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.

:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

Yeah, exactly.  I'm really looking forward to living long enough for my grandchildren to tug on my sleeve and ask "Grampie?  I don't get it.  Why was there such a fuss?  You mean people actually worried about what sex other people cuddled?"

Which is pretty much how, these days, we react to depictions of women in positions of authority over men, or of interracial couples: as so routine as to not be worth comment.

Quote from: Will;796807It 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)

Saying the same thing repeatedly doesn't make it true.

Quote from: Bren;796763What is your actual mindset?

A bit complicated issue, especially due to usual forum misunderstanding, therefore i see no good reason to discuss it much.

As one aspect, so your question does not completely unanswered, take the issue, that some people might think here, that i "dislike" LGBT because of distaste/prejudice regarding their sexuality.

Sometimes one does not realize that one dislikes something and so on. So just because i think they are wrong, doesn't show that they are wrong.

But i can definitely compare what is going on in my mind in respect to LGBT sexuality with what is going regarding other types of sexual behavior. And that comparison at least for me shows, that whatever grudges i might have regarding LGBT issues is not about how theys live their sexuality.

For example, if i consider the scenario of a man and women regularly having sex in a so far short term relationship, her getting pregnant, him accusing her in a "why are you pregnant? how could that happen? you slut just want to foist a child on me, get an abortion or you'll regret it" style, her ending up in the hands of nice helpful clinic staff shredding her unborn child to pieces and later reporting to headquarter about another success in helping a women enjoy her right to choose with him then dumping her to find another one for repetition, i certainly feel something which would qualify as "dislike" for the way he lives his sexuality, even considering whether there should be laws against what he did (which then adds dislike for the helpful clinic staff, considering they would probably object laws against such behavior, as a sensible aspect of such laws would be, to ask any women requesting an abortion about whether such things are going on and report to police in case); comparing this "dislike" to what is going on in my head when considering LGBT sexuality, i am fairly confident, that there is little or no dislike going on in my head in respect to LGBT issues, because its at least vastly different.

So many words, with many possibilities for further misunderstanding and yet i did not realy disprove the claim, but i just presented a moderately strong argument against it. So i would have to argue further, more possibility for misunderstanding.

And entirely off topic. Therefore no good reason to have such discussions.

Quote from: Brad;796809Saying the same thing repeatedly doesn't make it true.

'Our pseudo-medieval game in which there are almost no plagues or factors present in actual medieval times, with elves and orcs and magic and gods and zombies, doesn't have any gay or lesbian or trans folks in it at all because that would be, um, unhistoric/contrary to the fantasy we've decided counts (even if that fantasy has no resemblance to D&D at all)'

Explain to me how 'nothing but traditional (heterosexual) relationships exist' is not erasure.

Quote from: Omega;796633I believe Oriental Adventures touched on marriage and/or consequences.

Hell yeah. OA 1e had family featured prominently in the setting

Quote from: Ravenswing;796656We're not talking, after all, of priests of the Transgendered God/dess, who wander around stealing the genitals off of men and grafting them onto women.

...and cue my next Warhammer adventure featuring Slaanesh!

Quote from: stupidquestion;796717The 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 believe it's perfectly fine to not want any modern politics in your RPGs. It's also perfectly fine to not support companies whose politics is not your own.

In America, its your right to be a bigot if you want to. Like many on this forum, I defend the free speech right of every bigot because we limit free speech to "LOL, squee, kitttens!!!" then we all lose.

So here's your final answer: nobody here knows the future of WotC's published material so we can only blindly speculate. Considering Paizo is a making money, it's possible WotC will emulate Paizo's model of including modern political topics in their products...or not.

Your guess is as valid as ours.

Quote from: Will;796745And that's only a problem if you're making the claim that paladins are holy bound to be minmaxers.

In my settings, paladins (and clerics) are holy bound to the dictates and needs of their god. In my settings, paladins are the first and last line against magical evil so they must live, breathe and die the will of their god.

It's akin to my perspective on 40k's Space Marines vis a vis their relationship to the Emperor.

Also, my perspective on a +2 sword is probably skewed since I mostly play OD&D where a +2 demonslayer would be a really notable magic item whereas I remember that in 3e/4e, the +X was usually X = 1/3 of your level and higher +X magic was assumed to be gained at higher levels.

Quote from: Will;796796Is it 'gratuitous' or 'pandering' or SJWish or whatever? I don't know.

I have no rational idea how to identify "inclusiveness" versus "tokenism".

Maybe it's "tokenism" to be the first on the block to include XYZ, but "inclusiveness" after the tokenism becomes a trend and people half-expect XYZ to be present.

Kinda like Gandalf smoking pot in LotR.

Oh wait, that's toke'em-ism. Nevermind.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796802Ok, 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.

Good catch! That definitly changes the tenor of things dramatically.

Unfortunately it allso invalidates all my neeto plot hook ideas... darn...

Quote from: Will;796811'Our pseudo-medieval game in which there are almost no plagues or factors present in actual medieval times, with elves and orcs and magic and gods and zombies, doesn't have any gay or lesbian or trans folks in it at all because that would be, um, unhistoric/contrary to the fantasy we've decided counts (even if that fantasy has no resemblance to D&D at all)'

Explain to me how 'nothing but traditional (heterosexual) relationships exist' is not erasure.

You do realize this is a fucking game you're talking about right? It's not an exercise for pushing some political agenda. If you feel the need to add gay dudes to your game, go for it, but not including them says literally nothing other than, "I didn't include them." And, honestly, if we're supposed to be so inclusive of everyone, why even bring it up at all? Aren't you paradoxically making a big deal out of something that shouldn't be a big deal..?

EDIT: Post #666. My work here is complete.

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.

"quasi" is the keyword here. If you're playing a game set in actual medieval europe (even if it's a slightly-fantasy version of the same), then I would have an issue with the inaccuracy of portraying 21st-century style homosexual couples accepted by the 'regular society' of the time.

If you are setting it on a world that isn't Earth, that doesn't have christian monotheism as its dominant religion, that does have fireball (to say nothing of Change Self) style working magic, and monsters of all variety, then all bets are off. I wouldn't specifically have a problem with a world like that where, for particular and explicitly-understandable reasons, some or all areas persecuted homosexuality, but I also wouldn't have any problem at all with a world like that where you had a homosexual couple with adopted kids as owners of the local tavern.

And of course, if you've got a world that's like Classical Greece, or ancient India, or the pre-columbian Maya, then its just silly to be talking about the U.S. 21st century heterosexual-homosexual male-female divides at all.

In any case, if you are playing in a world called Golarion (or Faerun, or whatever) and you have no problem with Raise Dead and Orc Hordes but running into a gay couple in Waterdeep before entering the mountain-sized mad wizard's dungeon is causing you conniptions of incredulity or outrage, you may have a problem.

What level is Irabeth?? Radiance is one hell of a sword!

Quote from: Ravenswing;796792That 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?[/COLOR]

You are correct, the discussion is nearly entirely off topic and i have all the possible info. But first i have a tendency to try to answer questions i am being asked and second some of the questions were asked by the owner of this place, which makes not answering somewhat impolite.

Quote from: Will;796816What level is Irabeth?? Radiance is one hell of a sword!

Wrath of the Righteous is the adventure path that is made for the Pathfinder Mythic rules, so power level is a bit different (I mean, with Mythic rules, you could literally turn your dude into a God. With the ability to be a source for cleric powers).

Quote from: Brad;796814You do realize this is a fucking game you're talking about right? It's not an exercise for pushing some political agenda. If you feel the need to add gay dudes to your game, go for it, but not including them says literally nothing other than, "I didn't include them." And, honestly, if we're supposed to be so inclusive of everyone, why even bring it up at all? Aren't you paradoxically making a big deal out of something that shouldn't be a big deal..?

EDIT: Post #666. My work here is complete.

Welp, thanks for making my point for me. Man.

Quote from: Will;796819Welp, thanks for making my point for me. Man.

"I shall be inexplicable, thus proving my argument by obfuscation."

Sorry for wandering into an rpg.net thread expecting something other than stupidity.

Sorry for expecting direct honest conversation rather than the usual rpg.net-esque dodge and smoke bombs.

Quote from: Will;796821Sorry for expecting direct honest conversation rather than the usual rpg.net-esque dodge and smoke bombs.

QuoteWelp, thanks for making my point for me. Man.

You do realize how stupid that sounds, right?