TheRPGSite

1. I know this is probably not the right forum and subforum to ask, but as far as i checked, there is none and on the official D&D forum the question will probably not be answered.

2. The background of the question is the following:
I consider buying D&D stuff. But the last time i bought RPG stuff, i realized i did not get what i wanted and was ready to pay for. Instead of getting "RPG rules stuff", "RPG background stuff" and "RPG adventure stuff", i got the three and a heavy dose of what i call "political commentary" in the form of storylines, world ideas and other stuff, which directly reflected and made a stand in regard to some topics i could also read in newspapers about.

But if i would want that, i would buy a newspaper and not RPG stuff. Furthermore, it was blatantly unfitting to the whole fictional concept in my eyes.

Hence, i want to avoid to pay for "political commentary" when buying RPG stuff.

3. D & D rules have a single small paragraph which was hailed as inclusive. I do not mind. But the way some people wrote about it, i fear it might foreshadow more "political commentary".

Hence, the question, if there is much to expect from D & D in this direction.


4. If you do not know what i am talking about, i cannot do anything, because any details would probably get this thread banned or whatever is done in this forum (since tolerance must reign supreme, which makes it unavoidable to delete post and close threads - or something like that, i did not realy understand).

Thanks for any tips regarding what to expect from D&D products.

I'd expect monster stats, more spells, probably new classes and races too. As well as settings and probably storylines and linear adventures, though there are rumours that, for the better or worse, sandbox hexcrawls may return in some form, but part of that may be wishful thinking.

I'm not sure if Daily Kos or Rush Limbaugh'll be publishing their US1: Dungeon of Oppression or Atlas Shrugged campaign anytime soon.

This isn't TBP, you don't have to be nervous about posting. ;)

As for political commentary... at least in the PHB, none that I can see unless you really try to read into it.

If anything, it seems a fun, happy product with lots of references WotC can get away with (like flat-out saying 'hey, you can be a minion of Cthulhu')

First post, username "Stupid Question"?  Obvious trollsock.  This Halloween Jack again begging for morsels to feed his masters?

Aside from one comment in the PHB, there is pretty much nothing with a real agenda in it. Hence why after the initial uproar by a few nuts it quieted down and theres been little on it since.

Theres nothing of that in the MM. Just the writers odd fixation of demons and jacking them needlessly into a few other creatures background. Luckily that is all fluff that fits nothing at all and can be ignored. Dont recall any uproar over anything in the book reguarding agendas. There have been irks over some of the changes to creatures overall makeup.

Quote from: stupidquestion;7962344. If you do not know what i am talking about, i cannot do anything, because any details would probably get this thread banned or whatever is done in this forum (since tolerance must reign supreme, which makes it unavoidable to delete post and close threads - or something like that, i did not realy understand).

What are you talking about?

Give us examples, here.  What game, supplement, adventure, whatever, was it that got you asking this?

Quote from: Omega;796271Theres nothing of that in the MM. Just the writers odd fixation of demons and jacking them needlessly into a few other creatures background. Luckily that is all fluff that fits nothing at all and can be ignored. Dont recall any uproar over anything in the book reguarding agendas. There have been irks over some of the changes to creatures overall makeup.

The only political commentary about the 5th Ed MM was someone saying the representation of males creatures vs Female creatures was apparently swayed more in favour of males over females.
It seemed to me like the person in question was looking for an excuse to be outraged, but hey, whatever.

Quote from: stupidquestion;7962342. The background of the question is the following:
I consider buying D&D stuff. But the last time i bought RPG stuff, i realized i did not get what i wanted and was ready to pay for. Instead of getting "RPG rules stuff", "RPG background stuff" and "RPG adventure stuff", i got the three and a heavy dose of what i call "political commentary" in the form of storylines, world ideas and other stuff, which directly reflected and made a stand in regard to some topics i could also read in newspapers about.

Any text that differs from your chosen agenda is political commentary rammed down mah throat in mah gaems.

Any text that agrees with your chosen agenda is just telling it like it is.

Is that what you wanted to hear?

Quote from: danskmacabre;796274The only political commentary about the 5th Ed MM was someone saying the representation of males creatures vs Female creatures was apparently swayed more in favour of males over females.
It seemed to me like the person in question was looking for an excuse to be outraged, but hey, whatever.

I mercifully missed that.

Quote from: Omega;796287I mercifully missed that.

It was on TBP, as you would expect.
I read the first page or so of the thread and got bored after that.

Quote from: danskmacabre;796290It was on TBP, as you would expect.
I read the first page or so of the thread and got bored after that.

Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch.

I saw the original post that this guy's talking about. Basically, because PF and 5e have decided to be inclusive by including LBTQ-friendly elements and statements about choosing whatever gender you want, he feels excluded due to the fact that he supposedly can't outlaw these things by RAW. PF is the worse offender, because they've apparently produced adventures that very explicitly include same-sex love and marriage. There's also gay people writing some of these things.

It's all very frightening.

Maybe we should tell him that about slavery in Athas.

Quote from: Ashoka;796300I saw the original post that this guy's talking about. Basically, because PF and 5e have decided to be inclusive by including LBTQ-friendly elements and statements about choosing whatever gender you want, he feels excluded due to the fact that he supposedly can't outlaw these things by RAW. PF is the worse offender, because they've apparently produced adventures that very explicitly include same-sex love and marriage. There's also gay people writing some of these things.

It's all very frightening.

Maybe we should tell him that about slavery in Athas.

Don't quote me on this but I want to say that the Pathfinder setting assumes all people are bisexual by default and states this in the book. While that never came up in any of our games, the note did make me smile.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796234Instead of getting "RPG rules stuff", "RPG background stuff" and "RPG adventure stuff", i got the three and a heavy dose of what i call "political commentary" in the form of storylines, world ideas and other stuff, which directly reflected and made a stand in regard to some topics i could also read in newspapers about.

What did you buy?

Quote from: stupidquestion;796234Hence, i want to avoid to pay for "political commentary" when buying RPG stuff.

What games do you have that don't have any "political commentary" in them?  I'm serious. Authorial stance is common for any form of writing, but certainly some are more heavy handed.

Quote from: stupidquestion;7962344. If you do not know what i am talking about, i cannot do anything, because any details would probably get this thread banned or whatever is done in this forum

As far as I know, there are only a few banning issues on theRPGsite, (a) don't get excited about pedophilia, and (b) do not use RPGPundit's "real" name, and (c) no doxxing or supershitty behavior, or (d) anything illegal.

Other than that, free speech reigns. So start talking!!!

Quote from: Ashoka;796300I saw the original post that this guy's talking about.

Link?

Quote from: Certified;796315Don't quote me on this but I want to say that the Pathfinder setting assumes all people are bisexual by default and states this in the book.

Anybody got a link?

Quote from: Critias;796273What are you talking about?

Give us examples, here.  What game, supplement, adventure, whatever, was it that got you asking this?

Paizo 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".

Paizo is of course free to do this. And I am free not to pay for.

But since i paid inadvertently for this, because i never considered some RPG stuff might contain such blatant nonsense (a paladin, sworn to live a life of not metamophorically but literal fighting evil resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, selling her only magic weapon - also inherited from her father slain by demons - to please her lover and herself and she doesn't need attonement for this?) for "commentary" purposes, i decided to inform myself about any tendencies some company i consider buying products from might have for "commentary".

And i am not only interested about what the current books contain, but whether there's any guess about future products. Because i would mind buying basic rulebooks and then realize that further supplemental stuff again is used for "commentary" (in case you did not guess, Pathfinder basic rules do not contain any such hint).


And thats of course not the only example, but the most blatant and annoying, paladin selling her magic sword directly for personal pleasure and indirecty for authors "commentary" is nuts on so many levels.

@CRKrueger
As many of you are going to consider my question to be stupid, i thought it would be an honest name. Since i have no interest in posting here except for getting information about what to expect from D&D ( preferably also in the long run, but thats of course somewhat guessing), so i can decide whether to buy, i do not understand what your problem is.

Oh no, being transgender was not portrayed as evil and immoral, lets get the pitchforks. :rolleyes:

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339@CRKrueger
As many of you are going to consider my question to be stupid, i thought it would be an honest name. Since i have no interest in posting here except for getting information about what to expect from D&D ( preferably also in the long run, but thats of course somewhat guessing), so i can decide whether to buy, i do not understand what your problem is.

The name is appropriate.

I think most "information" you might get here about what to expect from D&D will be speculation.

A paladin, sworn to self sacrifice and utter devotion to helping others, to alleviating the plight of the suffering?

Sounds perfectly in line, unless the divine of your setting is kind of an asshole.

I mean, heck, maybe someone's Divine Order forbids using salad forks and the paladin didn't know. Woops!

Edit:
Mind you, I'm imagining a very compelling LG Fighter who has a chip on his shoulder that the Gods are wrong about gays (or trans, or whatever), and was never able to become a paladin.

You'd be best off waiting until there's a specific book that's been released that you might want to buy, and asking about that one book.  But without giving an exhaustive list of things that offend you, you also need to find a forum that's in perfect agreement with your tastes.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796341Oh no, being transgender was not portrayed as evil and immoral, lets get the pitchforks. :rolleyes:

Well yeah, because obviously the OP adapting the adventure to something he can use is totally out of the question. :rolleyes:

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339And thats of course not the only example, but the most blatant and annoying, paladin selling her magic sword directly for personal pleasure and indirecty for authors "commentary" is nuts on so many levels.

Well so far there is none of that in 5th ed. There is a single entry in the PHB telling players to play what they want. Whatever gender or orientation. nothing new or outlandish there. Guys have been playing amazons since probably the get go and gals have been playing barbarians about as long. Nothing new there either and it doesnt even indicate orientation. The player just felt like playing outside the box.

WOTC so far has not shown the occasionally ham handed agenda Pazio has. And the paladin example given is a bit excessive. But seems to fit the odd bias Pazio likes. The base idea is a valid and good one. I just dont like how Pazio pushes it.

So Id say that 5e you arent going to see those sorts of issues. WOTC seems to trust the players to sort this out for themselves rater than be hit over the head with it.

Quote from: rawma;796352But without giving an exhaustive list of things that offend you, you also need to find a forum that's in perfect agreement with your tastes.

Such list is implicit in "political" commentary, but to give it explicitely:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html

The opposite list aka republican program is of course also meant.


I would prefer to buy rpg entertainment products that mostly or completely shut up about those topics, which are matter of more or less current political campaings, especially if the entertainment product picks a side. (And yes, i am aware that some form of entertainment e.g. television regularly picks a side, but that doesnt change my preference in respect to RPG products)

@iandimitri

Speculation is sufficient, since in retrospect when checking earlier comments, speculation and products from/about paizo, i realized, i could have spotted a lot earlier, that their products are from my POV deficient in that respect. Hence, speculation will do fine.


@Will

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin
"Through a select, worthy few shines the power of the divine. Called paladins, these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil. Knights, crusaders, and law-bringers, paladins seek not just to spread divine justice but to embody the teachings of the virtuous deities they serve. In pursuit of their lofty goals, they adhere to ironclad laws of morality and discipline. As reward for their righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests: powers to banish evil, heal the innocent, and inspire the faithful. Although their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls they would save, paladins weather endless challenges of faith and dark temptations, risking their lives to do right and fighting to bring about a brighter future."

Note especially "these noble souls dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil" and "their convictions might lead them into conflict with the very souls"; these are dedicated warriors who put their cause, which is hacking evil into bits and pieces and upholding the good law, above mere feelings, preferences or needs of individuals, which might profit from the paladin being a little less zealous.

Selling one's sword to help someone to deal with a mostly psychological and non-life-threatening condition just because one is emotionally attached to the person is perfectly fine for CG, more or less ok for NG, maybe for some LG (depending upon whether their presonal duties allow separation from their weapon) but not for paladins, which "dedicate their swords and lives to the battle against evil".


Furthermore, there are other needy in this scenario, namely the inhabitants of insufficiently defended small villages and towns, which tend to suffer from raids from demons in that scenario.

But maybe thats the point where my understanding fails, i simply cannot comprehend, why suffering from biologically being male although female would be preferred is even remotely relevant enough to giving away useful weapons, when real demons can any moment smash in your door and rip out your arms and legs to keep you alive long enough to enjoy them slowly devouring your loved ones. I just don't get it.

(Note, in our world the calculus might be different, because real demons do not smash in doors in this world, so helping those with "gender issues" would rank more closer to the top of the priority list.)

edit: I guess more shortly described, the highlighting of political "issues" of our world in a fantasy world, which has radically different problems, causes for me a total immersion failure. With such a scenario i am then not in Golarion or elsewhere, i am then at a democratic national convention or so.

@Bren
I prefer not to pay for stuff, which needs to be repaired directly, if there is chance i might get stuff that works as i prefer.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339As many of you are going to consider my question to be stupid, i thought it would be an honest name. Since i have no interest in posting here except for getting information about what to expect from D&D ( preferably also in the long run, but thats of course somewhat guessing), so i can decide whether to buy, i do not understand what your problem is.

We might consider YOU a piece of work, but no, your question isn't stupid.

The answer isn't hard: in any roleplaying work, the odds are pretty good that the authors are going to set forth some descriptions of (a) how morality works in that game, or (b) how the populace generally feels about various moral issues.  The odds are pretty damn good, I expect, that one or more of those tenets will conflict with one or more of your personal views.

To imagine that this is "social commentary" is idiocy.  One of my two parties is set in the elven empire, which is characterized as a haven of goodness and enlightenment.  Among other traits, the child-happy elves view birth control as suspect and abortion as a disgusting crime.

You might find this incongruous with me being a sometime abortion-rights activist, but like many another creator of fictional settings, my setting doesn't necessarily reflect my political or social views.

But that's really a side issue.  Your question is really "How can I guarantee that I'll never see any concept I might find morally distasteful in a RPG product?"

One answer is: you can't, don't try, and if this bothers you that much, then design your own setting -- where you're in complete control of what people believe -- and have done with it.

Another answer is right here. (https://www.facebook.com/HolyLandsRPG)

Quote from: stupidquestion;796373Such list is implicit in "political" commentary, but to give it explicitely:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/democratic-party-platform_n_1853120.html

The opposite list aka republican program is of course also meant.

Your issues go well beyond RPGs.

QuoteSelling one's sword to help someone to deal with a mostly psychological and non-life-threatening condition...

Really? Non-heterosexuality is not a psychological condition. That's really fucking rude, ignorant and insulting to a lot of people. Obviously not anybody that you would ever associate with, but those still actually are real people. You might even have to deal with them in real life sometimes (gasp!).

Next, you'll start telling us that vaccines cause autism, and same-sex marriage promotes beastiality. Where do you live and what year is it there?

QuoteBut maybe thats the point where my understanding fails, i simply cannot comprehend, why suffering from biologically being male although female would be preferred is even remotely relevant enough to giving away useful weapons, when real demons can any moment smash in your door and rip out your arms and legs to keep you alive long enough to enjoy them slowly devouring your loved ones. I just don't get it.

It's called a poorly written love story. PF modules are not high literature. You're stuck on the fact that it's not a mommy and daddy in love.

Quoteedit: I guess more shortly described, the highlighting of political "issues" of our world in a fantasy world, which has radically different problems, causes for me a total immersion failure. With such a scenario i am then not in Golarion or elsewhere, i am then at a democratic national convention or so.

Yeah, like I said: I don't think this issue is really about RPGs.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796333Link?

Anybody got a link?

I had to go digging around because like most good trivia, I have no clue where I picked that one up. What I found seems to focus on the iconic characters through.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i8wy&page=12?Homosexuality-in-Golarion#584

http://www.jimzub.com/the-inclusive-fantasy-world-of-pathfinder/

You know, you can enjoy something while not agreeing with the author's personal views about non-gaming things.

But saying this to a person who thinks that homosexuality and transgenderism are of "Evil" alignment... is kind of pointless.

B.T wherefore art thou?

Okay, well I'm glad this guy answered/asked, at least, so I can safely ignore his opinions, now.

Quote from: Necrozius;796390You know, you can enjoy something while not agreeing with the author's personal views about non-gaming things.

Usually i do, but not when the author actively tries to voice his opinion and form the readers opinion and thats not what i want to buy.

Quote from: Necrozius;796390But saying this to a person who thinks that homosexuality and transgenderism are of "Evil" alignment... is kind of pointless.

Funny, because i never said i consider homosexuality and/or transgenderism evil. The only thing i more or less said is that a paladin in a "frontline setting" selling a decent magical sword to please her lover and herself and further her marriage is acting selfishly enough and so much in disrespect of her sworn duty, that she needs attonement. I even said that the behavior might probably fit CG, so nothing with calling it evil. And no statement about how homoseyuality/transgenderism itself is to be qualified morally.

On the other hand, paizo staff members explicitely stated that good gods may not be against marriage equality, which is rather close to saying opposition to marriage equality is evil. And its not that that message shocks me much or puts me in anguish, after all the US supreme court majority last year said something very similar. Its that i simply do not want to pay anybody for telling me something about politics, which i already know and can read in nearly every newspaper, when i am paying for a game meant for my enjoyment.

@Ashoka
What is the rage about? According to the storyline, the paladins lover is deeply unhappy about being biologically male. What is insensitive to call that a "condition"? She/he is unhappy about her/his situation and usually when somebody is deeply unhappy about something, that something is ngeatively affecting her/him and it would be nice if the situation could be alleviated. I realy do not know why it is insensitive to call that negative situation a condition, considering it has negative psychological effects upon the person.

"Yeah, like I said: I don't think this issue is really about RPGs."
Yes, because its about paying for A and getting also B, so its about lack of information about a product.


@Ravenswing
"To imagine that this is "social commentary" is idiocy. One of my two parties is set in the elven empire, which is characterized as a haven of goodness and enlightenment. Among other traits, the child-happy elves view birth control as suspect and abortion as a disgusting crime."
The difference is, paizo would declare such a society to be evil, probably lawful evil. You probably do not put that society on the evil side, thereby avoiding the commentary.

"but like many another creator of fictional settings, my setting doesn't necessarily reflect my political or social views."
Difference with paizo (and i suspect some other companies) is their settings reflect their political and social views and are meant to reflect and to be understood that way. Therefore i made the comparison to some congress of a political party. Paizo is pro-cant-name-it-because-i-would-probably-use-the-wrong-wording-and-therby-be-insensitive and clearly communicates this through their published material. Fine. I just have no desire to pay for that.

As evidence:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy90q9/discuss&page=10?Pathfinder-Adventure-Path-73-The-Worldwound-Incursion
" James Jacobs Creative Director    Aug 20, 2013, 10:23 PM | Flag |
List
| Reply
20 people marked this as a favorite. +
James Jacobs
Kittyburger wrote:

    I would like to see Paizo's internal notes on how LGBTQ+ characters fit into Golarion, sometime and somehow... not that I ever expect to see them published in a formal book anywhere (a girl can dream, though...), but we've seen enticing hints here and there.

    I've written up a for-personal-use list of the deities of Golarion I think would be particularly trans friendly and I sometimes wonder how it matches up to Paizo's.

    (If Anevia's devotions are any indicator, though, I bet there's a fairly close confluence between my list and Paizo's)

Those notes are basically as follows:

GLBT characters exist in Golarion, so make sure they're included.

As long as Paizo continues to have GLBT employees, we'll continue to put GLBT characters into our products. In fact, even if the employee thing changes, we'll still put GLBT characters into our products. As long as I have anything to say about it at least. There's a gay couple in the next adventure, in fact, so the inclusiveness isn't stopping with Anevia and Irabeth in this AP.

Furthermore, I'm gonna keep doing this in our APs until it's no longer an issue and folks just talk about the adventure without really pausing to discuss whether any one NPC is a sorcerer or wizard. And at that point I'll keep doing it.

Anyway... keep on topic. And since there are LBGT characters in the adventure, that part of the discussion IS on topic... but keep it civil, please!"

He obviously wants to include a certain message into the products he is responsible for. He is free to do so and i am free to see this as negative and buy elsewhere. Just have to check whether other companies do something similar.

edit:
And for people misreading, the issue is not having LGBT-chars in, the issue is use them in a way to make a political statement. But thats included in James Jacobs intent, because he posted this just in the discussion about that selfish paladin, so the message was fine with him, although i think he does not comprehend how the message distils down to a "pro-LGBT as paizo understands good, anthing else evil".

@Omega
Thanks for your guess.

It's also D&D. Magic swords are not exactly uncommon. When I've played 3e, it wasn't unusual to loot weapons that were a bonus behind or equal to what we already had, or even better, but we just preferred whatever we had. (Like 'well, I really like having my +2 Greatsword, so I'm going to pass on the +3 Longsword... I'll take my share of the treasure to work on improving my Greatsword's bonus later)

Also, in Pathfinder, if the paladin has a weapon bond... the sword is actually fairly unimportant and mostly a RP thing.
If the weapon is sold or destroyed, the paladin is at a -1 penalty to attacks/damage and can't bind with another weapon for a month... and then can pick up any sword and be fine.

So in terms of 'effectiveness at fighting demons,' it's making a life-changing benefit to someone vs. one month of being slightly sub-par in combat. And, depending, the party might have another sword on hand that will do at least ok.

Rules here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin

Quote from: stupidquestion;7962341. I know this is probably not the right forum and subforum to ask, but as far as i checked, there is none and on the official D&D forum the question will probably not be answered.

2. The background of the question is the following:
I consider buying D&D stuff. But the last time i bought RPG stuff, i realized i did not get what i wanted and was ready to pay for. Instead of getting "RPG rules stuff", "RPG background stuff" and "RPG adventure stuff", i got the three and a heavy dose of what i call "political commentary" in the form of storylines, world ideas and other stuff, which directly reflected and made a stand in regard to some topics i could also read in newspapers about.

But if i would want that, i would buy a newspaper and not RPG stuff. Furthermore, it was blatantly unfitting to the whole fictional concept in my eyes.

Hence, i want to avoid to pay for "political commentary" when buying RPG stuff.

3. D & D rules have a single small paragraph which was hailed as inclusive. I do not mind. But the way some people wrote about it, i fear it might foreshadow more "political commentary".

Hence, the question, if there is much to expect from D & D in this direction.


4. If you do not know what i am talking about, i cannot do anything, because any details would probably get this thread banned or whatever is done in this forum (since tolerance must reign supreme, which makes it unavoidable to delete post and close threads - or something like that, i did not realy understand).

Thanks for any tips regarding what to expect from D&D products.

It'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.

1989, don't worry, you'll always have RaHoWa.

Quote from: 1989;796410It'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.

Link?

I found this:
http://www.themarysue.com/sexuality-and-gender-diversity-dungeons-and-dragons-next/
"MM: Any social change takes time. My personal sense is that I’ve always been much more leery about offending gay and transgender folks by fumbling the issue in an effort to include them. I’m not worried about offending bigots – quite the opposite, in fact. The value lies simply in acknowledgement, and realizing that it’s better to put something out there than remain quiet out of a misplaced bout of sensitivity."

Thats not directly saying anyone not endorsing homosexual acts is a bigot. He just names two groups, one are "gay and transgender folks", the other are "bigots" but i do not see the indication there are no further groups.

but that part realy makes me wonder, how limited some people's imagination must be:
"JC: Including the material brings value in two big ways:... and it encourages our other players to consider the spectacular array of characters that they can create in D&D."

Why should one need "encouragement" to realize that girdle of sex change, animate dead and its ilk, awaken, the ability to summon and enslave succubi and the wide arrange of intelligent but non-human creatures of various sizes allow for a throng of different sexual orientation concepts without ever breaching the rule of "only between consenting adults"?
(Ok, with succubi it would not be consenting, but i guess thats ok with demons.)

Quote from: Will;796408If the weapon is sold or destroyed, the paladin is at a -1 penalty to attacks/damage and can't bind with another weapon for a month... and then can pick up any sword and be fine.

So in terms of 'effectiveness at fighting demons,' it's making a life-changing benefit to someone vs. one month of being slightly sub-par in combat. And, depending, the party might have another sword on hand that will do at least ok.

Rules here:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin

Since when are battles to defend innocents vs demon forces restricted to 15 min adventuring day?

Only then the pal skill can compensate for the lack of magic sword.

Quote from: 1989;796410SJWs are hijacking RPGs to appease the 2-3% of the North American population that is gay/whatever.

SJW means social justice warrior?

Quote from: stupidquestion;796419SJW means social justice warrior?

Yes !

There was a thread on this topic a little while ago.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=30886

SJW is social justice warrior, yes.

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.

The problem is you're using Paizo adventure paths. They're chock full of anachronistic behavior and attitudes. If it's not a transgender sex change, it's a single mom tending bar to put herself through university, or a teenaged runaway who resents his step-dad. If you want D&D material without goofy modern tropes, then stop buying Paizo material. I'd also recommend you focus on setting-based material, instead of the soap-opera, deep-background railroads Paizo puts out. Frog God and Goodman Games are publishers who pretty much ignore this stuff and focus on adventure setting content.

As for WotC D&D, it's not clear how much of the material is going to be of the 'modern 20-something Seattle hipster in the body of a Ranger' stripe. It looks like they'll be outsourcing a lot of their adventure content, so it will probably depend on the publisher.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796373@Bren
I prefer not to pay for stuff, which needs to be repaired directly, if there is chance i might get stuff that works as i prefer.

Good luck with that.

I've seldom used an adventure anyone else wrote without it needing some revision to fit some aspect of my campaign, the setting, a particular set of PCs, the likes and dislikes of my players, and my likes and dislikes. In addition, I routinely adapt adventures to different systems, settings, genres etc. That's part of my fun in being the GM. The notion that a minor adjustment like which genders are attracted to which is so onerous as to change the value ratio for you just boggles my mind...well really it just makes me think that this isn't at all about you being ripped off in your purchase because you have to do a tiny bit of work. This is about you looking to be offfended and using the adventure path as an excuse for you to vent your rage at changing mores in western society.

Quote from: Critias;796394Okay, well I'm glad this guy answered/asked, at least, so I can safely ignore his opinions, now.

And yes, there is that as well.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796247First post, username "Stupid Question"?  Obvious trollsock.  This Halloween Jack again begging for morsels to feed his masters?

I thought the SA-authorities finally got sick of all the shit they were getting for Grog.txt and shut the thing down for the last time?

I guess Jack may have moved on to other pastures.  Lately, I saw him flaming on a German forum, of all places, where he was trying to sabotage a thread about a recent interview I'd given.

Obsessive-compulsives are funny. In a tragic way, but funny.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796418Since when are battles to defend innocents vs demon forces restricted to 15 min adventuring day?

Only then the pal skill can compensate for the lack of magic sword.

Since when isn't it?

You're also noticeably avoiding the point that magic weapons aren't rare.

Giving your love a life-changing gift because you sold a family heirloom is great story that is likely to have 0 impact on your actual adventuring power.

Quote from: danskmacabre;796274The only political commentary about the 5th Ed MM was someone saying the representation of males creatures vs Female creatures was apparently swayed more in favour of males over females.
It seemed to me like the person in question was looking for an excuse to be outraged, but hey, whatever.

Wasn't this from Tracy Hurley, the same 'feminist' who thinks that Aleena the Cleric from the old D&D basic red box, in her full head-to-toe armor, looks like a slut...

(http://www.rpgdollies.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Aleena.jpg)

 with her "come hither" look and "Money shot" posture? (those last two are literal quotes, by the way)


If it is Hurley, no one in the hobby takes her seriously anymore. Because, well, stuff like the above; plus being caught in outright lies told to try to destroy people she disagreed with.

Quote from: Ashoka;796300I saw the original post that this guy's talking about. Basically, because PF and 5e have decided to be inclusive by including LBTQ-friendly elements and statements about choosing whatever gender you want, he feels excluded due to the fact that he supposedly can't outlaw these things by RAW. PF is the worse offender, because they've apparently produced adventures that very explicitly include same-sex love and marriage. There's also gay people writing some of these things.

It's all very frightening.

Maybe we should tell him that about slavery in Athas.

Somehow, I think the idiots that would have a problem with the idea of having two guys in a fantasy RPG setting being in love with each other would have fuck-all problem with slavery.

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".

So you would define it as "wrong" to give up a treasured possession to help someone you love who is suffering terribly?

Is that your argument? Because if so, ok, you could certainly try to argue that the problem here has nothing to do with it happening to be a couple where one person is transgender and it is all about how it is a Moral Wrong to put one's own happiness or even the happiness of the person you love above your greater religious and moral duty to fight evil. Totally possible.
But then... what does any of that have to do with "moral commentary about issues currently fought"?

Either shit or get off the pot: are you pissed off because they are not portraying a Paladin in the way you expect and sexual identity has nothing at all to do with that... in which case you have no issue with "current events"?
Or are you pissed off because you think transgender people are icky or wrong, and this whole "a Paladin has a special duty" thing is a bullshit argument you've set up to try to divert well-deserved criticism for being such a prejudiced fuckwit?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796437Somehow, I think the idiots that would have a problem with the idea of having two guys in a fantasy RPG setting being in love with each other would have fuck-all problem with slavery.

I think I'll put this right here.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/15716389981_c4973067c1_o.png)

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.

You're so fucking ridiculous.  Obviously, no one is forcing you to make your next Ranger gay.  So your problem with this actually amounts to RPG products even acknowledging the factual existence of homosexuality or non-binary gender.  Just saying "this exists" is a problem to you; because no where have I seen D&D do anything other than that; I don't know very much about pathfinder (having never bothered with it) but apparently the big issue the OP has is that it's being portrayed as a thing (and because a paladin is involved, a non-evil thing; which is different from even saying it's objectively good).

So yeah, the lead designer of D&D is right: if you have such a problem with something that actually exists that you want a fantasy setting to be less reflective of reality by not having any mention of it at all, you are a bigot.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;796440are you pissed off because they are not portraying a Paladin in the way you expect and sexual identity has nothing at all to do with that... in which case you have no issue with "current events"?

They use the paladin against his role to depict being in favor of their political position regarding "current events" as lawful good and thereby mark those opposing their political position as evil; thats why i am "pissed". (no more details, cause you probably anyway dislike long posts)

Quote from: Certified;796441I think I'll put this right here.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/15716389981_c4973067c1_o.png)

:rotfl:

Quote from: Will;796433Since when isn't it?

Since battles last longer than 15 mins?

Quote from: Will;796433You're also noticeably avoiding the point that magic weapons aren't rare.

Cause its a waste of space to counter the argument, pal is lev 5, weapon is +2 to pay for the potion with 50% sell value and +2 is great for lev 5.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796449They use the paladin against his role to depict being in favor of their political position regarding "current events" as lawful good and thereby mark those opposing their political position as evil; thats why i am "pissed". (no more details, cause you probably anyway dislike long posts)

So if it was a heterosexual gender-conforming male/female couple, and the paladin needed to sell her sword to free her lover from a non-fatal but devastating curse that had left him in a body not his own, you'd have no problem with her doing so?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796456So if it was a heterosexual gender-conforming male/female couple, and the paladin needed to sell her sword to free her lover from a non-fatal but devastating curse that had left him in a body not his own, you'd have no problem with her doing so?

Still a problem, cause pals are supposed to think futher than people personally dear to her, but less, because it would not indicate anything about today politics and would not indirectly call 20-50% of population of western countries evil (exact numbers i would have to look up in polls).

Quote from: stupidquestion;796458Still a problem, cause pals are supposed to think futher than people personally dear to her, but less, because it would not indicate anything about today politics and would not indirectly call 20-50% of population of western countries evil (exact numbers i would have to look up in polls).

Your answer makes it pretty clear that this whole "we must preserve the role of the paladin" thing is just an irrelevant side-tracking of your main issue: you think transgender people are icky.

To the point that you are willing to go to absurd lengths as to what the game system is saying in what was clearly a paizo-standard 'novel plotline in rpg product railroad' bad-pseudoliterary-drama shitfest (seriously, I can just imagine some second-rate failed-novelist imagining himself to be the next O. Henry for having added that scene to a game supplement).

However stupid it might be, or hipster the motivation might be, let's look at what YOU are doing: you have started a thread in a site you've never been on before (unless you're a sockpuppet, and we're looking into that right now), where you're trying to argue that a Paladin not immediately losing her powers for loving a transgender person is not just a statement that having a transgender love is 'not bad enough to lose abilities' but is rather stating that LGBT relationships are an absolute moral good making those who dislike them a an absolute moral evil, all just because a paladin sold her sword to help her lover.

So let's extrapolate this in another direction: Let's say the paladin's lover was fat, instead of transgender.  And the paladin was selling the sword to pay for liposuction.   IF paizo had done this instead, would they be:
a) putting in a ridiculous anachronism while thinking they're clever, because they're shitty writers and even shittier adventure-designers?
b) stating that its ok for a paladin to give up a treasured magic item in order to help someone she loves?
or
c) claiming that ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE FATTIES IS HITLER?

I mean, I could get it, if paizo had some scene in one of their shitfest adventures where you had, say, an evil order of knights that persecute transgender people and they were the bad guys.  Let me be clear: in the real world, people who persecute transgender people ARE bad guys, but that would probably just be done in the book as heavy-handed and over the top writing that would engage in stupid moralizing masquerading as adventure.
But paizo didn't even fucking do that!

So yeah, all of this, all of this concern about how the paladin theoretically won't be able to kill theoretical demons now because of the Transgender Agenda, and how her god not immediately smiting her for selling a weapon to help someone she loves, is all because you think transgender people are icky.

Just say it.
Admit it.
You'll feel better if you stop trying to hide your true feelings, won't you?
Come out and say it, and stop pussyfooting around if its what you actually believe and you don't think it's wrong.  If you're worried about being banned, take note that I'm the OWNER of this forum (and also the first guy to ever put a transgender character on the cover an RPG rulebook, so there's also that!), and I'm promising you that you won't be banned for sharing what you really think about transgender people.
You might be banned if you turn out to be a sockpuppet, or if you turn every other thread you post in into an soapbox for a totally off-topic personal issue, or if you post porn, or if you stalk someone else. But I absolutely PROMISE that you don't have to hide behind arguments about fictional paladins serving fictional gods and not getting fictionally punished here, you won't be banned for just saying that you don't want any of those icky transgender people in your RPGs, and showing us all just what a stupid fucking bigot you really are.

You'll just be ruthlessly mocked, and have your arguments torn to shreds by people smarter than you.

Because I strongly believe no one should ever be banned or censored for saying stupid fucking bigoted things.  It causes us all to lose learning opportunities that way.

You know what they say, there are no stupid questions, only inquisitive idiots.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466But I absolutely PROMISE that you don't have to hide behind arguments about fictional paladins serving fictional gods and not getting fictionally punished here, you won't be banned for just saying that you don't want any of those icky transgender people in your RPGs, and showing us all just what a stupid fucking bigot you really are.

You'll just be ruthlessly mocked, and have your arguments torn to shreds by people smarter than you.

Because I strongly believe no one should ever be banned or censored for saying stupid fucking bigoted things.  It causes us all to lose learning opportunities that way.

For some reason I feel like clapping.
:cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

RPGPundit lays the smack down. Well said on all points.

Quote from: Certified;796441I think I'll put this right here.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/15716389981_c4973067c1_o.png)

I just laughed aloud at work. Weird looks from everyone around me and a quizzical eyebrow from my supervisor. I'm just glad he didn't come over and ask me what was so funny.

Thank you so, so much for that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466Your answer makes it pretty clear that this whole "we must preserve the role of the paladin" thing is just an irrelevant side-tracking of your main issue: you think transgender people are icky.

Dear petty, mercurial gods on Olympus, that was fucking beautiful.

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".

Paizo is of course free to do this. And I am free not to pay for.

But since i paid inadvertently for this, because i never considered some RPG stuff might contain such blatant nonsense (a paladin, sworn to live a life of not metamophorically but literal fighting evil resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, selling her only magic weapon - also inherited from her father slain by demons - to please her lover and herself and she doesn't need attonement for this?) for "commentary" purposes, i decided to inform myself about any tendencies some company i consider buying products from might have for "commentary".

And i am not only interested about what the current books contain, but whether there's any guess about future products. Because i would mind buying basic rulebooks and then realize that further supplemental stuff again is used for "commentary" (in case you did not guess, Pathfinder basic rules do not contain any such hint).


And thats of course not the only example, but the most blatant and annoying, paladin selling her magic sword directly for personal pleasure and indirecty for authors "commentary" is nuts on so many levels.

I have a bunch of Paizo stuff and that (Book 1 of Wrath of the Righteous) is by far the most extreme bit in anything they've put out. Rise of the Runelords also has a gay Paladin in a committed long term relationship but it's pretty conventional modern liberal morality, not the off-the-deep-end-SJWing tone I got from Wrath of the Righteous.

WoTC traditionally avoided any commentary on modern "World War G/World War T" type stuff - when I decided some of the official-WoTC NPCs in their 4e FR setting were gay in my Loudwater campaign, that was a choice I got to make myself, not something WoTC declared; WoTC avoided discussing the sexuality of their NPCs at all, whereas Paizo often spend several paragraphs on it - or a couple pages in the case of that WoTR couple (and I'm still not sure I understand what can possibly be going through the head of that half-orc Paladin - the sex-swap Rogue character actually makes a lot more sense).

I think if you stick with WoTC material up to 2014 you should be ok. Probably even current & future material - I don't think they'll be going Full Paizo, though you never know.

Quote from: Certified;796441I think I'll put this right here.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/15716389981_c4973067c1_o.png)

Awesome. Reminds me of my half-orc bard who wanted to open a bakery/pastry shop.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796405And for people misreading, the issue is not having LGBT-chars in, the issue is use them in a way to make a political statement.

They've got much more extreme on this over time. The 2007 Runelords gay couple could easily be taken as "these characters just happen to be gay." Some other NPCs disapprove of them, most don't, the text indicates that this is normal in a NG-aligned settlement but there is no hit-you-over-head with it. By 2013 with 'World War T' in the media they had gone far, far more overtly political in their stance, and I expect that will continue. Presumably this works for them financially, but I've started finding it pretty tiresome. I guess I'd suggest if you buy any more Paizo stuff, get 2012 or earlier - they were always strongly socially liberal but it didn't come across as fetishised the way it does now.

Quote from: S'mon;796514They've got much more extreme on this over time. The 2007 Runelords gay couple could easily be taken as "these characters just happen to be gay." Some other NPCs disapprove of them, most don't, the text indicates that this is normal in a NG-aligned settlement but there is no hit-you-over-head with it. By 2013 with 'World War T' in the media they had gone far, far more overtly political in their stance, and I expect that will continue. Presumably this works for them financially, but I've started finding it pretty tiresome. I guess I'd suggest if you buy any more Paizo stuff, get 2012 or earlier - they were always strongly socially liberal but it didn't come across as fetishised the way it does now.

Can you believe them, now they want to give robots their own gods.

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/ironGods

Quote from: RPGPunditKicks sockquestion's ass into his hat.

Holy crap, that was a thing of beauty.  Good to know the old boy still has it in him. :D

Quote from: Certified;796441I think I'll put this right here.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3953/15716389981_c4973067c1_o.png)

That's an Oglaf cartoon if I ever read one. :rotfl:

The Paladin in question is not "wrong" for selling off her father's +2 Sword. Here's why: She's 5th level and has a Divine Bond (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Divine-Bond-Sp-) which allows her to enhance any weapon she's wielding with a +1 bonus. This means that at MOST she's losing a +1 to attack and damage rolls. I think that's a fair compromise for the potion she wants for her spouse.

But I don't think this is really about paladin's possibly breaking their vow or the code.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466Come out and say it, and stop pussyfooting around if its what you actually believe and you don't think it's wrong.  If you're worried about being banned, take note that I'm the OWNER of this forum (and also the first guy to ever put a transgender character on the cover an RPG rulebook, so there's also that!), and I'm promising you that you won't be banned for sharing what you really think about transgender people.

Boom, motherfuckers.

Quote from: Batman;796522The Paladin in question is not "wrong" for selling off her father's +2 Sword. Here's why: She's 5th level and has a Divine Bond (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/paladin#TOC-Divine-Bond-Sp-) which allows her to enhance any weapon she's wielding with a +1 bonus. This means that at MOST she's losing a +1 to attack and damage rolls. I think that's a fair compromise for the potion she wants for her spouse.

But I don't think this is really about paladin's possibly breaking their vow or the code.

As written, the half-orc paladin NPC seems to exist only to validate the sex-swap Rogue NPC. Her attitude to him/her is exactly the same at all stages of his /her identity. They are romantic lovers, then married:

1. When the Paladin thinks the Rogue is a woman.
2. When the Paladin knows the Rogue is a man pretending to be a woman.
3. When the Paladin gives the Rogue the magic potion so that the Rogue has had a magical sex change and become a woman.

The Paladin as written seems to have no sexual orientation (there's no indication that she's bisexual). It's stated that the sex of the Rogue is irrelevant to the Paladin. The way it's written, her love for the Rogue is described as a sort of exalted 'on a higher plane' thing, transcending bodily concerns. But they are also happily (and officially) married, presumably involving conjugal relations.
I can't make sense of this character, or at least I can't make sense of the author's attempt to depict the character. She comes across more as a political statement than a person.

Quote from: S'mon;796527As written, the half-orc paladin NPC seems to exist only to validate the sex-swap Rogue NPC. Her attitude to him/her is exactly the same at all stages of his /her identity. They are romantic lovers, then married:

1. When the Paladin thinks the Rogue is a woman.
2. When the Paladin knows the Rogue is a man pretending to be a woman.
3. When the Paladin gives the Rogue the magic potion so that the Rogue has had a magical sex change and become a woman.

The Paladin as written seems to have no sexual orientation (there's no indication that she's bisexual). It's stated that the sex of the Rogue is irrelevant to the Paladin. The way it's written, her love for the Rogue is described as a sort of exalted 'on a higher plane' thing, transcending bodily concerns. But they are also happily (and officially) married, presumably involving conjugal relations.
I can't make sense of this character, or at least I can't make sense of the author's attempt to depict the character. She comes across more as a political statement than a person.

Potions must be how the cool kids are doing it these days. I remember when you had to wear a belt  (http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Girdle_of_femininity/masculinity)in D&D land to get gender swapped. I also remember a +2 to Strength but that's besides the point.

Quote from: S'mon;796527As written, the half-orc paladin NPC seems to exist only to validate the sex-swap Rogue NPC. Her attitude to him/her is exactly the same at all stages of his /her identity. They are romantic lovers, then married:

1. When the Paladin thinks the Rogue is a woman.
2. When the Paladin knows the Rogue is a man pretending to be a woman.
3. When the Paladin gives the Rogue the magic potion so that the Rogue has had a magical sex change and become a woman.

The Paladin as written seems to have no sexual orientation (there's no indication that she's bisexual). It's stated that the sex of the Rogue is irrelevant to the Paladin. The way it's written, her love for the Rogue is described as a sort of exalted 'on a higher plane' thing, transcending bodily concerns. But they are also happily (and officially) married, presumably involving conjugal relations.
I can't make sense of this character, or at least I can't make sense of the author's attempt to depict the character. She comes across more as a political statement than a person.

Go watch Boys Don't Cry (starring Hilary Swank) and you might get a better understanding of that sort of relationship. In the movie Hilary Swank is a girl who adopts a male persona and finds love from another girl. The girl in the movie, discovers that Hilary is really a girl, and is OK with it.

So, from that perspective, the Paladin loves this person no matter what their sex is and the Rogue in question wants to change their sex. The paladin, wanting to see their spouse truly happy, does something expensive to make her lover's dreams come true.

It 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.

Some people don't seem to understand that someone can be fully supportive of gay marriage and real-world transgendered rights, and have no interest in seeing it in RPGs not because of politics, but because modern real-world social issues and politics are simply dumb and irksome in D&D adventures. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Paizo adventure path includes a magical version of fracking. The evil elemental warlock Egson is using water elementals to force primordial ooze out of the earth and fouling the elvish Meadows of Dahko-tah. Can you help your elvish step-brother Connor stop Egson, and restore the Meadows to their natural state?

But it seems politics and group-signally trump all on the interwebz these days.

Quote from: Batman;796532Go watch Boys Don't Cry

Or "The Crying game", which has a real twist to the story, but applicable to this thread somewhat.

Quote from: S'mon;796527The Paladin as written seems to have no sexual orientation (there's no indication that she's bisexual). It's stated that the sex of the Rogue is irrelevant to the Paladin. The way it's written, her love for the Rogue is described as a sort of exalted 'on a higher plane' thing, transcending bodily concerns. But they are also happily (and officially) married, presumably involving conjugal relations.
I can't make sense of this character, or at least I can't make sense of the author's attempt to depict the character. She comes across more as a political statement than a person.

It does seem odd, and not necessarily something some folks (myself included) can relate to. On the other hand, I know a married couple, one of whom is TG, and they were together before she underwent her transition, so it does happen.

Eh. I think Pundit has the right of it. Stupidquestion's primary beef doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rules or setting, (s)he just thinks trans people are icky.

Edit: Also, what Haffrung said.

Quote from: woodsmoke;796539It does seem odd, and not necessarily something some folks (myself included) can relate to. On the other hand, I know a married couple, one of whom is TG, and they were together before she underwent her transition, so it does happen.

That seems to be common with middle-aged couples. Husband becomes a lesbian, wife stays with him-her.

I guess my biggest problem with the half-orc Paladin is actually the middle stage - she seems to be lesbian, but she has no problem with her girlfriend being a man. But is also happy to get him the sex-change potion.

Quote from: S'mon;796546That seems to be common with middle-aged couples. Husband becomes a lesbian, wife stays with him-her.

I guess my biggest problem with the half-orc Paladin is actually the middle stage - she seems to be lesbian, but she has no problem with her girlfriend being a man. But is also happy to get him the sex-change potion.

Or, you know, she's bisexual, and cares about the person more than their gender.

Yeah, that doesn't really make sense to me either. I'm content to just chalk it up to crappy writing possibly/probably backed up by a postmodernist "it's all just socialization" belief. Which is mildly irritating, but it's also an adventure module. I learned to stop taking anything in those seriously decades ago (right about the time I started playing tabletop RPGs in the first place).

Edit: Or what Ladybird said. Again, adventure module. I'm even less impressed with those than I am with most splatbooks.

Or, you know, or

And I know this one might be hard for people to get

Cause apparently it is

She saw her wife was a woman the whole time whether she had man parts or not? Cause she was. That is what being transgender is.

Quote from: Certified;796528Potions must be how the cool kids are doing it these days. I remember when you had to wear a belt  (http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Girdle_of_femininity/masculinity)in D&D land to get gender swapped.

Given that (in the Greyhawk magic item tables) there were 2 chances of a girdle of femininity/masculinity and one chance of a girdle of giant strength, we thought ourselves very clever for recruiting a character who wanted to change gender to test out any magical girdles.  Little did we suspect that we could also have demanded +2 swords for the privilege.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796552Or, you know, or

And I know this one might be hard for people to get

Cause apparently it is

She saw her wife was a woman the whole time whether she had man parts or not? Cause she was. That is what being transgender is.

This.

Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

If I may - would a Paladin ever end up married, gender roles notwithstanding?

In my mind (having played a Paladin or two in my day), they would be utterly committed to their deity, and things like physical/emotional entanglements would distract them from their "mission" in life. Like Jedi, I guess? Except for that one that we all know, who got into such entanglements, and we see how he ended up.

One reason I prefer game religions to be more mysterious is that I would think it interesting to have paladin sects fiercely at odds over doctrine, when you can't just ring up the gods and say 'hey, is this unlawful?'

Quote from: Will;796559Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

  This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

  Now, that's the majority position in the online RPG community, and certainly the hip and trendy one at the moment. (I"m not sure if the cult of Moloch Paneros is going to continue on the advance, or if it's overreached itself--and I fear a reaction untempered by wisdom and charity if the latter's the case.) But it's not anything close to a consensus, especially in the broader society, and Haffrung raises the point that many people would find it intrusive regardless of their own beliefs on the matter.

In modest defense of stupidquestion, I would say that there is stuff I don't want in my RPG adventures.  Not out of bigotry; I don't like evil player characters, soap-opera-level melodrama, thinly veiled allegory, horror, and probably a host of other things that many people seem to like in RPGs and that I don't necessarily object to in other forms of entertainment.  (I was persuaded to buy Kittens in a Blender on the promise that you're trying to keep kittens out of the blender; but really that's your kittens only and the objective is to puree the other players' kittens.  That purchase made me unhappy.)  And I'd like some way of finding out if a given purchase is going to be something I won't like.  Internet reviews and less confrontational, more specific questions should do it.

I'd also add that published adventures featuring paladins tend to be a minefield because there are so many incompatible notions as to how a paladin should or must behave.  But especially please spare me stupidquestion's utilitarian paladin who makes all decisions solely based on maximizing the hurt to evil forces.

I also don't think it's fair to insist that anyone who buys a pre-made adventure is going to have to put in substantial work to adapt it; I don't buy that sort of product much but it seems to me that avoiding work I would otherwise have to do would be the major motivation.  If that's expected anyway then there's little point--what time are you saving in return for your money?  (I don't know how significant this was for the adventure in question; if it plays the same with a random curse substituted, then that's not asking much.)

I am curious; stupidquestion, how many Paizo adventures have you bought?  From what others say, this seems to be the most extreme example; were you unlucky enough that this was the first, or were you happy with all of the previous ones, and if so, how many?

Quote from: Will;796565One reason I prefer game religions to be more mysterious is that I would think it interesting to have paladin sects fiercely at odds over doctrine, when you can't just ring up the gods and say 'hey, is this unlawful?'

Hmm, I see - Sunni and Shia, for example? Or Catholic and Lutheran?

....nah.

If the ENTIRE POINT of a Paladin is that they enforce the actual, TRUE intentions of their ACTUAL, REAL deity (as per the fact that, in fantasy games with Paladins, said deities ACTUALLY DO EXIST), then there is no room for "sects". That's the whole point of D&D-esque religions... there is no ambiguity, no questioning - the god(s) DO in fact exist, and make it known on a fairly regular basis.

This has been covered in a multitude of places, over many decades. Just sayin'.

As I said before, I've played a Paladin on a couple of occasions, and in my (and the other people in my groups') opinion, a Lawful Good Paladin is almost, if not more, frightening than a Lawful Evil whatever. At least, that's how I play 'em.

Werekoala, you never followed Eberron, did you?

Gods were nonobvious, and doctrinal arguments were quite possible.

Quote from: Will;796572Werekoala, you never followed Eberron, did you?

Gods were nonobvious, and doctrinal arguments were quite possible.

Nope, got me there - never did "follow" Eberron. I prefer my D&D old-school. If they portrayed deities as vague, amorphous, new-age, touchy-feely, whatever-floats-your-boat non-entities, then I can't even imagine why they'd need Paladins as a class.

Oy, you guys with your politics in everything. As bad as the radfems.

Look, ambiguity creates interesting conflicts. Conflict makes for fun games.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;796569This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

I'll be completely honest. If you don't think that transgender and non-hetero adult sexual relationships are morally equivalent to cis and hetero adult sexual relationships, I don't give a shit if you are offended or not. Actually, no, wait, I hope that anyone who doesn't believe that is offended, and leaves the hobby forever.

To follow up my last idea, I had a fun idea for a paladin v paladin war:

A bunch of 3e werebear paladins realize 'hey, anyone we bite becomes a LG werebear... Crusade!'

And a bunch of other paladins go 'uh, no...'

Quote from: Werekoala;796573Nope, got me there - never did "follow" Eberron. I prefer my D&D old-school. If they portrayed deities as vague, amorphous, new-age, touchy-feely, whatever-floats-your-boat non-entities, then I can't even imagine why they'd need Paladins as a class.

Wait, vague dieties that have split sects with different doctrines is newage? Someone tell Henry VIII.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;796569This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

Begging the question is something many folks engage in . The bible, for example, is hardly a universally accepted source of morality. Yet religious people frequently point to the bible as if it was actually going to settle the moral question.

QuoteBut it's not anything close to a consensus, especially in the broader society, and Haffrung raises the point that many people would find it intrusive regardless of their own beliefs on the matter.

People who find it intrusive should do what I do when I find some bit of RPG material doesn't suit me. Don't buy it. Or buy it and revise it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796582Wait, vague dieties that have split sects with different doctrines is newage? Someone tell Henry VIII.

You know what I mean. Go back and read Deities and Demigods and tell me how much gray area each deity had in regards to their followers.

This isn't Real Life (tm) we're talking about, despite what some folks would try to force us to believe.

I was more joking about you calling it newage and touchy feely.

Lots of dark/gritty fantasy has had more unknowable gods. I actually prefer Gods who don't literally have the ability to walk the Earth and run their churches directly in settings. It makes things less interesting to me when there is no ambiguity.

And not having perfectly knowable gods doesn't really preclude the idea of holy knights.

Quote from: rawma;796570I also don't think it's fair to insist that anyone who buys a pre-made adventure is going to have to put in substantial work to adapt it; I don't buy that sort of product much but it seems to me that avoiding work I would otherwise have to do would be the major motivation.

It wouldn't be fair, perhaps, if it required substantion work.

But I'll go out on a limb here and say that it seems highly unlikely that substantial work is required. How essential are the exact details of the paladin's transgendered relationship really? Is there some reason that stupidquestion person couldn't just change the situation that requires the Paladin to sell the family heirloom sword to something that fits a couple getting married with genders that don't upset his world view?

Aren't Paladins supposed to give away wealth or make significant tithings? Maybe the Paladin is low on cash and needs to sell the sword to pay for some other things. Ten seconds of thought turned up a few possibilities that could fit in with couples of any gender: buying a home, castle, or tower to live in, setting up a business to retire to and support the couple in their old age, providing savings for children, their education etc., creating a trust as insurance to support the spouse and any kids in case the Paladin ends up biting it, maybe setting up an orphanage to help the less fortunate, or maybe just new towels and a set of fine china.

It's not like it requires a major rewrite, a substantial rewrite, or even a moderate rewrite. So bitching about it just shows the OP is either whining and bone idle lazy or is just trolling.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796589And not having perfectly knowable gods doesn't really preclude the idea of holy knights.

Our Real World (tm) is full of unknowable gods, and holy knights - again, look no further than Islamists, or Knights Templar, etc. However, I can see where you're coming from, of course.

Still, in D&D there is no ambiguity.The gods are demonstrably real, and that changes the dynamic completely. As has been said elsewhere, what's the point of "faith" if your deity can be called upon for actual, measurable, help every day by their Clerics? And if your god is demonstrably real, then Paladins in the D&D sense make... sense. You're a holy warrior in the service to a god that can level mountains, drain rivers, spread (or cure) plagues, etc. for realz, yo.

Point being, PALADIN, in the D&D sense, has a definite meaning, and it's not gray at all - it's all based on the dictates and desires of your (alignment) GOOD god.

And with that being said, then anything you, as a Paladin, do that goes against said dictates disqualifies you to be a Paladin. Ipso facto.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796589And not having perfectly knowable gods doesn't really preclude the idea of holy knights.

Oh you say that like there are actual examples of holy knights of an unknowable deity. ;)

Quote from: Werekoala;796591Point being, PALADIN, in the D&D sense, has a definite meaning, and it's not gray at all - it's all based on the dictates and desires of you (alignment) GOOD god.

Just because the god sometimes manifests and is good does not mean that the god is necessarily chatty to the point that the god's will is always known with certainty. Remember these are limited deities. They are not omniscient, omnipotent, nor ominpresent. There is still some room for ambiguity. Which is a damn good thing in a game. Ambiguity allows players to make choices and to face consequences. If there is only one right answer. And that answer is known. Playing the character sounds boring and like they could easily be replaced with a robot.

Just because clerics have demonstrable powers, doesn't mean there is zero ambiguity in the worship of them.

Even if the existence of Gods is completely provable, it doesn't mean we will necessarily know everything they desire for their followers to do, and that there will never be a split in belief systems.

I mean, maybe a sect splits off because of their dietary beliefs. If the god doesn't really care one way or another, that sect might believe they are the true sect, and the other sect is getting powers from somewhere else. Who knows?

Two different sects could think they are even worshipping and getting powers from two different gods, which actually turn out to be the same god.

Gods being demonstrably true in a setting does not equal a lack of ambiguity.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796339But since i paid inadvertently for this, because i never considered some RPG stuff might contain such blatant nonsense (a paladin, sworn to live a life of not metamophorically but literal fighting evil resistant or immune to non-magic weapons, selling her only magic weapon - also inherited from her father slain by demons - to please her lover and herself and she doesn't need attonement for this?) for "commentary" purposes, i decided to inform myself about any tendencies some company i consider buying products from might have for "commentary".

First up, Paizo's Pathfinder is NOT WotC's D&D. Different games, different companies. If you don't like Paizo's politics or quality of writing, you are under no obligation to support them. I don't like Pathfinder's rules so I don't give them my money.

I actually agree with you there's a problem with the Paladin's actions here, and it has nothing to do with gender of the lover.

As a GM, my gods hold Paladins to a higher standard in my games because they are important pawns in the mortal world for that god's power to be manifested. There are plenty of ways for that NPC to have adventured for gold to buy that potion that did not involve selling a magical weapon.

In my games, if a paladin were to sell their only magic weapon for a raise dead for their (mom, lover, child, best bro, whoever), there would atonement because a Paladin with a +2 Demonslayer is a valuable tool of their god.

BTW, Divine Bond is a once per day ability. So I don't see it as a replacement for a magical weapon.  

For me, the Paladin's act was "good, but not lawful" as the Paladin did not take into consideration the effect of her action on her temple and her community.

No reason to strip powers, but certainly my gods would geas that Paladin to either retrieve that weapon or quest for an even greater one.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796373I would prefer to buy rpg entertainment products that mostly or completely shut up about those topics, which are matter of more or less current political campaings, especially if the entertainment product picks a side.

Then don't buy White Wolf or Paizo. Boom, done.

Quote from: Ashoka;796379Next, you'll start telling us that vaccines cause autism, and same-sex marriage promotes beastiality.

Ashoka, stop denying hot bear on bear action!!!

Quote from: Will;796433Giving your love a life-changing gift because you sold a family heirloom is great story that is likely to have 0 impact on your actual adventuring power.

Only with a crappy GM. This tale could become very interesting. What about the father's ghost? Who bought the demon slaying sword? What if the Paladin's god had plans for the Paladin to wield that sword? What about the sword itself?

There are lots of possibilities for "no good deed goes unpunished" and "unintended consequences" by a good GM. Paizo could have made their story more interesting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796448Obviously, no one is forcing you to make your next Ranger gay.

That's not true. I am totally forcing 1989 to make his next Ranger gay. I am sitting her right now casting a ritual curse upon him through the computer screen!

Will, touch your noggin to the screen to empower my curse upon him!

Quote from: Certified;796528Potions must be how the cool kids are doing it these days. I remember when you had to wear a belt  (http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Girdle_of_femininity/masculinity)in D&D land to get gender swapped. I also remember a +2 to Strength but that's besides the point.

Good point. D&D's had gender swapping for a long time.

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.

What percentage of NPCs are "gay/whatever," do you think?  In, y'know, the whole game industry (which is, after all, what is being hijacked and ruined), I mean.  

Do you think it's maybe 2-3%?  Higher?  Lower?  What do you think the percentage is?

Quote from: Will;796559Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

Very little in the D&D material I've used. Certainly not the soap-opera level that Paizo takes it. But Paizo has their audience (largely people who read their books as hackneyed fantasy fan-fic, but don't actually play).

Quote from: Will;796559But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

Ooh, I've been privilege-dissed.

Look, that crap doesn't want work with me because I'm almost certainly more liberal than you are. And by that I mean true liberal - I don't give a shit what other people do or believe. I really don't. But modern progressives of your ilk very, very much give many shits. That's why you feel you need to be ever-vigilant about what other people say and believe so you can point out their privilege.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;796569But it's not anything close to a consensus, especially in the broader society, and Haffrung raises the point that many people would find it intrusive regardless of their own beliefs on the matter.

It's not intrusive because of my beliefs. It's intrusive because it has fuck all to do with the real purpose of most adventures, and serves only to burnish the halos of the authors and signal to fellow ideologues that they're on the same side in an Absolutely Vital Struggle.

Quote from: Bren;796590It's not like it requires a major rewrite, a substantial rewrite, or even a moderate rewrite. So bitching about it just shows the OP is either whining and bone idle lazy or is just trolling.

My experience with Paizo adventure paths is that I have to excise so much anachronistic soap-opera bullshit that all the NPC background and motivations and plots - about 30 per cent of material - is unusable. So these days I stick to setting-based adventure material, where I can create my own NPCs and plots that aren't parables about the cultural hang-ups of left-leaning hipster geeks from Seattle.

In all the years I have played RPG, the groups I have been in have never "saved a princess (or prince)", had characters in romantic relationships (either with each other or NPCs), or dealt with interpersonal "icky stuff" (boy meets orc, falls in love, etc etc). You know "politics" with a small P.

I was going to write more. It became a pompous rant. You play games that have relationships in, I don't. What?? No marriages, sexualities, love, or romance stuff? nope. Don't want it. Which is why I don't understand the need to "include" these things or mention them regardless of who or what is involved in that equation.

Some game producers do. They make games they want to play, other people play them. Good for them.

Me? I am currently (yes, still) perplexed by the notion of deities in games. I actually freaked out and emailed a GM recently about the PCs being chosen and going on a religious quest. A jumping off point for a campaign, but really? Higher beings? Divine? Prayer?? I covered that in another post ages ago though.

>in before anyone says "muh cthulhu" fhtagn.

Yes, it "problematises" clerics in fantasy RPGs. So what.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796601Only with a crappy GM. This tale could become very interesting. What about the father's ghost? Who bought the demon slaying sword? What if the Paladin's god had plans for the Paladin to wield that sword? What about the sword itself?

There are lots of possibilities for "no good deed goes unpunished" and "unintended consequences" by a good GM. Paizo could have made their story more interesting.

Oh definitely!

I only meant that, from a sterile character power point of view, losing a +2 sword is a rather minor thing. Heck, by level 10 or so you need a wheelbarrow to carry out all the +1 weapons you can end up with.

STORY-WISE, it's a lot more potentially interesting, but that, of course, is up to GMs and players to tinker as desired.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796601Will, touch your noggin to the screen to empower my curse upon him!

BY THE POWER OF THE GIANT PINK POTATO, I COMMAND THEE!!!

Quote from: Bren;796590But I'll go out on a limb here and say that it seems highly unlikely that substantial work is required. How essential are the exact details of the paladin's transgendered relationship really? Is there some reason that stupidquestion person couldn't just change the situation that requires the Paladin to sell the family heirloom sword to something that fits a couple getting married with genders that don't upset his world view?

My point was in general; you can feel bad about buying a given adventure if it requires too much work to make it playable for you.

For this adventure, it's a pointless argument since neither of us seems to know enough about the actual adventure in question to say how much work is required.  Yes, the obvious solution is to change the genders and switch to some other circumstance; changing race, removing a significant curse, etc; then figure out any consequences to that change.

Quote from: Haffrung;796605My experience with Paizo adventure paths is that I have to excise so much anachronistic soap-opera bullshit that all the NPC background and motivations and plots - about 30 per cent of material - is unusable. So these days I stick to setting-based adventure material, where I can create my own NPCs and plots that aren't parables about the cultural hang-ups of left-leaning hipster geeks from Seattle.

Your experience in needing to excise 30% of Paizo material is irrelvant to the OP who bitched about just one thing. Not about 30% of the content. And fixing that one issue is easy and in no way comes even remotely close to needing to fix 30% of the adventure content. Which leads me to conclude that he is bone idle lazy (and I have little sympathy for people that lazy), that this was just an excercise in trolling, or both.

Quote from: rawma;796615My point was in general; you can feel bad about buying a given adventure if it requires too much work to make it playable for you.

Yes one can. But obviously that wasn't the OP's real point.

Quote from: Werekoala;796587You know what I mean. Go back and read Deities and Demigods and tell me how much gray area each deity had in regards to their followers.

This isn't Real Life (tm) we're talking about, despite what some folks would try to force us to believe.

Agree.

Typically a god might allow 2 groups to flourish under their banner and power their miracles and what not but when the two sides get into a fight, unless they are the god of "dicking around with people for fun", one of the sides will find that their magic doesn't work.

Its not like history where all the gods are made up. These gods are actually manifest entities with their own projects and goals.

I can see a deep game of some type where religious sects are at war with each other all supported by a single god where the god turns out to be evil and duping their followers or where it was the god of war or chaos or such like but if you are running paladins RAW as lawful good folk then they don't usually worship the Gods of Death, Chaos and War.  Now if you allow paladins to be holy knights of any religion not just the good ones so you can have a CE Paladin of Charak the Destroyer, Lord of Primal Chaos then sure maybe he wants to power up folks on each side.

Quote from: Will;796559Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

TSR did a series called HeartQuest or somesuch which were fantasy romance Endless Quest books.

I believe Oriental Adventures touched on marriage and/or consequences. But been ages and dont have the book handy to check.

And of course Dragonlance has that whole romance a dragon thing going.

Overall though the actuall marriage part was left open ended just like laws and other aspects. Stuff the DM can set up or not.

Quote from: Will;796433Giving your love a life-changing gift because you sold a family heirloom is great story that is likely to have 0 impact on your actual adventuring power.

I 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.

Beyond which, I rather doubt StupidQuestion would demand that the paladin perform no action that didn't maximize her adventuring power in other ways.  Is he against paladins having personal relationships at all?  Those could distract you from Fighting Evil.  Does he require that paladins train every available hour of every day?  If you're not in top condition, after all, your ability to Fight Evil is impaired.  Does that paladin avoid charity of all kinds?  After all, giving your gold to the poor means you're not buying the best Evil Fighting gear you possibly can.

No?  Somehow I didn't think so.

Quote from: Will;796576Look, ambiguity creates interesting conflicts. Conflict makes for fun games.

Yep.  My retort to your rebutters comes in several flavors:

1) For starters, not everyone plays D&D, startling though this concept may be to some of you;

2) Beyond that, "D&D" is a damn broad church stretching over forty years of massive rules and setting changes, and declaring ANY paradigm to be universal is silly;

3) Given that in the great majority of D&D settings, the information given about the doctrine, dogma and practices of the various faiths tops out on a paragraph or three, I'm not nearly so sanguine that every clerical type has comprehensive, definitive information;

4) I don't necessarily believe that the objective reality of the gods presumes that they are disseminating such information to their worshipers; and

5)  Excuse me?  Gods are real in D&D but NOT in the Real World?  Sorry, but there are billions of people completely convinced that God (Allah, Jehovah, Krishna, whomever) is real, completely convinced in the accuracy of divine revelation, and completely convinced that they know the Truth.  No doubt there are a number of ISIS fanatics mowing down "apostates" even as I type who would agree that they are "paladins," even if they'd jeer at the nomenclature: they are relentlessly fighting the apostates and unbelievers, in a holy war, to the death, for the glory of Allah.  You might think they're full of shit ... but then again I could be an agnostic in your game world who thinks that "divine" manifestations are simply cleverly-disguised wizardry.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796458Still a problem, cause pals are supposed to think futher than people personally dear to her, but less, because it would not indicate anything about today politics and would not indirectly call 20-50% of population of western countries evil (exact numbers i would have to look up in polls).

Well we do love our obvioustrolls being obvious here don't we? (no offense whatsoever meant to our former forum member here of that moniker. HE will always be missed) Your name is well chosen. I'm mildly curious as to who you'll turn out to be? Guessing either that Rooster fellow or someone from SA, but maybe you're a completely new creep.

Hi, welcome (or welcome back?) to the RPGSite. One of the last bastions of free speech dedicated to the RPG hobby online these days. Whatever disagreements I may have with Pundit or any of his theories about life, the universe and everything, I 100% respect him for standing behind his convictions on this, and salute him as a worthwhile human being for that. Its a conviction I share: that free speech is import. Important to society, important to freedom, important morally and ethically. The price of free speech means that I have to put up with people saying things I don't like. That recently happened on another thread on this site and I'm sad to say it actually upset me. If you knew me as a person that might shock you a little. Why am I telling you this? Because I'm about to take some of that out on you. Fair warning.

Anyways, as I was saying, standing behind my conviction for free speech means that I honestly believe you have the right to say whatever you like. Just like I have the right to respond to what you say. So, all that foreplay out of the way...

You are a massive fucking bigot. Go to hell. If you are actually worried there might be a trend in D&D that they might allow gay or any other sexual minorities to be mentioned in a positive light? Dont play D&D. Go thump your Bible and pat yourself on the back  for thinking you're a good person for being so concerned with the completely harmless things that other free people chose to do to pursue their own personal brand of happiness. Feel free to condemn D&D 5th's writers (or me) as some "liberal crazies" and fret to yourself how the "sanctity of marriage" is being ruined by people you dont know and you'll never meet, and wrap yourself in that self-absorbed cocoon so that you never have to actuually face whatever problems abouut yourself you're obviously trying to avoid thinking about by concentrating on the percieved "sins" of others. You complete and utter twat.

And on top of that to be a complete pussy in how you go about it? Grow some goddamn balls, you wanker. Man up and wear that KKK hoodie proudly as you peddle your shit.




And if you are just a troll here just saying this stuff to get a reaction? Well, you're just as responsible as the bigots who actually believe this crap.

Quote from: Haffrung;796536Some people don't seem to understand that someone can be fully supportive of gay marriage and real-world transgendered rights, and have no interest in seeing it in RPGs not because of politics, but because modern real-world social issues and politics are simply dumb and irksome in D&D adventures.

Bullshit.  Just bullshit.  No one is ever going to convince me he's "fully supportive" of such rights at the same time he's telling me that the mere existence of gays or transgendered characters in a RPG book puts him off.  Anyone who tries is either a liar or self-deluded.

We're not talking, after all, about Gay Cults who are seeking to turn all straights queer.  We'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.  We're not talking about LBGT festivals or LBGT populations.  We're not even talking about a dozen LBGT characters in every product any one company puts out.

What 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.

And 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.

It 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.

Quote from: Ravenswing;796656Bullshit.  Just bullshit.  No one is ever going to convince me he's "fully supportive" of such rights at the same time he's telling me that the mere existence of gays or transgendered characters in a RPG book puts him off.  Anyone who tries is either a liar or self-deluded.

We're not talking, after all, about Gay Cults who are seeking to turn all straights queer.  We'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.  We're not talking about LBGT festivals or LBGT populations.  We're not even talking about a dozen LBGT characters in every product any one company puts out.

What 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.

And 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.

It 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.

Yep.

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.

Quote from: Will;796559Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

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

Quote from: Bren;796590It wouldn't be fair, perhaps, if it required substantion work.

But I'll go out on a limb here and say that it seems highly unlikely that substantial work is required. How essential are the exact details of the paladin's transgendered relationship really?

As far as I can tell from only having Book 1 of Wrath of the Righteous, it's presented as very important and the PCs deal with it as they interact with the male-to-female character and subsequently her half-orc Paladin wife (the cover character of the AP issue), who seems to be a major plot element. It does not seem to be easily discardable fluff as far as I can tell. I tried running it for my son (7) who loves the WoTR demon minis and was keen to play the WoTR AP, but I remember it giving me a headache when I tried to modify it to something more comprehensible for a 7 year old who is still grappling with "two mummies can't make a baby together, even when they're married".

Quote from: Haffrung;796605My experience with Paizo adventure paths is that I have to excise so much anachronistic soap-opera bullshit that all the NPC background and motivations and plots - about 30 per cent of material - is unusable. So these days I stick to setting-based adventure material, where I can create my own NPCs and plots that aren't parables about the cultural hang-ups of left-leaning hipster geeks from Seattle.

Hmm, yes. I'm running an AP currently, but I'm starting to think that the best way to use Paizo material is just to sandbox with their setting material while avoiding their Adventure Paths, or just use bits and pieces of the APs (dungeons, encounter tables & suchlike). It seems to be the APs where the 'bad fanfic' feel is by far the strongest, especially the more recent ones. Unlike old White Wolf stuff it does not seem to be a problem with their setting material, which avoids 'metaplot' & such, and is generally more play-oriented, whereas the APs seem more oriented for reading - something I have no interest in doing outside of game-prep.

AC4, 6+2 HD, rubbery green skin, regenerates 3 HP per round, 3 attacks, 2 claws 1-4 each, 1 bite 1-8.

@all
What did you have to argue about to fill 7 pages?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466Your answer makes it pretty clear that this whole "we must preserve the role of the paladin" thing is just an irrelevant side-tracking of your main issue: you think transgender people are icky.

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.
But i would generalize that to other opinions, since there should not be something special about mine, hence i asked with this threads for "political commentary" in general.

See it this way, i am sure you agree that some of the words in your post are not utmost polite in respect to the quality of my character (which is ok, nobody forced me to read it). Consider that if i bought a product and then to my suprise would not only find what i wanted to pay for, but rather a condemnation of my character and political views written in the style you wrote?
Why shouldn't i try to avoid paying for products containing such friendly statements in the future?

Because while its ok for you to say what you say, i am unwilling to pay for it.

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

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466where you're trying to argue that a Paladin not immediately losing her powers for loving a transgender person is not just a statement that having a transgender love is 'not bad enough to lose abilities' but is rather stating that LGBT relationships are an absolute moral good making those who dislike them a an absolute moral evil, all just because a paladin sold her sword to help her lover.

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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466So let's extrapolate this in another direction: Let's say the paladin's lover was fat, instead of transgender.  And the paladin was selling the sword to pay for liposuction.   IF paizo had done this instead, would they be:
a) putting in a ridiculous anachronism while thinking they're clever, because they're shitty writers and even shittier adventure-designers?
b) stating that its ok for a paladin to give up a treasured magic item in order to help someone she loves?
or
c) claiming that ANYONE WHO DOESN'T LIKE FATTIES IS HITLER?

If there would be differing opinions in politics regarding the legal framework in respect to liposuction and paizo publisher would name the including of such scenarios as mandatory for paizo material and other paizo material would back up the general direction, then yes, it could be c).

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466I mean, I could get it, if paizo had some scene in one of their shitfest adventures where you had, say, an evil order of knights that persecute transgender people and they were the bad guys.  Let me be clear: in the real world, people who persecute transgender people ARE bad guys, but that would probably just be done in the book as heavy-handed and over the top writing that would engage in stupid moralizing masquerading as adventure.
But paizo didn't even fucking do that!

http://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.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466So yeah, all of this, all of this concern about how the paladin theoretically won't be able to kill theoretical demons now because of the Transgender Agenda, and how her god not immediately smiting her for selling a weapon to help someone she loves, is all because you think transgender people are icky.

Just say it.
Admit it.
You'll feel better if you stop trying to hide your true feelings, won't you?

Admitting something that is not true, is lying.

And it is not true, because if someone told me now "do not worry, paizo stopped including political commentary regarding LGBT, they now only paint people in favor of high taxes as evil and they certainly deserve it, those commies." it wouldn't matter much, because using RPG to paint someone else merely for a differing political opinion as evil is as bad as painting me as evil and i would not like to pay for such material.

Besides, i am trying to estimate what i am to expect from some product. My feelings about anything are irrelevant for that question, because whatever i feel the product would not change.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466Come out and say it, and stop pussyfooting around if its what you actually believe and you don't think it's wrong.  If you're worried about being banned, take note that I'm the OWNER of this forum (and also the first guy to ever put a transgender character on the cover an RPG rulebook, so there's also that!), and I'm promising you that you won't be banned for sharing what you really think about transgender people.
You might be banned if you turn out to be a sockpuppet, or if you turn every other thread you post in into an soapbox for a totally off-topic personal issue, or if you post porn, or if you stalk someone else. But I absolutely PROMISE that you don't have to hide behind arguments about fictional paladins serving fictional gods and not getting fictionally punished here, you won't be banned for just saying that you don't want any of those icky transgender people in your RPGs, and showing us all just what a stupid fucking bigot you really are.

But since you are the owner here and ask so nicely and politely, people being straight is preferable to being LGBT, but the question whether anything can actually influence whether someone is straight or LGBT is unanswered as far as i know; hence, saying aloud that its preferable might be impolite, cause maybe they cannot do anything about it.

And watching porn including anal sex etc. makes me feel what you maybe mean with "icky"; but that is not dependent upon the gender of the participants (but unavoidable has the consequence, that i prefer not to watch gay porn; though i tried to reduce my porn consumption even regarding straight porn).

And i do not see any reason to think of a male with something chirurgically removed as "she" or a female with something chirurgically added as "he", though talking about, i usually try to avoid this due to politeness issues. If i change the color pigmentation of my skin, i am still member of a white ethinic and not member of a black ethnic, whatever i or other people choose to call me.

Enough soul stripping? In what way does this help with the thread topic?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466You'll just be ruthlessly mocked, and have your arguments torn to shreds by people smarter than you.

I always enjoy this whenever it happens. But it happens seldom.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796466Because I strongly believe no one should ever be banned or censored for saying stupid fucking bigoted things.  It causes us all to lose learning opportunities that way.

That is to be respected, which - in case you wondered - is the reason why i asked in this forum. With other forums i suspected the chance of banning with such questions is a lot higher. And here i get at least some answers (@S'mon: Thanks)

Besides, if you want me to be as politely to you as you are towards me, you need to say so. I am not used to that level of politeness.

Old Geezer has the right of it.

Alternatively, this....

Quote from: rawma;796570I am curious; stupidquestion, how many Paizo adventures have you bought?  From what others say, this seems to be the most extreme example; were you unlucky enough that this was the first, or were you happy with all of the previous ones, and if so, how many?

Several beforehand and they were mostly ok, though getting neutral chars raiding innocent coastal villages in Shackles and having a perfectly flexible but ready to be monogamous heir to a thorne with magically enforced sucession of a kingdom at threat of demon invasion in case of interregnum, while no author ever seemed to connect the dots, that if the heir shacks up with a female ragtag from the other side of the world in a monogamous relationship, then the subjects would feel insecure, seemed to be small lapses from the authors side.

But with wrath of the rightous i noticed that some of the things irritating me, where actually part of a specific political message, paizo deliberately inserted. So i stopped, especially as i deceiphered the message to be:

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796570I'll be completely honest. If you don't think that transgender and non-hetero adult sexual relationships are morally equivalent to cis and hetero adult sexual relationships, I don't give a shit if you are offended or not. Actually, no, wait, I hope that anyone who doesn't believe that is offended, and leaves the hobby forever.

If they ask me to not buy their products because i am a bigot about whom they give a damn and with whom they want to have nothing to with, i felt additionally encouraged to avoid their products. (Yes, emporer norton posted this, but it nicely sums up what i think is behind paizos position.)

Quote from: Bren;796586People who find it intrusive should do what I do when I find some bit of RPG material doesn't suit me. Don't buy it. Or buy it and revise it.

And 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.

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.

   Basically, stuff coming out of White Wolf or the companies headquartered in the People's Republic of Greater Seattle (Paizo, WotC, Green Ronin, etc.) seems likely to take a more overt stand in favor of the Spirit of the Age. WotC has been less bold, but based on Mearls' comments in interviews, that seems likely to change, especially now that the Paragraph has been so well received. Outside that, it seems to be largely hit or miss. I'm not aware of any companies that have said 'we don't want to address these high-tension, divisive issues', largely because any such statements are likely to be met with shouts of "BIGOTRY! Doubleplusungoodthink! To the guillotine!"

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.

A deity of chaos that inspires a cult whose goal is to switch genders around magically sounds kind of interesting.

If the switch is magical and temporary it could be a prankster deity. Maybe sometimes, very rarely if the person affected really wants and likes the change the change is permanent. So a prankster deity who is occassionally benevolent.

On the other hand if the switch is painful and permanent it could be a terrible, horrible deity.

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.

This 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.

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!

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?

:p

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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot) 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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry) 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:

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)

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... :D

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?

Brad.

Explain how 'real world has gay people, this fantasy world has none' does not constitute erasure.

Is that simple enough for you?

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815"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.

I think this is the fundamental point. Not all settings are replicas of medieval Europe. Dueteronomy may or may not be a thing in your setting. And if you tend to set stuff in the ancient world rather than medieval, there is even more room for dealing differently with sexuality. At the end of the day I think there are two kinds of fantasy settings, those that cleave very close to the real history and those that use the past as a source for inspirational backdrops but take great liberties (think Hercules and Zena where lots of modern stuff flows into the content freely). It is really a spectrum. But even if you are dealing with something strictly rooted in the middle ages, gay people would still exist in that setting. It isn't like having prohibitions against it in the setting's laws stops it from being something that occurs.

For me, I am cool with stuff like Golarion. They go further than I would in my campaigns bringing in stuff from our modern world, but there is audience for that (and something to be said for how that makes the setting more approachable for a lot of people).

Quote from: Will;796823Brad.

Explain how 'real world has gay people, this fantasy world has none' does not constitute erasure.

Is that simple enough for you?

Not including gay folks into your game isn't erasure. A lot of us run games and sexuality never comes into anything. Does my game world have gay folks? I'm sure they are there.

Quote from: Ulairi;796829Not including gay folks into your game isn't erasure. A lot of us run games and sexuality never comes into anything. Does my game world have gay folks? I'm sure they are there.

If you have married couples, arranged marriages, or any of that jazz? You have sexuality coming into things as much as 'Bob and Brethor live down by the docks, breeding cats when they aren't out defending the kingdom against aberrants.'


If you are wondering why the SJWs and radicals go so far, it's because of shit like this.

Quote from: Ulairi;796829Not including gay folks into your game isn't erasure. A lot of us run games and sexuality never comes into anything. Does my game world have gay folks? I'm sure they are there.

There is a HUGE difference between "Sexuality never comes into my game," and "when sexuality comes into my game it's always straight hetero man on top."

Sexuality has never come into my game in 40 years of D&D.  That said, if somebody said "my character is transgender*," I'd say "Okay."

* or whatever

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815"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 now officially owe you a beer.

If it matters, my longest-running setting is one in which in the 'protagonist' nation, being openly gay or lesbian would have you ostracized and possibly imprisoned, and in some nations outright executed as a deviant.

If that's part of the world, fine.

It's the blithe privileged 'I've never thought about it but every single relationship is hetero and nothing I consider unusual ever appears, and how dare you ask me to think about that' that I reject as bullshit.

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.

In the past non-heterosexual people were oppressed in Europe.  Their sexual practices went underground, eg gay men meeting in loos/ heath-land, disguising their true sexual identity.  Thus on the surface, there weren't any back then.  This didn't mean they did not exist however.  Being gay/lesbian/ bi/ trans is perfectly normal.

Yes - we play games.  To have fun!  Thing is, some gamers are lesbian, gay, bi or trans.  Others of us have friends who are.  Some of us are keen to have different sexual orientations in their games.  Quite frankly: what is your problem?!

Why have LGBT characters in games?  A better question - why not? Why deliberately exclude them? We know now, thanks to better education and awareness, that society, cinema, gaming etc has excluded the LGBT characters from starring in films, in game narratives etc...... Now we know this, why can't game writers seek to rectify this, and have greater diversity of npcs in the stories we play?

Or should our games recreate sexist, racist, homophobic bigoted cultures from the past....where the normal is you play a white muscular barbarian and go wenching ala Conan?

In games we try to have fun.  Whilst racism, homophobia, sexism etc can be part of a game, over-playing them can be unfun.

For example, if one was to recreate a culture of racism in the society you were in and a player had a pc from an oppressed minority, it would not be much fun to have them subjected to vile abuse, being chased by lynch mobs etc etc.  Neither would it be fun if all their interactions with the dominant ethnic group were tense, abusive affairs..... it would produce a very negative and oppressive gaming atmosphere.  

There is nothing abnormal about there being lesbian, gay, bi or trans people/ relationships in games.  The problem was in the past game writers were blind to their existence.  Normal meant husbands and wives back in Gygax's day.  Today, modern game writers are making sure their games are inclusive and make sure narratives appeal to a diverse range of gamers, not just the white, heterosexual male ones.  What is so bad about that?

In fantasy games, anything can go!  The only limits are your imagination.  With magic, sex changes are thus very possible.

Moreover as Pundit, Will and others have said, there are many other non-European cultures in which LGBT sexualities were/ are perfectly acceptable in history.

The only people making a big deal out of this are people like you and Stupidquestion - since you are homophobes.

As a Stonewall campaign in the UK from 2 years ago stated:

"Some People Are Gay.  Get Over It."

Of course, no one is forcing you to buy these games.  There are literally 100s if not 1000s of d20 scenarios out there with no LGBT characters..... But the point is, these worlds and stories are flawed for their creation of worlds where they are no LGBT npcs.  Where normal npcs are heterosexual.  Where this is the default assumption for every npc.  The same can be said about the focus of narratives on faux-white mediaeval societies, where black people are described as natives and live in jungles etc etc.  All very tiring.

Personally I think it is really refreshing that finally games writers are catching up with 21st century social mores.  Not only will this be affirming to members of minority groups who are gamers, it also makes for new and thus more interesting stories.... re-telling the same narratives, eg there is a princess who has been captured by an ugly hag....go rescue her etc..... gets tired.... Just as Shrek the movie reinvented fairy stories by inverting them and updating them with modern social mores, so too can the same be done to fantasy roleplaying scenarios.  Thus for me, this is an excellent development and I look forward to greater verisimilitude in all areas of gaming life.  There is still a long way to go yet however.

Quote from: Will;796838It's the blithe privileged 'I've never thought about it but every single relationship is hetero and nothing I consider unusual ever appears, and how dare you ask me to think about that' that I reject as bullshit.

I will admit that sometimes you annoy the shit out of me, but sometimes you really nail the heart of the matter.  This is one of those times when you've nailed it.

Go get a beer.  Get one for yourself too.

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?

I don't know about B2, but you are wrong about Isle of Dread - no married couples there - and In Search of the Unknown does not say anything about the marital status of either adventurer AFAICR, though I think one is indicated to have had a lover.

I remember reading through City State of the Invincible Overlord and finding not one married couple in all the hundreds of NPCs. It's implied that the two owners of Naughty Nannies might be romantic as well as business partners; that's it.

In Paizo stuff I can recall three married couples - secretly-lesbian Queen Ileosa who poisons her husband King Eodred in Curse of the Crimson Throne, the happily married innkeeping couple in Kingmaker, and the couple in Wrath of the Righteous.  99%+ of NPCs are not listed as married; and probably 99.9% of non-homosexual (heterosexual or unspecified) NPCs are not listed as married. Marriage in Golarion is kinda gay. :D

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

Personally, I'd favor the Paladin needing to retire before getting married to anyone

That was my feeling when I read it. The character is supposed to be a crusader on a probably-doomed mission to fight the Worldwound until death. But she seems to spend more time on her personal life than on actually fighting demons. And her church/order thoroughly approve of this. The author seemed to deliberately strip out all the sources of (melo)drama that would normally be applied liberally, if this were eg a straight male paladin in love with a woman.

Quote from: Old Geezer;796844I will admit that sometimes you annoy the shit out of me, but sometimes you really nail the heart of the matter.  This is one of those times when you've nailed it.

Go get a beer.  Get one for yourself too.

I'll take it!

(Well, tonight once the kids are in bed. And it'll probably be vodka. Which I discovered LAST night tastes awesome with that fizzy Emergen-C. IT'S MEDICINAL)

Quote from: Ravenswing;796801Honest 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.

I have no sensitivities regarding the issue. It doesn't offend me. I'm an atheist, liberal, tolerant Canadian who supports gay marriage and thinks sex change operations should be publicly funded.

What I'm not into is:

Identity politics
Us vs Them worldviews
Social crusades that are more about cultural signalling than utilitarian improvements
'Check your privilege'
Naff romantic subplots in D&D adventures

Quote from: Ulairi;796829Not including gay folks into your game isn't erasure. A lot of us run games and sexuality never comes into anything. Does my game world have gay folks? I'm sure they are there.

Exactly. I have no use for adventure content that does not come into play in an adventure. "The stableboy is the runaway son of the dour miller, who moved to the village five years ago from the kingdom of Amirite, where he was priest who had an illicit affair with a priestess and was cast out by the jealous high priest [bullshit... bullshit... bullshit]". Since everyone I've played with is interested in looting tombs and outwitting sorcerers, and has no interest whatsoever in seducing innkeepers and reuniting estranged lovers, that content is extraneous. And I'm willing to bet it doesn't come into play for 80 per cent of the people who play adventure paths. It's there for the market of Paizo customers who read APs but don't play. It's written by hacks who desperately want to write fiction but don't have the talent. And it's an opportunity for the publishers to signal their cultural allegiances. But it has fuck all to do with playing a game.

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.

Yeah, but most of them were wrong. :D

On another note, one potential problem with 'inclusivity' is White Hat Syndrome.

I saw this most often with online gaming, where the minute your Victorian gentleman said anything negative about lesser races, EVERY SINGLE PC rushed over to tell you how horrible you were and how inclusive they were and bla bla bler bla.

Everyone is so eager to display Happy Pixie Merry Land that nothing bad ever happens unless they have an explicit black hat.

I hope people will see a pattern in my views, that I think conflict and people being WRONG make for interesting drama and cool stories.

Part of that is that, you know, sometimes the good king Jerald is kind of an asshole about some stuff. Sometimes people aren't nice, or inclusive, or egalitarian.

That gives you something to fight against/for, if you are so inclined.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796810A bit complicated issue, especially due to usual forum misunderstanding, therefore i see no good reason to discuss it much.

You should have stopped at not discussing your mindset. Its not possible to misunderstand what you wrote, because what you wrote is incoherent to the point that any proper understanding of it is impossible.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796812Kinda like Gandalf smoking pot in LotR.

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

Gandalf smoked pipeweed. Tom Bombadil was clearly the one smoking the pot. ;)

Quote from: Old Geezer;796836There is a HUGE difference between "Sexuality never comes into my game," and "when sexuality comes into my game it's always straight hetero man on top."

When you are right. You are right.

I can't say that homosexuality has overtly come up a lot in my 40 years of gaming experience. Because it didn't seem like something the people I was playing with were interested in that as a plot hook. So why spend time on setting detail that isn't going to be used. If a PC is interested in flirting with or getting amorous with an NPC barkeep or castle ruler, the NPC's reaction is determined by a random die roll. If they turn out to be uninterested in PC, it seldom matters much why they didn't find the PC attractive and in their prey range. Maybe they don't like his or her type. Maybe they aren't attracted to his or her gender. Who cares. It's a game that's supposed to be fun for the people at the table, not a political manifesto.

On the other hand, one of the players in my Honor+Intrigue game is playing a French courtier who is secretly gay...or maybe he's bisexual. It's hard to say for sure since the character's also seduced a couple of Duchesses in his role as a spy. But that seems to have been work rather than pleasure. However, since the topic now has game relevance and interest as a hook for the player, the subject of NPC sexual orientation occurs. So some NPCs do have known orientations. Though often that orientation may only be known to the GM unless someone (NPC or PC) chooses to let it be known or seeks to discover it.

Since my game is set in a historical fictional France of 1623 it's also worth keeping in mind that at that time, for royals, nobles, and the wealthy and landed folks marriage was a way of uniting families and forming alliances. They were seldom affairs of the heart. Quite a few royals and nobles in the period were thought (even at the time) to be interested in fooling around with their own gender.

Quote from: stupidquestion;796756Seemingly, 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.

Yes - given that they are part of Hasbro, a big corporation, I don't think they will go Full Paizo. Maybe Paizo ca 2007, with the occasional gay couple among the NPCs. Not Paizo ca 2013.

Honestly, thinking back it rarely comes up in MY games. I think I've had some gay or lesbian NPCs. There have been married couples but most were straight because, again, social mores.

In stuff I've published, it hasn't come up, mainly because generally what I've written is snippets of vignettes, encounter tables, or the NPCs are all snake or rat people...

Quote from: Ravenswing;796786female NPCs actually holding more than 5% of positions of authority and power,  [/COLOR]

It's about 65% in Paizo stuff.

Quote from: S'mon;796846Marriage in Golarion is kinda gay. :D

says it all really S'mon.  By gay I assume you mean BAD here?  :S

Quote from: S'mon;796846I don't know about B2, but you are wrong about Isle of Dread - no married couples there - and In Search of the Unknown does not say anything about the marital status of either adventurer AFAICR, though I think one is indicated to have had a lover.

I remember reading through City State of the Invincible Overlord and finding not one married couple in all the hundreds of NPCs. It's implied that the two owners of Naughty Nannies might be romantic as well as business partners; that's it.

In Paizo stuff I can recall three married couples - secretly-lesbian Queen Ileosa who poisons her husband King Eodred in Curse of the Crimson Throne, the happily married innkeeping couple in Kingmaker, and the couple in Wrath of the Righteous.  99%+ of NPCs are not listed as married; and probably 99.9% of non-homosexual (heterosexual or unspecified) NPCs are not listed as married. Marriage in Golarion is kinda gay. :D

...and as for heterosexuality = norm, just read any module with a village/ town in it from the past....and the main household form is a man and woman.

eg: the Village of Homlett.  Eg Sandpoint.  Eg Fallcrest in 4e. etc etc.

key npcs who are involved sexually with someone else (ie couples) are invariably, nearly exclusively heterosexual.  Wrath of the Righteous was relatively unique in how it tackled decades of 'symbolically annihilating' LGBT npcs by including them in the story..... not perfectly by any means (& there was a big debate about the over-representation of succubi and underrep of incubi I seem to remember on rpgnet - reflecting stereotypes about women's sexuality).... but it was a start nevertheless.  And because it hadn't been done before in a mainstream scenario (to my knowledge) for D&D/PF, then this was, for some, a nasty shock!  ;)  For me it was a nice surprise. :D

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

Starts at just 5th, I think.

Quote from: Will;796853On another note, one potential problem with 'inclusivity' is White Hat Syndrome.

I saw this most often with online gaming, where the minute your Victorian gentleman said anything negative about lesser races, EVERY SINGLE PC rushed over to tell you how horrible you were and how inclusive they were and bla bla bler bla.

I play a lot of historical games. Call of Cthulhu in the 1920s and the 1890s. Honor+Intrigue in the 1620s. Having every PC act exactly like an enlightened 21st century North American or Western European just annoys the shit out of me. Why even bother playing a game set in another time.

And as for avoiding the White Hat syndrome, the gay spy thinks that stroppy servants should be beaten. Because* he thinks beating makes them better servants and keeps them in their place. He's a noble after all. He just happens to like-like other guys. That doesn't mean he thinks a servant is equal to a gentleman.


* And because people back then did beat their servants. In The Three Musketeers D'Artagnan is having trouble with his new valet, Planchet. His friends (the other three heroes of the story) advise young D'Artagnan to beat Planchet. He promptly does so. And Planchet immediately becomes a better and more loyal to his master.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815And 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.

I'd go further - modern notions only started to take shape in mid 19th century north-western Europe (& offshoots - USA etc), and there have been several smaller shifts since in western conceptions of sexuality. Of course these social constructions are also partly rooted in inherent (pre-social) nature, but the same was equally true for the Greeks, Maya etc.

I've sometimes considered running a fantasy game where elves pretty much had 21st century western etiquette, beliefs, and attitudes.
And the humans had medieval etiquete, beliefs, and attitudes.

'My Lord Iscliath, ... the messenger has returned from the human kingdom.'
"And?"
'We are awaiting the healers.'
"... Wait, what?"
'She was raped repeatedly and there's not much left of her face. We're trying regeneration potions.'
"What the fucking fuck? Ok, screw this, mount up the siege treants."

I've played RPG campaigns with gay dudes so its been natural in those campaigns for there to be gay NPCs. I'm a bastard, so in Planescape, I had a gay smoke mephit who wouldn't stop with the innuendo and kept treating the male PCs as man meat.

But I've not included (for whatever reason) gay NPCs in campaigns where we did not have gay players or gay PCs. Out of sight, out of mind? It certainly wasn't a statement about the setting.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796803If 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.

Why not?

It's got the whole subtext of the old vote for war and the young fight their war. It has the whole mom gives birth to the soldier and now sends her child off to die.

Lots of political subtext...if the writer / director / audience wants it.

Quote from: Brad;796814Post #666. My work here is complete.

Hail Brad!!!

Hail Satan!!!

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

Yeah. A made-up figure.  When I have time I may try and go through my APs from Paizo and count em up - by year....but this is unlikely.

The realities of our sexist world find women only owning 1% of the world's wealth  - source Wall Street Journal  -quoting the UN http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/18/new-facts-on-the-gender-gap-from-the-world-bank/ in 2011.

All being equal, 52% population = women, thus they should own 52% wealth and have 52% of positions of power.

I sincerely believe that this is nowhere near the case in Paizo products.... Yes, they are better represented in Paizo products than in mediaeval Europe, but heck - this is meant to be a game we are playing, and a fantasy one at that!  Thus, why does this bother you? Moreover you see female empowerment when it doesn't really exist still in gaming... yes it is improving.... what is wrong with women having power?!!

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796840Yes - we play games.  To have fun!  Thing is, some gamers are lesbian, gay, bi or trans.  Others of us have friends who are.  Some of us are keen to have different sexual orientations in their games.  Quite frankly: what is your problem?!

Why have LGBT characters in games?  A better question - why not? Why deliberately exclude them?

Some gamers are: divorced, bald, widows, triplets, lactose intolerant, elderly, obese, musically gifted, or terrified of spiders. Are D&D adventures that don't feature NPCs who have those traits 'deliberately excluding them?'

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796840Personally I think it is really refreshing that finally games writers are catching up with 21st century social mores.  Not only will this be affirming to members of minority groups who are gamers, it also makes for new and thus more interesting stories.... re-telling the same narratives, eg there is a princess who has been captured by an ugly hag....go rescue her etc..... gets tired.... Just as Shrek the movie reinvented fairy stories by inverting them and updating them with modern social mores, so too can the same be done to fantasy roleplaying scenarios.  Thus for me, this is an excellent development and I look forward to greater verisimilitude in all areas of gaming life.  There is still a long way to go yet however.

That's cool that you enjoy that. Personally, I don't enjoy fantasy worlds that model our own modern mores and values. I also read a lot of historical fiction (a lot more than fantasy, actually). And I will discard any book where modern values and thoughts anachronistically impinge on the setting. Because I find brutal, strange, and cruel worlds far more satisfying settings for adventure than worlds with modern values. Tolerance, justice, and compassion are excellent credos for the world we live in. But they're enervating to the kind of drama and adventure I enjoy in fiction and gaming.

Quote from: Bren;796854So why spend time on setting detail that isn't going to be used. If a PC is interested in flirting with or getting amorous with an NPC barkeep or castle ruler, the NPC's reaction is determined by a random die roll. If they turn out to be uninterested in PC, it seldom matters much why they didn't find the PC attractive and in their prey range. Maybe they don't like his or her type. Maybe they aren't attracted to his or her gender. Who cares. It's a game that's supposed to be fun for the people at the table, not a political manifesto.

Yep. If it comes up, I'll handle that stuff with a random roll.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796840The same can be said about the focus of narratives on faux-white mediaeval societies...

Faux-white? What, they think they're white, but really they're some other colour? Reminds me of the Sudanese 'Arabs' who to the untrained eye are indistinguishable from the Sudanese 'blacks', but are very proud of being 'not black'... But I'm guessing you meant something else, probably something more SJW-y.

Quote from: S'mon;796870Faux-white? What, they think they're white, but really they're some other colour? Reminds me of the Sudanese 'Arabs' who to the untrained eye are indistinguishable from the Sudanese 'blacks', but are very proud of being 'not black'... But I'm guessing you meant something else, probably something more SJW-y.

no. I meant that the default setting for many games is a fake/ faux mediaeval setting where the default ethnic group is Caucasian.

Personally, if I was going to run fantasy that wasn't set in Glorantha (where the elves are a different kind of weird already) I'd rather run Elves more like Irish/Celtic Fairies* or the Elves in Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and The Broken Sword.


* The not at all like humans, often tricky, sometimes benevolent, sometiimes malicious, beautiful and perilous but you better call them the Fair Folk so as not to annoy them kind of Fairies.

Quote from: Haffrung;796869Some gamers are: divorced, bald, widows, triplets, lactose intolerant, elderly, obese, musically gifted, or terrified of spiders. Are D&D adventures that don't feature NPCs who have those traits 'deliberately excluding them?'

and actually size of npcs does get described in game settings.....  There are widowers in various villages in games.... npcs can have kids sometimes.... However the default sexuality is heterosexuality.... and LGBT pcs are absent.  Sexuality is a major part of someone's personality... and whilst I find going bald depressing.... my sexuality is far more a part of who I am than my hair loss.  To compare the 2 is simply disingenuous/ flawed.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796859(& there was a big debate about the over-representation of succubi and underrep of incubi I seem to remember on rpgnet - reflecting stereotypes about women's sexuality)

Since succubi actually ARE "male stereotype of female sexuality" given actual demonic form, that is an incredibly stupid criticism even by rpgnet's low low standards. Succubi only exist as a concept because celibate Christian Monks had accidental... discharges... in the night, and had to blame something!

But no, succubi & incubi now have to be fully rounded autonomous individuals with their own hopes and dreams (Americans seem to really love 'dreams'). To me that really misses the point.

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.

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).

If it is the actual situation, my whole assessment of this case is totally changed : no problemo since it is not the tool that the patron deity gave you to fulfill your paladin oath. And if the transaction helps the paladin's spouse and put the sword in goog hands, that the way of thinking I would expect from a paladin !

Quote from: Bren;796862And as for avoiding the White Hat syndrome, the gay spy thinks that stroppy servants should be beaten. Because* he thinks beating makes them better servants and keeps them in their place. He's a noble after all. He just happens to like-like other guys. That doesn't mean he thinks a servant is equal to a gentleman.

See, that's awesome.

Quote from: Bren;796862* And because people back then did beat their servants. In The Three Musketeers D'Artagnan is having trouble with his new valet, Planchet. His friends (the other three heroes of the story) advise young D'Artagnan to beat Planchet. He promptly does so. And Planchet immediately becomes a better and more loyal to his master.

I came across a review of the Three Musketeers where the reviewer expressed her hatred for the book and for all of its characters. They weren't at all the heroic champions she expected them to be, and who had filtered down into the pop culture pap they are today. And she was right- they aren't likable. But they are interesting, believable, clever, funny, and passionate.

Quote from: Will;796865I've sometimes considered running a fantasy game where elves pretty much had 21st century western etiquette, beliefs, and attitudes.
And the humans had medieval etiquete, beliefs, and attitudes.

'My Lord Iscliath, ... the messenger has returned from the human kingdom.'
"And?"
'We are awaiting the healers.'
"... Wait, what?"
'She was raped repeatedly and there's not much left of her face. We're trying regeneration potions.'
"What the fucking fuck? Ok, screw this, mount up the siege treants."

You seem to have a rather odd notion of 'medieval etiquette'.

Quote from: S'mon;796875Since succubi actually ARE "male stereotype of female sexuality" given actual demonic form, that is an incredibly stupid criticism even by rpgnet's low low standards. Succubi only exist as a concept because celibate Christian Monks had accidental... discharges... in the night, and had to blame something!

But no, succubi & incubi now have to be fully rounded autonomous individuals with their own hopes and dreams (Americans seem to really love 'dreams'). To me that really misses the point.

Thanks for the complement.  You misunderstand me.

I was referring to a debate on rpgnet (your fav place) in which it was pointed out that most of the sex demons (yes, who are stereotypes of lust) were female succubi - and that the male incubi were under-represented.... which was argued (I believe correctly) to be sexist.

I am not against succubi... (there was that ridiculous criticism of Monte Cook for having one in his Numenara setting).... it is rather that I expect there to be a roughly equal number of sexploitative incubi and succubi in such a setting.... otherwise one runs the risk of reinforcing the stereotype that women are either sexy whores or demure mothers/ wives etc.... a stereotype which has been around since at least the birth of Christianity.

Quote from: Haffrung;796869Some gamers are: divorced, bald, widows, triplets, lactose intolerant, elderly, obese, musically gifted, or terrified of spiders. Are D&D adventures that don't feature NPCs who have those traits 'deliberately excluding them?'

Divorced, bald, widows, elderly, obese, musically gifted, and terrified of spiders. I've seen all of those. Some come up pretty frequently in fact. I've also seen widowers and twins with regularity. Triplets...not sure if I've seen triplets...but then natural triplets (sans fertility treatments) are somewhere in the 1/8000 range; so not too unreasonable to never see an important NPC who is a triplet. Lactose intolerance often wouldn't be noticed. Most PCs drink wine, beer, or the hard stuff not milk and who notices whether or not someone decides to pass on the cheese? I guess if you are hanging out with a bunch of kumiss drinking, yogurt eating nomands it could come up. I suppose that could be a problem in Prax or the Horse Nomad lands in Glorantha.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796867I've played RPG campaigns with gay dudes so its been natural in those campaigns for there to be gay NPCs. I'm a bastard, so in Planescape, I had a gay smoke mephit who wouldn't stop with the innuendo and kept treating the male PCs as man meat.

But I've not included (for whatever reason) gay NPCs in campaigns where we did not have gay players or gay PCs. Out of sight, out of mind? It certainly wasn't a statement about the setting.

I had gay & lesbian NPCs in my FR campaign, back when all the players were straight. It seemed to fit the setting. But I certainly would never have had them harrass the PCs - that would NOT fit the setting. In FR only the Evil guys do that sort of thing.

Actually, I think I have never had an NPC sexually harrass a PC, ever, in any tabletop campaign I've ever run (online games tend to work differently -more like collaborative fiction 'storygames' I guess).  It seems like a breach of GMing etiquette to me. Might depend a bit on genre expectations, eg more acceptable as part of the horror of a horror RPG than in a D&D style empowerment-fantasy game.

Quote from: Haffrung;796877See, that's awesome.

Thanks. I liked it.

QuoteI came across a review of the Three Musketeers where the reviewer expressed her hatred for the book and for all of its characters. They weren't at all the heroic champions she expected them to be, and who had filtered down into the pop culture pap they are today. And she was right- they aren't likable. But they are interesting, believable, clever, funny, and passionate.

I think Dumas intended them to be likeable to their audience though. Which shows that mores change. EDIT: And some editions bowdlerize D'Artagnan's revenge rape of Milady.

Similarly, whether or not one believes Homer intended his heroes in the Illiad to be likeable, they were a heroic model to the Greeks. So presumably admirable if not outright likeable.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796868Yeah. A made-up figure.  When I have time I may try and go through my APs from Paizo and count em up - by year....but this is unlikely.

The realities of our sexist world find women only owning 1% of the world's wealth  - source Wall Street Journal  -quoting the UN http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/18/new-facts-on-the-gender-gap-from-the-world-bank/ in 2011.

All being equal, 52% population = women, thus they should own 52% wealth and have 52% of positions of power.

I sincerely believe that this is nowhere near the case in Paizo products.... Yes, they are better represented in Paizo products than in mediaeval Europe, but heck - this is meant to be a game we are playing, and a fantasy one at that!  Thus, why does this bother you? Moreover you see female empowerment when it doesn't really exist still in gaming... yes it is improving.... what is wrong with women having power?!!

You seem like a bit of a dick. Go away and do your counting before you start your rant. I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne and it's well over 65% there, but some of the other APs seem more 50-50. Looks like about two thirds overall - and James Jacobs has said that making over half the authority-position NPCs female is a deliberate policy of his, for political reasons. So I doubt any honest count will show much different.

Quote from: Haffrung;796869Some gamers are: divorced, bald, widows, triplets, lactose intolerant, elderly, obese, musically gifted, or terrified of spiders. Are D&D adventures that don't feature NPCs who have those traits 'deliberately excluding them?'

They're certainly 'guilty of Erasure' of the obese and elderly. I bet there are more fat people than gay people in the Paizo offices, but when it comes to Adventure Path NPCs, they sure don't Look Like America in that respect at least.

Quote from: S'mon;796885You seem like a bit of a dick. Go away and do your counting before you start your rant. I'm running Curse of the Crimson Throne and it's well over 65% there, but some of the other APs seem more 50-50. Looks like about two thirds overall - and James Jacobs has said that making over half the authority-position NPCs female is a deliberate policy of his, for political reasons. So I doubt any honest count will show much different.

And even if this is the case,  who cares,  other than bigots like you. There you go.  Insult me and I will eventually stoop to your level.  Congratulations.

Quote from: Will;796853On another note, one potential problem with 'inclusivity' is White Hat Syndrome.

White Hatting is a frequent problem of people who aren't very bright and desperately want to appear to be "progressive".   It often ends up creating its own kinds of erasure; e.g. every single 'native american'-type character is an ecologist with deep spiritual wisdom, gay people are always heroic and brave, etc.
On a setting-scale, these kinds of stupid efforts at inclusivity can create their own serious problems, particularly the closer you get to historical-type settings; witness, for example, the Totally-Not-Racist-CSA in Deadlands, where they abolished slavery and have black Confederate Army officers.  If we assume they did this in a hopelessly flawed attempt to be not-racist (rather than the equally plausible motive of "we think the CSA is totally cool and want to play Heroic Rebs who aren't racist slaveowners"), the end result of totally whitewashing the CSA's slavery/racism issue inadvertently comes out as way more racist than if they'd stuck to portraying something more historically accurate.

Quote from: Will;796807It sure as fuck IS erasure because if you aren't showing any GLBT folks at all, you are erasing them.

Umm, read again, I'm showing ONE soldier going off to war.  If I showed a montage of everyone in his unit, and they were all white couples, then that would be what you're claiming.  If however, I'm showing one couple, in a movie about WWI or WWII, the fact that the couple are white and married simply shows statistically the majority.  If I had a movie about a WWII soldier showing a gay couple waving goodbye, then that might make for a helluva story, but it's an incredible statistic anomaly to the point where now that is part of the story.

Showing one or two hetero couples because statistically the vast majority of couples are hetero is not political, nor is it erasure.

Quote from: Will;796807You said 'traditional' couples. DUDE.

Yeah, and I meant it without all the false offense your ilk reads into the word.  At the point in the future when homo or transgendered couples become statistically equal to hetero or cisgenered couples, then the term traditional will no longer correctly apply. As of now, it does, simply being factual, not making judgments.

Quote from: Will;796807What I read into your statement adding my own words, rewriting what you said is PRECISELY what pisses a lot of people off and what motivates some of them to go perhaps too far.

Fixed that for you.

Quote from: Will;796807Because 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.

At some point, you might try reading what people actually write instead of what you assume they are meaning by completely rewriting what they said to fit your narrative of offense.

I DID NOT SAY 'every couple should be hetero because that's part of the genre'.  What I said was, showing someone to have a heterosexual married parents is not making a political statement or erasure.

I understand your argument.  TSR was probably operating under the common belief that putting a homosexual into place would be making an overtly sexual statement where as putting a heterosexual couple in but not talking about sex at all means there is no sexual context.  You would probably say maybe they weren't thinking about sex at all, but that by showing a heterosexual couple, even though they are in the vast majority, is still making the unconscious "privilege of the majority" decision to show the norm, thus making a sexual statement by passively reinforcing the sexual norm.

That's one of those beliefs that while technically correct is absolutely full of shit when taken to the level where every single possible minority that exists must be depicted in exact proportion or in over-representation in a method to balance out previous erasure via Affirmative Representation.

The concept your argument and belief system ignores is context.
A western taking place in Northern California in 1876 without Chinese?  Erasure.
A western taking place in Northern California in 1876 without Mosques?  Not Erasure.

A modern US city with no openly gay couples? Erasure
A quasi medieval rural village with no openly gay couples?  Not Erasure

Check your Faux-Offense.

Quote from: Will;796807As for 'in higher numbers than real life,' what, a value higher than 0?

Since Transgendered people are like .03% of the population, Paizo should have had a couple hundred iconics before a T showed up.  However, they've also made it pretty clear that Golarion has a much higher incidence of LGBT individuals then our world does, so it may be representative of Golarion, but the LGBT NPCs and characters are in higher percentage then real life.

Quote from: Will;796807Edit: 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)

Not that I know of, Lesbian Stripper Ninjas is pretty much it, aside from the homoeroticism you could choose to read into Driz'zt/Entreri.

There's a huge middle between 'exact representative populations of every minority' and 'none.'

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815"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.

Right, but I'm sure Will's about to come along and tell you how horrible you are for thinking that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815If 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.

Yeah, depending on world or culture, as well as class, it differs.  In some places, they don't care who you fuck or how, but if you're noble you'd better make heirs somehow.  It just depends.  In some cases, it makes sense, in some cases it does not, as I said in another post, context matters, and not in the context of 21st century western society.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815And 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.

Yep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815In 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.

I don't have any problem with it, the North is a pretty lenient place and Waterdeep is the most cosmopolitan.  However, saying that not having a homosexual couple in Hommlet is erasure or making a political statement is just crazy talk though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796891Right, but I'm sure Will's about to come along and tell you how horrible you are for thinking that.

oh hey, yet another thing you are wrong about because you let preconceptions and tribal thinking make you stupid.

Quote from: Will;796890There's a huge middle between 'exact representative populations of every minority' and 'none.'

Quote from: Will;796892oh hey, yet another thing you are wrong about because you let preconceptions and tribal thinking make you stupid.

Says the guy who avoids a large post and replies with a drive-by afraid to engage. :rotfl:

Let's assume if we look that there are no openly gay human couples depicted in
1. Warhammer Fantasy
2. Harnmaster
3. Dark Albion
4. World of Greyhawk

Which of these, if any, are what you would consider Erasure?
Which of these, if any, would you consider making a statement about sexual politics?
Which of these, if any, would you consider "problematic"?

It's called a smartphone. Good for reading stuff and giving short responses, but ever since the last update the autocorrect is like riding a bronco. jeebus.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796894Let's assume if we look that there are no openly gay human couples depicted in
1. Warhammer Fantasy
2. Harnmaster
3. Dark Albion
4. World of Greyhawk

Which of these, if any, are what you would consider Erasure?
Which of these, if any, would you consider making a statement about sexual politics?
Which of these, if any, would you consider "problematic"?

I have no idea, I'm not familiar with any of them.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Umm, read again, I'm showing ONE soldier going off to war.  If I showed a montage of everyone in his unit, and they were all white couples, then that would be what you're claiming.  If however, I'm showing one couple, in a movie about WWI or WWII, the fact that the couple are white and married simply shows statistically the majority.  If I had a movie about a WWII soldier showing a gay couple waving goodbye, then that might make for a helluva story, but it's an incredible statistic anomaly to the point where now that is part of the story.

Showing one or two hetero couples because statistically the vast majority of couples are hetero is not political, nor is it erasure.

Agreed. It's just when you use that excuse always and have put out a lot of material people have a right to go 'oh really?'

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Yeah, and I meant it without all the false offense your ilk reads into the word.  At the point in the future when homo or transgendered couples become statistically equal to hetero or cisgenered couples, then the term traditional will no longer correctly apply. As of now, it does, simply being factual, not making judgments.

Your ilk? How about you talk to me, and not all these imagined tribal elders I am working for.

And bullshit. Word choice matters. You could have said straight or heterosexual. Also, in a conversation which is spanning all of fantasy and history, 'traditional' makes you sound particularly ignorant.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Fixed that for you.

What are you, 12?

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889At some point, you might try reading what people actually write instead of what you assume they are meaning by completely rewriting what they said to fit your narrative of offense.

Pot, meet event horizon.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889I DID NOT SAY 'every couple should be hetero because that's part of the genre'.  What I said was, showing someone to have a heterosexual married parents is not making a political statement or erasure.

Yep, cool

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889I understand your argument.  TSR was probably operating under the common belief that putting a homosexual into place would be making an overtly sexual statement where as putting a heterosexual couple in but not talking about sex at all means there is no sexual context.  You would probably say maybe they weren't thinking about sex at all, but that by showing a heterosexual couple, even though they are in the vast majority, is still making the unconscious "privilege of the majority" decision to show the norm, thus making a sexual statement by passively reinforcing the sexual norm.

Yeah, see, all those bits where you indicate that having a gay couple means you are talking about sex but heterosexual couples don't? That's where you are a fucking bigot.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889That's one of those beliefs that while technically correct is absolutely full of shit when taken to the level where every single possible minority that exists must be depicted in exact proportion or in over-representation in a method to balance out previous erasure via Affirmative Representation.

As I mentioned, there's a world of difference between saying 'hey, maybe we should put in a few non-straight people that aren't played grotesque' and a United Colors of Benetton advert.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889The concept your argument and belief system ignores is context.
A western taking place in Northern California in 1876 without Chinese?  Erasure.
A western taking place in Northern California in 1876 without Mosques?  Not Erasure.

A modern US city with no openly gay couples? Erasure
A quasi medieval rural village with no openly gay couples?  Not Erasure

Yeah, that last? The one with the dragons, immortals, zombies, psychic warriors, and kung fu monks with a very modern gloss on the 'quasi medieval'?

Bullshit.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Check your Faux-Offense.

The fact that you can't tell radical SJW from regular egalitarianism is very telling.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Since Transgendered people are like .03% of the population, Paizo should have had a couple hundred iconics before a T showed up.  However, they've also made it pretty clear that Golarion has a much higher incidence of LGBT individuals then our world does, so it may be representative of Golarion, but the LGBT NPCs and characters are in higher percentage then real life.

Well, iconics and adventurers tend to be weird. I mean, I think one can argue that they should be more populated by fringe types mainly because if you are fringe it gives you an extra incentive not to just manage a manorial estate or work in a pig farm.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796889Not that I know of, Lesbian Stripper Ninjas is pretty much it, aside from the homoeroticism you could choose to read into Driz'zt/Entreri.

Mmm. I can't blame them for their earlier whitewashing, considering even without anything really non-mainstream they got the the 80s Satanic panic.

Quote from: Will;796823Brad.

Explain how 'real world has gay people, this fantasy world has none' does not constitute erasure.

Is that simple enough for you?

I play games, I don't explore human sexuality via "role playing". You're welcome to do the latter, but saying people who don't are bigots is certainly taking this whole elfgame nonsense to extreme levels of stupidity.

Also, we're basically saying the same thing, just from different extremes. Consider that...

Well, this was a successful troll.

Actually commenting on the subject, i find objections to the inclusion of minorities in gaming products bizarre. Firstly, from a business standpoint, it makes sense as your audience is likely to include minorities, secondly, it harms no-one and if it makes some people feel good to see themselves portrayed in a product they bought, then that's a plus. Lastly, like all gaming products, they don't survive contact with the gaming group anyway. If you don't want an aspect of the product in your game, don't use it. If you want to add something, add it. If you want to change something, change it.

Discussions like this one are more politically motivated than the content they are discussing.

Quote from: S'mon;796852Yeah, but most of them were wrong. :D

Thats why I said "I believe" rather than "This is in here."

Also, Erasure isn't about like, a single piece of work.

Its like the Beschdel Test, which is moronic to use as an indictment of an individual movie, but makes sense in context of the entirety of Hollywood.

Or BMI, which on an individual level can be pretty flawed (because yes, Lebron James is so overweight), but on a national level can indicate important trends.

Not every story or adventure or whatever is going to have an LGBT character. That is fine. But when there have been hundreds and hundreds of adventures made and they almost never show up... it gets a bit fishy.

That being said, if you find it too much for a single piece to mention a certain sexuality or gender identity, you are pretty much arguing for erasure.

And as for the "Waa waa, my games don't have any sexuality in them, so its not necessary" stuff... so fucking what? Your games don't have any at all. Good for you. That is fine man, that is how you want to run your game, coolio, no problems. But other people do. And we might like to have adventures with romantic subplots to them. Are we not allowed to play those?

Why flip out because someone wrote something that you aren't the target audience for, unless you have a moral objection to it? And if you have a moral objection to it, then you are a fucking bigot.

On the subject: Can anyone think of a adventure (would probably be in Paizo if there is) with a bisexual male NPC? I always find bi males to be the most underrepresented demographic. (The only two I can think of in fiction period are Jack Harkness and John Constantine)

Hmm. Yeah, I think I can think of more asexuals and intersex than bi males. Heh.

Quote from: Haffrung;796877I came across a review of the Three Musketeers where the reviewer expressed her hatred for the book and for all of its characters. They weren't at all the heroic champions she expected them to be, and who had filtered down into the pop culture pap they are today. And she was right- they aren't likable. But they are interesting, believable, clever, funny, and passionate.

The past is a different country, they do things differently there.

Richard Lester's version got them fairly good... 'interesting scaliwags.'  I toy with the idea of writing a close-medieval fantasy where the knights have knightly ideas about bloodshed and violence.  I think people would be appalled at the behavior of even the good knights.

Quote from: Will;796900I have no idea, I'm not familiar with any of them.

Ok.

Quote from: Will;796900Agreed. It's just when you use that excuse always and have put out a lot of material people have a right to go 'oh really?'

Always?

Quote from: Will;796900Your ilk? How about you talk to me, and not all these imagined tribal elders I am working for.

And bullshit. Word choice matters. You could have said straight or heterosexual. Also, in a conversation which is spanning all of fantasy and history, 'traditional' makes you sound particularly ignorant.

Except we weren't spanning all of history, were we?  We weren't talking about the Sacred Band of Thebes, we were talking about TSR modules which were set mostly in Greyhawk, which is a rough medieval europe analogue, and the word traditional was intended to mean "what you were most likely to see based on that culture's norms." In other words, the statistically probable you agreed to above.  The fact that "traditional" to you means "them's fightin' words because rednecks" isn't my problem.

Quote from: Will;796900Yeah, see, all those bits where you indicate that having a gay couple means you are talking about sex but heterosexual couples don't? That's where you are a fucking bigot.

and that's what makes you an elitist asshole who can't think past the script.

If the majority of Norse Vikings have blond hair, depicting a Viking with blond hair means nothing.  Depicting a Viking with raven black hair is saying something.  Good, Evil or neither, you're still pointing out the hair.

Now in many contexts, like say a modern american or european city, depicting homosexual couples is saying nothing, depicting a few heterosexual couples is saying nothing, and depicting either all heterosexual couples, or a majority of homosexual couples is saying something, you're deliberately pointing to a statistical anomaly, which means you are actively addressing the point.

So, in the World of Greyhawk, which is a quasi medieval Europe, in a small rural village, you decide to list the inhabitants and you merely state who is married, you are saying NOTHING.  However, if you mention an openly homosexual couple, it is such a statistical anomaly that you are deliberately saying something, you are broaching the issue.

Quote from: Will;796900As I mentioned, there's a world of difference between saying 'hey, maybe we should put in a few non-straight people that aren't played grotesque' and a United Colors of Benetton advert.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that if you don't deliberately do that, you're not making a decision not to any more then the Showrunners of the Vikings are making a decision by not including any Japanese in the first two seasons.

The fact that people don't actively consider making a fantasy party out of a one-armed warrior, a mage born without eyes, a fat hermaphroditic thief, and a Bahai cleric means there's a good chance that those things literally never crossed their minds.  Why would it?  The only reason it would is if you were deliberately trying to draw attention to the character, and thus the minority aspect by the attention.

Quote from: Will;796900The fact that you can't tell radical SJW from regular egalitarianism is very telling.

Pot, meet Event Horizon.

When I roll 3d6, the fact that 18 comes up less then 12 doesn't mean 18 is being erased.

I never blamed Paizo for being inclusive, I think they might be over the top or a little heavy handed, but I understand the social justification for what they are doing.  However, WotC by not emulating Paizo, is not erasing anyone.

Quote from: Will;796900Well, iconics and adventurers tend to be weird. I mean, I think one can argue that they should be more populated by fringe types mainly because if you are fringe it gives you an extra incentive not to just manage a manorial estate or work in a pig farm.

I actually thought that Paizo character is pretty interesting, but agreed that take any edge case you want, and adventurers would be a higher percentage.  Rural villagers - not so much.

Quote from: Will;796900Mmm. I can't blame them for their earlier whitewashing, considering even without anything really non-mainstream they got the the 80s Satanic panic.

Context does matter, but a lot of their "whitewashing" was pre-panic.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796908On the subject: Can anyone think of a adventure (would probably be in Paizo if there is) with a bisexual male NPC? I always find bi males to be the most underrepresented demographic. (The only two I can think of in fiction period are Jack Harkness and John Constantine)

Quote from: Will;796910Hmm. Yeah, I think I can think of more asexuals and intersex than bi males. Heh.

Dude, Zevran, the most dangerous assassin in Dragon Age is a bisexual hedonist of the highest order.

Since we're talking Bioware...

Maybe if the people who would criticize a designer for erasing homosexuals by not including any, wouldn't turn around and criticize them even more vehemently if they do include them, by claiming the depiction was wrong, people might be willing to explore less traditional themes and relationships.

Damned if you don't outright crucified if you do isn't a big incentive to do.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796921Dude, Zevran, the most dangerous assassin in Dragon Age is a bisexual hedonist of the highest order.

Since we're talking Bioware...

Maybe if the people who would criticize a designer for erasing homosexuals by not including any, wouldn't turn around and criticize them even more vehemently if they do include them, by claiming the depiction was wrong, people might be willing to explore less traditional themes and relationships.

Damned if you don't outright crucified if you do isn't a big incentive to do.

I actually agree with that. I've commented on how difficult it is to be inclusive because of White Hatting before. If you do it and people perceive it as having done it "wrong" people will freak out. I'm of the opinion that trying and failing is more admirable than not trying at all, but holy hell is that not how a lot of "activists" see it.

Also, I've never played Dragon Age. I know. Its weird considering I do like Video Games, and do like that genre of video games.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796924I actually agree with that. I've commented on how difficult it is to be inclusive because of White Hatting before. If you do it and people perceive it as having done it "wrong" people will freak out. I'm of the opinion that trying and failing is more admirable than not trying at all, but holy hell is that not how a lot of "activists" see it.

Also, I've never played Dragon Age. I know. Its weird considering I do like Video Games, and do like that genre of video games.

Actually Isabella is bi as well as really unapologetic about loving sex and fucking whoever she damn well pleases.  Believe it or not, there was criticism that Isabella wasn't exclusively Lesbian.

Quote from: Old Geezer;796836There is a HUGE difference between "Sexuality never comes into my game," and "when sexuality comes into my game it's always straight hetero man on top."

Sexuality has never come into my game in 40 years of D&D.  That said, if somebody said "my character is transgender*," I'd say "Okay."

* or whatever

I agree with you. I don't think anybody sane nor anybody I would want to play with would ever not be okay with someone running a transgender, gay, or whatever character. I just don't think not including it means I'm or my players are erasing it. We have office jobs. We have spouses or partners. We get together to do things we cannot do in real life.

If someone wants to have a game with romance or anything like that and they are having fun. More power to them. I don't believe that someone can have badwrongfun when it comes to D&D.

Never played Dragon Age, myself. What's the complaint? Bisexual = hedonist?

There's a frequent complaint that GLBT people are often depicted with an undue focus on their sexuality, mixed with deviance and othering.

If there's a gay guy, it's some rainbow storm of clothes, sashaying across the screen with the lithp to kill lithpth, talking about shoes.

Rather than, to pick a gay guy I know at random, a CS professor who dresses generally in boring button down shirts and slacks.

It's particularly bad for trans folks.


So, yeah. Imagine the following:

'We'd like to see more positive portrayals of Christians in comics.'
"Sure thing!"
...

"Say hello to Father O'Connell! He's a firm-handed disciplined Catholic priest. His love for young boys is tempered by his absolute faith, so while he may look, and dream, he WILL NOT TOUCH."

'What. The. HELL, man?!?'

"Oh for fuck's sake, you Jesus freaks are never happy."


(I doubt the Zevran example is that bad, though, again, GLBT folks are a little tired of the common refrain that 'man and woman, that's just the fabric of society, two men holding hands means we can't stop thinking of their anal sex EEW.)

Oh, and let me add... character romance?

Personally I am disinterested in it. I'm not interested in watching Bob and Bill play lesbian elf ninjas, which they tell me is TOTALLY FOR SERIOUS RP, and deal with their totally not gay portrayal of their budding romance.

Oh. My. God. Just ... just offscreen it, let's go kill orcs.


But I like context. We're saving the prince, who ran off from his retinue because he doesn't want to marry the princess (he is smitten for his stablehand). Unfortunately, he's been captured by orcs, dammit.

Or, 'hey guys, these are my parents. They can put us up while we are in the district.'

Quote from: CRKrueger;796918a one-armed warrior, a mage born without eyes, a fat hermaphroditic thief

Have you really never seen point-buy superhero games?  You put those disadvantages (possibly all of them) on your character in order to afford your awesome character concept.  Only slightly less common in fantasy settings; the very brief Pocket Universe rules have one-armed and one-eyed, and a few generic ones that could cover the others (but not blind).

QuoteWhen I roll 3d6, the fact that 18 comes up less then 12 doesn't mean 18 is being erased.

But if you claim to be rolling 3d6 and always come up with 8 to 13, then eventually we will suspect you're not rolling fair dice; that you're erasing 3 and 18.  That was Will's point about putting out a lot of material that never features anyone who isn't mainstream.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796908Also, Erasure isn't about like, a single piece of work.

Its like the Beschdel Test, which is moronic to use as an indictment of an individual movie, but makes sense in context of the entirety of Hollywood.

Or BMI, which on an individual level can be pretty flawed (because yes, Lebron James is so overweight), but on a national level can indicate important trends.

Not every story or adventure or whatever is going to have an LGBT character. That is fine. But when there have been hundreds and hundreds of adventures made and they almost never show up... it gets a bit fishy.

That being said, if you find it too much for a single piece to mention a certain sexuality or gender identity, you are pretty much arguing for erasure.

And as for the "Waa waa, my games don't have any sexuality in them, so its not necessary" stuff... so fucking what? Your games don't have any at all. Good for you. That is fine man, that is how you want to run your game, coolio, no problems. But other people do. And we might like to have adventures with romantic subplots to them. Are we not allowed to play those?

Why flip out because someone wrote something that you aren't the target audience for, unless you have a moral objection to it? And if you have a moral objection to it, then you are a fucking bigot.

On the subject: Can anyone think of a adventure (would probably be in Paizo if there is) with a bisexual male NPC? I always find bi males to be the most underrepresented demographic. (The only two I can think of in fiction period are Jack Harkness and John Constantine)

I don't think anyone is really arguing against what you said. I have no problem if people love to have romance subplots in their game. I'm not familiar with the Paizo modules and Pathfinder.

How many adventures have romance in them? Should we have a sexuality field on a character sheet? My familiarity with published adventures is limited AD&D and the Birthright campaign setting.

The world my players play in has gay folk. If one of my players want to play a gay character or a transgendered character, that would be no problem. I really don't think people, or the majority of gamers, have an issue with any of that. Gay people exist. Transgendered people exist. It seems about 3-5% of the population is LBGT. If people run a game without any gay folks in it that seems more out of the ordinary than running a game with them in it.

It 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.

I think the most annoying part though is when you get a portrayal in fiction, and you ACTUALLY KNOW SOMEONE WHO ACTS JUST LIKE THAT, and people freak out over it.

Its like, look, maybe they don't act like you specifically do, but so what. As long as they don't play up their sexuality as their fault, I don't care.

(For context, the reason I asked about portrayal of bi-dudes, is that I personally, am a bi-dude, and never really see it anywhere. So I'm not a straight guy complaining about LGBT people complaining about LGBT characters).

Actually, I'd argue Erasure is really really really super gay.


(http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/477/106/260/o_cd-erasure-live-1992-london-hammersmith-odeon-abba-cd-0b37.jpg)

Quote from: Will;796929Oh, and let me add... character romance?

Personally I am disinterested in it. I'm not interested in watching Bob and Bill play lesbian elf ninjas, which they tell me is TOTALLY FOR SERIOUS RP, and deal with their totally not gay portrayal of their budding romance.

Oh. My. God. Just ... just offscreen it, let's go kill orcs.


But I like context. We're saving the prince, who ran off from his retinue because he doesn't want to marry the princess (he is smitten for his stablehand). Unfortunately, he's been captured by orcs, dammit.

Or, 'hey guys, these are my parents. They can put us up while we are in the district.'

To me the scenario with the Prince running away with his stable hand would be fine. Maybe including it would make my game world better.

Quote from: Spinachcat;796601I am totally forcing 1989 to make his next Ranger gay. I am sitting her right now casting a ritual curse upon him through the computer screen!

Will, touch your noggin to the screen to empower my curse upon him!

So first he has Tool Proficiency (Hipster Glasses) and now he gives spellcasting bonuses too?  Is this a Feat or Background, Will?

Quote from: Will;796927Never played Dragon Age, myself. What's the complaint? Bisexual = hedonist?

There's a frequent complaint that GLBT people are often depicted with an undue focus on their sexuality, mixed with deviance and othering.

If there's a gay guy, it's some rainbow storm of clothes, sashaying across the screen with the lithp to kill lithpth, talking about shoes.

Rather than, to pick a gay guy I know at random, a CS professor who dresses generally in boring button down shirts and slacks.

It's particularly bad for trans folks.


So, yeah. Imagine the following:

'We'd like to see more positive portrayals of Christians in comics.'
"Sure thing!"
...

"Say hello to Father O'Connell! He's a firm-handed disciplined Catholic priest. His love for young boys is tempered by his absolute faith, so while he may look, and dream, he WILL NOT TOUCH."

'What. The. HELL, man?!?'

"Oh for fuck's sake, you Jesus freaks are never happy."


(I doubt the Zevran example is that bad, though, again, GLBT folks are a little tired of the common refrain that 'man and woman, that's just the fabric of society, two men holding hands means we can't stop thinking of their anal sex EEW.)

I played Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 and I think a lot of the complaints are that the NPCs are just sexual conduits and not actual characters. It's not that the NPC is gay, it's that the NPC is whatever you want him/her to be. I actually think when it comes to LBGT representation games like Dragon Age are insulting. I actually would have no problem playing a video game where the main character is gay. I would rather have my character be gay and have a compelling story than what Bioware does.

Quote from: rawma;796930But if you claim to be rolling 3d6 and always come up with 8 to 13, then eventually we will suspect you're not rolling fair dice; that you're erasing 3 and 18.  That was Will's point about putting out a lot of material that never features anyone who isn't mainstream.

Imagine a Northman...

Guess what?

The fact that the first thing into your mind wasn't an Inuit doesn't make you a bigot.

Quote from: rawma;796930Have you really never seen point-buy superhero games?  You put those disadvantages (possibly all of them) on your character in order to afford your awesome character concept.  Only slightly less common in fantasy settings; the very brief Pocket Universe rules have one-armed and one-eyed, and a few generic ones that could cover the others (but not blind).



But if you claim to be rolling 3d6 and always come up with 8 to 13, then eventually we will suspect you're not rolling fair dice; that you're erasing 3 and 18.  That was Will's point about putting out a lot of material that never features anyone who isn't mainstream.

(http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/2000/300/2318/2318.strip.gif)

Quote from: CRKrueger;796940Imagine a Northman...

Guess what?

The fact that the first thing into your mind wasn't an Inuit doesn't make you a bigot.

http://sciencenordic.com/what-vikings-really-looked

Quote from: Ulairi;796938I played Dragon Age and Dragon Age 2 and I think a lot of the complaints are that the NPCs are just sexual conduits and not actual characters. It's not that the NPC is gay, it's that the NPC is whatever you want him/her to be. I actually think when it comes to LBGT representation games like Dragon Age are insulting. I actually would have no problem playing a video game where the main character is gay. I would rather have my character be gay and have a compelling story than what Bioware does.

Eh, I've seen my wife playing DA2, and from what I saw, the bisexual female character was obviously bisexual. It wasn't like she was straight if you played a dude, and gay if you played a lady.

I mean, I watched as she hit on my wife's female character, then watched as she hit on the dour elf dude. What she was didn't change based on what you were, she just liked you whether you were a dude or lady because she liked dudes and ladies.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796940Imagine a Northman...

Guess what?

The fact that the first thing into your mind wasn't an Inuit doesn't make you a bigot.

I pictured a guy in spandex and a cape with a working compass on his chest and a weathervane on his head. So, not sure what that makes me.

Quote from: TristramEvans;796945I pictured a guy in spandex and a cape with a working compass on his chest and a weathervane on his head. So, not sure what that makes me.

The thread winner, I think.

Quote from: Brad;796905I play games, I don't explore human sexuality via "role playing".

There is a joke in there somewhere.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796940Imagine a Northman...

Guess what?

The fact that the first thing into your mind wasn't an Inuit doesn't make you a bigot.

Northman : "one of the ancient Scandinavians, especially a member of the group that from about the 8th to the 11th century made many raids and established settlements in Great Britain, Ireland, many parts of continental Europe, and probably in parts of North America." (dictionary.reference.com).

If you said "think of someone who lives north of latitude X north" and only ever got stereotypical Vikings after asking the same person many, many times in a context that values creative answers, then, yes, bigot.  Yes, maybe unimaginative, uncreative and ignorant; feel free to claim those instead.

Quote from: TristramEvans;796945I pictured a guy in spandex and a cape with a working compass on his chest and a weathervane on his head. So, not sure what that makes me.

I pictured a guy in spandex and a cape with a workingclass compass on his chest and a weathervane on his head. So, not sure what that makes me.

Northman! Hero of the north! Champion of the working classes. Trainer of whippets. Botherer of ferrets.

Proves I'm a southern ponce (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ponce). With dated vocabulary.

I would also take:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wLQNrr15sA

Quote from: rawma;796951ignorant

There you go, that was overdue.

Quote from: Bren;796854You should have stopped at not discussing your mindset. Its not possible to misunderstand what you wrote, because what you wrote is incoherent to the point that any proper understanding of it is impossible.

There are people who would have understood at once, what the point was, because they have certain unmetionened and unoticed corrolaries in their mind. But for others its incomprehensible gibberish, cause they have different corrolaries, so one would have to identify these differences and spell them out to avoid communication failure due to these differences.

Or shorter, if two people are on differing sides of several aisles, much what they hear from the other will sound like utter bullshit.

Examples:

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796868The realities of our sexist world find women only owning 1% of the world's wealth  - source Wall Street Journal  -quoting the UN http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/09/18/new-facts-on-the-gender-gap-from-the-world-bank/ in 2011.

All being equal, 52% population = women, thus they should own 52% wealth and have 52% of positions of power.

Bullshit!

Quote from: Will;796865I've sometimes considered running a fantasy game where elves pretty much had 21st century western etiquette, beliefs, and attitudes.
And the humans had medieval etiquete, beliefs, and attitudes.

'My Lord Iscliath, ... the messenger has returned from the human kingdom.'
"And?"
'We are awaiting the healers.'
"... Wait, what?"
'She was raped repeatedly and there's not much left of her face. We're trying regeneration potions.'
"What the fucking fuck? Ok, screw this, mount up the siege treants."

Bullshit!

Quote from: RPGPundit;796815If 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.

Partial bullshit!

All 3 suffer to some extent from irrational prejudice and lack of ability to get out of their own skin. At least from my POV. Probably, their positions are well-reasoned and rational from their own POV. But it would take to many words to understand what is exactly bullshit and what is only perceived bullshit (=bullshit happening in my brain).

Um, it's bullshit that I once wanted to run a game like that?

(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/117/814/are-you-wizard.jpg)

Quote from: stupidquestion;796958(=bullshit happening in my brain).

About sums it up.

Quote from: TristramEvans;796960About sums it up.

You're on a roll today. :D

Quote from: Will;796959Um, it's bullshit that I once wanted to run a game like that?

That you think that game would have much to do with 21-first century or medieval etiquette is bullshit.

For example, some years ago a US ambassador - the equivalent of a messenger - was treated worse than the one in your fictional example and some longer time ago embassy staff was kidnapped and murdered by people still regurlarly burning the US flag to chants "Death to the great satan." and no orders equivalent to "mount up the siege treants" were issued.

On the other hand, people in many time periods were well aware that the treatment of messengers would be understood as direct response to the message, therefore they would be unlikely to mistreat a messenger due to their own sexual desires, but normally mistreatment would be a deliberate response to the message, e.g.:
http://books.google.de/books?id=UoOZwk_4SWEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=spartans+messengers+well&source=bl&ots=l4lIhqK7QN&sig=sB36UdbkcQrHTBcQnWc4eFp6wHA&hl=de&sa=X&ei=dX1cVNTqJc3CPIGigbgJ&ved=0CFYQ6AEwBzgK#v=onepage&q=spartans%20messengers%20well&f=false
p. 53, first paragraph

And there is no reason to assume medieval would not know or not care about the status of messengers. But as long as you have fun with wrong notions about today people and medieval people, its of course irrelevant that its bullshit, funny bullshit is still funny.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;796887And even if this is the case,  who cares,  other than bigots like you. There you go.  Insult me and I will eventually stoop to your level.  Congratulations.

You care, hence your rant in the previous post.

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.

Heh.  Reminds me of a thread in the same vein over on TBP a few years back, where one poster claimed that there couldn't be any gay characters in a popular D&D setting because "the gods all agreed that no one was homosexual."

My retort was somewhere along the lines of "Say what?  You're telling me that in a setting where the gods agree on nothing -- not who's in charge, not on any other issue of morality, not on who gets to be priests, not on trappings or vestments or spells or temple architecture or anything else, this is what you claim the sole common ground of the gods is?  Bullshit."

Quote from: Ulairi;796829Not including gay folks into your game isn't erasure. A lot of us run games and sexuality never comes into anything. Does my game world have gay folks? I'm sure they are there.

See, I have to keep calling bullshit on the "sexuality never comes into anything."  In your gaming circle, there are never any husbands or wives?  There's not a single family?  Not a single NPC is depicted as anything other than asexual?  Brothels don't exist?  Exotic dancers or scantily-clad slave girls don't exist?  There's never any plot involving the king's son, or the baron's daughter, or the missing baby?

If you can look me in the eye and honestly say, "No.  There never has been," then okay.  That'd be a damn weird setting, but okay.

If you can't, then dude, you have sexuality in your setting. And that takes away the only legitimate excuse any of the antis- have proffered: that since there is no sexuality in their games there's no point to include LGBT NPCs.

Well, okay: "I'm a bigot and if I put faggot NPCs in my campaign my buddies will think I've gone queer or ... (gasp) liberal!" is an honest excuse.

Quote from: S'mon;796846I remember reading through City State of the Invincible Overlord and finding not one married couple in all the hundreds of NPCs. It's implied that the two owners of Naughty Nannies might be romantic as well as business partners; that's it.

Nah, 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, the names of the wives aren't 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.

If 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...

I 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, then the only way he is going to have never bought a single thing that included them is for them to literally not exist.

"I am offended that I bought this thing that I had read almost nothing about before buying, and it had something I disapprove of!"

The only way that could never happen is if no one ever, ever, included anything he could disapprove of. So this idea of different strokes for different folks, whatever man. Sure, but don't go on the internet and act like Paizo did something wrong by writing it.

And hey, I mean, its not like its literally impossible to rewrite if you don't want that part in your game for some reason. Change one or the other of the characters into a dude, make the sold sword to pay for the treatment for some kind of painful magical nonfatal curse, boom. done, that literally took me the amount of time it took to type this sentence. No reason to bitch about it on the internet.

Oh, unless you just find transgender people icky. I guess that is a reason.

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* :D

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.


(http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img3/item/477/106/260/o_cd-erasure-live-1992-london-hammersmith-odeon-abba-cd-0b37.jpg)

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."

Quote from: Ravenswing;796987What 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."

Now I don't know what soft-shoe methodology you've come up with for your count, or what books you claim to draw 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 or not than yours, if you don't mind too much.

I was talking about the positions-of-authority characters the PCs actually deal with in the AP when run. I've run most of the AP (in Book 5 now) but APs are linear so this is pretty much the same for everyone. It's not 'soft shoe' if that means arbitrary.
Notability is not Authority - Blackjack is notable, but not an authority figure.

From looking at other APs it seems similar - the authority figures the PCs deal with in the AP tend to be female, especially the friendly ones like Cressida Croft; villains are a bit closer to parity. They generally make the friendly-authority-figure characters female by default.

Quote from: Will;796900Yeah, that last? The one with the dragons, immortals, zombies, psychic warriors, and kung fu monks with a very modern gloss on the 'quasi medieval'?

Congratulations, you've just introduced one of the most colossally stupid and dishonest memes from The Banning Place to this forum: the notion that if an RPG is set in a fantasy world, the only reason to not make it a socially-progressive place with modern sensibilities is bigotry.

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

what's that?Obviously if I havent read it using an acronym doesnt actually point me in the right direction. Sheesh.

Quote from: One Horse Town;796906... if it makes some people feel good to see themselves portrayed in a product they bought, then that's a plus.

If that were really the objective, you'd see a lot more obese NPCs in Paizo books.

S'mon: Re: Vikings

I find it fascinating how deeply bodies and cultures shift. As has been frequently pointed out, the modern concepts of nationstates and patriotism, for example, are... well, modern. Heck, modern concepts of race.

( http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/ is fascinating, for example, to pierce the rather compartmentalized view of countries and peoples)

Quote from: Ravenswing;796988Yeah.  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."

My kids are way ahead of where I was.

My daughter had a trans girl in her class in preschool. I don't think I was aware of trans folks as anything but the butt of jokes until I was in my 20s.

Quote from: Haffrung;797003Congratulations, you've just introduced one of the most colossally stupid and dishonest memes from The Banning Place to this forum: the notion that if an RPG is set in a fantasy world, the only reason to not make it a socially-progressive place with modern sensibilities is bigotry.

What is with you guys and trying to find any excuse to pigeonhole an argument rather than engage it directly?

No, it's not from TBP, it's obvious, and I noted this in the early 1990s, long before TBP was a twinkle in a server admin's eye.

And nuts to your lazy selective reading. I've already pointed out several times that I don't have a problem with people making a gameworld that isn't socially progressive or have modern sensibilities. I've even run games like that.

There was even a subthread about White Hatism.

What I have a problem with, since apparently I need to spell it out in excruciating detail for you, is the unexamined reflexive hazy assumption-laden quasi-medieval game, where you just assume 'straight white people' where they aren't elves or dwarves.

If you have actually mapped out traditions, marriage laws, how lineage works, and attitudes towards various behaviors? Then fine, you've made a world.

If you're going to take me to task, actually read what I've said, you lazy derp.

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?"

Yup. As soon as my daughter has a question we'll explain to her that people are different. It's a parents issue and not a kids issue.


Kids don't give a fuck.

Quote from: S'mon;796990I was talking about the positions-of-authority characters the PCs actually deal with in the AP when run. I've run most of the AP (in Book 5 now) but APs are linear so this is pretty much the same for everyone. It's not 'soft shoe' if that means arbitrary.
Notability is not Authority - Blackjack is notable, but not an authority figure.

From looking at other APs it seems similar - the authority figures the PCs deal with in the AP tend to be female, especially the friendly ones like Cressida Croft; villains are a bit closer to parity. They generally make the friendly-authority-figure characters female by default.

What I find amusing is that you will happily run an AP which takes your kids pcs to 'hell' to fight demonic creatures such as succubi and yet you worry about there being too many female and any non heterosexual npcs.  Any AP taking pcs to an evil planar realm is going to be of an adult nature.  I can't understand your problem with Paizo. You can easily change whatever you want. And hopefully the message is clear: many of us want Paizo to create a greater variety of narratives and to have npc diversity.  It makes the game appeal to a wider audience as well which means games companies sell more and can invest more in our hobby. Win win for everyone.  Apart from you and a few others who see conspiracies by Cultural Marxism lurking behind anything looking like diversity or plain and simple liberal values.

Quote from: Ulairi;797030Kids don't give a fuck.

My kids are VERY KEEN on proper gender assignments.

For example, they declare that girls like vanilla and not chocolate, while boys like chocolate and not vanilla. Obviously.

Because my daughter happens to like vanilla and not chocolate, my son the reverse.
Which is, I suppose, symbolic of these issues overall -- 'how I happen to like things must be universal truths.'

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796908On the subject: Can anyone think of a adventure (would probably be in Paizo if there is) with a bisexual male NPC? I always find bi males to be the most underrepresented demographic. (The only two I can think of in fiction period are Jack Harkness and John Constantine)

I'm sure it must be more popular now In fiction. Thinking back to the 1970s and 1980s didn't Anne Rice have a bisexual vamp? And I think at least one of the guys on Darkover by Marion Zimmer Bradley was bisexual.

Quote from: Bren;797041I'm sure it must be more popular now In fiction. Thinking back to the 1970s and 1980s didn't Anne Rice have a bisexual vamp? And I think at least one of the guys on Darkover by Marion Zimmer Bradley was bisexual.

Quite possibly.  But yes.  Bisexuality is massively underrepresented in cultural production.  Along with trans it is more stigmatised than gay and lesbian sexuality. :/

This thread has made me want to run Wraeththu. And possibly FATAL.

Quote from: Brad;797046This thread has made me want to run Wraeththu. And possibly FATAL.

Run a mashup of the two?

Quote from: Haffrung;797003Congratulations, you've just introduced one of the most colossally stupid and dishonest memes from The Banning Place to this forum...

I'm starting to half-wonder if that was their secret reason for banning him - so he'd have to come over here and do that... cast out from Eden to spread the SJW gospel... very cunning, those Swine. :D

Edit: Sorry Will, I do actually respect you more than about 2/3 the population of therpgsite - including the ca 50% of regular posters I have on my Ignore List. You're alright really. :)

Quote from: Will;797022My daughter had a trans girl in her class in preschool.

....

I really can't say what I'm thinking about that right now - suffice to say there aren't enough eye-roll smilies on Earth...

And I don't have anything against tran-whatevers, but for fuck's sake, in PRESCHOOL?

Reminds me of a news story I saw awhile back about parents giving hormone therapy to their 9 year old....

Quote from: Will;797021S'mon: Re: Vikings

I find it fascinating how deeply bodies and cultures shift. As has been frequently pointed out, the modern concepts of nationstates and patriotism, for example, are... well, modern. Heck, modern concepts of race.

( http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/ is fascinating, for example, to pierce the rather compartmentalized view of countries and peoples)

Yup, I fully agree - most people don't seem to realise how quickly both memes and genes can shift. The ancient Egyptians for instance - no one looks anything like them any more, but it doesn't seem that they were wiped out by an external force. Or (longer term) the mystery of Australia, where the early gracile skeletons give way to much more robust forms later.

Quote from: Werekoala;797050....

I really can't say what I'm thinking about that right now - suffice to say there aren't enough eye-roll smilies on Earth...

Don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking some really really bad parents.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;797036What I find amusing is that you will happily run an AP which takes your kids pcs to 'hell' to fight demonic creatures such as succubi and yet you worry about there being too many female and any non heterosexual npcs....

Oh fuck off. I'm putting you on IL now.

Quote from: Werekoala;797050....

I really can't say what I'm thinking about that right now - suffice to say there aren't enough eye-roll smilies on Earth...

And I don't have anything against tran-whatevers, but for fuck's sake, in PRESCHOOL?

Reminds me of a news story I saw awhile back about parents giving hormone therapy to their 9 year old....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_youth

Quote from: S'mon;797052Don't know what you're thinking, but I'm thinking some really really bad parents.

Reminds me of the Species-less child (http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/podcasts/thisisthat_20141016_62493.mp3) (2:00)

Quote from: S'mon;797049I'm starting to half-wonder if that was their secret reason for banning him - so he'd have to come over here and do that... cast out from Eden to spread the SJW gospel... very cunning, those Swine. :D

Edit: Sorry Will, I do actually respect you more than about 2/3 the population of therpgsite - including the ca 50% of regular posters I have on my Ignore List. You're alright really. :)

MY MISSION IS SUCCEEDING. Nah, I'm good.

The only thing that really sharts my shorts is when people insist on responding to me while clearly not reading most of what I'm saying. Mainly because it's a stupid waste of everyone's time.

Quote from: Werekoala;797050....

I really can't say what I'm thinking about that right now - suffice to say there aren't enough eye-roll smilies on Earth...

And I don't have anything against tran-whatevers, but for fuck's sake, in PRESCHOOL?

Reminds me of a news story I saw awhile back about parents giving hormone therapy to their 9 year old....

When did you think you were a boy? Did you go through a period where you weren't sure and wore whatever, or did you insist on wearing boy's clothes (assuming your parents had any sway in the matter)?

I have twins, a boy and a girl. It's been eye-opening.

Age 2 onward, my daughter insisted on pink, purple, and dresses. She flat-out refuses to wear 'boy's clothes.'
My son has no interest in dresses.

They are 6. Why do you think that is?

As for hormones, of course you start earlier. It's proven to be much less traumatic than waiting until much later.


And you see, where you and S'mon assumed the parents were kooky nutbars enforcing their progressive feminism on their children? Yeah.

The parents aren't thrilled about it. They have a bunch of kids, many of them boys. But one of their (four or five, I forget) children insisted on dresses. They saw a lot of doctors and psychiatrists, it's not a phase.


What exactly do you suggest? Beating it out of the child?

Quote from: Will;797062The parents aren't thrilled about it. They have a bunch of kids, many of them boys. But one of their (four or five, I forget) children insisted on dresses. They saw a lot of doctors and psychiatrists, it's not a phase.


What exactly do you suggest? Beating it out of the child?

They're five years old; don't give them a dress to wear. Not really understanding what the problem is here...if your kid INSISTED on eating candy for every meal, would you eventually just acquiesce and say, fine, fuck it, candy it is?

Quote from: Brad;797068They're five years old; don't give them a dress to wear. Not really understanding what the problem is here...if your kid INSISTED on eating candy for every meal, would you eventually just acquiesce and say, fine, fuck it, candy it is?

There is a major false equivalency here.

Quote from: Certified;797070There is a major false equivalency here.

Not one bit.

Quote from: BenTheFerg;797045Quite possibly.  But yes.  Bisexuality is massively underrepresented in cultural production.  Along with trans it is more stigmatised than gay and lesbian sexuality. :/

It's not underrepresented. It's harder to define and LGBT all in all is a very percent of the population to begin with. Transgender and bisexuals are a fraction of a smaller fraction of the population.

One thing I've grown to appreciate as I've gotten older is understanding how accurate snap judgements can be.

In this case, bigotry.


So what you're saying is that dressing like a woman is a sweet sweet temptation that you needed parents to keep from you?

That's interesting.

Quote from: Brad;797072Not one bit.

Wearing a dress gives you cavities? Who knew?

EDIT: OK, Will's response is funnier.

Quote from: Bren;797076Wearing a dress gives you cavities? Who knew?

If true, people are going to save a lot of money on surgery.

Quote from: CRKrueger;797077If true, people are going to save a lot of money on surgery.

You must be punnished.

Quote from: Will;797075One thing I've grown to appreciate as I've gotten older is understanding how accurate snap judgements can be.

In this case, bigotry.


So what you're saying is that dressing like a woman is a sweet sweet temptation that you needed parents to keep from you?

That's interesting.

So essentially you have no legitimate counterargument and have resorted to simple ad hominem. Glad we got that cleared up.

Quote from: Bren;797076Wearing a dress gives you cavities? Who knew?

EDIT: OK, Will's response is funnier.

Yep (http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2008/10/why-women-get-more-cavities)

Quote from: Will;797062What exactly do you suggest? Beating it out of the child?

I suggest not labelling them as 'trans' - or anything else - in preschool. Let him wear a dress, or at least gender-neutral clothing, to nursery school if he wants; don't tell him 'Ok, that means you're Trans now'.

Quote from: Brad;797081Yep (http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2008/10/why-women-get-more-cavities)

Interesting. Cute. But nothing in the study is related to attire.

Perhaps looking at the effects of penmanship training on handedness would be a more apt analogy.

Quote from: S'mon;797082I suggest not labelling them as 'trans' - or anything else - in preschool. Let him wear a dress, or at least gender-neutral clothing, to nursery school if he wants; don't tell him 'Ok, that means you're Trans now'.

Nobody has. But when he insists on dresses, playing with girlie things, and being called 'she'...

Again, why are you assuming people are foisting their attitudes on her?

Eh, I personally think that that age is a bit young for trans.

I mean, my son likes dresses. He doesn't wear them out, but he would put on play dress dresses when he was younger in his room. My wife and I didn't really care if he wanted to do it, so we ended up just moving the play dress stuff into his room if he wanted to.

If he comes out to me when he is in his teens and thinks he is trans, I'll be there for him, but at the age he is now, its not that uncommon to experiment with identity like that.

While I think Brad is wrong on the whole, OMG take away the dresses! I also think that age is a bit young to declare trans status, unless there was extensive sessions done with a child psychologist with no vested interest into trans politics to back it up. Anyone who knows they are trans at preschool age is ridiculously rare.

Quote from: Brad;797080So essentially you have no legitimate counterargument and have resorted to simple ad hominem. Glad we got that cleared up.

No, just lauding you for your consistency in presentation.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;797086While I think Brad is wrong on the whole, OMG take away the dresses! I also think that age is a bit young to declare trans status.

Whether or not you want the kid to wear a dress isn't the point. If a parent decides something is inappropriate for their child, then they should say, sorry, and be done with it. And, yes, specifically with the age thing...a five year old isn't capable of making informed decisions about what socks to wear, much less if they're having issues with gender identity. This is an entirely different question if we're talking about a ten year old.

Quote from: Will;797087No, just lauding you for your consistency in presentation.

You're allowed to be stupid. It's okay.

And I still have no idea what this has to do with roleplaying games.

Quote from: Brad;797088And, yes, specifically with the age thing...a five year old isn't capable of making informed decisions about what socks to wear, much less if they're having issues with gender identity. This is an entirely different question if we're talking about a ten year old.

What is your basis for saying this?

Quote from: Emperor Norton;797086Eh, I personally think that that age is a bit young for trans.

I mean, my son likes dresses. He doesn't wear them out, but he would put on play dress dresses when he was younger in his room. My wife and I didn't really care if he wanted to do it, so we ended up just moving the play dress stuff into his room if he wanted to.

If he comes out to me when he is in his teens and thinks he is trans, I'll be there for him, but at the age he is now, its not that uncommon to experiment with identity like that.

While I think Brad is wrong on the whole, OMG take away the dresses! I also think that age is a bit young to declare trans status, unless there was extensive sessions done with a child psychologist with no vested interest into trans politics to back it up. Anyone who knows they are trans at preschool age is ridiculously rare.

QFT.

Quote from: Will;797090What is your basis for saying this?

A boy wanting to wear dresses doesn't make him transgendered...he could just like them. You start throwing labels around and putting people into groups before they're old enough to develop an identity, you're going to fuck them up for life. Actually I agree with Emperor Norton: if a five year old boy wants to wear a dress, wtf is it going to hurt? When I was five I wanted to wear a Spiderman costume 24/7. I wasn't labeled something other than a kid who liked Spiderman.

She might not turn out to be trans, perhaps it's a several year-long phase. But she definitely seems to be progressing in that direction.

But my starting point for mentioning it, in case anyone has forgotten, is 'my kids are dealing with these issues already.'


(Also, age 9 is too early for hormone therapy unless they are delaying puberty : http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-teens-become-happy-healthy-young-adults/ )

Quote from: Brad;797093A boy wanting to wear dresses doesn't make him transgendered...he could just like them. You start throwing labels around and putting people into groups before they're old enough to develop an identity, you're going to fuck them up for life. Actually I agree with Emperor Norton: if a five year old boy wants to wear a dress, wtf is it going to hurt? When I was five I wanted to wear a Spiderman costume 24/7. I wasn't labeled something other than a kid who liked Spiderman.

Ok, yet again for the reading impaired:

Nobody is throwing labels on the person in question. Nobody is telling her she's transgendered. People are, in fact, taking a cautious 'let's see how things develop' approach without demanding she do one thing or another.

She started wearing dresses from an early age, consistently. She started demanding people refer to her as 'she.'


And as for asking about your basis for saying so... my kids are 6. Sometimes they make very intelligent decisions. Sometimes they don't. Gender identity quite often starts fairly early, and assuming that the parents are stupid/crazy or that they saw one trans-promoting psychiatrist is very stupid.

Quote from: Will;797096Nobody is throwing labels on the person in question. Nobody is telling her she's transgendered.

QuoteMy daughter had a trans girl in her class in preschool.

You just called him/her a "trans girl". Sorry, this is exactly what you're doing.

Oh shit, she's a member of this forum??

Crap.

Er, not crap, I mean dagnabbit.

Quote from: Brad;797072Not one bit.

(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/cf/cfe1e187cd5703d9d1513ae24937b4839e3a7f1c97972667f576b79a1b2874a6.jpg)

One involves nutritional needs, the other is a matter of expression.

Quote from: Certified;797100One involves nutritional needs, the other is a matter of expression.

If you're going to assume implicitly that "free expression of sexuality" is fine, then surely you won't care if your kid starts having sex at age five, correct?

Eh, expression of gender identity is not expression of sexuality.

Man, I need better enemies.

Thankfully, there's always that other thread.

Time to talk about games again.

Quote from: CRKrueger;796918The fact that people don't actively consider making a fantasy party out of a one-armed warrior, a mage born without eyes, a fat hermaphroditic thief,

Sounds like a pretty standard GURPS campaign.