How do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your campaigns?


Gamer Life General Discussion

401 to 450 of 496 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 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.

And those paladins fall. At least in my games.

Paladins may be involved in destroying humanoid villages, if and when those particular groups have been posing a serious threat. Much like paladins might be involved in destroying a bandit camp. Either way solutions will be sought that don't involve wholesale slaughter.
Unless we're in a setting where said humanoids are literally creatures of evil, but that's a different concept.

The "PCs go wipe out dungeon full of a humanoid tribe complete with families for no particular reason" trope in D&D/PF needs to die a quick death and be forgotten. And frankly, though I've seen it talked about on line, I haven't seen it in an actual game in decades.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The "PCs go wipe out dungeon full of a humanoid tribe complete with families for no particular reason" trope in D&D/PF needs to die a quick death and be forgotten. And frankly, though I've seen it talked about on line, I haven't seen it in an actual game in decades.

It's mostly older groups that have the same players that have played together and not with much of anyone else for all of these decades, and may not have even moved to newer editions, but they are still out there, and the point remains valid. Even PF maintains it on an official level with drow and undead being automatically evil, with virtually no room given for being even merely neutral. And that is my biggest gripe with a lot of people who support these social causes. They ask a very specific question, basically demand the one answer they are looking for, and then don't care about any of the other fallout from that question and answer. I don't mind people asking the question, but people have to understand it's never as simple as one question and one answer. If people would understand that and act accordingly, I would have a lot less issue with all of the current social causes being pushed in our society.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheAntiElite wrote:
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.

well said.

Liberty's Edge

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Yeah, except of course for the fact that I've literally never played a game where that happened and Paizo's never written an AP or adventure where it did either. And if a Paladin did it they'd fall in a heartbeat (especially since, as noted, goblins mostly don't radiate Evil).

When my players fight goblin war bands that are in the process of attacking either them or innocent people.

The fact that some people have a playstyle involving some pretty ugly stuff when examined doesn't mean that the setting or game system, or their morality, is built with that assumption in mind, or that most people play it that way.

Obviously, a GM can allow a Paladin to get away with that sort of stuff. A GM can allow a Paladin to get away with, oh say pedophilia as well, if they like. That in no way even implies that the game or its morality system endorses pedophilia. It instead implies that the GM either hasn't thought it through, thinks that behavior is right, or doesn't give a damn about the morality system actually being objective.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

This assumes that the game world itself is changing, which is a huge assumption. The game world, having been designed recently, can easily have always been like this, or can be ret-conned to have been so if designed longer ago.

Now, if you mean that a society that's accepting of LGBT stuff must be self-aware and inclined to be accepting of other things...that's a load of pure b#!&*$++. Many societies in history have been accepting of one thing (considered 'normal' by that society) and highly intolerant of others (seen as 'deviant' by that society). Which is which has more to do with the history of the society than any real logic.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Again, this assumes that the society is changing in-world, which while it could be interesting, is a completely unwarranted assumption.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Firstly, who says you can't play such a character? Rahadoum verges on such things in Golarion, for example.

But secondly, again, this assumes that the society in the game world has been anti-LGBT previously...which is once again a completely unwarranted assumption. It's easily possible for the society to have always been fine with such behavior as endorsed by the Gods (if you have LGBT deities in the pantheon, for example) while the worship of those same Gods was not to be questioned. And have both have been true for the last thousand years.

sunshadow21 wrote:
It's mostly older groups that have the same players that have played together and not with much of anyone else for all of these decades, and may not have even moved to newer editions, but they are still out there, and the point remains valid. Even PF maintains it on an official level with drow and undead being automatically evil, with virtually no room given for being even merely neutral.

Actually...no. There are canonical Neutral Drow and Undead in Pathfinder, and the books focusing on both note this. They're rare, but absolutely existent.

And nowhere in the actual books does it say either of those creature types is entirely Evil.

sunshadow21 wrote:
And that is my biggest gripe with a lot of people who support these social causes. They ask a very specific question, basically demand the one answer they are looking for, and then don't care about any of the other fallout from that question and answer. I don't mind people asking the question, but people have to understand it's never as simple as one question and one answer. If people would understand that and act accordingly, I would have a lot less issue with all of the current social causes being pushed in our society.

Are you talking in-game-world or in-real-life here? Because, again, in-game-world, there's no reason things couldn't have always been this way.


Ashiel wrote:
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.

Sure, I may have killed seemingly innocent children, but each one would have grown up with a heart full of vengeance. Each one with the power to control the minds of the weak-willed. They were children on the face of it, but demons inside."

And that, my friends, is the story of how the jed--I mean, uh 'paladin', fell.


I won't even try to quote Deadmanwalking's post here, it'll probably cut off somewhere, but that's a solid point. There's no reason to assume that LGBT themes are considered usually 'wrong' or even 'overly weird' in a game world; that assumption in and of itself is its own agenda, if you think about it.

I will admit, there can be a mix of groups who don't want to deal with it, who want to just relax and not worry about it, and those who want to deal with it via features like Taunting Stance (formerly Come and Get Me) and Power Attack. It's something to keep in mind, anyway.

(As far as non-evil undead, sooner or later I'm going to try playing the happiest bounciest cutest little undead lord ever and her army of happy skeletons.)

As far as wiping out goblin villages? I can't say, I haven't tried playing as a paladin; my CN barbarian is more than happy to sack and pillage a few, but somehow I don't imagine this causing her to become a fallen barbarian. (And now I'm imagining somehow an antibarbarian class.)


Qaianna wrote:

I won't even try to quote Deadmanwalking's post here, it'll probably cut off somewhere, but that's a solid point. There's no reason to assume that LGBT themes are considered usually 'wrong' or even 'overly weird' in a game world; that assumption in and of itself is its own agenda, if you think about it.

I will admit, there can be a mix of groups who don't want to deal with it, who want to just relax and not worry about it, and those who want to deal with it via features like Taunting Stance (formerly Come and Get Me) and Power Attack. It's something to keep in mind, anyway.

(As far as non-evil undead, sooner or later I'm going to try playing the happiest bounciest cutest little undead lord ever and her army of happy skeletons.)

As far as wiping out goblin villages? I can't say, I haven't tried playing as a paladin; my CN barbarian is more than happy to sack and pillage a few, but somehow I don't imagine this causing her to become a fallen barbarian. (And now I'm imagining somehow an antibarbarian class.)

Yes. There is no reason to think that there has to have been prejudice against LGBTs in world for people in game to now be questioning and thus for that to be tied to questioning of other traditions like gods and religion. It doesn't have to have played out the same way it did in the real world. The gods in the game world, or at least the good ones, could have always been fine with LGBT people and the old traditions could be completely accepting. No need to question and rebel to overcome prejudice.

I've also got no real problem with beer and pretzels games where it just doesn't come up, cause we're here to roll dice and not think to much. Those can be fun in the short run, though for me they don't have lasting power.

I've got no problem with always evil undead. It's a trope. It's got supernatural explanations. I've also got no problem with non-evil undead. Just set up the premise for the setting and run it consistently

I prefer my more mortal humanoids to be more complicated than "always evil", but I don't have a real problem with "always evil" as long as there's a setting reason - servitor race created by the Dark Lord or some such. I'd expect to deal with soldier armies in such a game, not to keep running into peaceful little villages.

I don't see any conflict between various combinations of these things and especially no connection between modern social issues and fictional races. Though such can be used as metaphors for modern issues, they don't have to be.


polytheism tends to cut down on deciding certain acts are wrong, especially where they remain independent churches.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

The key problem with applying the "Mikaze" worldview (or the "Tarol Hunt" worldview, if you prefer) to other games is that it only applies to some campaigns. In others, they aren't after that moral complexity. The narrative takes for granted that all those orcs were evil and up to no good. Don't try to foist your idea of "rightgoodfun" on everyone else. Not everyone's campaign runs with that level of ethical questioning. Saying "all members of this fictional species are evil" is miles away from saying "all black people are evil", and on a different dimension, and also an orange instead of an apple.

One of my big problems with the webcomic "Goblins" is it feels like Tarol tries so hard to make the goblins seem good and normal, they no longer fit into the type of campaign he's "deconstructing".


Qaianna wrote:
I won't even try to quote Deadmanwalking's post here, it'll probably cut off somewhere, but that's a solid point. There's no reason to assume that LGBT themes are considered usually 'wrong' or even 'overly weird' in a game world; that assumption in and of itself is its own agenda, if you think about it.

True, but my personal view is that if you are going to bring something like the LGBT movement into my game, and only that movement, I'm not interested. You get all the real world headaches that come with it and none of the, what is to me, interesting part of exploring it's full ramifications. Either leave it out entirely or be willing to accept that others may have other views on that or other similar matters that are not in complete agreement with your own that they would feel deserves the same amount of game time and focus as what you care about. I wouldn't automatically look for other points of view or issues to bring in to cause trouble, but I certainly wouldn't hold back if something else came up either, because the DM had already opened the door.

If one person decides that they can bring the real world into their game, everyone else at the table should have the same ability. Now, in most cases, that's not going to be a major issue because I doubt people will bring these kinds of topics up in a public game, and a private game is probably going to be amongst friends anyway, but it is a point to consider when considering how to present it and when that cannot be ignored. If one is willing to accept the risk of other real world issues leaking into the game, those topics can be a very enjoyable game, but the second it starts to clearly push one side over the other, and the entire group is not 100% behind that push, it needs to end immediately. If the entire group is okay with it, by all means, let loose and go to town; just don't be surprised if everyone else at the table does too and in ways that may not be entirely what you wanted or expected.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Qaianna wrote:
I won't even try to quote Deadmanwalking's post here, it'll probably cut off somewhere, but that's a solid point. There's no reason to assume that LGBT themes are considered usually 'wrong' or even 'overly weird' in a game world; that assumption in and of itself is its own agenda, if you think about it.

True, but my personal view is that if you are going to bring something like the LGBT movement into my game, and only that movement, I'm not interested. You get all the real world headaches that come with it and none of the, what is to me, interesting part of exploring it's full ramifications. Either leave it out entirely or be willing to accept that others may have other views on that or other similar matters that are not in complete agreement with your own that they would feel deserves the same amount of game time and focus as what you care about. I wouldn't automatically look for other points of view or issues to bring in to cause trouble, but I certainly wouldn't hold back if something else came up either, because the DM had already opened the door.

If one person decides that they can bring the real world into their game, everyone else at the table should have the same ability. Now, in most cases, that's not going to be a major issue because I doubt people will bring these kinds of topics up in a public game, and a private game is probably going to be amongst friends anyway, but it is a point to consider when considering how to present it and when that cannot be ignored. If one is willing to accept the risk of other real world issues leaking into the game, those topics can be a very enjoyable game, but the second it starts to clearly push one side over the other, and the entire group is not 100% behind that push, it needs to end immediately. If the entire group is okay with it, by all means, let loose and go to town; just don't be surprised if everyone else at the table does too and in ways that may not be entirely what you wanted or expected.

That depends on how it's brought up. Once relationships get brought up at all, LGBT stuff has the potential to appear. My group has dealt with some of it on occasion (but since we fade to black after the flirting stage it isn't overly prevalent). Interestingly enough, the only relationships that have ever caused issues around the table were the hetero ones, but they were a function of the players involved (one kept playing think-with-his-junk characters, another could not be introduced to a high Cha female NPC without trying to get her in bed) rather than the sexuality referenced.

Problem players will remain problem players, no matter what orientation their characters have.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
True, but my personal view is that if you are going to bring something like the LGBT movement into my game, and only that movement, I'm not interested. You get all the real world headaches that come with it and none of the, what is to me, interesting part of exploring it's full ramifications. Either leave it out entirely or be willing to accept that others may have other views on that or other similar matters that are not in complete agreement with your own that they would feel deserves the same amount of game time and focus as what you care about. I wouldn't automatically look for other points of view or issues to bring in to cause trouble, but I certainly wouldn't hold back if something else came up either, because the DM had already opened the door.

Who's suggesting bringing the 'LGBT movement' into games without ramifications? All the people I've seen suggesting something like a movement have been very interested in the ramifications.

But me? I'm not necessarily suggesting bringing a 'movement' into games at all, I'm suggesting having LGBT people exist in the setting with a minimum of prejudice. Again, this doesn't require a 'movement' or the setting to have changed at all (especially if the setting is either one I make up or one that already has such people).

sunshadow21 wrote:
If one person decides that they can bring the real world into their game, everyone else at the table should have the same ability.

Indeed! But how is being LGBT more of a 'real world issue' than being heterosexual and cisgendered? Because that's the part of this I'm really unclear on.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Now, in most cases, that's not going to be a major issue because I doubt people will bring these kinds of topics up in a public game, and a private game is probably going to be amongst friends anyway, but it is a point to consider when considering how to present it and when that cannot be ignored.

Why wouldn't they bring it up casually in a public game? I've certainly done games at Cons and the like where my character hit on women in passing...why couldn't he hit on men? Why would that somehow be a different category of action?

sunshadow21 wrote:
If one is willing to accept the risk of other real world issues leaking into the game, those topics can be a very enjoyable game, but the second it starts to clearly push one side over the other, and the entire group is not 100% behind that push, it needs to end immediately. If the entire group is okay with it, by all means, let loose and go to town; just don't be surprised if everyone else at the table does too and in ways that may not be entirely what you wanted or expected.

Wait, let me get this straight, are you saying that the very existence of LGBT people in the setting or their existence without prejudice is somehow more of a political statement than the existence of straight people? Because that's a hell of a claim, there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Wait, let me get this straight, are you saying that the very existence of LGBT people in the setting or their existence without prejudice is somehow more of a political statement than the existence of straight people? Because that's a hell of a claim, there.

Heteronormativity. To be fair, the existence of LGBT people in the real world or a least their uncloseted existence is a political statement in a way that being openly heterosexual isn't.

It shouldn't be political and it's getting less so, but it definitely is.

Liberty's Edge

I am now left considering that just maybe most of those goblins and orcs my characters slaughtered mercilessly over the years could have been LGBT. And this is actually rather unsettling (as in "am I a closet homophobe ?"). While it is no problem to me if they were heterosexual, likely because I know that I am not heterophobe (does this word even exist ?).

I guess that is yet another expression of heteronormativity.

Actually, they might as well have been stacks of letters and numbers ... which is what they were actually ;-)

Assigning gender and sexuality to NPCs is always part of telling a story. Sometimes it is just a small piece of the set. Other times it is the main theme the story is trying to tackle.

This is especially true since gender does not have any mechanical impact anymore and sexuality almost never.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. That, but without the snark.

Sure, it's always part of the story. No, it doesn't matter what (unassigned) orientation the nameless mooks the PCs slaughter would really have had.

That doesn't mean it isn't a political act to assign orientation in those stories. Whether it's a deliberate choice to include LGBT characters to promote inclusion or whether you just make all the couples that come on stage straight because that's the way things are.


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

Why do you listen to the Anti-Feminist?

Trigger warnings are a good thing... a warning that you are about to encounter disturbing content of a serious nature like rape or violence against women. It gives us a choice of whether we wished to be exposed to traumatic content ahead of time so we could harden ourselves against it or avoid it. They are much like the content warnings on TV or movies, and NOBODY is saying those are bad.

That some tiny minority of people are taking it to ridiculous extremes is NOT a reason to throw away trigger warnings. It is far more reasonable to call out the people using it in the ridiculous extreme way and getting people to stop listening to them. I mean really some people really need professional help if they need a warning for "clapping" how is that in any way traumatic?! It cheapens the whole point of trigger warnings. This is as bad as teachers expelling students for taking a tiny GIJoe plastic gun to school... It isn't trigger warnings that are bad it's idiot teachers who couldn't find reality with a road map.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
But me? I'm not necessarily suggesting bringing a 'movement' into games at all, I'm suggesting having LGBT people exist in the setting with a minimum of prejudice. Again, this doesn't require a 'movement' or the setting to have changed at all (especially if the setting is either one I make up or one that already has such people).

If you are playing in a semi modern game, it doesn't require a lot of change or a big movement. The rest of the pieces that make it plausible in the game and possible in the real world are already in the background. If you are trying to play in a pseudo medieval world, like most D&D worlds, it does require something else to change as well. While it sounds simple in theory, getting society to a point where even a minimum of prejudice is possible takes a general shift in attitudes that is either caused by other events or changes or that change will be the trigger for other changes and events. It most likely means that the prejudice has simply shifted to something else, which could end up triggering someone else to insist that on that topic being made prejudice free, or it requires getting rid of prejudice completely; either way, the chances of there not being other very real changes in the fictional world are slim to none once you introduce even one real world issue into it. If you can convince the rest of the group to accept just that one change and not try to introduce others, I envy you. Every group I've been in has always had that one person that would take a move like that on the DM's part as license to do it themselves, just to see what havoc they can cause.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
But me? I'm not necessarily suggesting bringing a 'movement' into games at all, I'm suggesting having LGBT people exist in the setting with a minimum of prejudice. Again, this doesn't require a 'movement' or the setting to have changed at all (especially if the setting is either one I make up or one that already has such people).
If you are playing in a semi modern game, it doesn't require a lot of change or a big movement. The rest of the pieces that make it plausible in the game and possible in the real world are already in the background. If you are trying to play in a pseudo medieval world, like most D&D worlds, it does require something else to change as well. While it sounds simple in theory, getting society to a point where even a minimum of prejudice is possible takes a general shift in attitudes that is either caused by other events or changes or that change will be the trigger for other changes and events. It most likely means that the prejudice has simply shifted to something else, which could end up triggering someone else to insist that on that topic being made prejudice free, or it requires getting rid of prejudice completely; either way, the chances of there not being other very real changes in the fictional world are slim to none once you introduce even one real world issue into it. If you can convince the rest of the group to accept just that one change and not try to introduce others, I envy you. Every group I've been in has always had that one person that would take a move like that on the DM's part as license to do it themselves, just to see what havoc they can cause.

Why? Why does removing prejudice against LGBTQ people in a setting have to mean removing all prejudice entirely? Is it possible to do in one culture in the world, but not all of them? Could cultures actually be different and not all based on medieval European norms?

On a higher level, how do you avoid introducing real-world issues? Isn't having prejudice against LGBTQ people a real world issue, just as much as not having it? Or having sexism? Or having racism? Isn't it all real world issues?

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Yeah. That, but without the snark.

Sure, it's always part of the story. No, it doesn't matter what (unassigned) orientation the nameless mooks the PCs slaughter would really have had.

That doesn't mean it isn't a political act to assign orientation in those stories. Whether it's a deliberate choice to include LGBT characters to promote inclusion or whether you just make all the couples that come on stage straight because that's the way things are.

Sorry about the tone coming off as snarky :-(

I really did not intend so, nor any rudeness or similar thing.

Internet really messes up with communication by leaving out all the non-verbal info that really helps with conveying the actual intent.

Doubly so I guess for non-native speakers (such as I) because we are very likely not to use exactly the proper word that conveys the nuance we intend :-(


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

I think you are going to find very few examples on the historical ground you are also going to struggle to make it fit, i.e. rare anthropological examples of non-western tribes recognising a third gender

[...]

(third gender islanders doesn't matter if a game isn't set on those islands. Would you not agree?)

In point of fact, here: when you run across someone discussing third genders on historical grounds, they might likely* be referring to pretty much anywhere between the Eastern Med and Vietnam. And such discussions will tend to particularly emphasize the immense, and immensely influential, societies of India and Indochina.

In context of these discussions, you might be better off imagining teeming Vedic multitudes than imagining a hundred people on a South Pacific atoll.

*

Spoiler:
Not to say that you couldn't find more elsewhere if you looked, just that the Egypt->Vietnam swathe of the world furnishes a predominant amount of the historical societies that are well known for their treatment of these issues


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Why do you listen to the Anti-Feminist?

I don't listen to "the anti-feminist" (there are plenty of them out there, which I'll get to shortly). I listen to a more oldschool feminist who is well reasoned, honest, and interested in getting into the facts. She very well may be against this newer wave of feminism but then so am I since I appreciate things like truth, honesty, and reason. When I watch her videos, I don't find myself navigating a minefield of poor reason, logical errors, and trees hiding in forests. I find that I can respect her which is a lot more than I can say for a lot of today's feminists.

I do believe that she has an issue with what's usually called "third wave feminism" because "It cheapens the whole point" is probably the most encompassing description of everything the movement stands for and does more harm than good, creating division where none would have been by crying wolf all over the place. I imagine that she's probably pretty irritated to see her community go to the dumps like that.

But I do listen to her. I've also listened to a lot of "feminists". I've also listened to a lot of anti-feminists (Sargon of Arkaad [maybe mispelled] is probably a good example, though he makes some good points now and then).

Maybe that's the problem. I listen to everyone and then weigh all that I've found and make my judgments that way, rather than not watching anyone who I think disagrees with my limited understanding of reality. Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that this scene from vengeful spirit princess sums up everything and giftwraps it with a remarkably accurate speech.

This is what hatred looks like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheJeff wrote:

Why? Why does removing prejudice against LGBTQ people in a setting have to mean removing all prejudice entirely? Is it possible to do in one culture in the world, but not all of them? Could cultures actually be different and not all based on medieval European norms?

On a higher level, how do you avoid introducing real-world issues? Isn't having prejudice against LGBTQ people a real world issue, just as much as not having it? Or having sexism? Or having racism? Isn't it all real world issues?

Prejudice itself is a real world issue and it is derived from fear and resentment. For example, most campaigns do not take issue with half-orcs because they have green or gray skin (though they may be collectively known as "greenskins" or something as a crude descriptor), it usually comes from bad experiences with orcs and the fear and resentment they harbor towards them.

Now, one might wonder what that has to do with any form of sexuality (or religion, or anything else), but the wise Charles Xavier has taught us that people fear what they do not understand. I can say from first hand experience that most people do not understand homosexuality or transgenderism (I've had to explain or advocate for both plenty of times). People by the large are also prone to assuming the worst when left to their own devices which leads to yet more problems. Look at the crazy people who think that homosexuals are trying to turn everyone else into homosexuals and bring down society as we know it. It's false, stupid, and irrational, and it's a whole lot of fear of the unknown.

Human beings, for better or worse, are prone to associating things collectively. If you're a girl and go out with a guy and he lies to you and breaks up with you to go date the hot new cheerleader, you are more likely to associate his bad behavior with being a male (because you are female) without thinking that your former BFF Becky stabbed you in the back when you got to highschool and dumped you for the cool cheerleader clique. That wasn't because Becky was a girl (because you're a girl and you know) but because Becky was being a jerk. Now even if you've met lots of jerk ladies, if you mean a few more jerk guys than not, then it likely colors your perception of all males even though your sample group is far too small to actually make the call and you likely won't even evaluate girls (some do invert this trope, which has led to my sister believing girls to be naturally jerkish backstabbing monsters, though I've tried to explain that frequently people just suck regardless of gender).

It's the reason that tieflings are frequently discriminated against in my campaign. They are rarer than normal people, they are different enough that they seem "other" to people, and in some cases they catch a lot of flak because of the religious ideologies of mainstream religions. It's not because one day someone decided "Hey, let's not like tieflings anymore", it's more subtle and nefarious than that because many of the racists don't see why they are wrong or wonder why no one else can see that those folks with the fiendish touch shouldn't be in the same bar as everyone else.

It takes a higher cognitive awareness and reasoning ability to combat these sorts of crude base tricks of the mind and expose them for what they are. How a society treats any given issue will usually depend on the collective consciousness of the society and how entrenched these base instincts towards others are.

Meanwhile, Dr. Suesse's "The Sneeches" should be required media for every human being ever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

Clearly you have not been paying attention to how that dentist is being treated. People are stalking him, his family, his children, the business...it's sickening...


Zurias wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

Clearly you have not been paying attention to how that dentist is being treated. People are stalking him, his family, his children, the business...it's sickening...

Dentist?


The one that killed the lion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Zurias wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
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.

Clearly you have not been paying attention to how that dentist is being treated. People are stalking him, his family, his children, the business...it's sickening...
Dentist?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/walter-palmer-whereabouts/index.html

I don't care how anybody feels about the dentist/big game hunter. Posting threats on the door of his business AND home is sickening.

Also, this:

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2015/07/29/yes-the-dentist-wh o-killed-cecil-the-lion-is-an-a$#$*$+-but-peta-is-going-too-far-with-this-e xecute-him-thing

Note that the dentist did not go to Zimbabwe specifically to kill Cecil. He went to hunt a lion. The group he hired lured Cecil to him. Also this same week three endangered elephants were killed in Nairobi

http://news.yahoo.com/lion-zimbabweans-ask-amid-global-cecil-circus-1408226 92.html

Local Perspective: "Why are the Americans more concerned than us?" said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. "We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange."


Wow. This slipped under the radar. :o

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

Rosita the Riveter wrote:

We had a pretty long thread about this a couple years ago, and much has happened in the LGBT+ world since then. So, I'd like to posit the question again. Do you portray these topics in your games? If you do, how do you do so? Are you happy with the way Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Modules handle the subject?

As a GM it largely depends on the group. LGBT NPCs happen fairly regularly and in most settings I run it's not really a big deal. If a player has a problem with the LGBT community it is unlikely they are going to remain my friend and welcome at my table for long. I wouldn't tolerate that any more then I'd tolerate racism.

As a player I've been a bi-female and I've been looking for the right character to play a gay male hero. I decided my Freddy Mercury/Switzgar(sp) inspired glam Dwarf "Queen Sparklebeard the Skald" speed luteist was probably a little too much of a stereotype. Everyone who plays a dwarf is into speed-lute.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

In talking about the aspects of prejudice, one of the issues with a blanket stance of "all glbt activity would cause prejudice" is that those also isn't very accurate. Or true. Or even shown in the same way at different times in history. When applying it to a fantasy world (or even just a not-historical earth world), a typical reaction is to do something the glbt prejudice in "The Steel Remains" that someone mentioned earlier, where gay men are tortured to death in unbelievably horrific ways while the townsfolk gather and cheer. Okay, that's a rather low-hanging fruit, but homophobic prejudice goes a lot further than that; sometimes certain acts, even sex acts, between same genders are acceptable or the norm (ranging from men being allowed to kiss men as a greeting in some cultures to sharing certain activities in others). Sometimes only one gender is allowed to engage in glbt activity, or another big one is cultural values that use homophobia to restrict activity across all areas of one gender's role.

One quintessential fantasy trope is the "effete" male (typically a bard, noble, or rogue) who gets made fun of/killed because they're not the hypermasculine broody/dark/serious/whatever melee-type character. Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions). We're talking about the prejudice that glbt individuals experience, but it's not recognized that prejudice that negatively impacts them negatively impacts all members of that culture. If role-playing through prejudice is going to be an aspect of the game, then the hetero characters are impacted just as much - whether that means that the warrior was forbidden from following his dream of being a bard because it's not manly enough, whether the characters are hypervigilant of being too close to members of their own gender, or even enemies using it as slander against the player characters.

The other effect of this is that certain genders don't get to see the things they want to see, particularly if there's more power on one gender than another. The most obvious one of these is, for example, in a fantasy world where there are no stat differences between male and females, where there are in theory equal numbers of female and male adventurers (and humans), where attracting females to their doom (or simply taking advantage of them the way sirens, pathfinder changelings, yuki-ona, etc. do for men) should be just as advantageous as it is to lure males... ends up having 4 all-male races (with questionable degrees of "lure" status), while there are 46 all-female races that seek out mortal men to breed with.

Because men are a dominant aspect in our culture, and because homophobia is a dominant aspect of our culture, it doesn't matter that we are playing a game in a made-up world where characters can be any gender, mix of genders at different points in their lives, orientations, etc. - everyone is impacted by it. Yes, some characters and players might not care that they can't take that option or do that thing, but they are still prevented from doing so. Similarly, if a game is being played where glbt prejudice is a prevailing issue, it absolutely should impact all players, just like it impacts what women get to see, what men are allowed to do, in real life.

I dunno, just some thoughts that I'd had while reading this thread. One thing that I'd like to add too is that I try really hard now to just let the gals in my group get as much eyecandy and other fodder that appeals to them just as often as the guys do. Not that it happens that often, but there are times with certain APs, like the starting one for the Serpent's Skull campaign where the PCs are stranded with two conventionally attractive, athletic young women and three unconventional, questionably attractive men of varying age. Balancing that out a bit more fairly imo is part and parcel of balancing out the game for glbt reasons as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).

OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
polytheism tends to cut down on deciding certain acts are wrong, especially where they remain independent churches.

You've obviously never played Living Arcanis.. :)


Ashiel wrote:
I've also listened to a lot of "feminists". I've also listened to a lot of anti-feminists (Sargon of Arkaad [maybe mispelled] is probably a good example

Sargon of Akkad must feel really strongly about feminism, to come back after 4200 years.

That said, if that mask of his is representative, I may not be able to resist listening to everything he says. Can't say no to those badass Mesopotamian stylized beards.

Shadow Lodge

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).
OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.

Nonsense! Lovecraft's protagonist don't have companions they've been adventuring with for years. For one thing, they don't go adventuring. For another, they tend to be loners who don't have any companions whatsoever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I've also listened to a lot of "feminists". I've also listened to a lot of anti-feminists (Sargon of Arkaad [maybe mispelled] is probably a good example

Sargon of Akkad must feel really strongly about feminism, to come back after 4200 years.

That said, if that mask of his is representative, I may not be able to resist listening to everything he says. Can't say no to those badass Mesopotamian stylized beards.

Sorry, I was referring to a person by the YouTube username 'cause I don't recall the guy's name off the top of my head; similar to how other users that have strongly contested modern feminism have usernames such as Thorium or Thunderf00t (though I would hardly call Thunderf00t anti-feminist so much as I would call him anti-stupid and it just happens that the lines cross with people like Anita Sarkeesian).

I didn't intend to imply that it was the actual Sargon of Akkad. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.

For those of you just tuning in, this is How do you handle feminism in real life? We'll be right back after these messages from our sponsors.


Quote:
I didn't intend to imply that it was the actual Sargon of Akkad. :P

*whispers*

I, uh, I kind of figured it must be some internet guy stealing his name, yeah. ;)

Although the alternative would be kind of awesome.


Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).
OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.

NCIS?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The best guide I can use for a society is history, and different histories.

A big problem is that a lot of gender studies looking into the matter do so with a tabula rasa/all nurture no nature view of humanity that I find bafflingly unrealistic.

Societies come up with the social mores that they have for a reason. They tend to far outlive whatever usefulness they may have, but very few social institutions pop up just because. It doesn't make them right but it does make them likely.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Quote:
I didn't intend to imply that it was the actual Sargon of Akkad. :P

*whispers*

I, uh, I kind of figured it must be some internet guy stealing his name, yeah. ;)

Although the alternative would be kind of awesome.

You may have inspired an adventure now. I'm kind of picturing a grouchy old undead guy that wakes up, goes out, and is appalled by these newfangled ways and decides to try to change everything to be back in his/her day where X race was enslaved, Y gender had specific roles, and Z religion was a legal requisite, and then the heroes stopping him/her. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).
OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.
NCIS?

In all fairness, NCIS is really stupid. We have it to thank for depictions of brilliance such as two idiots, one keyboard and the lady who has more hours in a day than god.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

The best guide I can use for a society is history, and different histories.

A big problem is that a lot of gender studies looking into the matter do so with a tabula rasa/all nurture no nature view of humanity that I find bafflingly unrealistic.

Societies come up with the social mores that they have for a reason. They tend to far outlive whatever usefulness they may have, but very few social institutions pop up just because. It doesn't make them right but it does make them likely.

But those reasons may be specific to local conditions and not really be adaptive in more general terms or linked to the reasons a culture survived or spread. Nor rooted in some deeper human nature. I've often suspected, for example, that much of the broad Judaic take on sexuality (from which the Christian & Islamic views derive) is rooted in the Old Testament conflicts with the older religions around & among them -specifically fertility cults, often using sex in ritual.

Beyond that, we're coming up with fantasy societies. Not quite "because dragons", but since you can create the gods in a PF world and decide how they influenced history & culture, it's pretty easy to arrive at any kind of culture you want. As long as you're within the broad outlines of human nature.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
If you are playing in a semi modern game, it doesn't require a lot of change or a big movement. The rest of the pieces that make it plausible in the game and possible in the real world are already in the background. If you are trying to play in a pseudo medieval world, like most D&D worlds, it does require something else to change as well.

'Pseudo medieval' in what sense? Because most D&D worlds are polytheistic, which is a much larger difference from real-world medieval society than anything involving LGBT rights specifically, and, given the religious justifications often used for anti-LGBT bigotry, could easily excuse and explain such a difference in that as well.

sunshadow21 wrote:
While it sounds simple in theory, getting society to a point where even a minimum of prejudice is possible takes a general shift in attitudes that is either caused by other events or changes or that change will be the trigger for other changes and events.

Assuming that we're talking about a general change? Maybe, though I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence for that. But we're not necessarily talking about a general change. The Ancient Greeks were fine with homosexual behavior despite being hideously intolerant in a lot of other ways. Ditto Japanese culture for much of their history.

sunshadow21 wrote:
It most likely means that the prejudice has simply shifted to something else, which could end up triggering someone else to insist that on that topic being made prejudice free, or it requires getting rid of prejudice completely; either way, the chances of there not being other very real changes in the fictional world are slim to none once you introduce even one real world issue into it.

Again, I'm not sure if there's a lot of evidence to support this contention.

But even if it does result in other prejudices, it could result in those prejudices being completely alien to those found in our own society. Men being seen as overly emotional while women are expected to be stoic being an example I used earlier. Or heck, just the standard racial prejudices between humans, elves, dwarves, and so on.

sunshadow21 wrote:
If you can convince the rest of the group to accept just that one change and not try to introduce others, I envy you. Every group I've been in has always had that one person that would take a move like that on the DM's part as license to do it themselves, just to see what havoc they can cause.

What? I'm really confused. How would players change things about the setting? Or are you just complaining they'd argue for changes? And what sort of changes are you even talking about?


thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, we're coming up with fantasy societies. Not quite "because dragons", but since you can create the gods in a PF world and decide how they influenced history & culture, it's pretty easy to arrive at any kind of culture you want. As long as you're within the broad outlines of human nature.

You can do that, but to me, it's the worst of both available approaches. The group is still stuck the real world headaches, but unless you, at the very least, an outline of detail of every god, culture, and the full history of the world before you even think about introducing that world into play, it's going to fall flat in the area of what players can do about it and it's ramifications if they so choose. Very few published worlds are that fleshed out, and far fewer custom worlds. To develop the sheer number of cultures even a small world would have in both the past and the present is not nearly as easy as you make it sound, especially when you start to consider the interactions between them. It can be done, but to do well and in a fashion that makes the entire exercise worth it it really difficult and holding it all together once the players get a hold of it and start to work within it is even harder.

The problem is basically the complexity of how each individual detail interacts with the rest of the world and controlling any ripple effects. For an example of this, look at 4E; the individual systems were great, but in none of the 4E games I played did they mesh well in actual play, and that is a large reason it struggled where 3.x/PF didn't. The individual pieces of PF aren't always that great, but they mesh well together and the end result is a system that can manage the stresses of multiple expectations for the system at least as well as any other D&D system that came before or after it. Building a world around a particular focus (in this case, LGBT issues) requires being prepared to tie pretty much every single detail of that world, no matter how mundane into that focus, and that is not something that even most veteran DMs that have been running since D&D first released would find easy or quick.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).
OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.
NCIS?
In all fairness, NCIS is really stupid. We have it to thank for depictions of brilliance such as two idiots, one keyboard and the lady who has more hours in a day than god.

[tangent]Stupidity aside, NCIS actually has a fair amount of grief displayed for male main characters who die. Gibbs is emotionally austere on the surface, but they go pretty in-depth into how broken up he is when friends and family die.

It being a murder-mystery show, they rarely display much emotion for the case of the week, but that's a different situation.[/tangent]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
If you are playing in a semi modern game, it doesn't require a lot of change or a big movement. The rest of the pieces that make it plausible in the game and possible in the real world are already in the background. If you are trying to play in a pseudo medieval world, like most D&D worlds, it does require something else to change as well.
'Pseudo medieval' in what sense? Because most D&D worlds are polytheistic, which is a much larger difference from real-world medieval society than anything involving LGBT rights specifically, and, given the religious justifications often used for anti-LGBT bigotry, could easily excuse and explain such a difference in that as well.

The same kind of argument would also lead towards enforcing the sexism and enforced gender roles found in European medieval society. But that's often dropped, nowadays without much trouble.

Or the strongly enforced class structures which are almost always ignored or at most nodded at and are a far greater shift from real medieval society than anything to do with LGBTQ rights.

LGTBQ prejudice is forced in because it's still controversial in the modern world and medieval attitudes are an justification, not a requirement.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Assuming that we're talking about a general change? Maybe, though I'm not sure there's a lot of evidence for that. But we're not necessarily talking about a general change. The Ancient Greeks were fine with homosexual behavior despite being hideously intolerant in a lot of other ways. Ditto Japanese culture for much of their history.

And yet even the Greeks had noticeable hard limits on their acceptance of homosexuality; the modern day push for equality in the marriage arena would have been squashed fast and hard. And the point of being intolerant elsewhere is part of my point. There will always be some kind of flash point where tolerance no longer is considered necessary. This is true of any culture, real or fictional. If anything, fictional ones have more such points simply because those are the points that tend to be the focus of stories. Having a society be tolerant of LGBT (or any other specific matter) simply shifts the point of where the intolerance is going to lie.

Especially in a typical D&D world, developing communication and education enough to get the majority of the population tolerant of that one issue is going to be challenging enough; developing it to allow multiple such movements, such as what we have in the world today, would be nearly impossible, and yet, none of the individual movements in our world would have nearly the clout they do without the presence of the others providing background support. You can change the world to make it possible, but when even Eberron is already considered non-standard, and even Eberron level of development would struggle with the scope of what you would have to cover, you're basically looking at a representation of the modern world, taking the bad with the good.


thejeff wrote:
LGTBQ prejudice is forced in because it's still controversial in the modern world and medieval attitudes are an justification, not a requirement.

I would say the prejudice isn't forced, but questions about it still remain very valid, and until we have a society in the real world that can successfully resolve those question without collapsing under it's own weight, which our own society is very much in the process of doing, the questions will remain valid. Simply making a world where those questions don't exist is not going to satisfy the majority of players out there. If it satisfies your own group, that's great, but don't expect it to be a widespread phenomenon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
You can do that, but to me, it's the worst of both available approaches. The group is still stuck the real world headaches, but unless you, at the very least, an outline of detail of every god, culture, and the full history of the world before you even think about introducing that world into play, it's going to fall flat in the area of what players can do about it and it's ramifications if they so choose.

You're vastly overstating the problems here. I've both done this in a setting and seen it done in official setting books. It's not that hard.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Very few published worlds are that fleshed out, and far fewer custom worlds. To develop the sheer number of cultures even a small world would have in both the past and the present is not nearly as easy as you make it sound, especially when you start to consider the interactions between them. It can be done, but to do well and in a fashion that makes the entire exercise worth it it really difficult and holding it all together once the players get a hold of it and start to work within it is even harder.

Not really. Okay, a whole world might be tricky, but half of a continent is about as much as you need and I've seen it done many times, and done it a few. It's not that hard, really.

sunshadow21 wrote:
The problem is basically the complexity of how each individual detail interacts with the rest of the world and controlling any ripple effects. For an example of this, look at 4E; the individual systems were great, but in none of the 4E games I played did they mesh well in actual play, and that is a large reason it struggled where 3.x/PF didn't. The individual pieces of PF aren't always that great, but they mesh well together and the end result is a system that can manage the stresses of multiple expectations for the system at least as well as any other D&D system that came before or after it.

This is true with complex details that don't work together. "The Good-Aligned Gods approve of love in all its forms." is a detail that fits well with most existing RPG settings, and is also extremely simple.

sunshadow21 wrote:
Building a world around a particular focus (in this case, LGBT issues) requires being prepared to tie pretty much every single detail of that world, no matter how mundane into that focus, and that is not something that even most veteran DMs that have been running since D&D first released would find easy or quick.

Uh...how is including a single line to the effect of 'there are no notable prejudices in the matter of sexual orientation' or even easier simply mentioning the mayor of a town being married to another man 'basing an entire setting' around it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Beyond that, we're coming up with fantasy societies. Not quite "because dragons", but since you can create the gods in a PF world and decide how they influenced history & culture, it's pretty easy to arrive at any kind of culture you want. As long as you're within the broad outlines of human nature.
You can do that, but to me, it's the worst of both available approaches. The group is still stuck the real world headaches, but unless you, at the very least, an outline of detail of every god, culture, and the full history of the world before you even think about introducing that world into play, it's going to fall flat in the area of what players can do about it and it's ramifications if they so choose. Very few published worlds are that fleshed out, and far fewer custom worlds. To develop the sheer number of cultures even a small world would have in both the past and the present is not nearly as easy as you make it sound, especially when you start to consider the interactions between them. It can be done, but to do well and in a fashion that makes the entire exercise worth it it really difficult and holding it all together once the players get a hold of it and start to work within it is even harder.

Then you can't do it. And you can't do it whether or not you want them to hate LGBTQ people or not.

I mean, what's the alternative? Is it more realistic and less disruptive to have a world with magic and active deities with all sorts of different views and other sentient species with their own psychologies and histories and still have it all turn out just like medieval Europe? Without Christianity or anything to play that role, but with all the same mores and attitudes? Except the class structure. And maybe some of the sexism. We'll handwave all that away without worrying about it, but not the LGBTQ prejudice. That's beyond the pale.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
Or the too-common storyline where the male main character never once has an emotional connection with any male companions and doesn't bat an eye when a male character he'd been adventuring with for years gets hurt or killed, because then he wouldn't be a "real man" (since real men don't have emotions).
OK, I'd like to know what you've been reading because this bears little resemblance to what I've read, with the possible exceptions of Howard, Lovecraft and Eddison.
NCIS?
In all fairness, NCIS is really stupid. We have it to thank for depictions of brilliance such as two idiots, one keyboard and the lady who has more hours in a day than god.

[tangent]Stupidity aside, NCIS actually has a fair amount of grief displayed for male main characters who die. Gibbs is emotionally austere on the surface, but they go pretty in-depth into how broken up he is when friends and family die.

It being a murder-mystery show, they rarely display much emotion for the case of the week, but that's a different situation.[/tangent]

That's true. My family watches NCIS a lot (particularly my dad). I just find myself rolling my eyes a ton when watching it so I'd rather go work on some project or hang out and talk gamer shop with my friends on skype. Or see if Criminal Minds is on (which isn't a perfect show either but I really like Reed).

401 to 450 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.