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.

Did anyone claim there were absolutely no mentions of marital status in older D&D adventures? No. The assertion is that they were far less common than they are in Paizo's adventures, and rarely material to any sort of plot. You've culled a handful of examples from 15 years of publishing history.  I bet there are dozen or more mentions of marital status and naff romantic sub-plots in every AP.

yabaziou: Yes, but is the family heirloom a better fight against demons than any other magic sword?

It's of great _personal_ significance, which makes the sacrifice poignant.

But in terms of dry paper balance and power?

Unless the sword is very unusual, the paladin probably HAS a weapon just about as good already, or can find one. At worst, the paladin is a +1 behind the curve.

And that's only a problem if you're making the claim that paladins are holy bound to be minmaxers.

Quote from: Haffrung;796536It does seem odd to me that marital status, lovers, etc. were largely ignored in D&D products up until the last five years or so. And that their inclusion by Paizo coincides with American culture wars over gay marriage, and now transgender rights. I suppose it could be a coincidence. More likely it's political signalling.

I suppose 'largely ignored' is one of those comfortable phrases.

Haffrung, Omega came up with those off the top of their head.

I admit I don't know for certain. Maybe you can admit you didn't think about it until the 'culture war' heightened your awareness of it?

Quote from: Certified;796718You're not the real Batman! Batman would never get married!

That's debatable, which Canon batman are you referring to?

I will say, Will, that my answer depends to the exact words of the paladin oath. To share the way I think about this situation, I find that this sword, being a family heirloom, is not her to sell. Giving it to a worthy heir is totally ok or sacrificing it to save somebody's life is also ok but selling it in order to alleviate her spouse's suffering while being a good action, does not seem a act true to her oath (ignoring her spouse's condition is also not right.).

But it is how I see things and how I will rule it as a DM. If another DM is not in agreement with it, honestly, whatever !

This is also my position with Paizo. If they wrote it is ok with the paladin's code, whatever !

Quote from: Will;796745yabaziou: Yes, but is the family heirloom a better fight against demons than any other magic sword?

It's of great _personal_ significance, which makes the sacrifice poignant.

But in terms of dry paper balance and power?

Unless the sword is very unusual, the paladin probably HAS a weapon just about as good already, or can find one. At worst, the paladin is a +1 behind the curve.

And that's only a problem if you're making the claim that paladins are holy bound to be minmaxers.

Exactly. If the sword is just a generic +2 longsword (regardless if it's an heirloom passed down) then mechanically speaking it's only a -1 penalty that she can easily make up by gaining a few levels and fleshing out her Divine Bond feature. In fact, she's probably at a disadvantage by holding onto the thing later on in her possible career as the bonuses it has will diminish against greater foes.

Quote from: Bren;796726I 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 you are aware, that i selected this forum to ask, because i read about the fuss regarding rpgpundits involvemnt in D&D design, read several of his blog posts (though not enough to exactly understand his definition of the "swines" he often seems to be angry about) and concluded "Hey, while probability of being called a bigot on that forum is >=100%, the probability of receiving no info regarding my question between all ensuing name calling is <100%, so that forum is superior to all other i know about for asking my question"?

That selection method does not fit to avoiding contrary viewpoints.

Quote from: Bren;796726And 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.

Which would be a valid point, if what you consider to be my mindset would be my actual mindset. Instead i tried to keep the topic away from what other forums call "sensitive" issues, cause that seldom furthers discussions. But doens't matter, think i got enough info.

Seemingly, while d & d gave a nod to one specific issue, they are currently not in "paizo mode" championing some issues, though the risk is there due to positive feedback they received for their nod. Sounds tolerable for the moment, considering the system looks fine.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796737If after the whole thing is done, she's effectively retiring...

It seemed like the Paladin retiring would make the whole selling an heirloom, regardless of genders, orientations, or whatever make more sense. Though selling rather than bequeathing the heirloom to a worthy successor or keeping it and hanging it on the wall of their house or putting it in a trunk at the foot of their bed as a combination of trophy, momento, and just in case I need it later seems more narratively and character satisfying to me.

Quotebut...who did she sell it to?  If she sold it to a random merchant, that's still a bit sketchy.

Yes that seems odd. I guess one could see it as an opportunity for the GM to explain the oddity.

Quote from: Omega;796716Now to be fair, as DM I look at this selling of the heirloom and think. "Ok, this is odd. So WHY is it odd?"

My initial reaction is odd and very cheesy. It makes me think the author is a bit hamfisted and didn't give the heirloom angle enough thought.

Quote from: Will;796747I suppose 'largely ignored' is one of those comfortable phrases.

Haffrung, Omega came up with those off the top of their head.

And this is why debating things on the internet is 'largely' a waste of time. People are 'largely' incapable of discussing things in terms of degrees. The Manichean outlook trumps all.

Quote from: Will;796747I admit I don't know for certain. Maybe you can admit you didn't think about it until the 'culture war' heightened your awareness of it?

The culture wars are a 'largely' American phenomena that I observe as a dismayed outsider (see my comment above about Manichean outlooks). I'm aware of it the way I'm aware of the Shiite vs Sunni schism.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796695@all
You probably will not believe me, but what makes me icky here, is paying for products painting people with different opinion than publisher about the political-legal framework in respect to LGBT as evil, as i am one of them.

I can't speak for Paizo, of course, but I'm totally fine with you not buying Arrows of Indra.

QuoteAnd except for the wording and language style, paizos message is identical to yours, that i'm a bigot or something like that.

I did not claim, the pal should lose powers for loving a transgender. I claimed placing such personal feelings above her duties should make her lose the powers. And that would be the same with paladin selling her sword for the other scenarios you suggested, pals do not neglect their duties just because her lover is unhappy about something.

Dude, you might not like the word, but you literally are a bigot.  And not like when one of the Psuedo-activists says it, but a real literal bigot.  You find the mere mention of a transgender character in an RPG product to be offensive.
Because here's the thing, I'm totally willing to believe you mean what you say about the whole "Paladin" thing, because half-educated nerds have stupid ideas all the time, especially about Paladins.    I could totally imagine 50 nerds having exactly the same objection to a paladin selling her sword if there was no transgender character involved at all.  I'm totally willing to accept that side of your argument. But it's just completely irrelevant to the other part, where you make it clear that you do in fact have a problem with there being a transgender character at all.
Not just in this context. Because see, I'm quite certain that you would view the inclusion of a transgender character anywhere in any Pathfinder product as an "attempt to push an agenda".
THAT is why you're a bigot.

Quotehttp://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q9qi?Is-the-dwarven-goddess-of-marriage-homophobic
"Paizo Employee Jessica Price Project Manager    Oct 19, 2013, 04:57 AM | Flag |
List
| Reply
+
Jessica Price
Nicos wrote:

    Jessica Price wrote:

        Given that Bolka is neutral good, her being homophobic seems incongruous.

    You that work with paizo surely know more about the gods of golarion than me, but I want to mention that people (in this case gods) can be incongruous. Bolka being NG can still have her blak spots.

Yes, but generally the flaws in good deities are fairly minor, comparatively speaking -- none of them are in favor of torturing the innocent, for example. Given that Paizo has a large number of LGBT employees, I think that as a company we tend to take the idea of forbidding people loving relationships and marriage based on genders of the partners to be a pretty significant flaw. I could see us maybe having it be a flaw in a neutral deity, but it's hard to imagine we'd publish it for a good deity. It'd be like having a good deity that objected to people of Garundi descent being allowed to marry -- too evil for a good deity."

Being against gay marriage is not only a flaw, but a flaw that gets one booted from the "good" camp. So while they had so far no such plots, in case they have such plots, one can bet upon the "against gay marriage"-fraction be placed in the evil camp.

Different issue, and if you were to show me material in Pathfinder that followed this line of thinking more openly, you would have more of a point (at the very least, it would suggest that some people in the Pathfinder design team don't actually get how religion works; since pretty well all religions are full of stupid pointless taboos).
But again, that doesn't change YOUR motives here, and what you really care about.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796756As you are aware, that i selected this forum to ask, because i read about the fuss regarding rpgpundits involvemnt in D&D design, read several of his blog posts (though not enough to exactly understand his definition of the "swines" he often seems to be angry about) and concluded "Hey, while probability of being called a bigot on that forum is >=100%, the probability of receiving no info regarding my question between all ensuing name calling is <100%, so that forum is superior to all other i know about for asking my question"?

That selection method does not fit to avoiding contrary viewpoints.

By precious and fragile I was not referring to your being on this forum. I was referring to your previously stated desire to avoid seeing anything contrary to your worldview in published RPG materials.

QuoteWhich would be a valid point, if what you consider to be my mindset would be my actual mindset.

I can only judge your mindset by what you write. If you are pretending to some mindset you don't hold I can't really comment since I'm not a mindreader. But by all means clarify. What is your actual mindset?

Just to clear this one up before we get started on who's a Bigot or not. Here's the actual definition.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

So there's that. Now

big·ot·ry noun \ˈbi-gə-trē\
: bigoted acts or beliefs
plural big·ot·ries
 ShareMeNot has replaced this Facebook button.
Full Definition of BIGOTRY

1
:  the state of mind of a bigot
2
:  acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339Paizo Adventure Path 73, Paladin selling the magic sword inherited from her father to pay for "gender reassignment magic" as a wedding gift to her spouse suffering from biologically being male, so that their marriage can be more happy and complete.

Considering that a paladin per RAW must be lawful good and may not commit an evil act or act against code of conduct, especially act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), without losing Pal class abilities, and that the repective pal did not have any such problems, the respectives paladins actions are declared by the respective authors (and Paizo leadership agrees as far as i know) to be exemplary conduct and any suggestions, that what that pal did was wrong in some way, are without base according to Paizo. Thats "political commentary" or maybe more precisely "moral commentary about issues currently fought about in politics".

Quote from: 1989;796410It's only going to get worse from here on out.

SJWs are hijacking RPGs to appease the 2-3% of the North American population that is gay/whatever.

Pathfinder already prouldy trumpets these anomalies and shoves them down your throat. D&D is close at hand.

It's been stated for the record, by the D&D lead designer, that if you don't accept/endorse homosexual acts, then you are a bigot.

I won't buy it.

Quote from: Haffrung;796740It 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.

No doubt some of it will, particularly the ham-handed stuff.  But the reason why it will make people roll their eyes is because in 15 years, no one will feel any need to put a spotlight on LGBT characters in RPG books (or literature, or media of any kind) because no one will think it a Big Deal to have those kinds of characters.
It'll just be normal.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796767No doubt some of it will, particularly the ham-handed stuff.  But the reason why it will make people roll their eyes is because in 15 years, no one will feel any need to put a spotlight on LGBT characters in RPG books (or literature, or media of any kind) because no one will think it a Big Deal to have those kinds of characters.
It'll just be normal.

Bingo.

Would someone be a bigot if they hated bigoted people...

:idunno: