expressed it, how that expression of his identity was received by others, and what he had to go through and possibly sacrifice in order to get a sex change operation, which is not a cheap thing to get. How did whatever significant other he might have had prior to transition react to his gender identity? Did they break up? Are they still together? Has he gone stealth, or is he more or less open about his past?
All of these things will have shaped him and will be a significant part of the whole person that he is. He may not express these things in conversation, but he will have been, in part, shaped by them.
the heroic qualities that he admires in others aren't ignored or lost on him if the individual in question isn't of the proper sexual orientation.
LGBT people are, in my experience, generally cool with straight and/or cis-gendered characters. Why does the converse (straight, cisgendered people and LGBT characters) generate such strong reactions? Why are they "fringe"? If orientation or gender-identity, or an alignment of those elements in both character and consumer of character don't matter, why is it necessary to change them for your gaming group? Why are Anevia, Aron and Sosiel's qualities as characters, heroic or otherwise, lost on you if, as you say, orientation and gender identity don't matter to you?
Anyways, like I said, if you don't want to respond, or you're tired of the discussion, okay. I'm just suggesting that you might give this subject a bit more thought, particularly in regard to some of Deadmanwalking's responses to your posts.
|
I was really enthused when I found out about Paizo aiming to be really inclusive, and it inspired me to make up characters across the spectrum. Most of the time, it turned out that the sexuality and preferences of my characters never really became apparent, because they weren't able to settle down with anyone, what with all the imminent dangers.
I never worried whether or not straightness was the smallest minority among NPCs in Golarion, but since sexuality isn't a taboo subject there, the heterosexual NPCs wouldn't have to worry about entitled, privileged ones from complaining about how they won't stop pushing their straight agenda.
As to how I handle things when I'm in the GM's seat, PCs can pursue romances, it's possible for NPCs to become attracted to them unless they find it uncomfortable (Romance Switch: off), and most of the Chaotic religions would encourage people experimenting and figuring things out for themselves. Especially Shelynites, Caliens, Calistrians, and worshippers of certain outsiders.
I also portray Erastil's outlook as, "Protect The Babies!" Women, for example, can love women, as telling them that their love is wrong is not Lawful Good, but Erastilians who cannot or choose not to reproduce will be expected to help take care of children, should the need arise. Schoolteachers, librarians, instructors, or whatever's needed.
As a side note, I portray racism as a new philosophy espoused by certain privileged Chelish elite: "We're clearly the greatest nation in the world," they say, "so in comparison, everyone else is less so. We're doing you a favour by conquering you," thus rationalizing the evil they commit. Invented by humans, but devils will still happily take credit for it.
But yeah, make up any kind of PCs you want! NPCs, too!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
(stuff)
On behalf of those of us that want to support you but are never quite sure the best way to do so, I just wanted to say thank you for that explanation :)
I'm guessing it's not easy to have to keep laying out your emotions and feelings on the Internet to explain yourself to everyone, especially as nobody should have to explain themselves. You shouldn't have to, but the fact you do hopefully fosters more understanding for the future.
BTW, I don't want anyone else to feel overlooked - obviously this goes out to everyone else that makes similar posts too, it's just that I happened to notice yours.
Mostly though, I just wanted to make sure you received some kind of appreciation for your posts because I'm sure you're more used to getting negative responses, but it's important to remember the positives are there too, even if they don't get voiced as often :)
On the issue at hand - personally I feel it's more important we reach a point where we stop picking over who is included and get so used to seeing the diversity of NPCs that we just think of them as people first, and any other label second. I'm more than happy to accept an "artificial" level of inclusiveness in order to ensure that inclusiveness is actually happening (and if Paizo are pushing an agenda here, then it's an agenda worth pushing, but I'd rather view it as less of an agenda and more just doing things right.)
I'm also somewhat sad that there's any resistance at all considering the amount of material in question tends to be no more than two or three paragraphs in a book. If that somehow devalues the rest of the content in the book, then perhaps I should start complaining about the amount of combat-related material ;) We can't force people to enjoy it, but I'd hope at least people were tolerant enough to accept that it's in there, that the fact others may find it enjoyable/comforting is a good reason for it to be there, and to enjoy the rest of the book for what it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Warning - a bit off topic:
I would like to see some functional non-monogamous relationships represented. That would really set the drama ball a rolling.
(Example - The princess wants to add a PC as a second spouse, while a failed assassination attempt is actually staged to frame the first spouse as the responsible instigator).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would personally say that having sexuality and gender preferences be mentioned AT ALL is what primarily makes Paizo's setting, APs and modules different from other RPG products. That's the biggest difference to me, not what form that sexuality or gender preference takes. It's been a lack from the very beginning, decades back now. I am happy to see it, and the fact that Paizo does their best to show diversity is a good thing.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
as someone that plays RPGs primarily with my kids and wife, an NPCs sexuality almost never comes up, however i don't have a problem with how Paizo has been doing it, in fact one kid in my daughters class with 2 dads thought it was cool that their were other people in the campaign setting that was like her family, so keep at it Paizo!