Quote from: Will;796942http://sciencenordic.com/what-vikings-really-looked

Interesting that there seemed to be less sexual dimorphism than today, especially for faces. Judging by medieval art that might be true of other Europeans too. Roman statuary shows very 'modern' dimorphism, but then there seems to be less from the dark ages through until about the 17th century. By the mid 19th century depictions show a modern look again.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796969Nah, you've got Udol on pg. 11, Asielomar on p. 12, Ar-naney, Rheu and Buga on p. 17. (I stopped counting at page 20.)  Of course, no wives are mentioned except for Buga's wife Gwartina, which rather fits Judges Guild style: as of p. 20, there were 149 shops run by male characters and only five run by women, three of those being brothels.

Odd, maybe we were using different editions (I think I used the Necromancer Games 3e version). Might take another look.

Edit: In my copy Asielomar has a daughter, no wife mentioned, just like Jolly Naben the CE smith. Maybe you're implying in wives where children are mentioned?

Edit 2: Oh, I see you said "No wives are mentioned" - but that was what I said. Now I don't understand your point.

So far, I've have never seen ANY rpg adventures where the gender/sexual preference of any of the NPCs was integral to the adventure. Any GM could, if they dont want it in thier games, just go "okay, nope, Elvira Goblinblood is married to Scott Dragonwanker not Sonia", and in literally less than a second have changed the game so that they dont have to deal with any "political issues" (people keep calling this a political issue, but its not; Its a religious issue at most, an emotional issue more likely). So the only grounds for complaint I can see is that they dont want anyone to ever include anything besides heteronormative genders and relationships in their games. At which point its nothing to do with personal taste and becomes about censorship. Funny how these types of issues always come down to that.

Quote from: S'mon;796857It's about 65% in Paizo stuff.

There's a curious number in majority-minority demographics.  If there's just a sprinkling of minorities, no one much notices, and the minorities are completely assimilated.  But once you get 15% minorities, roughly -- whether it's the number of women on a board, the number of blacks on the streets, that's when unrest and the "OMG they're taking over!!" starts.  Almost always, the majority badly overestimate the numbers of the minority group.

Now citing Paizo is good: they really are about as egalitarian as anyone out there.

Pulling up Cities of Golarion, the first setting PDF on my access list, I count 14 female movers-and-shaker NPCs.  There were 25 males.

Pulling up Guide to Korvosa, the second on my list, the Important NPC list in the Appendix lists 11 women and 29 men.

I could keep going, but I expect I'd find similar percentages.  No: it's not 65%.  It just seems like a lot, because Paizo puts in more than a couple women in positions of prominence.

Funny that you should cite Curse of the Crimson Throne.  I have it right here.  So let's see who are the folks the book explicitly lists as important NPCs:

Male:  King Eodred, Gaedren Lamm, Garrick Tann, Marcus Thalassinus Endrin, Neolandus Kalepopolis, Severs "Boneclaw" DiVri, Syl Gar, Blackjack, Boule, Darb Tuttle, Devargo Barvassi, Glorio Arkona, Pilts Swastel, Toff Ornelos, Vencarlo Orisini.

Female:  Marshal Cressida, Queen Ileosa, Zenobia Zenderholm, Keppira d'Bear, Sabina Merrin.

So what the hell?  This isn't 65% women; it's 75% the other way, and only so little if you accept the premise that the Queen's bodyguard is an important NPC.  How about you do some counting before you start your rant, hoss?

Quote from: S'mon;796878You seem to have a rather odd notion of 'medieval etiquette'.

And he has an accurate one, too.  I was grimly amused at Barbara Tuchman searching her brain in A Distant Mirror for reasons why 14th century Europeans could be so frequently, reflexively cruel, and speculating whether mass ergot poisoning could have been a factor.

Quote from: trechriron;796970If we wanted to be inclusive, we would have a weighted chart that defined your sexuality, just like your species, gender, stats, et al. (Something like you see in Harnmaster.) The fact that you generally don't roll it randomly, nor does it have much weight in most (if any) systems, nor bears any advantage or consequence in the system (or for the most part, settings) means that our hobby has ignored this issue from the very beginning. The hard truth is - this stuff DOES make a lot of us uncomfortable. Some of us had to seek out "those not like us" and have real conversations before our heads were plucked screaming from our asses. Some of us don't want the experience.

This is not a debate about bigots and social-justice-warriors. It's a fundamental lack of respect, understanding and unwillingness to recognize an individual's liberties.

If someone is uncomfortable with sex, or gender issues, or LBGT subjects, or including topics as such in their games, why is it not acceptable they don't want to deal with it? I mean, are we going to force them? Should those who have religious convictions or moral convictions or personal convictions that gay sex and marriage are wrong be forced to play gay NPCs or run LBGT-themed adventures?

Some people are tired of the sexy, boob-popping, man-bulging unclothed art still prevalent in our hobby. Should we force them to buy products with art they don't want? Should we air-drop sexy hentai, rape-a-thon, titillating graphic adventures into their backyards?

If some gamer wants sexy-times art and subjects they should be able to find products that appeal to their tastes. If another gamer wants inclusiveness and non-hetero-normative cultures or subjects they should be able to find products that appeal to their tastes. If yet another gamer would like all you freaks to get the fuck off their lawn so they can fight monsters and win the day in a manner that does not require these lofty or lecherous subjects, then they too should be able to find the products that appeal to their tastes.

What fascinates me in all these debates is how directly HORRIBLE we all are to each other over our fucking game of choice! It's incredible. Instead of a bunch of gamer nerds gaming, creating and enjoying our shit together we find a difference and then skewer and vilify until our eyes are bleeding from the onslaught.

Here's the devastating truth. YOU ARE ALL RIGHT. All of you. Every single fucking one from the "stupid" conservative dude who can't type fluent English to the most Liberal champion. All of you.

If I say "I think that naked girl picture on the cover is gorgeous, artistic and eye-catching and more importantly inspires my inner pervert" does NOT mean I'm a woman-hating misogynist bent on revoking woman's rights.

If I say "I really like this transgendered hero on the front cover, it's artistic and relevant and inspires my inner adventurer" does NOT mean I'm a god-hating, child molester who wants to destroy Christmas and ban churches from the country.

It's not all black and white. It feels like these arguments are going to destroy the very fabric of what creative nerdy gamers are. First and foremost WE PLAY GAMES! Maybe we can't all play the same games, that's fine. Maybe we all shouldn't buy every product out there, that's fine. But for the love of the gods, why in the FUCK are we shitting on each other for what boils down to personal liberties?!?! You don't have to agree with me or like what I like but for FUCKS SAKE don't virtually sodomize me for what I DO or DO NOT like!!!

If you hurt someone, or exclude someone, or ruin someone, or slander someone, or purposefully hinder them because of their race, religion, gender, sexuality, political leanings, personal values or pretty much any such category - THEN you are an evil person. But creating games, creating art, making adventures, publishing, extolling, or playing games that you personally WANT to - is NOT evil. Creation is not evil. Playing is not evil.

We should be comfortable enough with what we want and understanding enough of what others want that we can carry on a conversation about our differences without it devolving into a shit-throwing fest.

Just my two cents...

*applause*

Yeah, well said.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796971I couldn't give a rats ass what anyone plays or wants to buy, but if a dude is going to freak out about a transgender character in an adventure, that he bought without apparently reading anything much about it...

Like all good SJWs, you do clearly give many rats' asses about it.

It's not in the blurb description of Book 1 of Wrath of the Righteous that there is any transgender element at all. Even researching it beforehand it wasn't apparent to me that there was such a big emphasis on the transgender relationship. I think I was aware there was something, from research on the Paizo boards before purchase, but I thought it would be a relatively minor element (like say the gay couple in Rise of the Runelords), not something I'd have to deal with extensively if I wanted to run the adventure for my son. I have a sneaking suspicion there was a bit of a "Ha ha bigots! Gotcha!" thing going on here.

Personally I'd like Paizo to put a Parental Advisory on their adventure content. They market Pathfinder as a mainstream replacement for D&D, the Beginner Box is clearly designed to be child-friendly, but a lot of other stuff isn't. Being a 'bigot' in SJW-speak - having a child and knowing how he thinks, that his mind & understanding are still developing - I would put the WoTR in that category. (Same goes for some of the plot elements in Runelords, eg the Book 2 serial killer).

Quote from: TristramEvans;796974So far, I've have never seen ANY rpg adventures where the gender/sexual preference of any of the NPCs was integral to the adventure...

Then go read WoTR!

Quote from: Ulairi;796931It wasn't until a few years ago and on the internet that I ran into people that seem to have romance being a big factor in their games.

It just may have been the gaming circles in which you've played.

My very first adventure as a PC, Empire of the Petal Throne in the mid-70s, had my character getting set up with an arranged marriage far too highly politically placed to duck, so the fellow PC who was my mistress and I had to keep certain things vewwy vewwy quite or risk clan dishonor or impaling stakes.  Over the years, just going down the roster of my campaign's history, I can count 33 PCs who had serious long-term relationships with NPCs, and 14 PCs who married one another.  For my part, even if I've GMed about ten times as often as I played, I've had four PCs marry fellow PCs.

I have children, and they aren't idiots. I've never had trouble explaining anything to them.

To quote Louis CK on the whole "think of the children" bullshit: "I dunno, it's your shitty kid, you fuckin' tell em. Why is that anyone else's problem?"

Quote from: S'mon;796980Then go read WoTR!

Dude, I spent two seconds figuring that one out for you up in that post you quoted that you cut the majority out of.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796975Funny that you should cite Curse of the Crimson Throne.  I have it right here.  So let's see who are the folks the book explicitly lists as important NPCs:

Male:  King Eodred, Gaedren Lamm, Garrick Tann, Marcus Thalassinus Endrin, Neolandus Kalepopolis, Severs "Boneclaw" DiVri, Syl Gar, Blackjack, Boule, Darb Tuttle, Devargo Barvassi, Glorio Arkona, Pilts Swastel, Toff Ornelos, Vencarlo Orisini.

Female:  Marshal Cressida, Queen Ileosa, Zenobia Zenderholm, Keppira d'Bear, Sabina Merrin.

So what the hell?  This isn't 65% women; it's 75% the other way, and only so little if you accept the premise that the Queen's bodyguard is an important NPC.  How about you do some counting before you start your rant, hoss?

You're including minor male villains (eg Gaedren Lamm) & leaving out major female villains (eg the high priestess of the plague goddess in Bk 2), so I'm not impressed.

The actual Korvosa authority figures within the scope of the AP who the PCs deal with are Bk 1 & 6 Queen Ileosa (f), Bk 1-3 Marshall Cressida Croft (f), Bk 3 Lord Glorio Arkona (m), and I'd probably count the leader of the Gray Maidens in Bk 6, Sabina Merrin (f).  I wouldn't count the high priestess in Bk 2 (f) or Pilts Swastel in Bk 3 (m).

IME 'Background' authority figures can be more like 50-50, but major characters are typically more like 2-1. Since Jacobs has said on the boards that this is intentional, I don't know why it's controversial.

Quote from: S'mon;796973Odd, maybe we were using different editions (I think I used the Necromancer Games 3e version). Might take another look.

Edit: In my copy Asielomar has a daughter, no wife mentioned, just like Jolly Naben the CE smith. Maybe you're implying in wives where children are mentioned?

Edit 2: Oh, I see you said "No wives are mentioned" - but that was what I said. Now I don't understand your point.

I'm using the original 1st edition.

Your "Edit 2" was my typo and my bad; I've corrected it.

Quote from: Will;796934Actually, I'd argue Erasure is really really really super gay.

Only half gay actually. Andy is gay but Vince is straight.

(And that's my sole contribution to this thread. I'm not feeding the troll by joining in the argument.)

Quote from: S'mon;796984You're including minor male villains (eg Gaedren Lamm) & leaving out major female villains (eg the high priestess of the plague goddess in Bk 2), so I'm not impressed.

The actual Korvosa authority figures within the scope of the AP who the PCs deal with are Bk 1 & 6 Queen Ileosa (f), Bk 1-3 Marshall Cressida Croft (f), Bk 3 Lord Glorio Arkona (m), and I'd probably count the leader of the Gray Maidens in Bk 6, Sabina Merrin (f).  I wouldn't count the high priestess in Bk 2 (f) or Pilts Swastel in Bk 3 (m).

What I have is the intro book, which has "Curse of the Crimson Throne" on the front cover.  For my list of notable Korvosans, I relied on the section that the authors labeled "NOTABLE KORVOSANS," with the tagline "Listed here are many of Korvosa’s most well-known names, be they famous or infamous."  Never having played the setting and only skimming those books, I figured I'd take their word for it.

Now I don't know what soft-shoe methodology you've come up with for your count, or what books you chosen to cherry-pick your numbers from, but I'm rather more inclined to accept as authoritative the assessment of the authors of the damn book as to who's important than yours, if you don't mind too much.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796982I have children, and they aren't idiots. I've never had trouble explaining anything to them.

To quote Louis CK on the whole "think of the children" bullshit: "I dunno, it's your shitty kid, you fuckin' tell em. Why is that anyone else's problem?"

Yeah.  The way I feel is along the lines of "You know, speaking from the standpoint of someone who didn't know that black people existed until I was five years old -- which led to an embarrassing situation for my mother -- if you haven't clued your kids in yet that LGBT people exist, you might want to get a move on."