I've usually heard Queer instead of Questioning.close, thaX
LGBTIQ: lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersexed/questioning
yeah, I've heard both, but I think "QQ" already has another connotation
I don't use PFS rules when running my home games. I use my own. by definition, a PFS group is not a home group. Presumably if you're running a PFS game, you're going to be socially advanced enough to deal with with social issues on a presumably adult level. And that includes the commitment that PFS is open to everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual/gender orientation.
Agreed. I guess I am not really understanding the goal. If we're talking about setting material only, sure, I think it is great that Paizo is being progressive and showing various races/cultures/lifestyles in their materials. Those who like it will use it, and it will be the default. Those who don't want to use something that they feel does not add to their game, they will just not use it.
If that's all that is being asked for, I can't imagine many people are going to disagree. Now, if we start getting into specific rules, archetypes, classes, etc. based on sexual orientation, etc., I think that is definitely not core book material.
I've usually heard Queer instead of Questioning.close, thaX
LGBTIQ: lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersexed/questioning
yeah, I've heard both, but I think "QQ" already has another connotation
""QQ" in some fonts appears to be two eyes with tears falling, common forum parlance meaning "Cry more (noob. your tears are delicious)".
In reference to your correction: what would you propose as a solution? Should there be monitors wandering the tables at Cons ensuring the proper modicum of acceptance and tolerance? (admittedly, that is not nearly the most extreme, but still quite objectionable by some)
Is there even a solution available?
I've usually heard Queer instead of Questioning.close, thaX
LGBTIQ: lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersexed/questioning
Isn't "queer" a pejorative? Doesn't sound like something they'd include in that list.
I personally don't mind if I play with racists or homophobes or militant Christians or vegans or any other group I don't belong to.
I will put together a game that I think people want to play. And if my views happen to make you feel awkward about expressing your racist/homohating views, and you have to keep them to yourself, it seems like a big fat win-win situation to me. If you don't like the cheese pizza because of cow exploitation, you are welcome to make soy lasagna to bring instead. If you don't like that Corean is god, you can add 'false' before 'god' in your mind's ear all you want.
I never understood the argument that you have to tolerate intolerance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't mind if I play with racists or homophobes or militant Christians or vegans or any other group I don't belong to.
I will put together a game that I think people want to play. And if my views happen to make you feel awkward about expressing your racist/homohating views, and you have to keep them to yourself, it seems like a big fat win-win situation to me. If you don't like the cheese pizza because of cow exploitation, you are welcome to make soy lasagna to bring instead. If you don't like that Corean is god, you can add 'false' before 'god' in your mind's ear all you want.
I never understood the argument that you have to tolerate intolerance.
Because not tolerating intolerance would itself make you intolerant.
How could you tolerate yourself at that point?
I personally don't mind if I play with racists or homophobes or militant Christians or vegans or any other group I don't belong to.
I will put together a game that I think people want to play. And if my views happen to make you feel awkward about expressing your racist/homohating views, and you have to keep them to yourself, it seems like a big fat win-win situation to me. If you don't like the cheese pizza because of cow exploitation, you are welcome to make soy lasagna to bring instead. If you don't like that Corean is god, you can add 'false' before 'god' in your mind's ear all you want.
I never understood the argument that you have to tolerate intolerance.
Because not tolerating intolerance would itself make you intolerant.
How could you tolerate yourself at that point?
Right. So if someone wants to attack you for being gay/black/female/geeky/whatever, the only acceptable thing to do is just sit back and take it. Anything else is politically correct and therefore an attack on free speech.
In fact as near as I can tell, we have to preemptively censor ourselves to keep controversial issues away from anyone who might be offended, but if we do slip and someone is offended by a gay character appearing in a game, then we need to avoid commenting or reacting to anything offensive they might say because of it. They of course bear no responsibility for their behavior.
Choosing to tolerate is not the same thing as conceding to coexist, contextually.
That is, conceding the right to exist to the intolerant is not the same thing as condoning its existence, however tolerating it may be implied to do so.
Rather than arguing semantics, I would assert that people (not just players of this game) elect a third option in acceptance and tolerance. Aim to purify, not to simply destroy those who don't align with your sentiments. Redeem, educate, and have a little bit more faith in people.
tl;dr- LG status maintained, no one is losing their paladin powers today.
|
That's the beauty of it... it does FOR YOUR HOME GROUP. Are you that worried about how other home groups run their games? In my day I knew a bunch of home DM's each and everyone of them ran their home games their own way. This was an accepted norm back then, and it should be today.
this is as terrible of a strategy as those who are saying "do whatever you want in your home games" and thinking it solves everything."Run your home game the way you want" is no longer a valid argument because of PFS and reasons.
-Skeld
I don't use PFS rules when running my home games. I use my own. by definition, a PFS group is not a home group. Presumably if you're running a PFS game, you're going to be socially advanced enough to deal with with social issues on a presumably adult level. And that includes the commitment that PFS is open to everyone regardless of race, religion, or sexual/gender orientation.
On the other hand, if someone demands that their homophobia can be supported, I do think there's at least one RPG company that caters to Christian bigots. Paizo isn't that company and PFS isn't for them.
Neither do I. However, I think the RAW-iness of PFS fuels much of the rules angst around here. When PFS is the only game available to some people, it really starts to color the conversation and impede the "flavor to taste" nature of RPGs such that the "run your home game how you like" argument begins to fall on deaf ears.
Personally, I wish they'd dial back the restrictions for PFS and allow GMs to deviate from the scenario when necessary because, like I said, unnecessary rules angst is unnecessary.
-Skeld
and figure out that I have been talking about organized public play, not home games
I am not understanding your posts, I still do not understand what the OP really wanted with this thread.
I am getting that Paizo put alot of LGBT tings into their camapgins/adventures, So I am not really seeing what is the problem, what other thing is paizo supposed to do?
|
and figure out that I have been talking about organized public play, not home gamesI am not understanding your posts, I still do not understand what the OP really wanted with this thread.
I am getting that Paizo put alot of LGBT tings into their camapgins/adventures, So I am not really seeing what is the problem, what other thing is paizo supposed to do?
While it's been enlightening with some people, I have to agree. The thread in the Golarion section made more sense since it was tailored to the setting. Unless this was PFS specific, it's kind of hard to say anything other than "include LGBTQIA (Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Trans/Queer/Intersex/Asexual) in your games!"
I stated examples in my last post of where they'd accomplished things, and I'm happy about it, but it's hard to do anything in a thread like this in whatever its current state is.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it always have to go this way? It is the absolute pinnacle of ridiculousness that people start grouping themselves into special little groups and then get mad when people not in those groups don't just immediately accept the rules of the group. Once acceptance is gained then approval is demanded. Once approval is gained then endorsement is demanded.
So you're gay (or whatever entry on the gayness spectrum you might be), WHY DO I HAVE TO CARE? Seriously, why? Some people accept it, some people don't. If a hetero person who hates non-heteros is a bigot, what is a non-hetero who hates heteros? Apathy is a thing, not wanting to be tied up in gender issues is a perfectly viable option.
Why can't we get together and play a game? Would you walk away from a game where I'm a fellow player if you found out I was an atheist? If you found out that I hate the government? If you found out that I think the school system is failing our children? If you found out that I don't think rich people are evil? If you found out that I think taking money from those who have it and giving it to those who don't is evil?
As an atheist, can I be offended that Pathfinder feels the need to include gods? Can I demand that Pathfinder puts out material that shows rich people in a good light? Why doesn't Pathfinder publish material that has the players trying to overthrow a government (and I'm not specifically talking about an evil government)?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Listen man there's a bit of a difference between "I have some political opinions" and "the fact that you exist offends and disgusts me". The former can be a fun discussion topic, the latter is physically threatening to me and makes my life a hell of a lot harder than it reasonably should be. It's also stupid and irrational.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen man there's a bit of a difference between "I have some political opinions" and "the fact that you exist offends and disgusts me". The former can be a fun discussion topic, the latter is physically threatening to me and makes my life a hell of a lot harder than it reasonably should be. It's also stupid and irrational.
Oh really? Do you believe that your group is the only one that people don't approve of? Do you honestly think there are no people who would be ready to do me physical harm if they found out I think the government needs to go? Do you think there are no people ready to beat me senseless if they found out I didn't believe in a god? Frankly I find your dismissiveness* quite off-putting.
For the record, I honestly think it's awesome that more people are being accepted for who they are regardless of class, sex, color, etc. The first time I saw television commercials featuring mixed-race couples I thought things are finally going in the right direction. So don't start calling me a bigot just because I don't want to have to care about your race/class/sexuality.
*As Tacticslion likes to say from time to time, that's totally a word now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Listen man there's a bit of a difference between "I have some political opinions" and "the fact that you exist offends and disgusts me". The former can be a fun discussion topic, the latter is physically threatening to me and makes my life a hell of a lot harder than it reasonably should be. It's also stupid and irrational.Oh really? Do you believe that your group is the only one that people don't approve of? Do you honestly think there are no people who would be ready to do me physical harm if they found out I think the government needs to go? Do you think there are no people ready to beat me senseless if they found out I didn't believe in a god? Frankly I find your dismissiveness* quite off-putting.
For the record, I honestly think it's awesome that more people are being accepted for who they are regardless of class, sex, color, etc. The first time I saw television commercials featuring mixed-race couples I thought things are finally going in the right direction. So don't start calling me a bigot just because I don't want to have to care about your race/class/sexuality.
*As Tacticslion likes to say from time to time, that's totally a word now.
The issue here is that there's not an open oppression for people who are anti government, especially not in the same way that LGBT individuals face. That's quite a false equivalency. And while I'll admit the anesthetist thing holds more weight, a quick google search when comparing LGBT murders and Atheist murders (fun fact: google corrects this to Atheist murderers to give you an idea of the differences here, although I'll admit that's probably at least partial bias) will show that it's infinitely more likely to be murdered for one than the other.
No one (at least me) is accusing anyone of bigotry, although seeing the plight of those whom are more subjected to bigotry and persecution due to who they are is also important, as is representation, which is something Paizo has been quite adept at giving. It's honestly one of the reasons I like them more than WOTC, since WOTC's model of PG games in contrast to Paizo's PG-13 model is more accepting of these issues.
|
|
People who are anti-government are practically a political party these days. Every other politician seems to run as anti-government.Which is a tautology that a frightening number of people don't seem to grasp. At least the politicians are grasping, dimly, that there's some kind of anger thingy among the carbon blobs that generate their votes...
Sorry. Sorry. Off-topic. What were we talking about again? Equal representation for the left-handed or something?
Seriously not cool. Brushing off people like this is incredibly dismissive and just rude.
|
The issue here is that there's not an open oppression for people who are anti government, especially not in the same way that LGBT individuals face. That's quite a false equivalency. And while I'll admit the anesthetist thing holds more weight, a quick google search when comparing LGBT murders and Atheist murders (fun fact: google corrects this to Atheist murderers to give you an idea of the differences here, although I'll admit that's probably at least partial bias) will show that it's infinitely more likely to be murdered for one than the other.
Yeah, equating political or religious minorities in First World nations today with the struggles of racial minorities and the LGBT community in the same nations over the same period (especially in the U.S.) is like saying "Well, I've been too broke to buy food, so I know what the Donner Party went through." You've probably endured some hardship...but it's not in the same league, generally speaking. Especially in this case since, given how Simon Legrande worded that, he's never been attacked over either of the things in question.
And I say this as a pagan libertarian.
The issue here is that there's not an open oppression for people who are anti government, especially not in the same way that LGBT individuals face. That's quite a false equivalency. And while I'll admit the anesthetist thing holds more weight, a quick google search when comparing LGBT murders and Atheist murders (fun fact: google corrects this to Atheist murderers to give you an idea of the differences here, although I'll admit that's probably at least partial bias) will show that it's infinitely more likely to be murdered for one than the other.
No one (at least me) is accusing anyone of bigotry, although seeing the plight of those whom are more subjected to bigotry and persecution due to who they are is also important, as is representation, which is something Paizo has been quite adept at giving. It's honestly one of the reasons I like them more than WOTC, since WOTC's model of PG games in contrast to Paizo's PG-13 model is more accepting of these issues.
So your argument boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you therefore I should get special treatment"? Well I'm sorry, but that's bull@$&%. How does Paizo handle race/color? Why should sexuality be different?
And if everyone (in a manner of speaking) is generally happy about the way Paizo handles sexuality-based themes then why does the issue need to be pushed?
|
|
So your argument boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you therefore I should get special treatment"? Well I'm sorry, but that's bull@$&%. How does Paizo handle race/color? Why should sexuality be different?
And if everyone (in a manner of speaking) is generally happy about the way Paizo handles sexuality-based themes then why does the issue need to be pushed?
If by "Special Treatment" you mean "treated like a human being regardless of race/creed/sexuality/gender/etc", then yes, yes I do. I'm sure you've faced aggression due to your beliefs, no one is doubting this. But I can also state that I doubt it's been to the point that any of the groups that I have mentioned have faced.
By special treatment, let's say you and a group are both taking attacks, and you have 25 AC and they have 10 AC. The 'special treatment' they're getting is a shield that puts them up to 25 AC (or honestly more likely 15 with how society works), and you complain that they're getting a special shield that you're not, despite the fact that in all likelihood, you don't need that shield, while they deeply do.
And if you've ready any of my prior post, I have openly asked what the intended point of this thread is, since again, the one in the PF general discussion seems more apt to talk about the printed material, unless the OP was just asking how these issues are handled in people's home games.
People who are anti-government are practically a political party these days. Every other politician seems to run as anti-government.Do you honestly think there are no people who would be ready to do me physical harm if they found out I think the government needs to go?The issue here is that there's not an open oppression for people who are anti government, especially not in the same way that LGBT individuals face.
*headdesk*
This is literally one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Someone who would say something like this truly has no grasp on what anti-government means. How many times have you heard a politician say "I'm running for position X so I can eliminate position X"? Only someone eyeballs deep in victory gin would think any politician is running as anti-government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you're gay (or whatever entry on the gayness spectrum you might be), WHY DO I HAVE TO CARE? Seriously, why? Some people accept it, some people don't. If a hetero person who hates non-heteros is a bigot, what is a non-hetero who hates heteros? Apathy is a thing, not wanting to be tied up in gender issues is a perfectly viable option.
I understand your frustration, as I have often wondered this myself. I'm apathetic about many things that don't offend my sensibilities or impact my wallet.
At the same time, I also see the other side of this argument, which is that if no one's allowed to talk about these issues, then the default (or majority) orientation is assumed.
I generally don't care what orientation any of my players are. I'm not going to add content to a campaign that focuses on sexual orientation or sex period as I feel it detracts from all of the other things a campaign has to offer.
If one of my players tried to make their sexual orientation a focus of the campaign, I would remind them that this is not daytime TV, and hope they'd get with the program.
Yeah, equating political or religious minorities in First World nations today with the struggles of racial minorities and the LGBT community in the same nations over the same period (especially in the U.S.) is like saying "Well, I've been too broke to buy food, so I know what the Donner Party went through." You've probably endured some hardship...but it's not in the same league, generally speaking. Especially in this case since, given how Simon Legrande worded that, he's never been attacked over either of the things in question.
And I say this as a pagan libertarian.
I know a good deal of libertarians myself, so let me ask you this question: Do you find it acceptable to force others to accept your beliefs?
Every post like this simply boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As people have mentioned this is more about PFS than what folks are doing in the privacy of their home games, perhaps Paizo should include in the PFS information handouts/books/cons a disclaimer that tells participants that they may run across themes and issues that they may not agree with but exist in this game and that everyone is expected to treat everyone else with respect or else not play.
And yes, it is a shame that you have to write that out, but there are people that are going to be offended by any number of things as they leave the house each day. This way you know what you are getting into (although you really should know that there are things you don't like or agree with in the world) before you sit down.
I agree it's stupid. They don't run on "eliminate my job". They run on "Shrink government". "Cut taxes". "Cut the budget" "Get government out of your lives". Of course they're lying. But masses of people who call themselves anti-government vote for them.
Shrink government != eliminate government.
Saying anti-government is a political party is like saying atheism is a religion.
|
|
I know a good deal of libertarians myself, so let me ask you this question: Do you find it acceptable to force others to accept your beliefs?
Of course not. But if they're wrong, I certainly attempt to point that out, and convince them of that with logic and discussion. As is occurring here...
Every post like this simply boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you!"
Actually, my point was that I'm not more oppressed than you, I'm about equally oppressed...and it's not a lot, and shouldn't be compared to people who really are pretty oppressed.
As people have mentioned this is more about PFS than what folks are doing in the privacy of their home games, perhaps Paizo should include in the PFS information handouts/books/cons a disclaimer that tells participants that they may run across themes and issues that they may not agree with but exist in this game and that everyone is expected to treat everyone else with respect or else not play.
And yes, it is a shame that you have to write that out, but there are people that are going to be offended by any number of things as they leave the house each day. This way you know what you are getting into (although you really should know that there are things you don't like or agree with in the world) before you sit down.
This should never happen. You will read things and meet people you disagree with, welcome to life outside the hugbox.
|
|
Define "make their sexual orientation a focus of the campaign"? Would that include "Want to have a homosexual romance?" Even if it's mostly on the sidelines - offstage? How about a heterosexual romance? How about a casual fling of either variety?
Is one more of a problem than the other?
This is something I've always wondered. Whenever "I don't run a sexual game" comes up, it makes me wonder where romance is left in this. LGBT romance is just as valid a topic for a story. You could have a totally asexual relationship between two people of the same gender, or of a trans character falling for someone, and never play out the more intimate parts. But anytime this stuff comes up, it's always put under 'no sex', which makes me wonder if some people don't allow straight people in their games, since that is also a sexuality, and thus an 'agenda.'
I don't see why accepting that someone's more oppressed than you is a big deal, or it comes down to "Don't compared how oppressed we are!" because that usually ends badly for those in a position of privilege. Maybe instead of saying "Don't turn this into an oppression off!", the goal should be to make it so those people AREN'T as oppressed. And part of that, at least for the LGBT, is representation, which is important as to let those people feel as though they are normal.
You present a fantasy world without any LGBT people in it would feel as daunting to them as releasing a fantasy world without people of color and saying "Everything is white because."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define "make their sexual orientation a focus of the campaign"?
Wanting to RP in-depth flirting, hookups, sex, etc.
Would that include "Want to have a homosexual romance?" Even if it's mostly on the sidelines - offstage? How about a heterosexual romance? How about a casual fling of either variety?
My typical group is myself as the GM with five other guys as the PCs. None of us are interested in RPing romance with each other in the slightest. If a player wants to do things offstage, more power to them. If they want to occasionally slip things into the conversation, that's fine as well.
When it starts taking up too much of the few precious hours every other week we have to play, it becomes a problem.
Is one more of a problem than the other?
Certain types of relationships would not be able to be pushed off screen in certain areas of my campaign world, as they would cause a lot of issues to crop up. As an example, if a commoner PC wants to off screen be in a relationship with a princess, I'm not going to allow it, as the way my players are, they'd eventually want to gain some benefit from the connection, which would require screen time.
I could foresee the same problems if a cleric of an ultra-conservative religion wanted to be having a publicly known same-sex relationship. It would cause a concern in the church which would require screen time which would distract from the game, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This should never happen. You will read things and meet people you disagree with, welcome to life outside the hugbox.As people have mentioned this is more about PFS than what folks are doing in the privacy of their home games, perhaps Paizo should include in the PFS information handouts/books/cons a disclaimer that tells participants that they may run across themes and issues that they may not agree with but exist in this game and that everyone is expected to treat everyone else with respect or else not play.
And yes, it is a shame that you have to write that out, but there are people that are going to be offended by any number of things as they leave the house each day. This way you know what you are getting into (although you really should know that there are things you don't like or agree with in the world) before you sit down.
This is true, it should never happen. But then, people should be more willing to let other people live how they want as well. This way, however, people cannot say "I didn't know that there would be men kissing!" or whatever it is that is causing the issue in the PFS games or APs. I imagine there are some people that can use the warning for the violence, language, social issues, political issues and so on. Paizo has told you, if you participate or buy it you did it with the full understanding that you might see or hear things that are not what you like.
I know a good deal of libertarians myself, so let me ask you this question: Do you find it acceptable to force others to accept your beliefs?Of course not. But if they're wrong, I certainly attempt to point that out, and convince them of that with logic and discussion. As is occurring here...
Every post like this simply boils down to "I'm more oppressed than you!"Actually, my point was that I'm not more oppressed than you, I'm about equally oppressed...and it's not a lot, and shouldn't be compared to people who really are pretty oppressed.
If they're wrong... That's awesome right there. Please tell me that you aren't insinuating that someone's personal opinion can be wrong.
I leave this since it's way off topic.I agree it's stupid. They don't run on "eliminate my job". They run on "Shrink government". "Cut taxes". "Cut the budget" "Get government out of your lives". Of course they're lying. But masses of people who call themselves anti-government vote for them.Shrink government != eliminate government.
Saying anti-government is a political party is like saying atheism is a religion.
Agreed. I should have put that under a spoiler tag.