How do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your campaigns?


Gamer Life General Discussion

301 to 350 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, in the campaign I'm in, it's already come up.

At one point a male NPC bard was hitting on my female barbarian. I hadn't really established how she felt about it (short version, she's young and was set up for an arranged marriage; add intrigue, add kick to groins of intriguers, remove barbarian from scene of crime). Then we got to Sandpoint and the goings on there. Naturally the barbarian won the strength contest, and had the offer of two of the town's beauties to hoist the oversized ale. The GM had an organiser whisper to 'me' about any changes. At that point I figured she'd take one of each.

Then later she's the first to have an NPC, a male. The next day we meet The General Store Keeper's Daughter, and she favours our party's male bard. Hijinx ensue.

(And both of these two clowns think that the cleric of Irori beat them to the bedroom with someone else, but they're mistaken.)

As far as gender roles? The dice ended up giving my Str 18 Con 16 human female 60 inches of height and 110 pounds. No real surprise that others misjudge what she can do; it might be different were she 6'3, 210 or so.

Still, as far as LGBT sorts of issues, as the majority of the players fall pretty squarely into that grouping in some fashion ... well, you do the math.

On making it an option in general? Sure, why not? I will admit it may cause a few things to come up, but that's the fun of worldbuilding. It's not really pandering or anything like that. But have some explanation as to what's going on if you're going to differ from 'it's OK'. If nothing else, as a GM you may find yourself surprised, and you really do want to avoid piling things on to imply exclusion of someone.

Unless the whole campaign is society's outcasts for whatever reason, but even then they'll have a goal of realigning things somehow, whether by social change, moving to someplace better, or just overthrowing the damn bigots.


That said I hope the thread is still going when I get home from work. I want to continue talking about homosexuality and transgenderism in my campaign but it'll take a bit to write about Victoria.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to derail this into a moderation discussion, but I think at least part of the problem here is the boundaries between real life and RPG/campaign world verisimilitude are very thin. This isn't a discussion about necromancy, consorting with demons, or paladins falling... topics that are clearly fictional and fantastic in our real world. Trans* people deal with both overt threats and insidiously subtle microagressions to their mental and physical well-beings on an often multiple-times daily basis (and too often, from L&G people and allies). It may not be readily apparent how exhausting and taxing on personal resources it is. That's not any kind of accusation against anyone here; that's just Real Life.

For those on the outside looking in and/or theorizing about trans* NPCs/PCs, an imprecise and unempathetic choice of words (out of ignorance, everyday human fallibility, or otherwise) can come across as rude, insulting, an attempt to invalidate their self-identity, and even triggering. If posts are routinely wacked, perhaps it would behoove the poster to carefully re-read and consider their choice of words or line of thought instead of blaming "overly-sensitive" readers/moderators/the "PC Police", etc. Please consider using the same tact and empathy posting on this topic as you would discussing racism or slavery/human trafficking.


There's a difference between minding the feelings of others and self-policing to the point of censorship. It's a fine line, but it's there.

While it is possible some people have been offended or triggered by things written on these forums, I am quite sure most people here have not had that as their intention when posting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good or non-ill intentions often don't translate into written words on the Internet. All that there is our own words on the screen. If one's chosen words belie one's true intent, I would think the larger responsibility would fall on the outside-looking-in poster rather than on the trans* people (or other minority) in the discussion.

At what point does a poster's need to be heard overrule the basic consideration and empathy for others?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

When freedom of speech as an ideal is threatened and when a debate is turned into an echo chamber, a conversation might have to put "basic consideration" aside.

You are free to disagree with me on that, but I am quite sure both your posts and mine (or just mine) will be flagged and removed some time before this thread gets locked or something. I've seen many a sensible conversation around these forums get taken down simply because some staff member and a few people didn't agree with a person's opinion or mistook it for discrimination or something. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and has a right to express it, with some exceptions. I am not in a majority in many ways (I am neither cis nor white for one), yet I do not demand people approach me like they were approaching a mine field when talking with me, neither here nor in other places.

Also, are you trying to speak on behalf of all trans and other minority people by yourself, Ambrosia? It's unwise to try and do that, since I am quite sure there are people in those groups that disagree with you as well. I am just one of them.


That is the danger with threads of this ilk, much like politics, racism and religion. People are often unable to leave 2015 Earth aside and talk about the issues through the lens of the game world -- whichever game that is being played.

An online Shadowrun game I was a part of had a similar problem with racism -- the Shadowrun material is filled with racism which colors the game -- where players couldn't bring themselves to be racist in game because it is not something that one should do in 2015.

I do not believe anyone on the thread is attempting to make anyone feel bad. I also believe that one needs to take care of oneself and stay away from things that might be triggering or upsetting; I try to stay away from threads that I know will upset me. It isn't worth even reading, you know?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If we were discussing racism or slavery/humanoid trafficking in an RPG setting, I would hope I would not give the appearance of presuming my opinion and Right to Free Speech as a First World/Western white woman trumping those of non-white ethnicities/cultures or those who have suffered from slavery/human trafficking. I would certainly hope I'd get a clue after repeatedly pursuing the same lines of thought and seeing those posts repeatedly removed.

This isn't about Defending Free Speech or "demanding people approach others like approaching a minefield"... it's about treating minorities, and people in general, with empathy and consideration. It's about considering whether posts will further or undermine the inclusive community that Paizo is laudably building here.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

My attitude has changed from a "why does it matter?" to a "if these issues are important to a character, then they will be in the campaign".
Even if not, if it makes sense story wise for an NPC to be LGBTQ they will be. If it adds drama they will be. It's pretty much another avenue to explore story wise, I just hope as a DM I do those NPCs justice and not get too stereo-typey.

Community & Digital Content Director

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Guys, let's please direct this back to the original topic, rather than a discussion of moderators. To be brief: If posts are derailing a topic into territory that belongs elsewhere, we'll direct posters to stop. If posts violate our Community Guidelines (which could be posts that we feel are baiting and will spur heated discussion, offensive posts, personal attacks, and so on), they're removed. If posts are made simply to argue that a post was removed, we'll direct users to the proper channels, instead of taking the discussion into a direction it generally doesn't belong. Paizo.com is a privately owned space, and while posting here, all users agree to the guidelines we have laid out. If anyone has questions/concerns with those guidelines, any member of our staff is happy to provide more insight. I'll admit that it isn't a perfect system, but there is no secret bias by anyone on our staff against specific members of the community or points of view when posts get removed. If you truly feel there is, I'd suggest revisiting how you're phrasing these points of view, rather than focusing on the idea that we'll squash specific posts "just because." Our moderation team/community team is very deeply invested in providing a welcoming space for just about every kind of gamer. If you'd like to suggest what we can do better, or comment further, please take it to the appropriate forum.


Fair enough. I am not sure what else to contribute though, since I already gave my say on how I handle these topics in my campaigns.

That said, I know that in my current Carrion Crown game, the Dhampir Inquisitor is asexual, while the three other characters' sexuality is unknown.

Liberty's Edge Assistant Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I usually display a mix of relationships in my home campaigns, but generally follow a Bioware-style "Everyone is bi" approach. Some of my players want to pursue fantasy romances with NPCs, in which case I leave most of the details to them--essentially an NPC they're in a relationship with becomes a secondary/supporting character they mostly direct (thus far, none of my players have never tried to drag their NPC romantic partners into combat, or exploit their resources, or otherwise use them as anything but a narrative springboard, but I imagine I'd nix it pretty hard if they ever did). And lord knows assuming all mono-gendered monsters (harpies, satyrs, succubi, ect) are pan expands their usefulness.

Outright trans characters mostly come up in a historical context ("X historical figure also happened to be transgender or agender") or if a player character is dealing with those issues. I've known which NPCs are trans before in my home game (hehe, Turk you loveable rascal), but the PCs rarely interact with that information. On the other hand, I do include a lot of genderqueer, agender, and gender fluid characters among outsiders and shapeshifters like dopplegangers; it's limiting to think creatures without a permanent physical body would limit themselves to a fleshy concept of gender. Dopplegangers specifically in my home campaigns consider it unusual to prefer being one specific sex.

Project Manager

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Most of my single NPCs are plotsexual.

If a PC shows interest in them, and it's not going to interfere with whatever plot purpose I had for that NPC, the NPC will generally be interested in return, regardless of the genders involved.

In general, NPCs don't express interest in PCs, beyond very mild flirting, unless an NPC hitting on a PC is a predetermined plot point, in which case, I'll usually pick a PC who's tried to flirt with other NPCs so I'm not picking a player who's uncomfortable with that kind of interaction.

As far as NPCs in relationships with each other (whether it's same-sex or not), it's very much a feel thing for me, and based as much on how I think things will resonate with the particular players in the game as anything else.


Jessica Price wrote:

Most of my single NPCs are plotsexual.

If a PC shows interest in them, and it's not going to interfere with whatever plot purpose I had for that NPC, the NPC will generally be interested in return, regardless of the genders involved.

In general, NPCs don't express interest in PCs, beyond very mild flirting, unless an NPC hitting on a PC is a predetermined plot point, in which case, I'll usually pick a PC who's tried to flirt with other NPCs so I'm not picking a player who's uncomfortable with that kind of interaction.

As far as NPCs in relationships with each other (whether it's same-sex or not), it's very much a feel thing for me, and based as much on how I think things will resonate with the particular players in the game as anything else.

Plotsexual is an awesome term, and one that I plan to give much love.

Though I am intrigued inasmuch it comes across as a sort of Schroedinger's Orientation, which is not a bad thing to me at all - while I don't take it full-on Bioware as mentioned upthread, I try to have in mind either some manner of societal or established individual justification or assessment in place, as well as how the individual would suss out opportunities, and at least make motivations cromulent. Sometimes, it even comes of good old fashioned misunderstanding, like in one campaign where the all X are bi hat was held by the elves, but the truth was more a matter of not being particularly strong-feeling in either direction rather than being effectively 'easy', and some awkward attempts by well-meaning tavern wenches to earn a few extra coin with offered services to elves who were not particularly interested was soon a running gag. The rejections were polite, but confusing, as the elves were clearly adventurers, and they normally spend their money on such things...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And this is why I think Crystal is awesome, no gender identifying shape changers...bloody brilliant, and makes allot of sense, I think I shall be using that going forward. (with permission of course)

Also worth noting, such a topic, I would think, is exactly the sort of game based LGBT discussion that the OP seemed to be looking to talk about. Real life (despite being important) is not always the best to draw from, and the touchier the issue, the worse it gets, or at least that is how I see it.

Of course as I am not a part of the LGBT community, please take anything I say with many grains of salt (salt from the mine of this topic is generally way outside my personal experience as a straight white male, but hey I am trying.)

Silver Crusade System Administrator

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I've known which NPCs are trans before in my home game (hehe, Turk you loveable rascal)

Wait wait wait wait... Turk was trans? You've been sitting on that nugget for like 8 years?!

Liberty's Edge Assistant Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lissa Guillet wrote:
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I've known which NPCs are trans before in my home game (hehe, Turk you loveable rascal)
Wait wait wait wait... Turk was trans? You've been sitting on that nugget for like 8 years?!

It was going to come up once you crossed the mountains in the desert, but the Clockwork Caliph campaign sort of collapsed before that.

Silver Crusade System Administrator

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Huh, interesting. I was kind of interested in my character maybe having a bit of relationship there. Neat. ^_^


Crystal Frasier wrote:


Outright trans characters mostly come up in a historical context ("X historical figure also happened to be transgender or agender") or if a player character is dealing with those issues. I've known which NPCs are trans before in my home game (hehe, Turk you loveable rascal), but the PCs rarely interact with that information. On the other hand, I do include a lot of genderqueer, agender, and gender fluid characters among outsiders and shapeshifters like dopplegangers; it's limiting to think creatures without a permanent physical body would limit themselves to a fleshy concept of gender. Dopplegangers specifically in my home campaigns consider it unusual to prefer being one specific sex.

Funny, that's about how I run doppelgangers too. In my Greyhawk game, most of the doppelgangers don't really care about gender (they generally go by male because male is still the "default" in Free City culture, and they do a lot of business with humans), but there was one member of the gang who notably preferred to take female forms and be referred to as female. The rest of the gang saw her as kind of weird.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Plotsexual(which my phone autocorrected to "plays ecuador") is awesome. Yay Plotsexual! Viva ecuador!


Personally, I don't care. If a character (NPC or PC) is [insert preference here], I don't care. You hook up with whomever you hook up with. Only on the rare instances where it actually matters do I care. An occupational hazard I suppose, since IRL the only thing that matters is "do you qualify".

Characters and NPCs have their preferences, I get that. I just don't care what those are. If someone likes [insert preference here], it's nothing other than [what they prefer here]. Other than [underage stuff], that gets a reaction. Usually nasty. Fortunately, none of my many players have been that far out from [insert relatively normal here]. Game of Thrones if nothing else has iron'd out that particular detail.

People/folk like whomever they like. I, as a GM, do not care, nor as a player. A particular PC might, but even then I will probably not care.

After all, if my PC likes "little hairy women", he's not going to care if the other PCs like [whatever else]. " Me likes what me likes, you like whats you likes. In the end, Pharasma judges us not on what we had sex with, but on what we did [ethically/morally]."

That's how I see it, FWitW.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I don't want to derail this into a moderation discussion, but I think at least part of the problem here is the boundaries between real life and RPG/campaign world verisimilitude are very thin. This isn't a discussion about necromancy, consorting with demons, or paladins falling... topics that are clearly fictional and fantastic in our real world. Trans* people deal with both overt threats and insidiously subtle microagressions to their mental and physical well-beings on an often multiple-times daily basis (and too often, from L&G people and allies). It may not be readily apparent how exhausting and taxing on personal resources it is. That's not any kind of accusation against anyone here; that's just Real Life.

So is murder, theft, maiming, death, etc. We talk about these things regularly. We're adults here, we can act like it. We don't need people to hold our hands, y'know?

Quote:
For those on the outside looking in and/or theorizing about trans* NPCs/PCs, an imprecise and unempathetic choice of words (out of ignorance, everyday human fallibility, or otherwise) can come across as rude, insulting, an attempt to invalidate their self-identity, and even triggering.

I'm going to say that people saying triggering has become pretty darn triggering to me. Firstly, it's destructive, because learning to cope and deal with problems requires you to face them and y'know, cope. Turning a blind eye or closing your eyes and hoping it will go away helps no one and it weakens us as individuals. It makes us seem like we can't handle reality and have to be babied. It's really irritating.

And yes, innocuous things can come across as rude and insulting. Just as I find it rude and insulting for people to imply (or seem to imply, if the implication isn't intentional) that because of my state as a human being (however mixed up by comparison to a cisgendered person) requires me to be babied or things censored for my benefit. The thing is, aside from my telling you my thoughts on it, it is your right to decide whether or not to change it and if you don't, I am free to walk away or ignore it since it's not directly altering my way of life. Trigger this, trigger that, whatever. Part of being an adult means being able to handle that sometimes things are squicky, sometimes we don't like how others think, and sometimes we're reminded of bad times and our own insecurities. Then, as adults, we deal with it with the best grace that we can.

Quote:
If posts are routinely wacked, perhaps it would behoove the poster to carefully re-read and consider their choice of words or line of thought instead of blaming "overly-sensitive" readers/moderators/the "PC Police", etc. Please consider using the same tact and empathy posting on this topic as you would discussing racism or slavery/human trafficking.

It's funny you should say that because the campaign that I'm pulling the NPCs from actually involves lots of racism and slave trafficking (the mission that Klari and Myriel were on was an attempt to thwart, uncover, and bring down a humanoid trafficking organization that was operating in their country and their neighboring country; meanwhile the poor treatment of several races - particularly tieflings and high elves - was a common theme). Similarly, in Golarion, there are many instances of racism and slavery (Cheliax springs immediately to mind).

Given that we can freely discuss racism (by species, subspecies, ethnicities, etc), slavery (halflings, ulfen, etc), torture, murder, ritual sacrifices / murders, pedophilic and hebephilic sexual assault (read the bestiary lately?), sado-masochistic sexual assault (that bestiary), incestuous familial abuse (adventure paths), necrophilia (more adventure paths), and potentially worse things fairly matter o' factly, it actually bugs the hell out of me as a transgendered person that I cannot talk about the mechanics and challenges and conditions that affect transgendered characters in Pathfinder from a crunch standpoint (such as discussing the pros and cons of the elixir of sex shifting) without having the posts removed for...*crickets*

We can talk about all of those terrible things just fine but no, we're too taboo to talk about frankly, or worse, too fragile to handle it. *groans*

Okay, I'm done now. I just really needed to get that off my chest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
I usually display a mix of relationships in my home campaigns, but generally follow a Bioware-style "Everyone is bi" approach. Some of my players want to pursue fantasy romances with NPCs, in which case I leave most of the details to them--essentially an NPC they're in a relationship with becomes a secondary/supporting character they mostly direct (thus far, none of my players have never tried to drag their NPC romantic partners into combat, or exploit their resources, or otherwise use them as anything but a narrative springboard, but I imagine I'd nix it pretty hard if they ever did). And lord knows assuming all mono-gendered monsters (harpies, satyrs, succubi, ect) are pan expands their usefulness.

I usually determine an orientation based on the character and various factors based on their circumstances and that's their default. However, since sexuality isn't necessarily binary even for those that identify as heterosexual or homosexual therein lies the potential for exceptions (using the previous NPCs as an example, Klari wasn't interested in men at all until Carrius), so it's harder but not impossible.

So for example, let's say we have an NPC. We'll call him David. David is heterosexual. A female character approaches him and asks him to go out with her on a romantic date and makes a Diplomacy check. If a male character approaches David and makes the same request, the DC is going to be much higher but it's potentially possible.

Quote:
On the other hand, I do include a lot of genderqueer, agender, and gender fluid characters among outsiders and shapeshifters like dopplegangers; it's limiting to think creatures without a permanent physical body would limit themselves to a fleshy concept of gender. Dopplegangers specifically in my home campaigns consider it unusual to prefer being one specific sex.

Ditto. :)

One of the PCs in the campaign I've been pulling NPCs from has two mothers. They (including the PC) are shapeshifters.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jessica Price wrote:
Most of my single NPCs are plot sexual.

... ize stealing this now, kthxbai.


I see a lot of talk about the issue with homosexuality being that it is sexual content. I can see how in my games that may be the only way it would come up, but at the same time I have a hard time seeing it as primarily a sexual thing. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, my worldbuilding work is very modern and urbanized. There are a lot of distinct urban subcultures, and there are large scale social movements. Some of these have to do with gay rights. My setting also tends to have less time traveling and more time spent in specific areas. Entire campaigns can be confined to one province, with a major city or two being constant features of the game. That makes those urban subcultures much more relevant, and a major NPC like a sheriff being gay matters a lot more when that character is somebody the PCs talk to almost every time they get involved in police matters. The existence of a gay community in a city matters more when the PCs live in that city and are familiar with all sorts of communities. This is without sexual acts ever having to be involved.

Quote:
If posts are routinely wacked, perhaps it would behoove the poster to carefully re-read and consider their choice of words or line of thought instead of blaming "overly-sensitive" readers/moderators/the "PC Police", etc. Please consider using the same tact and empathy posting on this topic as you would discussing racism or slavery/human trafficking.

I'm with Ashiel here. I face racism head-on, and it is something pretty prominent in my writing. My campaign setting had a colonial era, and most of my main adventuring areas are former colonies. Racial justifications for such aspects of colonialism as forced migrations of natives from the most attractive land, massacres of troublesome groups, slavery and indentured servitude, stealing children and forcing them into schools that will "civilize them", and more have been used heavily prominently featured portions of my setting. Immigration is common to the most prominent nations, even the one major nation that isn't a former colony. Having a colonial background like that makes racism very relevant to the story, and I feel that it would be less tactful not to bring it up, as ethnic cleansing the natives and enslaving people totally was a racial thing in my setting.


I watch Zorro the gay blade....and then decide a sequel is in order in which Zorro becomes Zorra...while fighting for the common man...


Jessica Price wrote:

Most of my single NPCs are plotsexual.

I is gonna jack that term too.

Plotsexual.


It's handy, albeit a little awkward for those of us who know the brony definition (which originated from people saying they watched the show "for the plot").

;)


And subscribe to the magazine for the informative articles...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

An apology:

In my clumsy attempts (1, 2, 3) to serve as a peacemaker and an ally, I went too far. My intent was only to suggest that people be careful in considering others' life experiences and feelings, and to help preserve the sense of acceptance and community these forums provide; I never meant to imply that trans* people are extraordinarily fragile, too taboo to speak of, or to silence anyone. I am horrified that I have given offense, and for it's worth, I can only offer my sincere apology.

(I'm sorry for any drama by making this a public post, but I was sure I'd accidentally overlook people I'd offended by trying to PM apologies to everyone. If I've stepped in it again, or my apology is in any way lacking, please PM me privately to avoid derailing the thread any further.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More NPCs and Stuff

Victoria
Sex male->female; Orientation bixesual (favors males); Occupation badass
Biography: Victoria was up until recently the right hand agent of an incredibly narcissistic vampire lord. Serving as a manager of his other vampire concubines, chief assassin, and in some cases diplomat, Victoria is among the most powerful vampires that the party ever encountered, paled only by her lord Vandread himself. Victoria eventually rebelled against Vandread after she became progressively more disillusioned as to Vandread's care for her, with the final straw being when Vandread ordered her to kill one of the PCs (her "sister" in the coven) for insubordination. This led to the PCs eventually rescuing her and appointing Victoria as the new matron of their coven.

Victoria was born "Victor" and male but realized very early on that didn't and went on to liv a modest existence as a do-it-yourself trans woman. In short she lived as a woman and passed well though she dealt with a lot of stigma and misunderstandings with her family and neighbors which led her to distance herself from them and her romantic life was more or less non-existent out of both a sense of fear and uncertainty and so she never became intimate with anyone.

Now to partially understand Victoria, you must understand the madman that is Vandread. Vandread is an egomaniacal, power hungry, narcissistic badguy who views himself as a divine being (he's really cracked in the head). He also "collects" women and all of his vampire thralls are female, save for Victoria, but that's because Vandread was fooled by her. After he turned her and found that she was physically male, he suffered a cognitive dissonance and insisted that he could see her for the woman that she truly was and he insisted that she leave any semblance of her former life behind as one of his brides. Enamored with her vampire thrall and also believing that she found someone who truly saw her for who she was and was not only willing to accept her but insistent that she be herself she was very happy for a time. She had not yet realized it was in service to nurse the dissonance he felt by being attracted to her.

Victoria spent the next fifty years or so learning how to best serve her new master and lover, which included developing her skill with psychic power and unarmed combat until she was his deadly assassin. However, over time her adoration of Vandread began to wane and she slowly realized that he was a very selfish individual. However she had no life to go back to even if she could escape him and as the years waned she doubled her efforts to be the best he could want at everything, fearing that she would cease being his favorite and lead to him casting her aside in favor of a new flavor. For a long time, she served him without fail...until the PCs came along.

When the party was sent to Vandread to barter for information about the criminal underworld's slave trade, they were set up by the vampire and placed right into the hands of the slavemaster they were searching for, where a dockside ambush in a warhouse was waiting. To ensure that things went smoothly, he assigned Victoria to assassinate the party on behalf of his client the slavemaster. Easy enough task, or so she thought. However she had never met anyone like the party and had never met a Paladin before.

As the party was making quick work of the slavemaster's hired thugs, Victoria watched from atop a stack of crates next to the slavemaster, growing more and more amused with their apparent strength. When the slavemaster, nervously watching his men being dispatched effortlessly by the party, grabbed her and shouted "Do something, you have to protect me!", Victoria gripped his arm tightly and with a steely glare through her hood informed him that she wasn't there as his bodyguard and if he ordered her again she would kill him herself. He spent the rest of the combat cowering and looking for an escape route as she dropped off the crates to engage the party.

She opened with a ferocity that demonstrated that somewhere inside she really loved the thrill of combat. During the fight she attacked Myriel who, being an inquisitor (not the class) rather than a warrior (not the class) had little hope of defending herself from the vampire assassin. However, the battle was rapidly turned around when Anklebiter the party's barbarian goblin leaped on her, bit her, and then full-body suplexed her. Now grappled and on her back looking up, the party's Paladin ran over with his longsword and introduced her to what is known as a Smite. She barked obscenities as he blasted her into bits with his sword before she panicked and dispersed into a swarm of bats, but not before Jeo, the party's...shapeshifting archer thing doused her in alchemist fire and gassed her. They followed her back to the nightclub where the vampires were and found her recovering from her injuries and looking dejected at her failure.

(Just to show how freaking awesome my group is, they just nodded and walked past Victoria and into Vandread's lair to chew him out for setting them up. A lot of parties would have seen Victoria and tried to beat her down again and stake her or something but they were just too cool to do that.)

After the party left (Jeo chewed Vandread's head off and startled him with her force of personality, though as a result was marked as a target of Vandread because his ego couldn't handle having her, a woman of all people, being so authoritative and threatening towards him and he decided he must have her for his coven, which lead to later encounters with the vampire's servants and eventually Vandread himself) they returned to their mission and Victoria had to deal with her failure, and would so later in the capital city back in their homeland when she was tasked with retrieving Jeo and Aliizsa (the party's vampire PC), and she failed again. With each failure, she lost more and more favor with Vandread as she feared but became more and more disillusioned with her situation until eventually she opted to willingly be defeated a final time which would result in her execution, rather than turn her sisters (Aliizsa and Miranda) back over to her lord.

Of course the party had a different idea. They whupped all of them down and then saved Victoria, then after staking Victoria in a chapel somewhere where Vandread would assume her dead. Later they organized a templar raid on Vandread's mansion where they braved his house of horrors and eventually confronted the lord himself. While Carrius dueled with the vampire, Jeo and the others prepared to nuke him with a magical sunlight weapon she crafted in preparation for the battle (essentially a high-DC sunburst). After they defeated him, the vampires in his mansion were defeated and taken into custody for judgment by the Templar order (which the party interceded on their behalf). In the end, Vandread's mansion was seized by the order and turned over to the party to house the vampires under certain stipulations (the vampires essentially had to register with the templar, were assigned a sort of case worker, were required to follow certain rules, were essentially under probation and surveillance, etc; which is pretty good for them since they were just going to dust all of them initially).

Victoria was made head of the coven and she now remains at the mansion overseeing the wellbeing of her sisters in a city that hates them. As a final act of love before the party had to leave the city to go deal with another looming threat, Aliizsa and Jeo brewed an elixir of sex shifting and gifted it to Victoria. It was pretty freakin' shweet.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
An apology:

Ambrosia, *pats*, believe me when I say that the last thing I want from you is an apology. I want you to say whatever you feel and I'll listen to it and if I don't agree with it, I'll tell you so and I'll tell you why. I'm not, nor was I, angry with you at any time during your post.

What I am angry at is the politically correct bullcrap that keeps us from having discussions as mature, rational, capable adults. We do not need to hide ourselves away and you and no other should feel afraid of saying something wrong. If anything, I hope this shows why trying to be overly sensitive is a veritable minefield in its own right. I'm tired of nonsense like trigger warnings. I'm tired of not being able to talk about the unique circumstances of transgendered people in D&D/Pathfinder/fantasy-mish-mash. I am not, however, tired of your metaphorical voice. It deserves to be heard.

I want you to say what you will say. If I disagree, we can talk about it and let good reasoning be our guide. I'll treat you like a human being, you treat me like a human being, we both win, we both learn. I'm wearing my big-kid pants and if I can't handle having a conversation with you then I honestly cannot handle much of anything and definitely shouldn't be playing or running a game that deals with far worse things matter o' factly.

So I don't want you to feel like you need to apologize (but thank you anyway). Just smile, be happy, say what you feel the best you can and we all win. Occasionally we'll need to step back and re-evaluate or take a breather but that's just part of learning to deal.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It's handy, albeit a little awkward for those of us who know the brony definition (which originated from people saying they watched the show "for the plot").

;)

Thankfully I am almost completely ignorant of anything Brony.


I haven't really dealt with sexuality one way or the other in my campaigns so far. I let the relationships remain organic and are generally determined by the players' roleplaying.

We had an instance where a NPC was captured by Razmiran cultists, and one of the players suggested rape might be involved and I simply said "we don't need to go down that road at this time."

Not saying there's no room for sexuality in the game, but I'd like to keep it tasteful.

Heterosexual. Homosexual. Pansexual. It doesn't matter as long as it is organic to the group roleplay.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
What I am angry at is the politically correct bullcrap that keeps us from having discussions as mature, rational, capable adults. We do not need to hide ourselves away and you and no other should feel afraid of saying something wrong. If anything, I hope this shows why trying to be overly sensitive is a veritable minefield in its own right. I'm tired of nonsense like trigger warnings. I'm tired of not being able to talk about the unique circumstances of transgendered people in D&D/Pathfinder/fantasy-mish-mash. I am not, however, tired of your metaphorical voice. It deserves to be heard.

At the same time, we also have to be careful, because, while political correctness can and does go too far, anti-political correctness is all too often just people getting pissed off because they can't make jokes about chicks with dicks fooling unlucky guys into sex without getting called out anymore. There is merit to the idea of trying to be respectful of people. It can go too far, and you are right that people need to make a deliberate effort not to be too sensitive, but being considerate of others feeling and experiences is a virtue, not a vice.

As for trigger warnings, I do agree with you that they are overused, but they have their place. As a storyteller, I like to cross lines. Portraying a story where a transwoman got violently gangraped and then sexually mutilated in a manner that will lead to a slow death in the hospital would be something I'd do. That kind of content is something that does need some awareness of who the audience is, because if you pull that sort of graphic content on somebody you didn't know was a rape victim, it could be a very unpleasant situation for everybody. Now, does bringing up most of the difficulties transwomen face require a trigger warning? Absolutely not. We aren't so fragile, as you point out, and most of your complaints on trigger warnings are about things I completely agree with. Some stuff like graphic rape scenes, however, does warrant a warning beforehand.

Liberty's Edge

The term 'plotsexual' amuses me. :)

That said, it's almost never the case for my NPCs...I go way too in-depth into the history, personality, and, yes, sexuality of my NPCs to leave something like that undefined, and if I want a character to be a potential love interest, I build them with an appropriate sexuality. That has to do with my simulationist/world-building tendencies more than it being a better solution, though.

I also think it's a great idea for published NPCs.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Not much difference between the two; just a a matter of opinion. Paladins attacking heretics is not to the paladin's view persecution, it's just their job. Obviously those viewed as heretics are likely to view it quite differently.

Uh...no. Paladins persecuting people on any consistent basis for anything but truly awful behavior (or allying with truly terrible people and things) get to be ex-Paladins. Period.

And killing someone in self-defense or as an execution for a crime or atrocity is very different from doing so over a difference of opinion.

sunshadow21 wrote:
A DM could easily combine the two phrases without the players having any notable recourse.

I'm not sure what this even means in context.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Similarly, torture is quite prone to engender completely different opinions based on which side you are on, but both heretics and torture are reasonably common themes in D&D.

Yes...but persecuting heretics and torturing people are both things only Evil people do, as a rule (or at least will make people evil prety rapidly if they keep doing them). Even if there are exceptions to that, they're rare and seen as bad things.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Slavery isn't much better once you exclude the harshest, and clearly, evil forms of it; treating criminals or prisoners or war as slaves is another fairly common D&D and general fantasy trope.

Handcuffing someone and locking them in a cell because you feel like it is wrong. Doing so because they've been fairly convicted of a crime is not. Ditto forcing them to work for you.

You keep acting like these situations are equivalent when they aren't. Like murder and self-defense are morally equivalent. It's...kinda messed up, actually.

sunshadow21 wrote:
The only real difference is what point of view to choose to look at it from. Traditionally, the game and real life society has looked at from the view of the person doing the action. Real life modern day society tends to look at it from the point of view of the person being acted against. People who want to bring that point of view into the game most certainly can, but it is going to yield far different campaigns and stories than traditional stories and points of view usually produce.

This is a load of crap. Many people have a codified set of moral principles they abide by regardless of whether they're the one acting or being acted upon. Hell, that's what having a consistent set of morals is. And modern attitudes and codes are easily brought into most fantasy worlds with little change to most plotlines if you accept the change in fundamental circumstances (ie: there not being a government you can go to for protection or help in many if not most places).


Grey Lensman wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

It's handy, albeit a little awkward for those of us who know the brony definition (which originated from people saying they watched the show "for the plot").

;)

Thankfully I am almost completely ignorant of anything Brony.

Well now I'm triggered.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Slavery isn't much better once you exclude the harshest, and clearly, evil forms of it; treating criminals or prisoners or war as slaves is another fairly common D&D and general fantasy trope.

Handcuffing someone and locking them in a cell because you feel like it is wrong. Doing so because they've been fairly convicted of a crime is not. Ditto forcing them to work for you.

You keep acting like these situations are equivalent when they aren't. Like murder and self-defense are morally equivalent. It's...kinda messed up, actually.

Though the line does blur: It's certainly reasonable in a harsher world than the modern one to make criminals and war captives work - everyone has to work to survive. There aren't the resources to keep prisoners idle.

OTOH, as you move towards profiting from these prisoners, there's a temptation to make the laws harsher to have more labor or to fight wars to get more prisoners.

Overall though, I agree. I'm perfectly willing to play in a world where the local culture considers slavery and torture acceptable. I'm not willing to do so in one where they're not evil on the meta-level of alignment.

Edit: And just to wrap around to the topic: The same applies to LGBTQ issues. I'm happy playing in a game with cultural persecution of LGBTQ (or sexism or racism, etc) as long as it's not treated as a good or even neutral thing on the metalevel. There's a difference between "These evil people are prejudiced and even these ignorant ones over here aren't very accepting" and "Yeah, the paladins are burning another **** at the stake".
Assuming of course that players are on board. Sometimes it's fun to play with the "overcoming prejudice" trope. Sometimes it really isn't.
And as long as


A lot of the characters I create in other's campaigns tend to be transgender or a rough equivalent depending on culture, or whether or not the character is trans is an unanswered question. Bearded women characters are common.

Actually, my first character, who also happened to be bodily intersex, came from a culture that had a custom of leaving their identity behind (including their name and gender) if they left the society. This individual chose a new name but not a new gender, so the character was genderless.

When I worldbuild, conceptions of gender are an extremely important consideration, especially since I myself am a nonbinary trans person who is fascinated by the various conceptions of gender in different cultures. Since I tend to play with LGBT players, LGBT characters are also common.

EDIT: I've also played with players who made no consideration as to the gender of their character; for example a friend wrote in the gender field on the character sheet, "nightmares". He actually referred to the character with they pronouns, but whatever pronouns people called the character didn't matter.


One player runs an "asexual" gnome in my home campaign. It never really comes into consideration except when we try to use pronouns in reference to the character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:
One player runs an "asexual" gnome in my home campaign. It never really comes into consideration except when we try to use pronouns in reference to the character.

Hmm, do you mean agender or something like that? Asexuality just means not being sexually attracted to anyone and doesn't affect pronouns.

301 to 350 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / How do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your campaigns? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.