How do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your campaigns?


Gamer Life General Discussion

351 to 400 of 497 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

My wife's character in my homebrew game here on the boards, Aibek, is non-gender specific. My wife has taken great care to avoid using gender based pronouns with the character. The others assume Aibek is male because the character that they're impersonating is male, but so far it hasn't come up.

Of course, now a super-friendly Dryad is on the scene and Selena the Half-Succubus Courtesan is on the scene to play matchmaker. So it might.

I like the Plotsexual explanation, and I like to include Gay, Bi and Trans folk in my games. Again in Broken Towers the PC's have already met the married sheriff of the city, who has spoken of her wife several times. Added to the fun is the pair are a Half-Orc/Gnome pairing.

Hopefully other planned NPC's will come into play as the plot progresses.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

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.

Oh yeah, that's immoral. But it's immoral because you're now changing the law to enslave people not because of the nature of forcing prisoners to work.

It's certainly a worrisome potential consequence of the practice, but those exist for imprisonment as well...and are practical concerns leading to moral ones rather than moral ones per se.

thejeff wrote:
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.

Yep. That's the line I draw too.

thejeff wrote:

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.

Yeah, I feel similarly in terms of requirements. Though, as noted, I prefer my fantastical settings to have prejudices that have less in common with those in the real world.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:


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.

Only if that male character is Captain Jack Harkness.


For Captain Jack, no roll is necessary. Only willingness.

He is what I like to think of as Omnisexual.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JonGarrett wrote:

For Captain Jack, no roll is necessary. Only willingness.

He is what I like to think of as Omnisexual.

"ooh... poodle!"


Only if it could give consent.

I hope...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Having you and Icyshadow in the same thread is really confusing...

Scarab Sages

It doesn't come up in the games I DM or have been a part of as a player, 25 years of playing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
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.

I'll agree with that. Political correctness might not even be the correct term for what I'm trying to describe. I'm trying to describe an insidious form of public censorship based on browbeating anyone who says anything against the status quo, mixed with an unhealthy dose of competition at "who's the biggest victim". A horrible senseless world of buzzwords rather than context.

Everyone deserves a voice (for the record, another trans friend of mine who is currently doing very well with her hormonal therapy actually likes those jokes and she is amused by Mr. Ackbar). If we encourage reason foremost, people may not misuse their voices as often. Jumping down people's throats because they said an ugly word (real or imagined) isn't going to help anyone. It sure won't turn what is probably someone neutral to your position into an ally. I've watched people in the LGBT community on these boards bully and browbeat people who were neutral until they didn't want to be on the boards anymore when meeting them in the middle and talking about stuff even when it was tough stuff, even when we've discussed it before way too often.

Quote:
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.

I agree. It's a virtue, but it should not be some sort of social law that will require recompense because someone chose to be offended by something innocuous. It's a virtue, not a requirement, and that's a good thing. Sometimes people just need to grow up. You can call me any name under the sun until your face turns blue and purple and it won't phase me. In very rare cases are these sorts of things legitimately people attempting to be offensive and honestly I think this victim worship prevalent in our culture right now is both embarrassing and destructive to our ability to function as rational well-adjusted human beings (in other words I think it makes us look stupid and be stupid).

Quote:
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.

This reminds me of an episode of Law and Order: SVU that I watched. I was bothered and angered by the story and felt righteous indignation for the character. That's kind of the point though (I was pissed for days thinking about the episode as it resonated strongly) as it made me feel and think about things (it's also one of the first instances where I found some of my less aware family members feeling strong feelings about these things instead of just thinking "weirdos").

Quote:
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.

I generally try to get a feel for what's acceptable for the playerbase I'm running for or give alerts for things that crop up in the games I'm GMing. Generally speaking, my games ran for adults (and my brother who's still a teenager but he's a smart cookie) tend to often feature graphic depictions of violence, mature themes (in the game with Aliizsa, Klari, Myriel, Carrius, Jeo, Miranda, and Victoria I've mentioned, the party actually infiltrated an underworld brothel filled with illegal slaves, and Aliizsa purchased a twelve year old prostitute from the establishment because she didn't want to leave her there), and so forth.

But it depends on the audience. Naturally I don't run games like that when I'm running the game for children. My brother played his first D&D at the age of 4 or so and the game was basically knights and peasants in a cartoon sort of fashion with sometimes bumbling villains and everyone gets rescued and stuff. Getting feedback from your players and asking what sorts of things they'd be okay with ahead of time is a pretty good idea in most cases, or giving some sort of general rating like movies with PG, PG-13, R, etc.

For example, in the same game, Aliizsa ended up in a situation where she was forced to watch one of Vandread's minions (a sadistic woman named Tess, who became excited by inflicting pain) dissecting a woman while she was alive, trying to use the horrific sight to awaken an evil power lurking within Aliizsa that Vandread was trying to cultivate. This involved Tess using healing magics to keep her from dying and conscious while she split her open and rummaged around in her ribcage like she was looking for her cellphone in a purse (Aliizsa ended up killing the woman by exploding her head because she was screaming to make it stop). During an altercation during the scene, Vandread decided that perhaps the best way to cause her demonic power to emerge was not to make her indulge in suffering to to make her suffer, so he even attempted to sexually assault her for no other reason than to try to hurt her mentally until her demonic persona emerged (it didn't work though, as he got flaming-kicked in the face and thrown across the room).

(Side Note: Aliizsa's a demon goddess whose soul was born into the body of a mortal child, but in the process she lost all of her memories and her demonic powers fell dormant in the process. Vandread learned that through exposure to intense suffering he should be able to awaken her power and intended to use it for his own purposes.)

Perhaps oddly, Aliizsa player told me that Vandread has been one of her favorite characters in the campaign and hopes he returns for round II at some point (and there's been some hints that his evil is not easily quelled, even in death). She found him provocative, charismatic, and terrifying in ways that she was very fond of.

So audience communication is a big thing when dealing with anything super intense. I also ran the scene with Vandread, Tess, and Aliizsa as a side-thing when she was separated from the party when it was just her participating and another friend of ours who was a member of the group watching (because at least two of the other players would have probably felt uncomfortable with the torture and abuse).

However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.

I just wanted to point something out about this part: Yes, facing things can be a way of treating traumatic stress. Yes, roleplaying can be good for that, though usually therapy roleplaying isn't much like game roleplaying. Nor are most GMs psychiatrists or their players patients. Roleplaying something traumatic, without warning, preparation and training, isn't likely to be therapeutic and is probably just going to be unpleasant, if not actually damaging.

Trigger warnings are absolutely not damaging in the sense you're talking about. They let the person choose whether to face the stress and prepare for it if they do choose to.

I have some problems and some agreement with the rest of your post, but I really dislike the idea of GMs thinking they're justified in pushing trauma on people as some form of amateur therapy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
I agree. It's a virtue, but it should not be some sort of social law that will require recompense because someone chose to be offended by something innocuous. It's a virtue, not a requirement, and that's a good thing. Sometimes people just need to grow up. You can call me any name under the sun until your face turns blue and purple and it won't phase me. In very rare cases are these sorts of things legitimately people attempting to be offensive and honestly I think this victim worship prevalent in our culture right now is both embarrassing and destructive to our ability to function as rational well-adjusted human beings (in other words I think it makes us look stupid and be stupid).

I'm sorry, but I can't see the victim worship culture from where I am. When rape victims are still frequently accused of having buyer's remorse or dressing in an inappropriate manner, bullied children are frequently told to just get over it, dead transpeople get misgendered, unarmed black kids who get shot are demeaned as criminals who deserved it, and people frequently deny that institutional racism and sexism aren't still prevalent, it doesn't really seem as though victim worship is our problem. I'm trying to get a feel for what your argument is, because it sounds to me like you want to say people on the recieving end of transphobia need to just shut up and deal with it, and I know that isn't the type of person you are or what you believe.

Quote:
This reminds me of an episode of Law and Order: SVU that I watched. I was bothered and angered by the story and felt righteous indignation for the character. That's kind of the point though (I was pissed for days thinking about the episode as it resonated strongly) as it made me feel and think about things (it's also one of the first instances where I found some of my less aware family members feeling strong feelings about these things instead of just thinking "weirdos").

That might be a method of facing pain that works for you, but what works for you doesn't work for everybody. Some people have your reaction, but others just want to play an entertaining game where they can get away from that s~%&. Watching SVU helps some rape victims feel empowered, but it makes others feel extremely uncomfortable and like they have to relieve their trauma all over again. No two people deal with trauma the same way. Also, what thejeff said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ashiel

Spoiler:
A minor point: dissection performed on a living subject is vivisection.

The things one learns playing a Tzimisce


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.

I just wanted to point something out about this part: Yes, facing things can be a way of treating traumatic stress. Yes, roleplaying can be good for that, though usually therapy roleplaying isn't much like game roleplaying. Nor are most GMs psychiatrists or their players patients. Roleplaying something traumatic, without warning, preparation and training, isn't likely to be therapeutic and is probably just going to be unpleasant, if not actually damaging.

Trigger warnings are absolutely not damaging in the sense you're talking about. They let the person choose whether to face the stress and prepare for it if they do choose to.

I have some problems and some agreement with the rest of your post, but I really dislike the idea of GMs thinking they're justified in pushing trauma on people as some form of amateur therapy.

Wanna try re-reading that again?

Ashiel wrote:

I generally try to get a feel for what's acceptable for the playerbase I'm running for or give alerts for things that crop up in the games I'm GMing.

...
But it depends on the audience.
...
So audience communication is a big thing when dealing with anything super intense.
...
I also ran the scene ... a side-thing when she was separated from the party when it was just her participating (because at least two of the other players would have probably felt uncomfortable with the torture and abuse).

I also said these aren't the sort of things I usually see trigger warnings for. Honestly, I see them for stupid stuff more often than not. I'll be honest and say I think trigger warnings are stupid. That's my opinion and while you're not required to share it (which is a good thing) I will need to have a reason to change that opinion. Thus far, I find myself in a position where I have more reasons to dislike trigger warnings and the effects of them than not.

But it's fun talking about. In the meantime, I need to start writing about Jeo's moms.


Scythia wrote:

Ashiel

** spoiler omitted **

Thanks! :D


It's always good to get a feel for how things like that will be treated, even in the innocent 'flirting leads to fade to black, then note on nightstand' scene. If nothing else, I'd rather not have to start adjusting my character's armour a few months after she enjoys an NPC's company ... and if nothing else it'd help to have an idea how it'll be treated in-game (whether 'what'll you name the baby', 'get some herbs at the apothecary across the street from the brothel', or 'go have fun'). And while the female PCs would have the more immediate game effects, even a male PC would like to know whether or not he'll end up as the groom in a blunderbuss wedding.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
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.

That was the term she used, so that's why I put it in quotes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rosita the Riveter wrote:
I'm sorry, but I can't see the victim worship culture from where I am. When rape victims are still frequently accused of having buyer's remorse or dressing in an inappropriate manner, bullied children are frequently told to just get over it, dead transpeople get misgendered, unarmed black kids who get shot are demeaned as criminals who deserved it, and people frequently deny that institutional racism and sexism aren't still prevalent, it doesn't really seem as though victim worship is our problem. I'm trying to get a feel for what your argument is, because it sounds to me like you want to say people on the recieving end of transphobia need to just shut up and deal with it, and I know that isn't the type of person you are or what you believe.

Since most of that is outside of the breadth of this thread (or I would expect it to be), I'm going to simply say that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of that, it only means that discussion and discourse should occur, not be stifled. I've had my share of talking with people that are neutral to hostile concerning many subjects surrounding homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, and aesexuals (and a few other groups of people) and you want to know what has never helped?

Being a dick to them. Even if it's a righteous sort of dickery. Reason and discussion has a better success rate than giving them reasons to retaliate when cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Letting everyone speak is important. I've no interest in social justice warriors. They can stay off my lawn. I prefer social equality diplomats.

Quote:
This reminds me of an episode of Law and Order: SVU that I watched. I was bothered and angered by the story and felt righteous indignation for the character. That's kind of the point though (I was pissed for days thinking about the episode as it resonated strongly) as it made me feel and think about things (it's also one of the first instances where I found some of my less aware family members feeling strong feelings about these things instead of just thinking "weirdos").
That might be a method of facing pain that works for you, but what works for you...

As I said before, it's about knowing your audience and asking what they're comfortable with if you're planning on including any sort of themes that are dark. Even adults sometimes want to just save the princess of the dragon for mushroom kingdom, but we'll need another topic to whine about how terrible that is. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
It's always good to get a feel for how things like that will be treated, even in the innocent 'flirting leads to fade to black, then note on nightstand' scene. If nothing else, I'd rather not have to start adjusting my character's armour a few months after she enjoys an NPC's company ... and if nothing else it'd help to have an idea how it'll be treated in-game (whether 'what'll you name the baby', 'get some herbs at the apothecary across the street from the brothel', or 'go have fun'). And while the female PCs would have the more immediate game effects, even a male PC would like to know whether or not he'll end up as the groom in a blunderbuss wedding.

Humorously, despite the side-themes relating to romance, relationships, orientations, shapeshifting, etc, there have only been two moments where characters actually had a fade to black. One instance was with the party's rogue and a drider he met (he initially tried to woo her in an attempt to steal her jewelry but then couldn't bring himself to do it after he thought about how she'd feel so he decided to forget the jewels and earnestly party with her that night), the other was Aliizsa (which is all kinds of messed up and I'd really not like to delve down that rabbit hole right now).

Don't have any mechanics for the usual side-effects but might homebrew something if one of the PCs was actually interested in things like being a mom or dad or something.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


Since most of that is outside of the breadth of this thread (or I would expect it to be), I'm going to simply say that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of that, it only means that discussion and discourse should occur, not be stifled. I've had my share of talking with people that are neutral to hostile concerning many subjects surrounding homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, and aesexuals (and a few other groups of people) and you want to know what has never helped?

Being a dick to them. Even if it's a righteous sort of dickery. Reason and discussion has a better success rate than giving them reasons to retaliate when cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Letting everyone speak is important. I've no interest in social justice warriors. They can stay off my lawn. I prefer social equality diplomats.

Hate to bring this up, but I've seen a few too many times where people used the 'social justice warrior' label as a way to try and stifle discussion. (Disclosure: quite a few I hang out with would prefer 'social justice cleric' or 'barbarian' or 'sorceror' when being called that.) Essentially, 'oh, we don't need to listen to <positon>, as the ones talking about it are just social justice warriors trying to play victim' or some such. And this can easily turn into an atmosphere where one feels intimidated into NOT having the discussion. I think that's the hardest part of anyone trying to moderate a discussion, to be honest -- making sure that it can take place. (And hopefully avoid dropping into labelthink or whatever you call it when you just label something to make it go away.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Labels are a difficult thing to deal with, and yes, they can be used to stifle discussion. The problem is that people on all sides believe that their side is often the one being stifled or misrepresented or going unheard. For instance, there are many with a conservative mindset on the forums that feel their posts are unfairly targeted.

And we won't mention the venom contained in the phrase "White straight cis male". I keep a squeegee nearby on a bad day.

In discussions like this one, where the topic is how do you handle these topics, it is important IMO to listen to people who may not handle it the way that others do. Not everyone is open or possibly out of the closet, not everyone's group believes the same way and not everyone feels comfortable with the same things.

Some people feel far more at home discussing disemboweling goblins than discussing relationships or whose wee wee goes where.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Since most of that is outside of the breadth of this thread (or I would expect it to be), I'm going to simply say that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of that, it only means that discussion and discourse should occur, not be stifled. I've had my share of talking with people that are neutral to hostile concerning many subjects surrounding homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, and aesexuals (and a few other groups of people) and you want to know what has never helped?

Being a dick to them. Even if it's a righteous sort of dickery. Reason and discussion has a better success rate than giving them reasons to retaliate when cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Letting everyone speak is important. I've no interest in social justice warriors. They can stay off my lawn. I prefer social equality diplomats.

Hate to bring this up, but I've seen a few too many times where people used the 'social justice warrior' label as a way to try and stifle discussion. (Disclosure: quite a few I hang out with would prefer 'social justice cleric' or 'barbarian' or 'sorceror' when being called that.) Essentially, 'oh, we don't need to listen to <positon>, as the ones talking about it are just social justice warriors trying to play victim' or some such. And this can easily turn into an atmosphere where one feels intimidated into NOT having the discussion. I think that's the hardest part of anyone trying to moderate a discussion, to be honest -- making sure that it can take place. (And hopefully avoid dropping into labelthink or whatever you call it when you just label something to make it go away.)

That's a fair point so let me clarify the context.

To me, when I think of a "social justice warrior", it by definition to me means someone who is actively pushing a particular social agenda, usually forcefully, who is prone to using any means necessary including but not limited to: misinformation, browbeating, shaming, insulting, bigotry, harassment, propaganda, zealotry, and in some cases literal violence. Essentially, the warriors are at war. It's not about reason, equity, or logic, it's about winning the war by any means.

It has become quite the ugly word around the circles I frequent (which are probably among the most chill and accepting circles I know of). It implies a sort of social violence not merely in name but by the people that carry the badge. I've never once met a SJW (particularly self proclaimed) that I thought wasn't a bit unhinged.

So I'd opt to field a different unit. A social equity diplomat. Entirely different purpose.


Hopefully, not into the recently disemboweled goblin.


Ashiel wrote:
Qaianna wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Since most of that is outside of the breadth of this thread (or I would expect it to be), I'm going to simply say that whether or not I agree or disagree with any of that, it only means that discussion and discourse should occur, not be stifled. I've had my share of talking with people that are neutral to hostile concerning many subjects surrounding homosexuals, bisexuals, transexuals, and aesexuals (and a few other groups of people) and you want to know what has never helped?

Being a dick to them. Even if it's a righteous sort of dickery. Reason and discussion has a better success rate than giving them reasons to retaliate when cognitive dissonance kicks in.

Letting everyone speak is important. I've no interest in social justice warriors. They can stay off my lawn. I prefer social equality diplomats.

Hate to bring this up, but I've seen a few too many times where people used the 'social justice warrior' label as a way to try and stifle discussion. (Disclosure: quite a few I hang out with would prefer 'social justice cleric' or 'barbarian' or 'sorceror' when being called that.) Essentially, 'oh, we don't need to listen to <positon>, as the ones talking about it are just social justice warriors trying to play victim' or some such. And this can easily turn into an atmosphere where one feels intimidated into NOT having the discussion. I think that's the hardest part of anyone trying to moderate a discussion, to be honest -- making sure that it can take place. (And hopefully avoid dropping into labelthink or whatever you call it when you just label something to make it go away.)

That's a fair point so let me clarify the context.

To me, when I think of a "social justice warrior", it by definition to me means someone who is actively pushing a particular social agenda, usually forcefully, who is prone to using any means necessary including but not limited to: misinformation, browbeating, shaming, insulting, bigotry, harassment, propaganda,...

interesting, ashiel. Verymuchso.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Sexuality is almost never relevant to my games. It's just really awkward. Even heterosexuality can easily get creepy and make people uncomfortable at the table.


Freehold DM wrote:
interesting, ashiel. Verymuchso.

Well there's at least no confusion about what I'm talking about when I say SJW, so agree or disagree we're at least on a better footing for understanding each other, right? (^_^)

Anyway, on to Jeo's mothers...


Ashiel wrote:
Qaianna wrote:


Hate to bring this up, but I've seen a few too many times where people used the 'social justice warrior' label as a way to try and stifle discussion. (Disclosure: quite a few I hang out with would prefer 'social justice cleric' or 'barbarian' or 'sorceror' when being called that.) Essentially, 'oh, we don't need to listen to <positon>, as the ones talking about it are just social justice warriors trying to play victim' or some such. And this can easily turn into an atmosphere where one feels intimidated into NOT having the discussion. I think that's the hardest part of anyone trying to moderate a discussion, to be honest -- making sure that it can take place. (And hopefully avoid dropping into labelthink or whatever you call it when you just label something to make it go away.)

That's a fair point so let me clarify the context.

To me, when I think of a "social justice warrior", it by definition to me means someone who is actively pushing a particular social agenda, usually forcefully, who is prone to using any means necessary including but not limited to: misinformation, browbeating, shaming, insulting, bigotry, harassment, propaganda, zealotry, and in some cases literal violence. Essentially, the warriors are at war. It's not about reason, equity, or logic, it's about winning the war by any means.

It has become quite the ugly word around the circles I frequent (which are probably among the most chill and accepting circles I know of). It implies a sort of social violence not merely in name but by the people that carry the badge. I've never once met a SJW (particularly self proclaimed) that I thought wasn't a bit unhinged.

So I'd opt to field a different unit. A social equity diplomat. Entirely different purpose.

If only I could use that definition and throw it at some folks who use those tactics. Granted, it'd be hard to say it with a straight face to someone venting their spleen about how someone should shut up about getting singled out for a social stigma (didn't someone earlier in this thread try tossing out things about how the topic wasn't ever brought up in the past?). Nothing like social pressure to keep others in line sometimes.

And despite how often I play the party's tank/combat specialist, I do understand there's a role to play for a diplomat -- even reading about some of Genghis Khan's diplomatic overtures to some peoples. (Just be careful how those diplomats are treated!)


Cyrad wrote:
Sexuality is almost never relevant to my games. It's just really awkward. Even heterosexuality can easily get creepy and make people uncomfortable at the table.

I am required by nerd law to link this.


Issues of sexual nature rarely come up in my games mostly because it isn't the kind of story my players want to tell. As for my NPCs, unless I find a specific reason to give them a particular tendency; they are all bi.

Transgenderism in my campaign settings isn't given much consideration because transmutation magic (all magic actually) is cheap and available to the entire population. (In the sense that not everyone in the United States is affluent enough to own a cell phone, but that virtually every American could find a way to make a phone call tomorrow if they needed to.) So, essentially, people are able to adjust their bodies to meet their mental image of themselves pretty much at will.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Jeo's Mothers - Jugeum and Feiya
Sex both female; Orientation bisexual (or something like that); Occupation assassins for oni shogun
Biography Not a whole lot is currently known about Jeo's mothers and I'm not going to reveal much of it here since the campaign is still ongoing and my players read this thread. However, it's important to note that Jugeum, Feiya, and Jeo are kumiho, a nine-tailed fox demon from korean lore that - unlike kitsune - are pretty much just known for being monstrous people-eating shapeshifter demons.

Jugeum and Feiya (along with several other kumiho) are the prized assassins and possessions of an Oni Shogun that is a powerful force in the criminal underworld. These fox-spirits go where they are told, kill who they are told to kill, like loyal dogs. Jugeum, however, is the most headstrong of the kumiho and is prone to periodically escaping from her home and wandering around causing mischief and enjoying bouts of freedom prior to being reclaimed and punished in some way. Feiya is significantly less headstrong and has been more accepting of their situation and spends her days reading books and studying about the world when she's not tasked with killing some enemy of the shogunate or other. Over the years the two shapeshifters found themselves close and eventually intimate with one-another.

In our campaign, it's fairly common for kumiho to abandon their young to fend for themselves for their youth with no clear understanding of what they are. In Jeo's case, her mother Jugeum (who carried her) did this out of an unusual display of altruism. However, when she found that she was going to give birth, her usually selfish attitude was replaced with a desire to give her child a chance at real freedom. So when it was about that time she slipped away once again and wandered far away and gave birth before abandoning the child where the oni were unlikely to find her before she was captured again.

The oni lord she served was angry that she hide away what was his by right but there was little that he could do for she intentionally placed the child where they would be carted away and so she didn't actually know where little Jeo was either so mind-tricks and such weren't going to easily divine her location from her. So for many years, prior to Jeo's return, Jugeum and Feiya continued their daily lives and didn't spend much time being intimate for fear of another incident like Jeo cropping up and the oni claiming their son or daughter.

Later, when Jeo was an adult, she encountered Jugeum accidentally (in combat if I recall) and the two ended up in a scrap before transforming into fox demons and being like "wtf!?" and thus the family was partially reunited. Jugeum hurried Jeo and Aliizsa out of the area after the ninja assassins were dispatched and insisted that Jeo had done a very bad thing trying to find them as the oni lord would now be interested in reclaiming them and Jeo to. Since Jeo spent her youth as a slave before murdering a guard and escaping to roam the forests for a while, she was in no way interested in being somebody else's slave (seems a recurring theme for her, first she was the slave of a dirty old man, so she escapes, then goes back and watches the old guy kick the bucket with a heart attack - which she learned later was due to poisoning, only to become marked for slavery by a vampire, then by an oni lord...screw this!).

Eventually the oni lord's oni warriors came to reclaim Jugeum and Jeo, which occurred at the same time as a demonic attack made to attempt to seize Aliizsa after Vandread's defeat (which led to the party fighting lots of demons and oni fighting the party and each other). Along with the team of oni was Feiya who had been hand-picked to bring them back, perhaps out of spite since the lord knew the two were fond of one another, perhaps because he figured Jugeum would be more likely to listen to Feiya request her return.

Feiya appeared from nowhere using her spirit-magics and made a huge hole where Aliizsa's favorite torso was supposed to be before throwing her to the ground nonchalantly before trying to capture Jugeum and Jeo. What she wasn't aware of is that Aliizsa is a vampire and Jeo is a tough cookie. Jeo turned her into a pile of burger meat and Aliizsa stood back up and was about to grill the remains (which would have slain the regenerating kumiho) but Jugeum stopped them in desperation and begged Jeo not to kill her. When questioned why, the answer was:

"Because she's your father!" ~Dun-dun-duuuuuun~

Gonna pause here because I gotta go to bed to get up for work in the morning.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Your campaign is weird and I want to watch it on the television.

Liberty's Edge

For the record, on the subject of 'social justice warriors' and the rest of that, I'm mostly in agreement with the substance of what Ashiel is saying, though in terms of terminology I dislike the use of the term 'social justice warrior' in most contexts. Too much baggage and different and conflicting definitions.

I'm cool with Ashiel using it since it's been defined very specifically above. :)


Kalindlara wrote:
Having you and Icyshadow in the same thread is really confusing...

Is that a problem? I'd like to think both me and Jon are reasonable people who've contributed something worthwhile to this thread :P

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
Having you and Icyshadow in the same thread is really confusing...
Is that a problem? I'd like to think both me and Jon are reasonable people who've contributed something worthwhile to this thread :P

Not at all; sorry if I gave you that impression. I meant it in a semi-humorous tone. ^_^

I was reading his posts as yours, until I started looking carefully.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.

I just wanted to point something out about this part: Yes, facing things can be a way of treating traumatic stress. Yes, roleplaying can be good for that, though usually therapy roleplaying isn't much like game roleplaying. Nor are most GMs psychiatrists or their players patients. Roleplaying something traumatic, without warning, preparation and training, isn't likely to be therapeutic and is probably just going to be unpleasant, if not actually damaging.

Trigger warnings are absolutely not damaging in the sense you're talking about. They let the person choose whether to face the stress and prepare for it if they do choose to.

I have some problems and some agreement with the rest of your post, but I really dislike the idea of GMs thinking they're justified in pushing trauma on people as some form of amateur therapy.

Wanna try re-reading that again?
Ashiel wrote:

I generally try to get a feel for what's acceptable for the playerbase I'm running for or give alerts for things that crop up in the games I'm GMing.

...
But it depends on the audience.
...
So audience communication is a big thing when dealing with anything super intense.
...
I also ran the scene ... a side-thing when she was separated from the party when it was just her participating (because at least two of the other players would have probably felt uncomfortable with the torture and abuse).

I also said these aren't the sort of things I usually see trigger warnings for. Honestly, I see them for stupid stuff more often than not. I'll be honest and say I think trigger warnings are stupid. That's my opinion and while you're not required to share it (which is a good thing) I will need to have a reason to change that opinion. Thus far, I find myself in a position where I have more reasons to dislike trigger warnings and the effects of them than not.

But it's fun talking about. In the meantime, I need to start writing about Jeo's moms.

But the "stupid stuff" isn't the "traumatic stress" kind and doesn't need even amateur therapy, so there's no danger there either. Since you specifically said, "traumatic stress", it seemed clear that you were talking about the more serious kind and I really wanted to push back against anyone thinking they should be using their RPG as therapy for any serious issues. Especially without informed consent from the players.

Since you also say you do give trigger warnings ("alerts for things that crop up in play") or at least are sure to know your audience well enough to know what will be a problem, it seems we're really only arguing about where we should draw the line between super intense things that need warnings and stupid stuff that doesn't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

For the record, on the subject of 'social justice warriors' and the rest of that, I'm mostly in agreement with the substance of what Ashiel is saying, though in terms of terminology I dislike the use of the term 'social justice warrior' in most contexts. Too much baggage and different and conflicting definitions.

I'm cool with Ashiel using it since it's been defined very specifically above. :)

The problem is "social justice warrior" is almost exclusively used as an attack phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. Even with Ashiel's definition, it just turns into a way of accusing people of meeting that definition.

Much like there may well have been too much "political correctness" back when that phrase went mainstream, but it was quickly co-opted and used against any attempts to counter racism or sexism.

And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.

Nor am I sure why "equity" is preferable to "justice".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

But the "stupid stuff" isn't the "traumatic stress" kind and doesn't need even amateur therapy, so there's no danger there either. Since you specifically said, "traumatic stress", it seemed clear that you were talking about the more serious kind and I really wanted to push back against anyone thinking they should be using their RPG as therapy for any serious issues. Especially without informed consent from the players.

Since you also say you do give trigger warnings ("alerts for things that crop up in play") or at least are sure to know your audience well enough to know what will be a problem, it seems we're really only arguing about where we should draw the line between super intense things that need warnings and stupid stuff that doesn't.

I don't check about content because of "triggering" but because of enjoyment, not because I'm concerned they can't handle it. Not everyone enjoys grimdark material and if everyone would rather play something more lighthearted then that's what we'll do. Someone doesn't need to be "triggered" to simply not enjoy something and that's what the goal is, to enjoy the game and story.

However, trigger warnings I most frequently see on things not intended for entertainment but academia and I feel that's a poor idea. Especially given how I've seen them used. If you want start another thread about it and link me, we can talk about it at length. In the meantime, this feminist explains most of my issues with it fairly well.

Quote:

And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.

Nor am I sure why "equity" is preferable to "justice".

Because the goal is education, re-education, and equality. However, by definition, while Justice has involvement in moral equality it is also concerned with doling out retribution, rewards, and punishments, which frankly do very little to quell unjustified hatred and can sow seeds where none existed prior.

Equity has no such association with rewards and punishments but instead is about true equality. It's much easier to douse the flames of hatred and isn't likely to create new hatred where non-existed before, but I've seen many, many examples of people who were completely neutral to the subjects soured to social reformations because of the ways in which those things are being handled.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Your campaign is weird and I want to watch it on the television.

Would you believe that all that stuff is minor side stuff in a campaign that has revolved around a young woman's quest for revenge, a paladin's quest for justice, a child's quest for a family and place she belongs, and demonic forces conspiring against the world? :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
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.

Words can have two different meanings, depending on context.

Sponges are asexual :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crystal Frasier wrote:
.

Aah. Very good Crystal post vanished before I could respond. :(


Rosita the Riveter wrote:


So, to me LGBT+ issues are part of the social fabric of the setting, and have a large role in urban culture and politics. What about you guys?

In our games at home, they come up as often as the AP we are running and the characters we are running dictate. If a character (PC or NPC) is homosexual, then they are homosexual. If they are strait, they are strait. If it doesn't come up, it doesn't matter, it's not plot related.

By and large, character's sexuality and genders don't come up, because they aren't the focus of our games and vary rarely the focus of the characters. Lady Silk and Chelsia were exceptions (both trans individuals, but in very different ways), but that was due to Silk's Diva personality and Chelsia's transformation as blatant power grab in the Asmodean hierarchy. Unless it's a driving point for the character, who they go home to isn't a major plot point.

Our characters run the gambit.
Ridgar Redhammer was a womanizer (with a taste for non-Humanoids),
Hernando Ruiz was gay (though not openly or blatantly),
Valsera was a lesbian (with a blatant crush on Sabina),
Chelsia (later Marl) was trans (though she/he never really cared about what gender he/she was so long as she/he could better serve Asmodeus, eventually transitioning to full Devil),
Helgeth was omnisexual (old druids who have seen alot have a different way of looking at things),
Tristin was strait (though we would joke that his girlfriend/cohort was in an abusive relationship due to being an HP battery via Shield Other),
Samuel Truen was completely asexual (duty to Ragathiel above all else, he had no time for matters of love),
Lady Silk was a 6'7" genetically male Shoanti cross-dresser and former member of the the Blushing Rose who was a lady (as she described herself, though certainly not in action, and even with multiple Reincarnates (we use a chart that allows for sex changes) she never was given her "true self" until post game),
and list goes on.
(I just realized that so far we haven't had a character with a loving family waiting for him or her back home. Huh. Looks like I have my Giantslayer character background.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

For the record, on the subject of 'social justice warriors' and the rest of that, I'm mostly in agreement with the substance of what Ashiel is saying, though in terms of terminology I dislike the use of the term 'social justice warrior' in most contexts. Too much baggage and different and conflicting definitions.

I'm cool with Ashiel using it since it's been defined very specifically above. :)

The problem is "social justice warrior" is almost exclusively used as an attack phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. Even with Ashiel's definition, it just turns into a way of accusing people of meeting that definition.

Much like there may well have been too much "political correctness" back when that phrase went mainstream, but it was quickly co-opted and used against any attempts to counter racism or sexism.

And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.

Nor am I sure why "equity" is preferable to "justice".

See, I'm used to both axes of Social Justice Warrior, from the self-proclaimed and the much-deriding. The term for me more often comes up in the latter context, but I also see it frequently used without irony, so I have to determine from context which interpretation is being used.

On the Political Correctness front, I've long since gotten used to people complaining about it and using the words, without irony, to basically complain about not being able to call black people something akin to 'naggers'. Not Political Correctness Run Amok - just Political Correctness. These are often the same people who jump on the Chris Rock Can Say It So Why Can't I train. The ones who purposefully don't see the re-appropriation of orientation slurs as grounds to use them as slurs because the users of same invoke privilege to do so.

Which is not to derail, it just drew my attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the subject of trigger warnings; I'm not a fan.
I'm of the attitude that "Life doesn't give you trigger warnings. You HAVE to learn to live."

I could not finish Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. It hit WAY too close to home on a very traumatic event in my life, something that I still feel the repercussions of to this day. However, I wouldn't want it to have a trigger warning. It was a good movie, a damn good movie. I couldn't finish it. But I wouldn't change it, nor would I want to know before I went in just how emotional it is.


thejeff wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
However, these aren't the sorts of things I usually see trigger warnings posted for and honestly they're pretty damaging anyway since treating traumatic stress involves facing things and facing them in fiction is probably one of the most therapeutic ways of dealing with things I can think of. Roleplaying is cool like that.

I just wanted to point something out about this part: Yes, facing things can be a way of treating traumatic stress. Yes, roleplaying can be good for that, though usually therapy roleplaying isn't much like game roleplaying. Nor are most GMs psychiatrists or their players patients. Roleplaying something traumatic, without warning, preparation and training, isn't likely to be therapeutic and is probably just going to be unpleasant, if not actually damaging.

Trigger warnings are absolutely not damaging in the sense you're talking about. They let the person choose whether to face the stress and prepare for it if they do choose to.

I have some problems and some agreement with the rest of your post, but I really dislike the idea of GMs thinking they're justified in pushing trauma on people as some form of amateur therapy.

Yes! Please do not interrupt everyone's fun to work on your issue(s)?

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The problem is "social justice warrior" is almost exclusively used as an attack phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. Even with Ashiel's definition, it just turns into a way of accusing people of meeting that definition.

As TheAntiElite notes, I've seen it used completely unironically by people as something they consider themselves. So...clearly differing definitions.

thejeff wrote:
Much like there may well have been too much "political correctness" back when that phrase went mainstream, but it was quickly co-opted and used against any attempts to counter racism or sexism.

That one's still got different definitions depending on who you ask, too.

thejeff wrote:
And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.

Metaphorical warriors? I don't know actually. Firstly, the difference between warriors and diplomats is primarily sphere of operations (physical vs. social)rather than any actual difference in methodology, and metaphorical conflicts are almost universally within the social sphere already. Secondly, way too many people take the tack that if they are 'warriors' the point is to attack the enemy's soldiers, which is not generally productive behavior. Attacking their ideas? Sure, that's a solid plan. Attacking people who simply believe that way on a personal level? Not appropriate or productive.

As labels go, it has a real tendency to legitimize some really ugly behavior and reinforce an 'us vs. them' mentality that is really bad.

thejeff wrote:
Nor am I sure why "equity" is preferable to "justice".

As Ashiel notes, there are reasons why that could make sense. Personally, I'm cool with 'justice', though.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Metaphorical warriors? I don't know actually. Firstly, the difference between warriors and diplomats is primarily sphere of operations (physical vs. social)rather than any actual difference in methodology, and metaphorical conflicts are almost universally within the social sphere already.

Technically, most real-life conflicts do involve both—we haven't been very big on "Kill them all and salt the earth" wars for a while. You pummel 'em, then send in the diplomats to convince them they don't need another pummeling.

Not to say that this is the best strategy, or that it applies to metaphors.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The problem is "social justice warrior" is almost exclusively used as an attack phrase. It doesn't really mean anything. Even with Ashiel's definition, it just turns into a way of accusing people of meeting that definition.

As TheAntiElite notes, I've seen it used completely unironically by people as something they consider themselves. So...clearly differing definitions.

thejeff wrote:
Much like there may well have been too much "political correctness" back when that phrase went mainstream, but it was quickly co-opted and used against any attempts to counter racism or sexism.

That one's still got different definitions depending on who you ask, too.

thejeff wrote:
And to extend the metaphor - In any metaphorical conflict, you need both diplomats and warriors.

Metaphorical warriors? I don't know actually. Firstly, the difference between warriors and diplomats is primarily sphere of operations (physical vs. social)rather than any actual difference in methodology, and metaphorical conflicts are almost universally within the social sphere already. Secondly, way too many people take the tack that if they are 'warriors' the point is to attack the enemy's soldiers, which is not generally productive behavior. Attacking their ideas? Sure, that's a solid plan. Attacking people who simply believe that way on a personal level? Not appropriate or productive.

As labels go, it has a real tendency to legitimize some really ugly behavior and reinforce an 'us vs. them' mentality that is really bad.

You could see "diplomats" as the talkers and debaters and "warriors" as the protesters and boycotters and similar more direct action types, if you really wanted to stretch the metaphor.

Not that it really applies to the negative usage of SJW.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Aniuś the Talewise wrote:
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.

Words can have two different meanings, depending on context.

Sponges are asexual :)

Yep! It's kind of confusing to use it in the context of people tho haha.

Incidentally, I'm actually more used to people calling sponges monoecious. Monoecious also happens to be the word I use for any characters of mine that have both reproductive systems. (I do actually have one but he's not a player. As the father of all giants he's kind of a bit OP for that)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.

Tell that to all the goblin villages that have been destroyed over the years by paladin PCs and the players that controlled them that simply assumed that the evil alignment was enough to wipe out entire villages of goblins or orcs or whatever else they found that radiated evil but were largely minding their own business. Virtually nobody stops to ask the goblins or orcs their views, so everyone assumes the paladin must be in the right. Not all that different from real life history where few bothered to ask the persecuted or defeated their opinion of the matter, and simply took the word of those who we now label persecutors but to themselves and their contemporaries were doing the best they could to make the world a better place. When more people started asking questions more and had regular communication with the groups historically persecuted, opinions changed pretty quickly.

If people want to make these kinds of arguments in why certain game elements need to change, they have be to willing to consider the full effect that those changes would logically have beyond the immediate topic. Our own world shows quite clearly that one question leads to another, and if encouraged the way that some people seem to in their games, would eventually force those on both sides of controversial issues into a position similar how in the real world increasingly anyone trying to claim to support or oppose anything on moral grounds risks alienating a lot of people who may well treat their arguments as very confrontational at best and flat out persecution at worst.

The problem that questioning specific issues while trying to retain the overall societal structure or relying on popular support has always had is that those tactics can get out of control very quickly, burning those who rely on them just as much as those who were the original targets. I would have considerable difficulty playing in a campaign that tried to cherry pick the precise consequences the DM desired while completely ignoring the presence of other, less pleasant side effects. Challenging society and making meaningful changes without causing a dozen unintended side effects can be done, but it's much easier with a long series of smaller actions; the larger any individual action or change is, the harder it is to control.

If the DM wanted to run in anything even remotely resembling the traditional D&D model and change something as massive as open social acceptance for the LGBT community, I would also expect them to be open to players wanting to play characters that challenged the very existence of the gods, claiming that divine magic wasn't actually any different from arcane magic and that the priests were simply brainwashing the populace to think that it was, and even the alignment system itself. I would not expect those challenges to automatically succeed, but trying to claim the absolute definitions of the alignments after already changing other large chunks of the assumed society and not accepting any gray area would not fly with me. I have no problems with stories that focus on change or that reflect current beliefs, but once you open that can of worms, you have to be willing to explore it all the way, whether you personally are comfortable with where other people take it or not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Fear and anger only make it grow faster." - Prince Ashitaka of the Emishi.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
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.
Tell that to all the goblin villages that have been destroyed over the years by paladin PCs and the players that controlled them that simply assumed that the evil alignment was enough to wipe out entire villages of goblins or orcs or whatever else they found that radiated evil but were largely minding their own business. Virtually nobody stops to ask the goblins or orcs their views, so everyone assumes the paladin must be in the right. Not all that different from real life history where few bothered to ask the persecuted or defeated their opinion of the matter, and simply took the word of those who we now label persecutors but to themselves and their contemporaries were doing the best they could to make the world a better place. When more people started asking questions more and had regular communication with the groups historically persecuted, opinions changed pretty quickly.

On a side note, goblins and orcs don't even radiate evil.

EDIT: Nor do hobgoblins, bugbears, ogres, or drow.

351 to 400 of 497 << 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