I'm a little worried that I've overstepped my bounds as a GM, so I could use some input.
I am running WotR for a 10 person group (9 + GM). We've always been a large group and that's the way we like it. The GM role gets passed around and this is my turn. We're three weeks in and right from the beginning, I knew that Anevia and Irabeth would ruffle some feathers. My group is made up mostly of very right-winged conservatives (it's just who they are and I've learned to accept them in spite of our differences of opinion).
Knowing that there might be issues, I reworked Anevia's backstory to take out the transexual part, and I plan to make Sosiel & Aron in Sword of Valor into brothers, but I left the relationship between Anevia & Irabeth as is. I figured my group could handle that little tidbit even if it did push them out of their comfort zone.
Unfortunately, I'm beginning to worry that I over estimated their ability to handle two homosexual NPCs, and I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't want to retcon anything, and I don't want to let them "convert" Anevia as they are joking about doing. I guess all that leaves me with is to carry on and try to minimize the situation so that it isn't right in their faces all the time, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I literally got no good advice to give.
I guess it really depends on how much you want to give...
As has been said, their relationship really isn't that important to the long-term story of the campaign. If you want you could even let their 'conversion' succeed, though the thought does feel...off? wrong? something like that, so I'd understand if you didn't want to go there. For the most part, I would avoid putting any emphasis on it, and leave it as a little background detail unless your characters try to bring it forward. If they do, I'd just try to get into character and see what the character does.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this is a Straw man thread its all b+*+~$@~!
honestly! there are gay people EVERYWHERE, quit worrying about what other people do in their own bedroom and focus on your own relationships.
Okay, forgive me for being dense, but I'm confused. What is a "straw man thread"? That's a term I've not come across before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I literally got no good advice to give.
Ditto
At least no advice on how to deal with bigots that wouldn't land you in jail for a long time..
A strawman arguments is when you one person argues for X and another argues against X where instead of attacking X the create a strawman, call it Y and attack it as if it were X.
Basically when it is impossible to counter an argument you change the what you arguing about so that you can attack it.
Like trying to argue that 1+1 is not 2. Clearly it is but then you say but if you 1 chicken and 1 dog you don't clearly you don't have 2 chickens so 1+1 is not 2. The strawman here is introducing species change the argument from mathematical to counting chickens.
On the topic a simple fix here is say Anevia was cursed with gender changing item and any attempt to they have tried to fix it has failed and now only miracle can fix things.
Didn't Irabeth trade her sword to pay for Anevia's permanent sex change? What exactly have you told your players?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
dear forums
give me advice about how to avoid having my game group deal with people being people
Okay, forgive me for being dense, but I'm confused. What is a "straw man thread"? That's a term I've not come across before.
A "Straw Man" argument is when one person in a debate falsely represents his opponents position, then attacks and dismantles this false representation. Basically they put words in their opponents mouth, then use those words against them.
I don't really think this thread qualifies, as the OP is simply stating that Paizo put LGBT friendly characters in their module which are a potential point of contention for his group of conservative right-wingers who are mostly anti-gay.
I think Captain Yesterday means to say the OP invented the scenario in order to provoke right-wing conservatives into defending their position on gay rights, then used it as an opportunity to attack them on their position. That qualifies more as a bait-and-switch or a loaded question than a straw man though. I could be wrong of course.
Personally, as a pro-LGBT rights conservative (I guess I most closely qualify as a Libertarian/fiscal conservative) I think the opinion of the group in question is narrow and un-enlightened. I feel that any course of action that causes two individuals to be treated differently under the same set of laws is bigoted and destructive to our society as a whole. I feel that Anevia would not be the same character without her background, and I find her story to be compelling, and Irabeth's actions and position on the matter touching. Sosiel and Aron seem a little more shoehorned in (probably because they did not start the adventure with the party and were instead shoved into the group later by the queen) but their sexual identity and relationship status are no less valid than Anevia and Irabeth.
Perhaps the players should accept that more than one position exists on a given argument, and that Paizo have crafted the setting of Golarion with the assumption that the prejudices and bigotries that exist in our world do not exist in their campaign setting. They are, after all, not worshiping the Christian God. They are worshiping Golarion deities with very different doctrines, and their characters are beholden to those deities and their doctrines. If they cannot reconcile these doctrines with their own beliefs in the name of fun and roleplay, then perhaps they should choose a different campaign setting.
But that's just MY opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty more ;-)
Not sure exactly how this fulfills the terms of being a Straw Man argument?
D'oh!
got my internets lingo mixed up,what i meant was, the thread was started just to start an argument and get people all riled up along left-right ideologies, i could be wrong tho.
How far into the adventure are you?
If it's a really uncomfortable situation and you've already introduced the relationship, maybe it's not a bad idea to just have Irabeth and Anevia stay in Kenabres for whatever reason. As far as I know, there's nothing in the adventure path that 100% requires them to be with the group.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't care for most of the NPC's as written (we get it Paizo - you're progressive) so I made some pretty extensive changes that actually streamlined the story a bit and didn't feel quite so 'forced'. In our game Anevia and Irabeth are a lesbian couple - and great NPC's both. Horgus is Anevia's wealthy father who resents Anevia's marriage due in large part to his not having an heir - they are estranged as a result and his pigheadedness gets him killed early on in a rather horrific way (vermlack, anyone?). Aravashnial stayed pretty much as written.
Aron, Sosiel and the little Halfling bard are all out. I replaced them with a Mongrelman Archeologist (Lann) who serves as a liaison with his people and a human Ranger who serves as the chief spy/scout - Anevia serves as his second and it's he with the secret shadow blood addiction which he eventually fell victim to and disappeared, returning later as a hunter and stalker of the PCs, striking when they were most vulnerable.
It all worked out really well without any bigotry or over-the-top agendas in sight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just MY opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty more ;-)
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 find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is this even an issue?
i thought nerds were supposed to be open-minded? its 2014 and gay/transexual people aren't going away.
there is literally hundreds off sitcom episodes about one person writing something only to have it tweaked later on by someone else, a big fight ensues, then the first person apologizes blah, blah, blah.
if you don't like something in the script/adventure change it, easy as that:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ask any nerd or geek woman about "fake geek girls" to get a view of the open-mindedness of geeks and nerds.
Though I half-suspect the people who protest loudest about fake geek girls are in fact fake geek guys who are in fact pretending to be geeks so they can troll the community. ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just dont get the whole ''i'm cool with gay npcs, just not too many'' and ''keep them in the background'' or ''wont somebody please think of the straight couples'' every ap is written by 6 different people with 6 different backgrounds.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
Yeah, what's with all these queers thinking they can get away with being seen as normal? Everything should go back to being about straight white men like it's supposed to be!
Sorry for the delay in replying - work is crazy.
Captain Yesterday, I do appologize. My topic was not intended to stir up s!&@. Part of where I was coming from was the Dungeonmastery Guide, where I had read about knowing your group and how some groups are okay with different levels of grit or controversy, etc. And I couldn't help but worry that I really had overstepped my bounds as a GM by not knowing my group well enough.
I know there are different sides and viewpoints to the gay/lesbian discussion and my opinion doesn't really matter here. I was hoping more for a few suggestions on how best to handle the NPCs from here on out so as not to isolate my players any more than I already have. For those of you who have offered advice - thank you. I have considered it all and hope that this conflict doesn't really come to a head among my players.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
and I don't want to let them "convert" Anevia as they are joking about doing.
I wouldn't be playing at this table, if this is how the other players were permitted to act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, what's with all these queers thinking they can get away with being seen as normal? Everything should go back to being about straight white men like it's supposed to be!I find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
Very helpful to the discussion, thanks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two simple solutions. The first is going to cause fecal matter to smack dab into that rotating blade apparatus over there: lure off the PCs to deal with some random encounter threat and then kill off the lovers in a demon attack on the Paladins where these two single-handedly saved several lives before dying. They're dead, the party should be low enough level that bringing them back is no problem, and the whole situation goes away. TV Tropes has a trope on this, by the way.
The second is to have Aneiva and Irabeth remain behind and refuse to have anything to do with the adventurers. They go elsewhere for the crusade and their benefits are no longer available for future adventures.
Third is to sit down your group and tell them you're disturbed by their talk on this and you would appreciate it if it would end. If they badmouth you because of this? Say "fine" and walk out. Let them find a new GM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I've been dodging reading this thread because I'd assumed it was a GM that didn't know how to play the couple.
Then it got long enough to make me curious, so I opened it.
WTF Players. Really. WTF. This is a game. A make believe world where magic is real.
Tell your players to bring one of the following two things to the table. Their character sheet or their politics. Not both.
Honestly, I'd have Irabeth give them a strange look, point out the fact that her Goddess, Iomedae, supports her so what business is it theirs. And then start questioning if the Templars of the Ivory Labyrinth got to them to begin breaking down moral.
The goal is to create an adventure that everyone at the table enjoys. That includes all established group members (though not necessarily transient/tryout members), and that specifically includes the GM. Make sure you're running a game you enjoy. You might not enjoy fully, due to compromises, but make sure on the whole, you enjoy it, and you're not just GMing as a service. That's all I'll say on the "social issues" side of this. And it'd be nice if the forum crusaders in this thread would stop telling others that they are having badwrongfun.
So dealing with the larger issue of "I've introduced a topic that the party hasn't taken well to": I agree with Changing Man, don't retcon, it creates a horrible precedent, and destroys seriousness and immersion.
Usually the best way to "deal" with it is it have it fade into the background. If it stops showing up in the PCs' face, they usually lose interest and refocus on the core elements of the plotline. In this case, I'd stop having the NPCs get defensive when they are questioned/attacked, and instead have them deal with the criticism passively. (Not giving in, just saying "sure, whatever" and getting back on whatever the prior topic was.) In most cases, the PCs will simply lose interest if you stop fighting them.
If, however, the PCs continue to show interest in getting involved, then you should remove one of the distracting NPCs from the equation. It seems your group has fixated on Anevia, so have her leave town. You can even have her "break up" with Irabeth to give some finality to it. The overall arc of the plotline won't suffer too much from simply writing her out of it. Keep Irabeth's role in the campaign intact, so as to preserve that half of the continuity.
My guess is that should put the issue to rest and let you get on with your game. Which is about being heroes that kill demons in the Worldwound. The AP is not supposed to focus on taking sides in opposing/supporting the interpersonal relationships of side characters.
And if, for some reason, even after removing Anevia, the PCs still stay fixated on Irabeth's identity, then I would posit it's because of lack of anything else for the PCs to focus on. Give them other interesting NPCs as well, and give them other interesting issues that engage your players. You could be in a situation where it's the only thing they know to grab on to.
Finally, if need be, make Irabeth "fed up" with relationships, and say she's done dating anyone, male or female. She's no longer gay, but something akin to celibate. You could even cast the blame for that upon the PCs if you think that would send the right message.
Because the game isn't supposed to be about this. It's supposed to be about delving into ruins and freaky landscapes, killing demons, and getting awesome treasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that's just MY opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty more ;-)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 don't necessarily think it's just about advertising that they are "progressive" or anything. It's about making certain groups of people feel welcome in their campaign setting by including NPC's that they can identify with. You can see examples of this in older D&D texts when they began alternating between "he" and "she" in the descriptions of their classes, feats and spells. Similarly, they have included humans of a variety of racial backgrounds and skin colors in Pathfinder, using real-world inspiration for their cultural backgrounds and beliefs.
These kinds of additions are about making everyone feel included and welcome, not just about pushing an agenda. If Paizo wants to sell to a majority of people, they cannot make their product cater exclusively to one particular group. Including a little bit of everything (like homosexual or transgender characters) makes it a little close to the melting pot of a planet we all share.
--------------------------------------------------
Regarding the discussion at hand - personally I would speak to the players out of game. Tell them that this product comes from a company that does not share the political and social views of the religious right and as such there may be content as written that caters to the LGBT community among others. I would ask how the players feel about that content being included in this (and future) campaigns and how they, as a group, would prefer I run the game.
If the answer is "go with it" then I would expect no complaints later. If the answer is "cut it out" I would do that (though I don't think I would game with a group that wasn't open minded enough to give it a shot).
As others have said, you know your players best. If you think this is going to be a sticking point and draw the focus away from the major story, you should either change it or perhaps look to a different AP.
Hope that helps.
If you feel the need for Anevia to leave in order to keep the players from being distracted, a reason could be a death in the family, an illness, something like that, where she has to leave but Irabeth feels that she's needed in the crusade. No reason to have them break up.
As for responding in character, just a "Wow... really?" in a surprised tone of voice when they make such remarks, or a "Is that really necessary? Let's go back to solving this problem..." kind of thing should work. If they don't get a satisfying response, they won't keep poking at it.
Yeah, what's with all these queers thinking they can get away with being seen as normal? Everything should go back to being about straight white men like it's supposed to be!I find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
It just comes off as the token gay couples and I find it kind of offensive actually. It's kind of hard to explain but it's like they are exploiting homosexuals. Like I'm part native and they used to do it in TV show with the token Indian way back the day. It comes off as stereotypical. Just reminds me of that.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just comes off as the token gay couples and I find it kind of offensive actually. It's kind of hard to explain but it's like they are exploiting homosexuals. Like I'm part native and they used to do it in TV show with the token Indian way back the day. It comes off as stereotypical. Just reminds me of that.Yeah, what's with all these queers thinking they can get away with being seen as normal? Everything should go back to being about straight white men like it's supposed to be!I find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
What? How in the world is having gay couples shown inherently exploitative? Or stereotypical? I wasn't aware badass Paladin or clever Rogue were, in fact, gay or transgender stereotypes. Or that including a variety of gay couples in a whole host of wildly different situations was somehow 'token gay couples'. That's...really not how that works, at all.
Especially considering the number of LGBT people (including writers) at Paizo. I think, generally speaking, the members of a particular group have more right to say whether something is tokenism or exploitative than you or I.
It's certainly possible to include LGBT people as tokenism or in an exploitative fashion...but that generally involves having only a single, usually one-dimensional and/or stereotypical example of said minority and then spending a fair amount of time trumpeting about it. Paizo has done none of the things I just listed. In fact, they've basically done the exact opposite of that on almost every level, actually. So...yeah.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just comes off as the token gay couples and I find it kind of offensive actually. It's kind of hard to explain but it's like they are exploiting homosexuals. Like I'm part native and they used to do it in TV show with the token Indian way back the day. It comes off as stereotypical. Just reminds me of that.Yeah, what's with all these queers thinking they can get away with being seen as normal? Everything should go back to being about straight white men like it's supposed to be!I find this is going a little too far. I mean it was interesting when it was new but lets get away from it now.
It's kind of like when two women or two guys first kissed on network television. It was something new and different and acceptable but it lost it's charm as time went on.
Are you any of LGBTQ etc? If so, I understand that you may certainly have your own feelings about how members of the minority are portrayed. If it helps at all, many of Paizo's staff are LBGTQ themselves, and they are including these characters to reflect what they wished they had seen when they were growing up playing RPGs -- characters that were similar to them. If not, please understand that nearly every LGBTQ person (including myself) who has spoken up on these forums about these characters has seen their inclusion as being positive, not being 'token' at all but being positive depictions of same-sex relationships and trans* people.
It just comes off as the token gay couples and I find it kind of offensive actually. It's kind of hard to explain but it's like they are exploiting homosexuals. Like I'm part native and they used to do it in TV show with the token Indian way back the day. It comes off as stereotypical. Just reminds me of that.
While it may be hard to explain, I'd kind of like to hear the explanation (maybe in another thread), since I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
There has actually been a couple of comments purported to be by LGBTQ individuals concerning the gay couple in the second Wrath of the Righteous book. I personally got a vibe of "girlfriend of the drug addict" from one of the two (which may be ironic seeing this was a gay couple, not lesbian) and that element bugged me more than the homosexuality angle. To be honest, they would work equally well as heterosexual life partners (sans TV Tropes link) if you want to play up the fantasy drug addiction angle and how it impacts the lives of those around them.
One thread commented there are far fewer single men in the comic (who aren't villains or antagonists at least). So obviously heterosexuality is alive and well in Golarion - single girls are suffering because the good guys are all taken! ;)
But that's just MY opinion, and I'm sure there are plenty more ;-)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.
Exactly.
In my gaming group I just turned Irabeth into a ugly, gruff, frontier human man and the girdle into a cure for a degenerative muscle disease similar to MD Anevia has been suffering for years. Works well so far.
|
| 3 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'm part of this group and I still don't get what's the problem with topics like these in the APs. I mean, the relationship between Anevia and Irabeth is neither central for the APs plot, nor is it terribly important for the course of any of it's adventures. You do not pursue any agenda just by having those NPCs in your campaign anymore that you would do if they were a heterosexual couple.
Also, it doesn't cater to any agenda, it caters to actual existing people. If the mere existence of those NPCs helps to make other people feel welcome in the Pathfinder family, that's a great thing. Because while you're right that LGBT groups are perfectly "capable of altering the NPCs to suit their groups preferences", they shouldn't need to have to do this as the only way to find representation in the hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Late to the party, but the book mentions Horgus running off for not wanting to deal with the PCs.
Just do the same thing for Anevia and Irabeth. Take some story experience away from them and deny them something else in the future since Irabeth said the PCS were asses. Or dont.
In my campaign Irabeth is a male human paladin and Anevia was always a woman, no sword sold for any reason, just Anevia spying on Horgus. I didn't like their story myself, so I changed it. Aron and Sosiel I left as they were written, really love those guys.
I'd suggest you see how it goes. The characters backstory can play a big part or no part at all. I started off with (a) "Aron and Sosiel, you hear they're involved". When they started getting dragged around and becoming permanent members of the party (b) "Here's your companions story, while you sit at the campfire and yabber away." When they became important (c) I kidnapped Sosiel and had two sessions running around with Aron trying to rescue him. Depending on how it goes you can stop at (a) and then have them sit in Drezen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking since the original OP wrote her post...3 years ago? the issue has probably been dealt with :P
Thinking since the original OP wrote her post...3 years ago? the issue has probably been dealt with :P
Month and day? Check. Year? I'm sure its 2017... oops
Be interesting to know how the issue was dealt with . . . .