How do you handle homosexuality and transgenderism in your campaigns?


Gamer Life General Discussion

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

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

The only consistent thing about sexual taboos across all cultures is that all cultures have sexual taboos. What they actually are varies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
Simply making a world where those questions don't exist is not going to satisfy the majority of players out there.

A majority of players? Are you serious? You've done a stratified poll and have statistically significant information about a majority of players out there?

In fact, not only is your claim preposterously unfounded, but there is fairly strong evidence to the contrary:
The Harry Potter books take place in the 1990s, a time when LGBTQA-Z rights were far more controversial than they are even now.
And in the books, gay rights just aren't an issue. At all. There's no campaign to have Dumbledore removed from his position due to concerns of pedophilia or claims that the might spread his orientation to students (there are campaigns to have Dumbledore removed for reasons completely unrelated to sexuality).

So, according to you, the Harry Potter world "is not going to satisfy the majority of players out there." Except it has, evidently, as it is the number one best selling series of novels, and forms the basis for the top grossing film series (unadjusted for inflation). It 'satisfies' more people than have ever played TTRPGs.

So not only is your claim utterly baseless, it is also wrong.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Yes, but that's because marriage was a contract explicitly dealing with inheritance and children, as opposed to a reflection of love and partnership like today. In that cultural context, marriages without the possibility of children didn't make sense.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Sure. But as noted, there's no reason that those prejudices can't be focused on areas that are highly different from those in the real world.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

But, again, who says there are any movements at all? With objectively righteous deities in the setting telling people that this particular prejudice is wrong, who says there need to be?

Society might just accept that sort of thing as normal. After all, if the Gods endorse it...

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

Wait...are you arguing that accepting LGBT people, or even being accepting in general inherently causes society to collapse?

Because that is a hell of a claim to make...and one I'd need some actual evidence to take remotely seriously.

sunshadow21 wrote:
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.

So you're saying that most people cannot and will not accept that a society can actually function with LGBT people being accepted? And would object to a game where it did on grounds of realism?

Because people who feel like that are firstly not a majority by any means, and secondly people I don't want to play with in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

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.

I would honestly expect a lot of problems to come from the perspective of "the other" and there is a stigma that is attached to homosexuality and transgenderism that crosses many cultural and religious borders. With that I say, please do not confuse this as a declaration of deviancy that is naturally or universally reviled, but instead understand that when it comes to the "us versus them" mindset that being different is often equated with being bad or wrong.

This is one of the reasons awareness and in some cases examples of positive depictions of those that are different are good things, because it will frequently counterbalance the natural human act of associating difference with wrongness.

There's a good-aligned lillend goddess in my campaign whose teachings and followers try to break down the us and they mindset and is pro-acceptance in many forms (including racial and sexual). Her teachings help to raise humanity into a higher state of consciousness so that they can consciously rise above such base instincts.

Shadow Lodge

Ashiel wrote:
the lady who has more hours in a day than god.

It's Parker. She can do stuff like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Criminal Minds. I've lost entire weekends to Criminal Minds marathons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:

I would honestly expect a lot of problems to come from the perspective of "the other" and there is a stigma that is attached to homosexuality and transgenderism that crosses many cultural and religious borders. With that I say, please do not confuse this as a declaration of deviancy that is naturally or universally reviled, but instead understand that when it comes to the "us versus them" mindset that being different is often equated with being bad or wrong.

This is one of the reasons awareness and in some cases examples of positive depictions of those that are different are good things, because it will frequently counterbalance the natural human act of associating difference with wrongness.

There's a good-aligned lillend goddess in my campaign whose teachings and followers try to break down the us and they mindset and is pro-acceptance in many forms (including racial and sexual). Her teachings help to raise humanity into a higher state of consciousness so that they can consciously rise above such base instincts.

The question becomes 'Why is it considered taboo?'. It came from somewhere. And prejudices can change over time. Look at some of the US's history regarding certain immigrant groups and how acceptable they were. And don't forget the power of demagogues to stir things up in their own view.

Plus, one important issue. The claim 'there is a stigma against LGBT' is IN AND OF ITSELF a position on a real world issue and bringing that real world issue into a game. Trying to claim such a thing is a default IS a position that's being forced on a setting. Yes, forced -- I don't really remember seeing anything about penalties to Diplomacy being enforced if you're known to not be quite as heterosexual as a default society thinks. Saying 'Your character will have consequences if he wants to snog that cute guy he met at the tavern' in and of itself is imposing a view of LGBT issues on a game. In effect, that view is being pushed onto someone else. The question then becomes 'Why?' Why is that one favoured, and why can't a society come up without that specific issue? (Remember, there's other ways you can have prejudices. You don't need to freak out over gays to hate on half-orcs and tieflings.)


Kthulhu 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.
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.

"tend to be". There are exceptions, e.g. The Lurking Fear, and I think we can excuse the protag's lack of tears (manly or otherwise) due to being scared out of his wits at the entire situation.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:

I would honestly expect a lot of problems to come from the perspective of "the other" and there is a stigma that is attached to homosexuality and transgenderism that crosses many cultural and religious borders. With that I say, please do not confuse this as a declaration of deviancy that is naturally or universally reviled, but instead understand that when it comes to the "us versus them" mindset that being different is often equated with being bad or wrong.

This is one of the reasons awareness and in some cases examples of positive depictions of those that are different are good things, because it will frequently counterbalance the natural human act of associating difference with wrongness.

There's a good-aligned lillend goddess in my campaign whose teachings and followers try to break down the us and they mindset and is pro-acceptance in many forms (including racial and sexual). Her teachings help to raise humanity into a higher state of consciousness so that they can consciously rise above such base instincts.

I was considering something akin to this. We are indeed, all of us, ALWAYS thinking in terms of Them vs Us.

Us are those I consider similar to me, while Them are those I consider different.

And we have enough IRL examples that show that we will always find some criteria to differentiate between Them and Us.

Note however that Them are not always reviled. Some of Them (ie some differences) were actually seen as favor of the gods and were considered superior to Us. So, treated better but still considered different.

Such is not the case in most modern societies I know of though. These societies favor, or even enforce, uniformity, as in only Us and no Them. Likely as a reaction against the aristocratic mindset that was prevalent before modern times and which allowed select groups of people to openly oppress others because they were "better".


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

I want to marry your brain, Ashiel.

Thank you for saying this.

Political correctness is all well and good in some instances to avoid the worst excesses of hatred and prejudice being thrown in people's faces, but an adult, serious conversation is going to be required if that underlying prejudice is going to be dealt with anyway.

What I, personally, happen to be tired of are the benevolent overprotectors, who are so desperate to shield and guard a minority, to which I myself happen to belong, from a conversation that might help de-mystify people like myself.

There are two ways of being forced to stay in the closet, folks, but NO ONE wants to talk about the second one.

The first one, of course, is the classical one where people's hatred, vitriol, bile and rank prejudice keeps someone from "coming out" in the first place, due to fear of being shunned, humiliated, physically hurt or even killed.

And then there's the form of closeting, where well-meaning friends and family who are aware of the closeted person's gender identity and/or sexual orientation (since the two things are unrelated), fight tooth and nail to keep that person in the closet, for fear of public retaliation against their loved one, when that person comes out at some point.

Trust me, there's little difference in how hurtful the two things are in the end, even if the second option is well meaning and, at least in some parts of the world, a matter of life or death.

I've never seen what Paizo is doing as tokenism. I've seen it as a statement of intent, to make inclusive games where as many people as possible would be able to find at least one important, fictional character to mirror themselves in.

Personally, as I've said before in this thread, I don't bring up NPC sexuality willy-nilly. If it is plot-critical or if the PC for some odd reason should ask (or, in the case of a few dawgs in my group, even make a pass at an NPC) then it becomes relevant.

Otherwise, meh ... why bother with it?

Sexuality is, with the exception of a few lechers and outright rakes, rarely something people display in public. Some people make very loud declarations of their heteronormativity in some situations (young males sharing a sixpack of beer or young females gossiping spring to mind, though such individuals are by no means the only ones to do something like that) but speaking from bitter, personal experience ... that kind of loud, public statement may very well be a load of bovine fecal matter, wrapped up in a fallacy and giftwrapped with lies.

And take it from someone who's walked many thousands of miles in those shoes ... being trans does not mean you want everyone to prod and poke you about it all the time. It's not a grand, political statement ... it's a matter of survival.

I applaud Paizo for not pandering to the ever-shrinking minority of players who want to shove all LGBT-people back into a closet and keep them there until they can find a convenient way to burn it with those people still inside it. I applaud Paizo for not only wanting to be inclusive but to be adamant and public about it.

People can shout "tokenism" as much as they want. I don't see it as such, and people always retain the option of running their games differently.

But to me, and to several friends who also fall into the LGBT-bracket and who also play, it is simply important to know that the company whom we pay for the books we use to play these games, is on our side.

I've never used one of the iconics in any game I've run and unless they come up as a part of an adventure path I'm running, I never will. I don't treat the iconics as actual NPCs to run into, but as examples of character types and classes. I don't really see that changing. Consequently, whether an iconic is LGBT or not is secondary. The point is, LGBT people exist and have existed throughout human history in our own world. They exist in my version of Golarion as well, as presented to my players. Good and bad. Villain and hero. Ordinary people and extraordinary. They're there, and they face the same everyday problems that everyone else faces, and in some parts of the world, they face a lot more problems.

I want this to be clear and I want it to be known, because I want LGBT players to feel accepted and welcome in the groups I run, just as I need to feel accepted and welcome in the groups I play in. I want a bisexual player to know that if she wants to make a character in my group I've got no problem with the character being bi as well because that'd be the most natural for the player to portray. I want a gay player to know that if he wants to make a gay character, he's welcome to do so and I am not going to make it problematic for him ... although I would tell both players that there is still homophobia in Golarion.

It's not a perfect world, after all.

I think, if I should boil it all down to the essentials ... I just don't understand why this is an issue to adult, sensible people. Why other people's sexuality or gender identity can ever be a concern for anyone else baffles me no end.

Shadow Lodge

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.

Don't you watch TV? You've never seen the "Warning: This show contains scenes of extreme violence" or similar depending on the show and it's content? This is what trigger warnings are for. They are good and useful in helping people avoid content they don't wish to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:
Ashiel wrote:

I would honestly expect a lot of problems to come from the perspective of "the other" and there is a stigma that is attached to homosexuality and transgenderism that crosses many cultural and religious borders. With that I say, please do not confuse this as a declaration of deviancy that is naturally or universally reviled, but instead understand that when it comes to the "us versus them" mindset that being different is often equated with being bad or wrong.

This is one of the reasons awareness and in some cases examples of positive depictions of those that are different are good things, because it will frequently counterbalance the natural human act of associating difference with wrongness.

There's a good-aligned lillend goddess in my campaign whose teachings and followers try to break down the us and they mindset and is pro-acceptance in many forms (including racial and sexual). Her teachings help to raise humanity into a higher state of consciousness so that they can consciously rise above such base instincts.

The question becomes 'Why is it considered taboo?'. It came from somewhere. And prejudices can change over time. Look at some of the US's history regarding certain immigrant groups and how acceptable they were. And don't forget the power of demagogues to stir things up in their own view.

Since you seemed to miss it, the answer is because it's different. As it becomes more of a "normal" thing or individuals of difference are found valuable by society. If the demographics are anything remotely like in reality, the % of the population that identifies as non-heterosexual is very low (less than 10%, usually around 2%).

Which means that in most cases it is natural for people to fall to fall into the dangerous "us and them" mindset. To rise above that, you need a society that broadly has higher cognitive reasoning ability or more likely has highly respected individuals who reflect or promote that difference and make it socially acceptable or seen as a trait of "us" rather than one of "them". One example would be the stigma that early Christians felt in Rome prior to the Edict of Milan.

Quote:
Plus, one important issue. The claim 'there is a stigma against LGBT' is IN AND OF ITSELF a position on a real world issue and bringing that real world issue into a game. Trying to claim such a thing is a default IS a position that's being forced on a setting. Yes, forced -- I don't really remember seeing anything about penalties to Diplomacy being enforced if you're known to not be quite as heterosexual as a default society thinks.

If you want to discuss rules and mechanics now you're talking my language. :D

One thing you're missing with the Diplomacy example is that there's no modifier for prejudicial hatred of anything, including half-orcs which are as written feared, disliked, "spit upon", and are frequently the victims of prejudgment by elves and dwarves (see half orc writeup on the PRD). This IS a default position but there is no base modifier. Instead, the GM is free to adjust an NPC's starting attitude as necessary to reflect what is culturally relevant in the game.

For example, a bartender with prejudice against half-orcs may have a starting attitude of unfriendly or worse but only towards orc-blooded characters.

Quote:
Saying 'Your character will have consequences if he wants to snog that cute guy he met at the tavern' in and of itself is imposing a view of LGBT issues on a game. In effect, that view is being pushed onto someone else. The question then becomes 'Why?' Why is that one favoured, and why can't a society come up without that specific issue? (Remember, there's other ways you can have prejudices. You don't need to freak out over gays to hate on half-orcs and tieflings.)

I've mentioned the reasons why it's pretty normal (but not good by any means as normal can be pretty revolting sometimes) for anti-heterosexual sentiments to spring up in societies. Some people like their campaigns to reflect reality in this sense, just as most campaigns have characters with religious difficulties.

You are also very correct that you don't need to "freak out" over gays to hate half orcs and tieflings. In the campaign I've pulled these characters from, the region that Klari and Myriel are from are very accepting of alternative sexualities, relationship structures (I noted that one of Klari's mentors had two legal husbands), and races. Part of the reason is the religious teachings in their lands born primarily from two of the popular religions: one headed by a lillend goddess that normalizes love in many forms, one headed by a martyred saint professing equality and love for everyone. However, in this particular land, tieflings are also grossly mistreated compared to everyone else because at least one of the major (the largest in fact) religions has a lot of anti-fiendish stuff in it and the plebeians tend to forget their important teachings of universal love and acceptance when it comes to tieflings.

Meanwhile, further south, non-heterosexuality is less appreciated and often kept secret. Even if outright violence doesn't spark from it, it's often considered a sort of perversion or mental condition and an embarrassment. They also have legal slavery in several forms. Tieflings, however, do not face the same social stigma here because several prominent noble families have famous or publicly viewed tieflings of at least mild celebrity status.


Aranna wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.

Don't you watch TV? You've never seen the "Warning: This show contains scenes of extreme violence" or similar depending on the show and it's content? This is what trigger warnings are for. They are good and useful in helping people avoid content they don't wish to see.

I've seen (or heard) them on news programs, though not usually explicitly called "trigger warnings". I've seen them in various online discussions, usually around someone's description of their rape or other traumatic experience.

Neither very often though.

I've far more often seen discussions of how trigger warnings are ridiculous and how you can't say anything without them and they're destroying serious discussion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.

Don't you watch TV? You've never seen the "Warning: This show contains scenes of extreme violence" or similar depending on the show and it's content? This is what trigger warnings are for. They are good and useful in helping people avoid content they don't wish to see.

The biggest difference is that warnings like that explain some of the content and remark that viewer discretion is advised. Its noted purpose being to allow you to decide whether or not you want to watch it or whether or not you want to allow your children to watch it.

It does not, however, imply that it is to keep you from being "triggered".

EDIT: In fact, that's probably the most telling because we have movie and tv rating systems for children. When something pops up on your tv and says this show is rated X-Y for A, B, C, and D, or says "this show contains scenes of X, viewer discretion is advised", it's been primarily a warning to adults in regards to their children.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Qaianna wrote:


The question becomes 'Why is it considered taboo?'.

Because its different than most of the people around you.

Its different because your DNA has a vested interest in reproducing. which oddly enough involves encouraging you to find and attract a mate mates of the opposite sex.

This produces a vast majority of people who are physically male, act like men, and attracted to women and physically women who act like women and are attracted to men.

If you don't fit in that mold then you stand out.

If you stand out, you are not one of us. One of us. One of us humans are tribal little monkeys apes prone to forming groups and killing the dreaded other. If you're not in the tribe you're part of the other.

Quote:
It came from somewhere. And prejudices can change over time. Look at some of the US's history regarding certain immigrant groups and how acceptable they were. And don't forget the power of demagogues to stir things up in their own view.

Prejudice tends to die down quickly when you can't tell members of a group from anyone else: hence why prejudice against the Irish vanished after a few generations: they look talk and act just like everyone else.

Quote:
Trying to claim such a thing is a default IS a position that's being forced on a setting.

I don't think its being forced on the setting. I think its the authors/dm having people act like people and unfortunately our reference pool for how people act is... pretty horrible.

On the other hand, its perfectly reasonable to say that in a world filled with dragons elves dwarves and roaving monsters humans have their sociopathic group forming tendencies channeled elsewhere...

Or its entirely possible that the level of danger presented by the world produces societies that NEED to reproduce like rabbits in order to maintain the red shirt population, leading to even stricter gender roles (because you can lose half the men and not lose one whit of reproductive ability) and more encouragement of male/female pairings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.

Don't you watch TV? You've never seen the "Warning: This show contains scenes of extreme violence" or similar depending on the show and it's content? This is what trigger warnings are for. They are good and useful in helping people avoid content they don't wish to see.

The biggest difference is that warnings like that explain some of the content and remark that viewer discretion is advised. Its noted purpose being to allow you to decide whether or not you want to watch it or whether or not you want to allow your children to watch it.

It does not, however, imply that it is to keep you from being "triggered".

So is it just the word that bothers you?

The vast majority of trigger warnings that I've seen either said what they were warning about or it was entirely clear from the context. And the whole point is "to allow you to decide whether or not you want to watch it". What else would it be?


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Qaianna wrote:
The question becomes 'Why is it considered taboo?'.

Because its different than most of the people around you.

Its different because your DNA has a vested interest in reproducing. which oddly enough involves encouraging you to find and attract a mate mates of the opposite sex.

This produces a vast majority of people who are physically male, act like men, and attracted to women and physically women who act like women and are attracted to men.

If you don't fit in that mold then you stand out.

If you stand out, you are not one of us. One of us. One of us humans are tribal little monkeys apes prone to forming groups and killing the dreaded other. If you're not in the tribe you're part of the other.

Quote:
Trying to claim such a thing is a default IS a position that's being forced on a setting.
I don't think its being forced on the setting. I think its the authors/dm having people act like people and unfortunately our reference pool for how people act is... pretty horrible.

If it was that simple, it would be universal. And yet, there are societies that have and have had far less prejudice against LGBTQs than the medieval or even modern West. Part of it is innate - the tribal "dreaded other" you describe, but what gets labelled as "Other" is very much cultural.

Another difference for LGBTQ people is that if they're not hiding and closeted, they're not that "Other". They're people just like you that you can get to know and like before realizing they're different. They could be your brother or sister, your daughter or son, your childhood friend or your nice co-worker. That's a large part of how prejudice is fading in the modern world - not through some enlightenment or uniquely modern viewpoint, but by the old fashioned tribal process of knowing people.

Beyond that, in a fantasy world, if we have many different intelligent races and we can decide that we can overlook the predisposition to hate and fear difference there so that we can have a more fun game where such different creatures can interact without constant war and hatred, why do we have to keep this prejudice?


Ashiel wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I am pretty sure that I have literally never seen a "Trigger Warning".

Or if I did, it seemed so ridiculous to me that I immediately forgot about it.

Don't you watch TV? You've never seen the "Warning: This show contains scenes of extreme violence" or similar depending on the show and it's content? This is what trigger warnings are for. They are good and useful in helping people avoid content they don't wish to see.

The biggest difference is that warnings like that explain some of the content and remark that viewer discretion is advised. Its noted purpose being to allow you to decide whether or not you want to watch it or whether or not you want to allow your children to watch it.

It does not, however, imply that it is to keep you from being "triggered".

EDIT: In fact, that's probably the most telling because we have movie and tv rating systems for children. When something pops up on your tv and says this show is rated X-Y for A, B, C, and D, or says "this show contains scenes of X, viewer discretion is advised", it's been primarily a warning to adults in regards to their children.

What manner of strange definition are you using for "trigger"? Being triggered is simply having an emotional reaction to the triggering event. And yes while TV ratings were designed to help parents decide what they want their kids exposed to, the trigger warnings are for ANYONE who might have an emotional reaction to the scenes; "Viewer discretion is advised" means ALL viewers. This IS what trigger warnings are for.


TheJeff wrote:
If it was that simple, it would be universal. And yet, there are societies that have and have had far less prejudice against LGBTQs than the medieval or even modern West.

Medieval Europe is the culture most people are familiar with, and the one usually associated with fantasy role playing games. If you have something like medieval Europe in one respect, people are probably going to use that as a guideline.

That things like third gender are accepted doesn't mean that they're universally accepted or that there's no prejudice towards them in their society.

Quote:
Another difference for LGBTQ people is that if they're not hiding and closeted, they're not that "Other". They're people just like you that you can get to know and like before realizing they're different.

You need a large population with a lot of exposure for this to work. We're JUST getting there in the modern west with the aid of television. If your entire monkeysphere consists of the 1,000 people in your city you're not going to know enough of a minority to really bring them into the tribe.

Quote:
They could be your brother or sister, your daughter or son, your childhood friend or your nice co-worker. That's a large part of how prejudice is fading in the modern world - not through some enlightenment or uniquely modern viewpoint, but by the old fashioned tribal process of knowing people.

Could be, but if you only know a few dozen people it probably won't be, especially if there's a greater tendency to keep it under wraps. They might be there, but you don't know about it. And because they can't act on it , you don't know about it, which keeps familiarity from happening.

Quote:
Beyond that, in a fantasy world, if we have many different intelligent races and we can decide that we can overlook the predisposition to hate and fear difference there so that we can have a more fun game where such different creatures can interact without constant war and hatred, why do we have to keep this prejudice?

I don't think it NEEDS to be kept, but singling it out for exclusion is something you'd actively have to do rather than just assuming it would automatically be tossed.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
TheJeff wrote:
If it was that simple, it would be universal. And yet, there are societies that have and have had far less prejudice against LGBTQs than the medieval or even modern West.

Medieval Europe is the culture most people are familiar with, and the one usually associated with fantasy role playing games. If you have something like medieval Europe in one respect, people are probably going to use that as a guideline.

That things like third gender are accepted doesn't mean that they're universally accepted or that there's no prejudice towards them in their society.

Quote:
Another difference for LGBTQ people is that if they're not hiding and closeted, they're not that "Other". They're people just like you that you can get to know and like before realizing they're different.

You need a large population with a lot of exposure for this to work. We're JUST getting there in the modern west with the aid of television. If your entire monkeysphere consists of the 1,000 people in your city you're not going to know enough of a minority to really bring them into the tribe.

Quote:
They could be your brother or sister, your daughter or son, your childhood friend or your nice co-worker. That's a large part of how prejudice is fading in the modern world - not through some enlightenment or uniquely modern viewpoint, but by the old fashioned tribal process of knowing people.

Could be, but if you only know a few dozen people it probably won't be, especially if there's a greater tendency to keep it under wraps. They might be there, but you don't know about it. And because they can't act on it , you don't know about it, which keeps familiarity from happening.

Quote:
Beyond that, in a fantasy world, if we have many different intelligent races and we can decide that we can overlook the predisposition to hate and fear difference there so that we can have a more fun game where such different creatures can interact without constant war and hatred, why do we have to
I don't think it NEEDS to be kept, but singling it out for exclusion is something you'd actively have to do rather than just assuming it would automatically be tossed.

So basically, because Medieval Europe had these prejudices, they're the default in fantasy settings. Medieval Europe also horribly limited your roles in society by gender and by class and birth. Somehow that's not nearly so strongly the default in fantasy settings. Possibly because prejudice against LGTBQ is still common in our society?

As for your 1000 person monkeysphere, in that situation every gay person you know or probably even know of, you knew before you knew they were gay. (Or you grew up knowing them.) Sure, if everyone is closeted because there's widespread prejudice, then you won't, but since we're discussing the reasons for that prejudice, that assumption doesn't hold. It's hard to get rid of once it exists, but it's far from inevitable.
In fact, many of the known examples of groups with "third gender" roles and the like are just the sort of small tribes you're asserting are least likely to accept.


TheJeff wrote:
So basically, because Medieval Europe had these prejudices, they're the default in fantasy settings. Medieval Europe also horribly limited your roles in society by gender and by class and birth. Somehow that's not nearly so strongly the default in fantasy settings. Possibly because prejudice against LGTBQ is still common in our society?

Thats a heck of a leap of logic.

A woman warrior overcoming society's prejudice and proving their worth a la joan of arc or mulan is a very common story: so much so that even the barbarian iconic has it as a back story despite most of golarion being almost gender neutral. So yes, in most fantasy settings the gender role is there.

Class is a little different. Because mid adventurer automatically equals wearing the GDP of a small duchy they're effectively outside of the class structure.

You will occasionally see an uppity noble, or have a noble that needs to be taken alive rather than murderated because doing so would cause too many problems.

Quote:
It's hard to get rid of once it exists, but it's far from inevitable.

How nevitable is it though?

Quote:
In fact, many of the known examples of groups with "third gender" roles and the like are just the sort of small tribes you're asserting are least likely to accept.

How many of those small tribes are there though?

Perhaps its a form of birth control? Where the population has leveled out? Until that happens its discouraged, once you've hit the population your area will support with your current tec level your society starts endorsing or at least tolerating it?

Community & Digital Content Director

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some baiting posts and their responses.

Additionally, let's steer this thread away from a discussion of "triggers" and debating their validity. It doesn't belong here.

451 to 496 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.
Recent threads in General Discussion