| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it bizarre that in a game whose standard play mostly consists of "kick down the door and murder things for being different while stealing their stuff" has people screaming "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" when it comes to a character being gay.
Trans issues could be kind of interesting to explore in a world where magical shape shifting exists, though I am not positive how one does that without appearing insensitive to real life trans issues. For example, I play an Oracle who was born a male with the Many Forms revelation, in a world that is otherwise low magic. If it is really hard to find other magic for any sort of permanent Alter Self... I wonder what my character would be like if he identified as a female. I could transform into what I actually identify as... but only for 10 minutes a day at most. There could be all sorts of fun character angst there, but you would be walking a line with trying to also keep it sensitive.
|
If you say intelligent people keep these separate, you are implying people who don't, such as the poster you were responding to, are not intelligent, by not keeping them separate.Sure. I assume most folks are intelligent from the get go. Economically, it's smarter to take no position than to take one. If you want to argue that, that's fine. I imagine it'd be quite difficult.
That depends on the situation. If there's a clear majority, then it's economic to take the position of the majority. If all sides are passionate about their stances, then not taking a position merely makes you an enemy of all. In general, if people perceive there being a problem, they will assume if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing", comes to mind). Unfortunately, everyone see their own side as Right/Good/Correct/"The Solution". Hence why sitting on the fence can actually work to your disadvantage. Not to mention, it's not the most comfortable place to sit. :P
And he didn't say support it with income. He said support it. If they've ever attended a rally (without spending a cent), voted for a politician (without donating to his campaign), attended a fundraiser (even if they didn't personally raise funds), or engaged in positive discussion of their ideology with peers who may or may not share it, they have supported that ideology. They wouldn't be able to do some of these things, and may be discouraged from those they still could do, if doing them hurt their business lives.Okay heres something interesting. Say theres a person who works at a restaurant. He hates X. He does all the things you mentioned. The restaurant owner nor the restaurant have a stated opinion on X. Do you now not eat at that restaurant since that one worker who is paid by the restaurant since eating there would support his lifestyle and apparently therefore his ideology? This is without considering the rest of the people employed there of course whom have many varying opinions that you couldn't hope to gauge all of. I find that argument quite weak and ultimately pointless. If the business itself isn't contributing then the owner's personal contributions are negligible compared to the ideologies and potential contributions of all the other people working there. To not eat there based on one person's personal opinion and ignoring all the other people who work there is idiotic.
Depends, again. Personally? If the restaurant was good, I'd still go there. I wouldn't tip that particular waiter, but I'd still go. If I was more socially active, I'd probably also complain to the manager, or write a letter to the management. As you infer, making others who do not share his ideal suffer for his beliefs would be counter productive. However, we were talking about upper management, the people who make the majority of the profits, who take the lion's share of what you pay in. As was shown in Mozilla's latest news story, people with such disagreeable opinions in such high level / public positions get replaced with people who don't share those opinions. In the restaurant example, I stop paying into the one's encouraging an ideology I don't agree with, and start paying into one's that encourage one I do agree with. The money is moving, and so will the support positions, to more socially conscious and accepting restaurants. They will not vanish into the aether.
Personally I don't give a damn about sexual orientation. What people do behind closed doors is their own business. I find that choosing to be as vague about the issue as possible is the most inclusive without outright promoting it(Which I find tasteless).
Because then the Status Quo on relationships in Pathfinder is "Whatever you want it to be."
Which is a really easy position to take, when you're part of the majority. As others have said, if you're vague, everyone will assume cisgendered, heterosexual. It's the "norm". When you're vague and nonspecific, as the majority, it's really easy for you to include yourself, your own stances, into that vague, general block. When you're a minority, who doesn't see themselves anywhere else, then you're going to find it a lot harder to insert yourself, unless someone gives you a place. By, say, stating that your minority does indeed exist here, with examples like this dude(ette). Not to mention, when you're part of that "standard", it's a lot easier to overlook the little things that give away that your vague, vacant hole to be filled is meant for your specific majority, completely unintentionally.
...Even when you consider that depression, homelessness, unemployment, verbal and physical abuse, violence, murder, and suicide--all symptoms of a real world intolerant society--are several times higher for LGBT+/QUILTBAG people than the rest of the population?...Sorry but, can you quote me a source on those depression, murder, etc figures you mentioned? 'Cause that's pretty bad.
A quick search on "LGBT _____________ federal statistics" returns several hits:
[Centers for Disease Control] LGBT Health Topics for Gay and Bi Men, Lesbian and Bi Women, Trans* Persons, and LGBT Youth
[Human Rights Campaign] "Growing Up LGBT in America" report (PDF, I'm afraid)
[The Trevor Project] (crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) young people ages 13-24.) Suicide Prevention Resources: Facts About Suicide
[Southern Poverty Law Center] Anti-Gay Hate Crimes: Doing the Math
But anyone can Google for themselves and get numerous reputable sources.
Haters gonna hate. My mind gets blown sometimes at how people can't comprehend the double standard that they apply to these issues, but then again, it isn't like there is some sort of rational objection to LGBT folks.
Let's go, Inclusiveness!
When you're a minority, who doesn't see themselves anywhere else, then you're going to find it a lot harder to insert yourself, unless someone gives you a place. By, say, stating that your minority does indeed exist here, with examples like this dude(ette). Not to mention, when you're part of that "standard", it's a lot easier to overlook the little things that give away that your vague, vacant hole to be filled is meant for your specific majority, completely unintentionally.
If that is the goal then featuring those lifestyles in APs or PFS Scenarios is probably a poor way of going about it then when you've already made your character before getting there.
Minorities exist in fantasy worlds too. I don't see much need in confirming it.
I'm not exactly on Team Wolfgang, but I feel the spirit of what he is asking is still a valid point.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past, then I can understand not wanting what used to be a kid friendly public fantasy game where real world issues were not at the forefront to all of a sudden become stomping ground for protesters because they are demanding that paizo start forcing LGBT sexuality onto its customers under the guise of 'equal representation.'
Equal representation does not mean over abundance. It also doesn't mean we have to start throwing characters in who are LGBT just for the sake of it. In fact doing so might be worse for your cause as it could lead to creating offensive and/or stereotypical caricatures in an attempt to show how different they are, rather than integrating them into the world, in an effort to demonstrate their representation, less they be ignored and the representation not be noticed by the participants.
I think a more elegant, feasible, and appropriate solution would be to take a page from the X-Men and have issues paralleled in game rather than flat out incorporated. Take for instance, something like two half-orcs who are not allowed to be married based on the fact that no one in the game world understands half-orc romance and don't think they should be treated the same as humans.
Lastly, all of the romantic relationship material paizo actually does have in its material is 100% androgynous and does not impose sexuality one way, or the others. If sexuality were to be incorporated, the best I can see is a series of Traits done for character creation. Paizo could write up a bunch of them, but most likely they would all be part of a specific adventure path or Golarion book.
I remember picking up the Dungeons and Dragons 2e "Age of Heroes: Campaign Sourcebook: Greece" back in 1994 and flipping through it seeing how they handled homosexuality. They didn't; I remember being mystified and/or annoyed by this. (If they did and I missed it, sorry; I remember paging through it pretty thoroughly though). I thought it would've been warranted. I can see the need to address this issue since a mere 20 years ago it was apparently purposely ignored.
One question though; what exactly does covering LGBT stuff exactly entail here anyway? It's not Golarion, "Pathfinder" pretty much implies the core rules, correct?
Do we want a Pathfinder update for the "Book of Erotic Fantasy?" I mean, other than hypersexualized pictures of adventurers on every other page, or a magic item here and a spell there, don't the rulebooks pretty much ignore sexuality in general?
Do female dwarves have beards? Do some dwarven males fetishize beardless faces? Hell, I don't know.
Oh; I like the Orcish Death God that's gay; good stuff.
This is what Crystal wrote over in the MM2 AP product post:
"First of all, Ptemenib was originally going to be a trans man, and when I approached Rob about the idea I found out that Amber Scott had just turned over an adventure, The Worldwound Incursion, with a prominent trans woman.
All three of the appendix NPCs are bisexul, and an earlier draft of the tomb level had an encounter with the ghosts of two of Nebta-Khufre's lovers--a man and a woman--who died on the trek to Wati."
Now we already have two homosexual characters in the first book and if things had gone Crystal's way we would have had these characters as well. I'm as far out as you can get from any kind of "phobe" but this is too much. Moderation, as they, is the key.
Before I get accused of hating I want to point out that, for the record, I ran WW with the characters exactly as written and it was no big deal.
|
|
I wouldn't describe any agenda paizo has as an LGBT Friendly agenda. It's more of a Friendly Agenda.
Also, it gets really annoying as a minority having everything you see that doesn't treat you like a freak get called an "agenda" like it's some kind of sinister plot.
Hmmm, if we drop both, we're left with Friendly. I can work with this. Paizo is Friendly, and takes a Friendly approach to inclusiveness.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding "family friendly,...."
I got kids, and my main qualm with adult themed material is the fact that I'm constantly ambushed by it. Then I have to stop what I'm doing and give the damn speech.
For example, there's a "Condoms to Go" business around Dallas. So,.....we drive by one, and of course my oldest kid is asking what a condom is. Over and over again.
I really can't dole this out to all my kids right then and there since some are not ready for the information and some are, but now I have to make an appointment with my oldest to give him the "birds and the bees" speech. Which is my duty as a parent, but it's annoying to me that it has to be timed reactively instead of at a time of my own choosing.
And then the viagra commercials during baseball games, with two old people in tubs on the beach? "Dad, what's viagra?" I can hear my son call out.
Me? "Son, I could tell you, but you don't need to know about viagra yet. Just don't take viagra pills any if your friends have some. Remember the condoms to go speech? Do you want another one of those, except about old people doing it?"
"Uh, no. Never mind."
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, you are forcing a singular view upon everyone with what you are saying because it fits your view and your standard. Or making a standard for the children to get used to, creating a new standard and indoctrinating this ideology into these children. Not acceptable.
I don't roleplay to bring reality into gaming, but to have fun playing without current political and social issues. Many of those on this discussion might say "good riddance," but that just demonstrates intolerance.
I'm sorry that the way my brain structure developed in-utero is both an ideology and a social issue. I apologize that neurobiology doesn't conveniantly fit into your worldview. I'm sorry that my very existence is an affront to you. Pardon me. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does one impose their sexuality on another? If you're not gay, being around the gays is not going to make you gay anymore than hanging around the straights has made any gay person not gay.
The test of whether or not your views are tolerant, inclusive or civil is to switch the word "gay" out of your phrase with something else. Try "I want PF to be kid friendly so I expect that women are not included in the published material or in a PFS game" or "I want PF to be kid friendly so I expect that black people are not included in the published material or in a PFS game" on for size. We can all agree that those statements are completely asinine and would never be taken seriously (at least I hope we can) so why is the equally asinine statement "I want PF to be kid friendly so I expect that queer people are not included in the published material or in a PFS game" being afforded even the slightest bit of consideration?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, setting aside all the murder and stuff in Pathfinder, I think anyone who is worried about the game being kid friendly hasn't looked at the pictures in the core rulebook. There is so much flesh in there. It's the one onjectionable gender issue I noticed in the game as published. Which is why I find the idea that having a LGBT character "takes it too far" to be unconvincing.
Assistant Software Developer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, I have no damn idea who Miss Feathers, Anevia and Irabeth are - never heard of them. Based on JJ's comment, would it be outrageous to suppose these characters were added intentionally to further the cause of social justice warrior? I can't cite any examples, but am prepared to take JJ's word.
They exist because they were created by people who wanted to be inclusive in their writing for whatever reason. Whether they themselves were somewhere in the GLBTQ spectrum or because they have friends who didn't see themselves in the products they write or maybe just because they wanted to be creative and interesting and perhaps away from the norm. Generally we think that that's great. Having interesting characters is a large part of having interesting games. Added benefit, seeing people like you in published material is a joy. It will help you feel welcome in a way that just avoiding it altogether won't. That's not really a controversial stance I don't think.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you're a minority, who doesn't see themselves anywhere else, then you're going to find it a lot harder to insert yourself, unless someone gives you a place. By, say, stating that your minority does indeed exist here, with examples like this dude(ette). Not to mention, when you're part of that "standard", it's a lot easier to overlook the little things that give away that your vague, vacant hole to be filled is meant for your specific majority, completely unintentionally.If that is the goal then featuring those lifestyles in APs or PFS Scenarios is probably a poor way of going about it then when you've already made your character before getting there.
Minorities exist in fantasy worlds too. I don't see much need in confirming it.
I'm going to make a guess here, again, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, and assume you're part of the majority. So, it's really easy to say, "we know this thing exists, there's no need to confirm it", when you've never needed self confirmation. You're the majority. You see yourself everywhere, really easily. The minority doesn't have that.
Maybe they play their first game in high school. Surrounded by your average human being at that age, gay is probably a pretty commonly used word for bad. They feel attraction to others of their same gender, they feel they're "bad" too, because they've combined the two connotations of the word. They play a straight, white hero, cause that's what heroes are, right? And then they meet the heroic, gay, NPC. Mind blown, for the better, right there.
You can say that the heroic, gay NPC exists out there already, somewhere, and doesn't need to be stated. But for that young person, suppressing themselves for fear of how others will see them if they come out of the closet, that shining example, brought to the light of day, will mean the world to them, like you and I will never truly know. Because, once again, majority.
I'm sorry that the way my brain structure developed in-utero is both an ideology and a social issue. I apologize that neurobiology doesn't conveniantly fit into your worldview. I'm sorry that my very existence is an affront to you. Pardon me. :(Again, you are forcing a singular view upon everyone with what you are saying because it fits your view and your standard. Or making a standard for the children to get used to, creating a new standard and indoctrinating this ideology into these children. Not acceptable.
I don't roleplay to bring reality into gaming, but to have fun playing without current political and social issues. Many of those on this discussion might say "good riddance," but that just demonstrates intolerance.
Don't play the biology card with me or spout out this on a discussion that isn't about science. You're statement is completely not based on science, but for the sake of keeping this discussion about gaming I won't explain it on here. If you were to PM me, I would do it there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not exactly on Team Wolfgang, but I feel the spirit of what he is asking is still a valid point.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past, then I can understand not wanting what used to be a kid friendly public fantasy game where real world issues were not at the forefront to all of a sudden become stomping ground for protesters because they are demanding that paizo start forcing LGBT sexuality onto its customers under the guise of 'equal representation.'
The kid friendly argument is nonsense. What age are kids playing PF without some parental supervision? Their own or at least people their parents know. What kid hasn't been exposed to the idea of LGBTQ people by then? Is it below the age at which kids buy super-hero comics? Cause there are actual gay characters there too these days. Some of those kids might even be realizing they're gay.
Nor are there any "real world issues" appearing in anything Paizo's published. We've seen no Gay Pride parades. No fights over gay marraiges. We've had a handful of LGBTQ couples appear with their status generally as part of the background, not as a major plot driver. And no one is pushing for more. No one is pushing for a "same sex marriage controversy" storyline, even in analogy.
The only people pushing for change are those demanding the removal of all the icky gayness from PF. And they're rage-quitting over it. Which is fine by me. And apparently by Paizo.
The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
But your cause for representation is not more important than a parent's cause for sensibility. That is the point, you are not in the right for forcing him out of your game for being a concerned parent.
Labeling people as homophobic and starting a witch hunt for all the homophones in gaming makes you just as guilty of intolerance as you are accusing him of being. Hypocrisy thy name is you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't play the biology card with me or spout out this on a discussion that isn't about science. You're statement is completely not based on science, but for the sake of keeping this discussion about gaming I won't explain it on here. If you were to PM me, I would do it there.I'm sorry that the way my brain structure developed in-utero is both an ideology and a social issue. I apologize that neurobiology doesn't conveniantly fit into your worldview. I'm sorry that my very existence is an affront to you. Pardon me. :(Again, you are forcing a singular view upon everyone with what you are saying because it fits your view and your standard. Or making a standard for the children to get used to, creating a new standard and indoctrinating this ideology into these children. Not acceptable.
I don't roleplay to bring reality into gaming, but to have fun playing without current political and social issues. Many of those on this discussion might say "good riddance," but that just demonstrates intolerance.
Oh, I dunno, I'd love to hear a scientific discussion break out right here. Especially since Todd knows the science behind it.
The bullying that was written is exactly why I do not want homosexuality in the PFS. If anyone disagrees with homosexuality, they are automatically targeted, made fun of, called names and bullied out. That is exactly how I feel. Bullied and very depressed right now. I hate feeling this way. And it makes me feel like I never want to game again.
And regarding kids/stuff, or to toot my own horn some;....(j/k)
I got a friend from high school; in 9th grade he had zero body fat and ripped abs from gymnastics and dancing, and.....well.....I don't like talking about other peoples' business while they're not around.
But he's my "go-to" guy when I got questions about gymnastics, because my daughter's a gymnastics monster (9 years old; she's got ripped abs almost) and I don't want her to end up with jacked up knees and/or an eating disorder. Because, I don't know anything about it.
If he ever needs me to change a starter engine, and we're in the same town, I'm there.
So, I'm not scared that gay people are going to warp my kids' mind with an agenda.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haters gonna hate. My mind gets blown sometimes at how people can't comprehend the double standard that they apply to these issues, but then again, it isn't like there is some sort of rational objection to LGBT folks.
Let's go, Inclusiveness!
You can't have inclusiveness when Paizo Staff are bullying posters into silence.
What age are we talking about?The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
Could be any age, the age doesn't matter.
Legally, any sexuality inclusive material could be considered inappropriate for anyone 17 and under in some states. Not that I wanna go there with this discussion.
The point is that the parents should be the ones who decide what age is appropriate to introduce this stuff, not Paizo.
I am fine with representation. 100%. But we have to respect those who fear the content crossing the line of representation and imposition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not exactly on Team Wolfgang, but I feel the spirit of what he is asking is still a valid point.
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past, then I can understand not wanting what used to be a kid friendly public fantasy game where real world issues were not at the forefront to all of a sudden become stomping ground for protesters because they are demanding that paizo start forcing LGBT sexuality onto its customers under the guise of 'equal representation.'
The kid friendly argument is nonsense. What age are kids playing PF without some parental supervision? Their own or at least people their parents know. What kid hasn't been exposed to the idea of LGBTQ people by then? Is it below the age at which kids buy super-hero comics? Cause there are actual gay characters there too these days. Some of those kids might even be realizing they're gay.
Nor are there any "real world issues" appearing in anything Paizo's published. We've seen no Gay Pride parades. No fights over gay marraiges. We've had a handful of LGBTQ couples appear with their status generally as part of the background, not as a major plot driver. And no one is pushing for more. No one is pushing for a "same sex marriage controversy" storyline, even in analogy.
The only people pushing for change are those demanding the removal of all the icky gayness from PF. And they're rage-quitting over it. Which is fine by me. And apparently by Paizo.
The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the...
No. Just no. If a parent wants a sterile world for their child, it is their responsibility to sterilize it for them, not for the rest of the world to change to suit their needs. This is true for everything in the world a parent doesn't like for their children; be a parent and take responsibility for your child instead of expecting everyone else to accommodate you.
Seriously you people advocating for this line of nonsense need to revisit the past to see how the exact things you are saying about the gays are what the bigots if the past said about women and minorities until such time as society at large stopped giving their views the time of day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone disagrees with homosexuality, they are automatically targeted, made fun of, called names and bullied out. That is exactly how I feel. Bullied and very depressed right now. I hate feeling this way. And it makes me feel like I never want to game again.
You're basically stating that someone's life is not acceptable. Think about what that means. Many people are going to respond to that negatively. Can you really blame them though?
My personal recommendation to you would be to review why you hold these views, and why they are so important to you. If it is why I suspect it is, then I don't have too much advice to offer other than to try to embrace empathy.
|
Assistant Software Developer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
How do you think the homosexual people here feel when told any depiction of people who share that with them should be kept out of their hobby?
I can answer that! Not too well honestly. It's kind of depressing to get up and see a 100 posts in a discussion about whether including someone like you as an npc in game you love is so bad that people are going to quit gaming over it. It makes me feel unwelcome. Given that I've been hurt and I've had friends very seriously hurt for just being like me, it makes me feel unsafe.
Also, if you feel that someone is calling you names, then that falls under "the don't be a jerk rule". Flag it and we'll make sure anything derogatory gets removed.
What age are we talking about?The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
For that matter, what sort of content are we talking about? Not to harp on a previously made point, but how is Paizo's portrayal of LBGT characters not kid friendly, or portrayed with a different age-appropriateness than the rest of their material?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously you people
The irony here is glorious.
I am for representation. What exactly are you crusading for here? That we not try and be an appropriate environment for all ages in a public game?
'This is how the world works, get over it' is just as bad as a sentiment as 'this is how I want the world to work, get over it.'
It should be noted that I am not in any way against LGBT representation in games. I am against bigots who happen to be LGBT imposing their superiority on people because they believe their righteous cause gives them the right to be a jerk.
I don't care about the content of the game, whether it includes or doesn't anything about LGBT. I think it should be a nonissue whether or not they are included.
I do have a problem with you forcing people out of the game because they do care about it, one way or the other. No one should be told they cannot play the game because of an opinion they have that has nothing to do with the game.
What age are we talking about?The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
Could be any age, the age doesn't matter.
Legally, any sexuality inclusive material could be considered inappropriate for anyone 17 and under in some states. Not that I wanna go there with this discussion.
The point is that the parents should be the ones who decide what age is appropriate to introduce this stuff, not Paizo.
I am fine with representation. 100%. But we have to respect those who fear the content crossing the line of representation and imposition.
Those who fear that content may cross that line would do far better to adjust their own consumer habits than to take issue with Paizo's inclusion of LBGT customers.
You can't have inclusiveness when Paizo Staff are bullying posters into silence.Haters gonna hate. My mind gets blown sometimes at how people can't comprehend the double standard that they apply to these issues, but then again, it isn't like there is some sort of rational objection to LGBT folks.
Let's go, Inclusiveness!
Huh? Where's this happening?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the "sexually inclusive material" isn't porn. It isn't explicit. It's on the level of "Heather has two Mommies".
It's not explicit sex he's objecting too, because that doesn't even come up. It's the mere presence of LGBTQ couples.
Are you supporting the argument that the existence of LGTBQ couples is not kid-friendly and shouldn't exist in anything that kids might get access to without their parents permission?
If parents want to decide their kids can introduce that, they've got to keep them in bubblewrap. Paizo isn't going to be where it comes up. Not past middle school at the latest, which is why I'm asking what age we're talking about.
I'm saying it shouldn't go farther than it is. I am fine with the representation in the game.
I said that.
Three times.
But there are adult themes in PFRPG such as prostitution, rape, and sex, and I think those themes, regardless of the sexuality, are better left in the home game and not in a public game setting where kids might be involved.
'keep it kid friendly' is in no way implicit of 'stop the gayness derp!!!'
Never once have I said otherwise.
Huh? Where's this happening?
His thread was locked. In fairness, his initial post, while funny in a way, was full of snark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those who fear that content may cross that line would do far better to adjust their own consumer habits than to take issue with Paizo's inclusion of LBGT customers.What age are we talking about?The 'I have not experienced any children playing this game without a parent present, therefore the game does not need to be kid friendly' sentiment is not a very kind one.
Whether the parents are present or not does not change the contents of the game, nor should it. But if a parent decides that a particular section of the game is too racey and decides to no longer participate labeling the entire game system as a whole to be inappropriate then I have a problem because it is something that could have been avoided.
Could be any age, the age doesn't matter.
Legally, any sexuality inclusive material could be considered inappropriate for anyone 17 and under in some states. Not that I wanna go there with this discussion.
The point is that the parents should be the ones who decide what age is appropriate to introduce this stuff, not Paizo.
I am fine with representation. 100%. But we have to respect those who fear the content crossing the line of representation and imposition.
This exact mentality is the problem.
The inclusion of LGBT characters is not the problem. It is the idea that LGBT players have more right to play the game than others.
Seriously you peopleThe irony here is glorious.
I am for representation. What exactly are you crusading for here? That we not try and be an appropriate environment for all ages in a public game?
'This is how the world works, get over it' is just as bad as a sentiment as 'this is how I want the world to work, get over it.'
It should be noted that I am not in any way against LGBT representation in games. I am against bigots who happen to be LGBT imposing their superiority on people because they believe their righteous cause gives them the right to be a jerk.
I don't care about the content of the game, whether it includes or doesn't anything about LGBT. I think it should be a nonissue whether or not they are included.
I do have a problem with you forcing people out of the game because they do care about it, one way or the other. No one should be told they cannot play the game because of an opinion they have that has nothing to do with the game.
That's like saying books shouldn't be published because they might contain material that someone doesn't like. The solution to books containing material you don't like is to not read those books. I'm saying that if you can't handle the non- pornographic material in an rpg related to sexuality and relationships then YOU need to find a game more suited to YOU rather than the game changing to suit your needs.
where are you getting that from, the idea that one group of players has more of a right than another
The whole idea of keeping the game kid friendly and having an open environment where anyone can feel safe leaving their kid there is not an unfair request.
Then we should probably remove the combat system from the game.
If he is concerned that his child is going to be exposed to some crusader for LGBT rights who actually would impose his sexuality on others, as been displayed by crusaders in the past,
Huh. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but is there any studies done that shows sexual predators are more common among people advocating IQTBGL rights than among others?
Also, what would IQTBGL have to do with anything? If a grown person impose their sexuality on a kid (or anyone impose their sexuality on anyone else), that's really really bad regardless of gender(s) involved.Is there some kind of epidemic of sexual abuse in PFS, or what am I missing?
.
One question though; what exactly does covering LGBT stuff exactly entail here anyway? It's not Golarion, "Pathfinder" pretty much implies the core rules, correct?
Again, this thread is an alternative to the other thread; here we can discuss for example IQTBGL in our own custom worlds, something that doesn't work in the Golarion thread.
But I agree that the OP could have been better worded.