Quote from: Batman;796770Would someone be a bigot if they hated bigoted people...

:idunno:

I guess the question is, would it be unfair to dislike them?

Quote from: Certified;796771I guess the question is, would it be unfair to dislike them?

I'm not sure. A lot of people don't like or hate Christians (and/or religions people in general) for their beliefs. I find that hatred bigoted. So if I hate someone because their belief (that is, the belief of hating people based on a particular aspect [religion, race, sexual preference]) that's probably just as unfair as the religion-hater.

Oh well, I'm OK with being a bigot towards bigots.

Quote from: Haffrung;796744Did 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.

Um, no.

He asked for examples, I named the few I was aware off off the bat.

For what it's worth, I find really chock full o' gay tiresome. Some recent seasons of Doctor Who, for example, which are like 'oh shocker all these random folks are gay.'

Quote from: Batman;796770Would someone be a bigot if they hated bigoted people...

Yes, and I'd hang many of the problems we have today on hanging the bigot label on someone else and then using that as justification for overtly demonstrating that hate.

I don't think I have ever met someone who didn't have a few illogical dislikes.

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.

Kudos.

Thank you kindly.

But truth be told, I think the notion of political correctness being inserted into RPGs is badly, badly overstated.  What I would call that sort of thing is the egregious level of aggressive activism I mentioned in the post you quoted: rampaging gay cults and the like.

What we have, instead, and what provokes the "OMG SJW!!!!!" catcalls, is something completely different: the one or two sympathetic LGBT characters in a book swimming with heteros, female NPCs actually holding more than 5% of positions of authority and power, female NPCs being depicted as capable warriors, settings where orcs or other "monster" races aren't depicted as being monolithically Chaotic Evil ... or ones in which paladins can spend time and energy on personal relationships without provoking the retribution of the gods.

I submit that those aren't so much a product of rampant social engineering as being the product of authors who don't feel the need to replicate the gaming world of the mid-70s, where every important NPC (save for spouses, the occasional priestess, and prostitutes) were male, where every (non-evil, non-depraved) NPC was hetero, where women players were stigmatized as Gamer Girlfriends.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796695You 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 see no reason not to believe you.

But I'll go back to an example I used: my own game setting presents the Good Guy elves as finding birth control suspect and abortion evil, in direct contradiction to my personal views.  My work doesn't stake out a position of what I believe to be evil or not -- it stakes out a position of what various factions of the setting believe to be evil or not.

Hell, Stephen King is the most celebrated horror author of the last half-century, and he's a sweet guy in real life who coaches Little League.  He's not out to tell you what's good or evil when he writes a story; he's out to tell you a story.

That being said ... I'm starting to get bewildered.  You've already been told what you need to do to avoid your conundrum, by me as well as others.  You can't be so dense as to think that anyone in this thread is WotC's D&D line editor, posting incognito, and that any "guarantees" we might make about what will or will not go into D&D publications going forward would be full of shit.  What exactly do you want from us that you haven't gotten?

I personally think the whole "its political correctness gone mad" thing is a bit overstated myself.

I mean, literally, the reason that the characters existed in Wrath of the Righteous is that a transgender fan asked if they could have some representation in an adventure path. And Paizo was like... sure!

I just can't see how anyone can spin that as a negative.

I found this an awesome iconic. Is it 'gratuitous' or 'pandering' or SJWish or whatever? I don't know. It's a little over the top, but in much the same way as a lot of dramatic character stories often are.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lgcn

If this claim would be true:

Quote from: RPGPundit;796761Because 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".

then this conclusion would probably be correct:

Quote from: RPGPundit;796761THAT is why you're a bigot.

But i see no good reason to discuss it further, as its pretty hard to provide any definite evidence for or against.

Quote from: Will;796719I 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.

A lot do.

I went through The Village of Hommlet, another early D&D module, because a cementhead somewhat imprudently cited it as an example of a sex-free adventure without those icky gurrrlls.  Now I wouldn't say that Hommlet is remotely an example of egalitarian gaming -- the standard is the shopkeeper (names and sentence or three of personality), his unnamed wife and his unnamed children -- but there were 26 married couples set forth in it.  Hrm.  Come to that, I've got a bunch of D&D PDFs on my computer.  Let me run down the list, in order ...

Harbinger House has its first hetero couple seven pages in.
Blood of the Yakuza (a he-man supplement, you'd think) has its first hetero relationship four pages in.
City By The Silt Sea is pokey, and takes 32 pages to mention its first one.
Nightfall in Eliador takes six.
Against The Barrow King mentions as prominently as it in the splash fic on the back cover.
Al'Qasim: Caravans does so in the splash fic on page 3.
Al'Qasim: Cities of Bone is basically a giant dungeon crawl, and even it has its first romantic couple on page 12.
Arena of Thyatis, another he-man supplement?  The interlocutor's mistress is a key element of the splash fic on page 2.
Assassin Mountain?  Page 22.
Castle Zadrian?  Another back cover splash fic mention.

That's ten in, and so far we're ten-for-ten.  I think your guess is good, Will.

Quote from: Haffrung;796740Address what I write, not what you assume I believe.

What I assume that you're a narrow-minded prick who was threatened with a bad case of cooties in elementary school, and have been running from "Ewww, GURRRLLS!" ever since.  You've made many a post which has fueled my certitude.

But if you're the sort who really sees mention of an innkeeper and her spouse in a gaming product and shrieks "OMG there's SEXXXXX in the book!!!!", then following the laundry list above, what the hell are you doing buying commercial gaming products?  You just can't escape the broads, can you?  Damn, the town where that dungeon crawl starts has a brothel, and you know what goes on there!  Why, the King has a Queen, and why do we need to know that???

Honest to God, for everyone who blathers on about how touchy and oversensitive the liberal SJWs are, your kind really does react like a wounded buffalo when your sensibilities are jarred.

Ok, the sword Irabeth (the female half-orc bi/homosexual paladin) uses is Radiance, a +2 cold iron longsword which becomes a +5 holy cold iron longsword in the hands of a paladin.

This is NOT the sword she unloads.

The sword she sells is a +1 evil outsider bane longsword.

This mistake has been made before and indeed did rouse debate on the subject on Paizo's own site because a lot of people cried foul on that one, thinking she sold Radiance for the potion, which a lot of people claimed would trigger a fall from paladinhood.  Apparently Irabeth also sold it to someone who she thought would put it to good use.

So...the situation is different then originally described.

But, to answer the real question of the OP: No.  Aside from "the paragraph" under character creation, WotC has shown no evidence of following in Paizo's footsteps of inclusion of individuals who appear at a much higher rate then in this world (aside from everything non-human of course).

Quote from: Ravenswing;796801That's ten in, and so far we're ten-for-ten.  I think your guess is good, Will.

Which of course, is pointless, because the idea that showing reality is a political statement has always been pants on head idiotic.

If I write a movie about a soldier who goes of to war, I can make a whole lot of political statements in that movie.  Guess what scene isn't making one though?  The one that shows him waving goodbye to his mother and father.

Having a quasi-medieval environment where you show traditional couples instead of homosexual couples who adopted isn't erasure, you might as well say you're erasing Native Americans in a movie about Ghengis Khan, or erasing people with prostate cancer, because the Village of Hommlet doesn't state how many of the older men have it, when it's probably most of them to some degree or another.

"Everything's political" is one of the stupider notions frequently used today.

Quote from: Will;796796I found this an awesome iconic. Is it 'gratuitous' or 'pandering' or SJWish or whatever? I don't know. It's a little over the top, but in much the same way as a lot of dramatic character stories often are.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lgcn

It's over the top, but whatever.  Apparently it's common enough amongst dwarves that there's a dwarven sub-culture for the transgendered.  She's a shaman so they tie it to the whole "two-souls" concept as well.

A little forced I think, but they obviously wanted to make "The Transgendered Iconic (TM)" not an iconic who just happened to be transgendered, so of course that's what you're gonna get.

I find it interesting as a character concept in this situation, we did talk about her before. (Tuataras FTW!)

Quote from: CRKrueger;796803Having a quasi-medieval environment where you show traditional couples instead of homosexual couples who adopted isn't erasure, you might as well say you're erasing Native Americans in a movie about Ghengis Khan, or erasing people with prostate cancer, because the Village of Hommlet doesn't state how many of the older men have it, when it's probably most of them to some degree or another.

"Everything's political" is one of the stupider notions frequently used today.

It sure as fuck IS erasure because if you aren't showing any GLBT folks at all, you are erasing them. And why?

Because they aren't NORMAL. I mean, dude. You said 'traditional' couples. DUDE.

Your statement here is PRECISELY what pisses a lot of people off and what motivates some of them to go perhaps too far.

Because your pat, privileged bullshit statement that 'every couple should be hetero because that's part of the genre' is, was, and always will be fucking appalling.


As for 'in higher numbers than real life,' what, a value higher than 0?

Edit: Actually, query here... has WotC had any GLBT characters in mainstream stuff in a reasonable role, ever? In any numbers? (Let's leave aside the whole 'kooky creepy drow lesbian' stuff)