Quote from: stupidquestion;796699And what is then exactly wrong about my thread? I want to avoid buying certain stuff. Just need to know whether D & D is likely to be among the "stuff" or not.

To be honest, I kind of hope they do. I personally find it more interesting when they throw in a bit of this modern-isms into their campaigns because it breaks up the monotony that is considered "normal" found in nearly every other piece they create. Seriously, the tropes are getting bland at this point and a few changes, even minute ones such as a gay character or a character loving a transgender, help make it seem different.

And I say this as your average Christian married straight white-guy.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796650I have the feeling that StupidQuestion wouldn't have blinked an eye if the paladin sold her sword for any other purpose, or if the lover was acceptably, traditionally gendered.

I think it is the heirloom part thats really bugging him more than the gender change part. (Though reading his later posts. Maybee not...)

Shes not just pawning off a generic +X sword. Shes pawning off her fathers sword handed down to her.

For me that feels off, and I am guessing thats part of the other guys issue. I am not one of those players who keeps swapping out weapons for another +1. I tend to lock onto one particular weapon once I get one that has some event attatched to its acquisition. That of course does not allways happen. But its common for me and some other players I know. For others its anything but.

Now to be fair, as DM I look at this selling of the heirloom and think. "Ok, this is odd. So WHY is it odd?"
Maybee her father was abusive and this is a spite moment?
Maybee the sword is abusive and this is a spite moment?
Maybee she has zero connection to the item or its history, a rather callous or self serving Paladin, in which case perhaps shes close to a fall? What if their lover is manipulating events towards a fall?
Maybee she plans to buy the sword back?
Maybee theres a time limit on the availibility of the potion? Moreso if this is a rare potion.
Maybee her deity told her to? Ye ol "you can find this but only if you give up something close to you" ploy.
Maybee shes conflicted about the validity of selling the heirloom?
etc.

From just the basic outline I've got all sorts of possible plot hooks as to the why of it.

Quote from: Bren;796707This has been covered at length by me, by Pundit, by others. If you've been reading the thread you couldn't possibly have missed the explanations. People whose world views are so precious and fragile that they require all material they consume to avoid any challenging viewpoints don't get a lot of sympathy from me.

Besides my worldview not being precious and fragile, what would be wrong with a person having such a worldview asking question about products?


The only explanation i concluded from the answers is, that i am supposedly a "fucking bigot" to even see a problem and that i am not admitting to be a "fucking bigot" and instead create smoke to hide the actual mindset behind my questions.

Quote from: Batman;796715To be honest, I kind of hope they do. I personally find it more interesting when they throw in a bit of this modern-isms into their campaigns because it breaks up the monotony that is considered "normal" found in nearly every other piece they create. Seriously, the tropes are getting bland at this point and a few changes, even minute ones such as a gay character or a character loving a transgender, help make it seem different.

And I say this as your average Christian married straight white-guy.

You're not the real Batman! Batman would never get married!

Quote from: S'mon;796662It's incredibly scarce, actually.
But your sureness about something - anything - seems to be a pretty strong indicator of it not being the case!

Good thing you're sure of that.

Given a few folks commenting contrariwise about the presence of married couples and heterosexuals being ever indicated as such in many/most past modules, I will withdraw that comment as unfounded.

I had assumed that a lot of modules had the innkeeper and his wife, lost lovers, and so on, but I rarely buy/use modules, so I'm guesstimating with very little information. I stand corrected.

Quote from: Will;796719Good thing you're sure of that.

Given a few folks commenting contrariwise about the presence of married couples and heterosexuals being ever indicated as such in many/most past modules, I will withdraw that comment as unfounded.

I had assumed that a lot of modules had the innkeeper and his wife, lost lovers, and so on, but I rarely buy/use modules, so I'm guesstimating with very little information. I stand corrected.

Keep on the Borderlands has the innkeeper, his wife and family. In fact Im pretty sure theres at least two or three families mentioned. Same for I'sle of dread with the natives.

And the big Blackmoor module has a NPC vanishing in search of his kidnapped wife or lover.

And I believe In Search of the Unknown has in its background that the leader of Quasqueton married his former adventuring companion?

Quote from: Will;796719Good thing you're sure of that.

Given a few folks commenting contrariwise about the presence of married couples and heterosexuals being ever indicated as such in many/most past modules, I will withdraw that comment as unfounded.

I had assumed that a lot of modules had the innkeeper and his wife, lost lovers, and so on, but I rarely buy/use modules, so I'm guesstimating with very little information. I stand corrected.

Keep on the Borderlands has the innkeeper, his wife and family. In fact Im pretty sure theres at least two or three families mentioned. Same for I'sle of dread with the natives.

And I believe In Search of the Unknown has in its background that the leader of Quasqueton married his former adventuring companion?

And the big Blackmoor module has one of the NPCs vanishing into the Egg of Coot territoty looking for his kidnapped wife or lover.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796717Besides my worldview not being precious and fragile, what would be wrong with a person having such a worldview asking question about products?

I described your worldview as precious and fragile because that's how I see it. Because that's how you seem to see it. It must be protected from even the appearance of contrary viewpoints or else....something.

As far as your asking questions about products, asking questions is fine. It would be more straightforward if you just did that. As you have seen there are several people who are either sympathetic towards or who may even share your worldview and who are happy to post buying suggestions or warnings.

QuoteThe only explanation i concluded from the answers is, that i am supposedly a "fucking bigot" to even see a problem and that i am not admitting to be a "fucking bigot" and instead create smoke to hide the actual mindset behind my questions.

I don't believe I used the quoted phrases. Though I do understand the sentiment behind them. This is a forum where posters are allowed to use colorful and even hostile language towards each other. It's part of the site culture. And yes, it does seem that you created a smoke screen in an attempt to conceal your mindset. It's tiresome and as you can see, it isn't necessary to do that here to get the information you claim to be looking for.

I know it is not the main topic of this thread but I think that this plaladin does not behave like how a paladin should. Not because the LGBT stuff but because when you took the paladin oath, you do not embrace the high road but the highest. To be true to her paladin oath, she should have found a way to please her spouse (because to be true to her loved ones is important to a paladin) and also keep the family heirloom because it is a valuable ressource in the fight against demons (a fight she is committed to beacause of her oath. There is also the fact that the sword was not her to sold because it is a family heirloom but maybe it is not a part of her oath).

She is a paladin. She has chosen the highest road. She has done a good thing but not the best thing. So a penance is in roder for her (like retrieving the sword in a law-abinding manner ans not lying with her spouse until this has been done).

At least, that is how I envisionned paladinhood (and my view comes from Ad&D 1 and 2). But it might not be the way it is in Pathfinder (I'm not famliar with D&D 3/3.5 and Pathfinder).

double post... odd.

Quote from: yabaziou;796728I know it is not the main topic of this thread but I think that this plaladin does not behave like how a paladin should.

Meh. You all are way too liberal.

Personally, I'd favor the Paladin needing to retire before getting married to anyone, since marriage would be a big distraction from all that demon fighting, it wouldn't really be fair to the spouse for a Paladin to marry and set back out on a wandering and risky life of demon fighting where the Paladin could, at any moment, be called on to die for their god, and also, since the Paladin's already sworn/married/bound to their deity they are therefore not free to bind themself to another being in marriage.

Hmm, that sword was a demonslayer?  In a campaign set in a Crusade against the Worldwound, an open rift to demonic planes? Ok, now it's becoming clear, hold on, lemme look at something...

Yep.  In the AP, the players close the Worldwound, so I think the Crusade is over.  At that point, the Paladin's quest is done, the purpose for the sword is done, the Paladin can get on with her life.

Now, if she gave up the demonslayer sword prior to closing the Worldwound, while the Crusade was still active, that strikes me as unsufferably selfish, since it's for her lover, so obviously she gets a benefit.

If after the whole thing is done, she's effectively retiring, but...who did she sell it to?  If she sold it to a random merchant, that's still a bit sketchy.  Ideally, like Spinach said, she'd find the money some other way and pass the sword on to another demon-fighter.

Although, and hoo boy is this bad writing, there's another possibility...it's her Father's sword...ie. literally a Patriarchal symbol...although Paizo doesn't seem very militant, just inclusional.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796656What we're talking about is the mere MENTION of a couple LBGT characters (always, so far, amidst a blizzard of hetero characters), and in a couple of products.  Why exactly do you find that irksome?  Do you complain when there are characters explicitly described as hetero?  With hetero spouses and children?  Do you?

No, I didn't think so.

Yes, in my previous post in this thread, you dolt. I said I find romance sub-plots and egregious details about marital status in D&D adventures to be fucking dumb. The soap opera bullshit of Paizo adventure paths, along with all the immersion-destroying anachronisms, stopped me from buying Paizo APs a couple years ago.

Unlike almost all other D&D materials I've read in the last 35 years, in it's tone and cultural assumptions Paizo's material jumps out as written in the early 21st century. It tries to capture the Spirit of the Age, as was pointed out up-thread. And that's what I find off-putting. I don't want the modern world reflected in my D&D adventures (and by modern world I mean the last 500 years). I dislike 90 per cent of contemporary fantasy for that same reason. And I've pointed out already, APs are written for the 50 per cent of the audience who read them but don't actively play, and that's why the naff romantic sub-plots are included. That also is bullshit. I don't buy these books as fanfic.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796656And no, the presence of such characters don't "detract" from an adventure.  How, exactly?  Sexuality is a character trait, with no more or no less impact on an adventure than hair color, handedness, how much leather the character sports, whether the character smokes a pipe or not, or anything of the sort.

Yes. People have dozens of character traits. So why is romantic status given such prominence by Paizo? It's usually irrelevant to the adventure. And if it is isn't irrelevant to the adventure, I have no use for it anyway, because I don't do romance and melodrama in my D&D adventures.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796656It is distracting only if the mere existence of that character trait creeps you out.  And, sir, if that's the case here, if nothing more than the identification of a fictional character as gay sets your teeth on edge, then spare us the malarkey about how open minded you are.  Because it's bullshit.[/COLOR]

Cunt: It doesn't creep me out. If you can't fashion a cogent argument without making assumptions pulled from the fever-pits of your imagination, then don't waste my time by trying to engage in a dialog. Address what I write, not what you assume I believe.

Quote from: TristramEvans;796657Yep.

I hate the pseudo-activist brigade as mucuh as anyone (well, maybe not as much as Zak S and Pundit and others, but a fair deal). I don't really care for gimmicky political correctness being inserted into RPGs or infesting the hobby at all. And these days I consider the term "inclusive" a dirty word.

But here? In this thread? Whats being discussed? You're calling it like it is.

James Jacobs has been writing and editing adventures for almost 20 years. Why do you think transgendered and gay characters have only started appearing in the work he's responsible for in the last few years? I'm going to go out and limb and suggest it's because LBGT issues are a hot subject in the American culture wars these days. And that the purpose isn't to make the 8 or 9 transgendered people who might come across the Vermillion Plaintiff Adventure Path feel better about themselves, but to signal where he stands in the culture wars. And I have no use for that kind of bullshit in RPG materials. I'd say the same thing if there were allusions to Richard Nixon in OD&D. It might have been topical and hip in 1974, but in 10 years it would have looked dated and cheesy. That's the way Paizo's material will look in 10 or 15 years. People will roll their eyes and mutter this is so goddamn 2014.

Quote from: Bren;796736Meh. You all are way too liberal. -snip -

Yeah, that is me in a nutshell ! ^_^

Quote from: Omega;796725Keep on the Borderlands has the innkeeper, his wife and family. In fact Im pretty sure theres at least two or three families mentioned. Same for I'sle of dread with the natives.

And I believe In Search of the Unknown has in its background that the leader of Quasqueton married his former adventuring companion?

And the big Blackmoor module has one of the NPCs vanishing into the Egg of Coot territoty looking for his kidnapped wife or lover.

Oh, those Patriarchal Political bastards!