Should Palladium include GBLT characters in future books?

[Goliath Strongarm]

Disney hasn't had an openly LGBT character! I guess we need to go to their message boards and bring it up! Same with Pixar!

Actually bub your wrong. Disney does have them. There's a show on their Disney network about a black and white lesbian couple with their blended families. This is the same network that will show the new Star Wars show "Rebels". I don't know the name of the show since I don't watch Disney, but I remember the commercials. It stuck out to me because I never thought Disney would ever do that. Kudos to them. I also remembered working in the film industry that many Disney executives are gay and lesbian and that Disney is pro gay. In fact one executive left with her partner so they could continue to grow their family. Talk about art imitating life.

I stand corrected, although I was thinking more along the lines of their movies.....

[calto40k]

Crazies gonna crazy.

Plus, let's face it, any publicity is likely good publicity here. Look at how many shows and sites drum up controversy just for the sake of getting eyes on them.

If nothing else, it comes down to whether or not they'd be more likely to lose sales than gain them. Having looked at the fairly hard 'conservative' bent that the "political arena" subforum has, I can't say that it wouldn't be without any risk at all, but at the same time, their primary game totally supports being a psychic werewolf from another dimension that pilots magical living power armour, wields rune weapons in both hands and can cast magic from across the galaxy.

Him or her also happening to have a same sex spouse is kinda low key at that point.

I agree 100% and I've never found Palladium to be anti LGBT. I just think it's a question that needs to keep being asked until it really is irrelevant.

A question that need to keep being asked until it really is irrelevant.....

That sounds an awful lot like, "I'm going to keep bugging you about it until you do what I want just to shut me up"

I could be wrong though. Not saying the tactic doesn't work, just that might not be your intent.

I am speaking of the issue of LGBT equality as a whole not just in Rpg's in general or in Palladium specifically.

Kind of like civil rights in the 1960's.

EDIT: So yeah I'm really not going to shut up about equal rights for LGBT people and I couldn't care less who it bothers.

2nd EDIT: And I will keep reiterating as a former Palladium Associate I have never experienced anything which would make me suspect there as an ounce of anti LGBT sentiment in the company.

Dude if I could slow clap through here I so would.

[Goliath Strongarm]

I am speaking of the issue of LGBT equality as a whole not just in Rpg's in general or in Palladium specifically.

Kind of like civil rights in the 1960's.

EDIT: So yeah I'm really not going to shut up about equal rights for LGBT people and I couldn't care less who it bothers.

2nd EDIT: And I will keep reiterating as a former Palladium Associate I have never experienced anything which would make me suspect there as an ounce of anti LGBT sentiment in the company.

On a whole, I completely agree with you. As far as Palladium Books... I don't see it as being something that actually needs to be addressed. Not purposely including isn't the same as purposely excluding.

In fact, after this, if an LGBT character DID show up as an NPC, it would seem to be more of a "there's the token minority so we don't seem prejudiced" reaction than any actual inclusion.

And THAT kind of response is actually WORSE than not going out of their way to include them at all...

(Just ask anyone that's BEEN a token for a group. Been there, done that. And yeah, I knew I was the token. )

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

So if a male has an intimiate relationship with another male, then obviously it's a 'gay thing'. Is that what you're saying?

No, not at all.

I was listing instances that could be misconstrued as representing a homosexual relationship. Some people think that Dumbledore was gay based on their perceptions of his activities with Harry. It is Never Stated in the books. Similar relationships/activities occurred between Obi-wan/Yoda and Luke Skywalker and I pointed that out.

Having an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex, as long as it remains platonic, does not make it a gay thing. Having an intimate relationship with someone of the same sex, that includes sexual contact, makes it a gay thing. That's the defining difference, physical contact of a sexual nature.
We're never once presented with an occurrence of Dumbledore having sexual contact with Harry, or any reference whatsoever to Dumbledore's sexual preferences. He's only gay if the reader chooses to view him that way.

Also: Why did you use the color pink in reference to GBLT people? I'm seriously asking you this, because in 2014 CE, I'm finding it hard to believe that some people are still holding onto literal color sterotypes that blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Using pink to denote gay men has been a homophobic stereotype for decades.

I used pink for a few reasons. 1.) I thought it'd be funny so I did it for personal amusement. 2.) Growing up during the 80's and 90's gay men were always portrayed as effeminate/feminine in movies and tv. Like you said, "pink is for girls" so that is the association my brain makes in regards to color. 3.) (and this is the most valid reason) Pink is an easier color to get the right shade of in the editor, I can see it easier than the different shades of purple

I'm just going to come right out and ask you bluntly: Are you opposed to this because you dislike GBLT people?

Sigh, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I dislike you.

I do not dislike GBLT people. I disagree with their lifestyle choice, (I believe it is a choice, that is my right. If you do not, that is your right.) but I do not dislike them as a group. I like or dislike people on an individual basis. I know people who are gay and am friendly with them. We're not best friends, but we're not bitter enemies either. To say that I dislike an entire group of people based on a single defining characteristic is to accuse me of discrimination and bigotry.

Is that what you're doing? I hope not; that would make you an @$$h0!e, and then I would dislike you.

EDIT: IF I were forced to choose something I dislike about the GBLT community as a whole, it would ostentatious flamboyancy.

This doesn't bother me

This bothers me

Individually they may be wonderful people. But as a group, if anything "offended me" it would be that.

I agree with Giant2005. Palladium doesn't address (or need to) the sexuality and relationships of its NPC's except for the purpose of establishing plot/backstory.

First, you're wrong. I left a huge post in this thread in which I detailed tons of heterosexual relationships described in the books (which Giant2005 claimed existed only in insignificant numbers).

Second, if it's permissable to write heterosexual relationship after heterosexual relationship, then I fail to see how including a few homosexual or bisexual relationships would harm anything.

(I'll address the 2nd bit further down)

First: I made my comment before I read your PB list of relationships. So I stand corrected on the point of PB doesn't write about relationships. As a player/GM,
I see the listing of relationships ONLY as plot devices. "Bob is married to Kate and they run the saloon" This info is useful as it allows for layered interaction between the NPC's and players, rather than each npc being static and isolated.

Your party rolls into town and stops at the local open air market. Steve decides to flirt with the first pretty girl he notices. It happens to be Kate. She politely rebuffs his advances. Steve becomes increasingly aggressive in his pursuit(cause he's a dick), until Kate begins making a scene in the public market. Kate runs off through the city streets. Later you arrive at the Saloon to meet your contact. Look Steve, there is Kate. Kate runs behind the bar and points out the party to the bartender (a huge burly man). He listens to her story while glaring at your table. He then walks out from behind the bar holding a bat and motions for his friends to follow him as he approaches your table

The bit about their relationship isn't there to promote a hetero or anti-gay agenda. It provides story elements plain and simple. The same goes with the example of the nurse who liked flirting with handsome male patients.

It is late in the evening and your party, having been beaten and thrown out of the Saloon by a jealous Bob is in need of medical attention. You drag your way to the Dr.'s home/office and knock on the door. He answers the door with a shotgun pointed at your faces. "I just got a call my my brother in law Bob, he warned me you might be coming by. Move along before you need an undertaker instead of a Dr." Over the Dr.'s shoulder you can see a plain looking nurse. She stares at the party wided eyed. Shifty Pete turns on the charm and speaks to her, "My lands, but you're the purtiest thing I ever saw, you must be an Angel. I know in my heart it's the truth, and aint Angel would turn away poor souls in need of help. Please beautiful Angel lady, won't you help us we're in desperate shape?" At that point the Dr. chases you off the porch and down the street toward the edge of town. Hours later, battered and bleeding by the roadside you hear the scuff of feet through the underbrush. It is the Nurse! She's tracked you down and brought medical supplies to treat your wounds. All thanks to Shifty Pete's flirting.

Just like in the 1st example the info about the nurse flirting with male patients is there for STORY purposes. It gives the players and GM useful info(it's not about one lifestyle over the other). Let's reimagine this last scene, but instead of Shifty Pete the handsome scoundrel flirting with the nurse we'll have Willow the Druidess (and lesbian yay for equal representation) attempt the flirting. Guess what happens? You all die on the roadside from your wounds, or in the next attack because you weren't treated and able to recover enough HP/SDC to tough out the next encounter.

Just because it isn't printed out doesn't mean it is excluded.

Fair enough, but then, I must wonder why you're opposed to it being included in future books?

I'm not "opposed" to it. I just don't feel it needs to be made a "thing." If it is mentioned in passing,(as briefly as the relationships in your huge list were) then that's no big deal I (and I think most who've commented) would be ok with that.

When he's done with his chores, Jorra the blacksmith's apprentice, can be found down by the docks. He likes watching the longshoremen flex and strain under their heavy loads. He's an ambitious young man and will take on repair jobs (weapons/armor) for the characters in order to get some coin in his pocket without his master taking all the money and him still doing all the work.

Although she is the most deadly assassin in the Guild of the Black Viper, Tourmaline Hyacinth much prefers the company of the female attendants at her private bath house. Their soft touches and delicate features help soothe her mind and offer a relaxation and release not to be found in the company of men. Should the players wish to contact her, she is in her best mood after a session with her attendants. While still excessively lethal, her guard will be let down.(*Note, This option is only safe for female pc's. Male characters are not allowed in bath house. If she is approached by a male PC in public they will be treated with a thinly veiled hostility. While they will not be attacked outright (unless provoked), it is made clear their presence and attention is most unwelcome).

See, simply stuck in there amidst the other flavor text and useful player info.

It is up for you as the player or GM to decide what kind of relationships your character is into.

(and just to poke the bear)If it were printed out as a character option say as a random table bit in the Rounding out your character section, (y'know where birth order, land of origin and such is) then you'll have someone come along and say "See it IS a choice, you get to choose to be LBGT or not" and on the flip side someone else is going to say "You can't put that in there as an OPTION, it isn't Optional we ARE that way." And now PB is in the middle of Drama it didn't need.

That, OSA-Nate, is a fallacious Straw Man argument. Nobody is suggesting that LGBT be included in character design tables. You're responding to an argument that nobody has made.

You are incorrect sir. Kiraya TiDreckan asked for it as a character option. Character options are part of character design. PB uses Character Design Tables to list character options.

Further, you're suggesting that including GBLT characters will create "drama". As I said in my rebuttal to your previous post (which you declined to respond to, noticably), this is the same argument that was used extensively by pro-racist whites in the 1960's and even in the 1970's when decisions were made to racially desegregate the schools, military, workplace, etc.

The bigger question is: who is being hurt by being inclusive? Do you have an answer to this?

There you go, suggesting I'm a racist again. I've been civil up to this point. If you continue to accuse me of racism or bigotry just because I disagree with your stance, I'll report you. Let's try to keep this a civil dialogue.

As for being hurt, No one is being "hurt" by it. At the same time no one is being "hurt" by it not being included. If your position/belief/social standing is so tenuous that the lack of being mentioned in a RPG damages it...Then I'm lead to believe you don't have much of a position/belief/social standing to begin with.

Let's play the demographic game for a minute. I'm a 30+year old heterosexual, protestant, white male from the midwest that primarily votes along conservative republican lines. I make less than $30,000 annually. I don't own any firearms, don't smoke, rarely ever drink, I do not use any type of recreational drug, nor do I abuse any prescription drugs or other controlled substances. I enjoy many genre's of music (mostly country because it's easiest to sing along with.), television, film, and literature.

That's me. That's about as narrow a point as you can put on me without getting to specific and retain any sort of internet anonymity. Now I want to ask you Mr. Inclusive, am I being hurt by not having my own "this demographic" history month? Am I being hurt because I'm not represented as a character option in a game of make believe?

NO, I'm not. I am who I am and like what I like REGARDLESS of whether or not anyone recognizes me/includes me. No damage comes to me personally, socially, economically, religiously, ethnically, or otherwise because I (my specific demographic)didn't get written in/recognized in an RPG, Book, TV show, Movie, Video Game, Etc.. Maybe I need to hold a parade and a rally and get some lobbyists so that Chubby, Middle-aged, Under-employed, White guys can get the recognition they deserve!!! We demand EQUAL REPRESENTATION!

Sigh. Thanks for getting me riled up. And just incase you missed it. I was mocking you.

How you want to play your character is your personal decision, it doesn't need to be a stated rule. Does the sexuality of your PC (or an NPC) make any difference to the game as a whole (other than as flavor text)? Will it make them better at their skills, at combat, does it give them any specific attribute bonus/impairment, does it give them a special/different appearance, does it make them an ally or target for a specific group????? If you answered YES to these questions then that isn't equality it is discrimination (maybe on a small level, but still). If you said NO, then you've helped establish my point. It is something that you are free to decide to put or not in your story. That's one thing people love about PB if it doesn't need specifically stated out then they leave it up to the player to include or exclude, just so long as everyone is having fun.

Another Straw Man. Nobody is suggesting any of the things you are saying. All that is being said is to casually mention that, instead of automatically writing all relationships as heterosexual (as Palladium currently does), a few relationships are written as being homosexual. Nothing more.

No, not another straw man. I was referring back to Kiraya's request that it be put in as a character option. It is already a character option in as much as you the player have the option of making your character gblt or not.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Maybe I need to hold a parade and a rally and get some lobbyists so that Chubby, Middle-aged, Under-employed, White guys can get the recognition they deserve!!! We demand EQUAL REPRESENTATION!

Only problem is we can't afford the lobbyists.... although, how "chubby" is chubby? Do we need to split hairs? I have a bit of a belly going on, but, my weight is still plenty low for my height...

[Pepsi Jedi]

If someone hadn't made an issue, atheists might still be equated with Satanists.

I get where you were going with the list. I do. Sadly this one isn't quite 'won' just yet. Many people still do rank Atheists right up there with Satanists.

We that write "Jedi" in that little blank spot on the form seldom get respect either.

But I get where you were going

[Pepsi Jedi]

In all of those examples you use, not a SINGLE ONE was actually about the issue that was brought up. In ALL of those examples, ALL OF THEM, someone was actually being hindered. That is not the case here.

As a wise man once said. "That all depends... on a certain point of view". It can easily be argued, that by express exclusion in 100 or more books, that the LGBT lifestile IS being hindered, in that they're not being properly represented.

If PB was making it a point to say "We're not having LGBT characters, they don't exist in our worlds",

Over 100 Books. 1000s of pages. 100s to 1000s of Characters, not one is LGBT. They may not be 'saying' it, but they surely seem to be showing it.

then yes, someone is being targeted and hindered. That's NOT what is happening. No one is being hurt, hindered, attacked, robbed, taken advantage of, or anything else. Not even fictional characters.

Exclusion is something to some people. It hurts them. They feel attacked. The lack of representation makes them feel robbed of their very lifestyle. Surely taken advantage of.

You are not being excluded, so you don't 'feel' it. Others may.

None of your examples work.

What you're seemingly trying to do is make something seem like a big issue, when it's NOT.

It's not an issue... --to you--. You're not LGBT. I assure you it's an issue to some. You may not agree, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. The results of the pole show that it does indeed matter to some. Which makes it an issue. The size of the issue is defined personally.

THAT is what has helped push a lot of the middle-of-the-road people AWAY from supporting the LGBT community-

Mmmmmmmmm. Naa. I don't think so. "Oh you're making an issue so I'm going to come down on the other side of it"? Naaaa. I think we know what drives someone away from supporting the LGBT community. It's not that giving them equal representation is annoying on it's face.

the "in your face" attitude, making it an issue anywhere and everywhere, even when it's NOT an issue.

It is an issue. You just don't seem to like it. This thread isn't 'in your face'. If anything it's one of the longest threads on ANY sort of sexuality I've seen online in a long time that hasn't gone off the rails into crazy town. Which is saying something.

Which is saying ALOT concidering some of us here. lol .(Myself included).

It's an issue all over the county. Look at the news. Can't go a day with out it popping up in international news. Look how many states now allow same sex marriage/unions. Look at how many more are considering it. Look at how many more are inacting laws against it.

Like it. Love it. Hate it. Lothe it. It's an issue in our country and yes, in every day lives.

Disney hasn't had an openly LGBT character! I guess we need to go to their message boards and bring it up! Same with Pixar!

The blue fish in that one movie was. Played by Ellen. She's even getting a spin off. lol.

Seriously though. People are already there, and elsewhere petitioning for more representation of the LGBT community in such places.

And hey, those games I'm playing on FB don't have LGBT characters...

Depends on the games you play I'd imagine. lol.

let's start hunting down those companies, and bringing it up on their boards!

People --Do-- Goli. All the time. Because it matters to some people.

And hey, let's make Lara Croft lesbian, because the Tomb Raider games need that (and let's be honest, a lot of us have thought about that one over the years...).

There's LGBT characters in video games. It even made the news today, well technically yesterday because it's 4 in the morning, but it made the news today, the public outcry that Nintendo said it would not put LGBT char's in their new games. Made CNN. NBC CBS.. I'm going to assume the others too but those are the channels I saw it on today.(yesterday). Public outcry at Nintendo coming out and saying they would NOT do it.

It's a thing.

You see my point? This isn't an act of EXCLUSION. It's not an act of hindering, targeting, or purposely excluding anyone or anything. It's NOT an issue.

It is an exclusion. if you have 100s of books 1000s of characters and it's not INCLUDED with that wide swath of representations.. then yes it's an Exclusion. If there's that many characters, and none of them have popped up LGBT. It's not by accident.

These things matter a great deal to some people. Not at all to others. Still just because it might not matter to one. And one person blows it off because it doesn't matter to them. It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to anyone.

It matters a great deal to some people and is a very big issue to them.

[Goliath Strongarm]

In all of those examples you use, not a SINGLE ONE was actually about the issue that was brought up. In ALL of those examples, ALL OF THEM, someone was actually being hindered. That is not the case here.

As a wise man once said. "That all depends... on a certain point of view". It can easily be argued, that by express exclusion in 100 or more books, that the LGBT lifestile IS being hindered, in that they're not being properly represented.

Express exclusion would be saying "we're NOT putting them in here", or "we're making it a POINT that we don't have any". This is NOT a case of express exclusion- this is a case of not going out of their way to INCLUDE. Not the same.

Over 100 Books. 1000s of pages. 100s to 1000s of Characters, not one is LGBT. They may not be 'saying' it, but they surely seem to be showing it.

Again, there's a difference between not going out of their way to include, and actually excluding. This could ALSO simply being a case of "well damn, never thought about it". Because honestly, in something as trivial as an RPG, there are actual REAL concerns on the LGBT radar...

Exclusion is something to some people. It hurts them. They feel attacked. The lack of representation makes them feel robbed of their very lifestyle. Surely taken advantage of.

You are not being excluded, so you don't 'feel' it. Others may.

I guess we need to go back and apologize to every kid that didn't get invited to the high school parties? Because he wasn't being represented?

Seriously, this act (and yes, I say ACT) of using "feelings" to justify anything and everything has gone beyond the bend. You know what? I "feel" that someone being called out for not going out of their way to make someone else feel included is rude, disrespectful, and just plain offensive. There's some feeling for you.

It's not an issue... --to you--. You're not LGBT. I assure you it's an issue to some. You may not agree, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. The results of the pole show that it does indeed matter to some. Which makes it an issue. The size of the issue is defined personally.

Actually, the results of the poll do NOT indicate that it "matters" to some. It could also indicate:
1) People are choosing the PC vote.
2) People are thinking "yeah, sure, why not, I don't really care either way"
3) People are thinking "uhh... the top one" (and yes, studies actually show that on polls, the order choices are listed DOES matter, and that people are inclined to think that the first option is the "right" option)

Or any number of other things. All that IS indicated is that it matters to ONE. ONE is not a demographic.

Mmmmmmmmm. Naa. I don't think so. "Oh you're making an issue so I'm going to come down on the other side of it"? Naaaa. I think we know what drives someone away from supporting the LGBT community. It's not that giving them equal representation is annoying on it's face.

Actually, I can think of about a dozen people I know who were quite vocal supporters of the LGBT fight for rights, but were so tired of being screamed at to support it, and having it shoved in their faces on anything and everything, they got sick of it, and just want the fight to be over... and I've heard of many more beyond that.

It's an issue all over the county. Look at the news. Can't go a day with out it popping up in international news. Look how many states now allow same sex marriage/unions. Look at how many more are considering it. Look at how many more are inacting laws against it.

You mean laws where people are actually being affected? Where there is an actual affect? And again, you're trying to compare ACTUAL EXCLUSION with neglecting to include.... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

There's LGBT characters in video games. It even made the news today, well technically yesterday because it's 4 in the morning, but it made the news today, the public outcry that Nintendo said it would not put LGBT char's in their new games. Made CNN. NBC CBS.. I'm going to assume the others too but those are the channels I saw it on today.(yesterday). Public outcry at Nintendo coming out and saying they would NOT do it.

Ironically, all the way back in SMB2, it was there. And again, you're using ACTUAL EXCLUSION to try to equate to not purposely including.

You see my point? This isn't an act of EXCLUSION. It's not an act of hindering, targeting, or purposely excluding anyone or anything. It's NOT an issue.

It is an exclusion. if you have 100s of books 1000s of characters and it's not INCLUDED with that wide swath of representations.. then yes it's an Exclusion. If there's that many characters, and none of them have popped up LGBT. It's not by accident.

Actually, knowing Kevin, it's probably by neglect. He just never thought about it. Probably the same with the other authors. Because, honestly, how many of them actually have ever dealt, knowingly, with someone of the LGBT community?

These things matter a great deal to some people. Not at all to others. Still just because it might not matter to one. And one person blows it off because it doesn't matter to them. It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to anyone.

It matters a great deal to some people and is a very big issue to them.

That's because some people want to pick fights that have no genuine victim (not even in our fictional worlds!), while others are actually worried about LGBT marriage rights, or their not getting raped repeatedly and beheaded in some countries, or their rights to adopt, etc.... But no, this, here, in a rpg company books, is a made-up issue to play the victim.

[Pepsi Jedi]

It's easy to say "it's not an issue" when you have the luxury of having your demographic be socially-accepted.

I'm going to address this one first. Since you decided to assume something about me, without knowing me.

1) Pagan. Guess what? Still not socially accepted in a lot of places. Including, I might add, by a good chunk of the military, since I once had a guy in MY OWN UNIT who was seriously suggesting they toss me into the burn barrel to "watch the witch burn".

That's one guy. Not the entire military. The US military will accept you if you're pagan and you get the same 'rights' to religion as any other troop. You wouldn't be able to suddenly demand 'special' treatment, but it's there. I know a number of military personel, officers, that are pagan.

Your personal experience is just that. Personal.

2) Veteran. Guess what? There's this theory that all of us have PTSD, and are suddenly going to snap, killing everyone within a 2 mile radius. Certain members of Congress flapping their gums when they don't know what they're talking about has helped this image.

That's not universal though. Not by far. Do some people edge away? Sure, but some people edge away from a black guy on the bus too. Some people.. are stupid. Not all people. I very much respect veterans. People in uniform too. Doesn't make them gods, but I respect what they've done for me and country. Doesn't mean they're all nice either. Just putting on a uniform or having done so in the past doesn't mean they can't be jerks. As your squad mate above shows.

But there's not a wide spread FEAR of veterans. Is it out there? Sure, is it oppressive? no.

3) Try being 34 years old and on a college campus NOT as a professor. Not socially accepted, regardless of what the media would have you think.

Not trying to be mean at all, but maybe it's just you. I go to hang out on campus with friends all the time. I'm in that age bracket. I've never had a problem once. Now.. if you're 34 and trying to edge in on frat parties... well....

4) I'm a geek, and have always been a geek. I've NEVER been "socially accepted".

Again, that might be just you. I'm a Geek. I've always had a social circle. Geek is chic now. Geek culture is huge. HUGE. Look at Comicon. Look at... gods. Anything. Big Bang Theory is the biggest show on earth right now. Big in the US and in other countries all over the globe.

Can geeks get picked on? Sure. Guess what? So does everyone else. Geek's aren't second class citizens any more. We make your tv shows. We make your movies. (Gods look at the summer line up!!!
Spiderman
Godzilla
Xmen
Malficent
Edge of tomorrow
Transformers
Planet of the apes
Hercules
Jupiter Ascending
Guardians of the galaxy
TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES
Lucy)

It's good to be a geek.

It might just be you, man.

5) Politically, I'm an Independent, which means neither side actually gives a damn what I think or want. Hell, I'm not even allowed to vote in a primary in my state!

Actually it means they both care what you 'want' as they want your vote to swing. They cater to their parties first (Duh) but also cater to independants to get the additional votes.

In all of those examples you use, not a SINGLE ONE was actually about the issue that was brought up. In ALL of those examples, ALL OF THEM, someone was actually being hindered. That is not the case here.

You're trying to say that not purposely INCLUDING is the same as purposely EXCLUDING. They're NOT the same issue. [/quote]

You can't have the number of Pallaidum books we have with the number of characters, and not have them represented, after 30+ years and 100s of books and say they're not being purposefully excluded.

I'm not saying it's a policy, painted on the wall, but 30+ years, 100s of books. No representation whatsoever. That's not an accident.

You used examples of people that were being beaten, ripped off, murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and plenty more- none of which is the same as "not purposely including" someone. No one, not even fictional characters, are purposely being excluded.

I've addressed this above and in my own post.

As for people not being beaten, ripped off, murdered, imprisioned, tortured, and plenty more... the LGBT does face those things. A country recently envoked law that would allow you to stone people in the streets for the 'crime' of being gay.

As pertaning to Palladium in specific, yes, they're excluded. As pointed out above. 30+years of works with out one ever popping up, isn't an accident. Even if it's not hostile, it is exclusion. And lets not forget those sexual insanity tables, where homosexuality was listed as an insanity.

So you're arguing that the historic US cultural trend toward disenfranchising those outside the status quo does not exist and has never existed?

Ah, nice attempt to twist my words. No, that is NOT what I said. I said it was not the case HERE.

No you said it's not an issue at all. Which is the point trying to be made. It's an issue to some. Even if it's not an issue to you.

I'd like to further add that in SOME cases, people try to make an issue, to make themselves feel more the victim when you don't agree, or when they're not winning.

No one is being hurt? Are you claiming that disenfranchising a significant element of a population doesn't "hurt" them? If so, how?

How are they being disenfranchised?

Exclusion from the entire companies, catalog of books and lack of representation.

Because other people aren't going out of their way to try to include them? Where's the RIFTER submissions with LGBT characters? If the LGBT community is so disenfranchised, why aren't they trying to slip in there?

Palladium chooses what goes into the rifter. Thus... they're not represented there. Someone in the thread has pointed out he sent some in, but they never saw the light of day. Now, that's not saying it IS because of the LGBT stuff in there. I'm sure palladium gets tons they dont' choose to publish. But it does show that people ARE sending them in, and they're not being published.

And please, tell me ONE PERSON who's been disenfranchised from this? Who's gone through all of the books and said "What?! They don't have an LGBT NPC! Obviously, they don't want LGBT persons playing their games!"

This thread seems to signify that at least some people are saying that exact thing, as you're arguing against it. If they wern't you'd kinda be talking to your self.

Funny: that's the same argument that has been used to justify racism and sexism.

Actually, NO, it's not. The arguments to justify racism and sexism are more along the lines of inferior/superior arguments, often with pseudo-scientific claims in an attempt to justify the line of reasoning.

Idiots use all sorts of arguments on those sorts of things. Exclusion is used. That's what affirmative action was all about. Remember?

I'd be willing to bet $100 that if your rights and identity were suddenly taken away from you (or if they never existed) you'd have a very different perspective.

[/quote]

Oh, well, I'll take cash, cashier's check, or money order, but no personal checks.

I'm a guy who signed up for a group where all of my rights were taken from me, and given back, one by one, as privileges. This, in a time before everyone started trying to fight the military to let them be individuals. I had a large chunk of my individuality stripped down, and I had to work to let it come back forward (honestly, it took me MONTHS to get used to hearing my first name).

Doesn't count. You're 34. You were not drafted into service. You volunteered for that. If I volenteer to let someone punch me in the face, I don't get to cry about the black eye, and act all put upon.

Furthermore, I'd like you to tell me who's rights and identity are being taken away in this case? Honestly, whose? Not even fictional characters are having anything taken from them.

Those in the LGBT community(and others.) that feel that their very lifestyle is being excluded as if it doesn't exist.

Scenario: I'm throwing a party. I invite several friends from my college. I don't invite my neighbor.

That's NOT the same as me throwing a party, my neighbor showing up, and me saying "GO AWAY! I don't want you here!"

If your party went on for 30 years, and you invited all of your other neighbors, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, doezens, dozens and dozens, up to hundreds of times... and you didn't invite that one neighbor, but invited all the others, over and over 100s of times.

Yeah.... you don't want that guy at your party.

[Pepsi Jedi]

In all of those examples you use, not a SINGLE ONE was actually about the issue that was brought up. In ALL of those examples, ALL OF THEM, someone was actually being hindered. That is not the case here.

As a wise man once said. "That all depends... on a certain point of view". It can easily be argued, that by express exclusion in 100 or more books, that the LGBT lifestile IS being hindered, in that they're not being properly represented.

Express exclusion would be saying "we're NOT putting them in here", or "we're making it a POINT that we don't have any". This is NOT a case of express exclusion- this is a case of not going out of their way to INCLUDE. Not the same.

You don't know that. All we know is that they don't show up in the 100s of Palladium books over 30 years. If it wasn't on purpose, explain the reason that they've never shown up among all the 100s or 1000s of characters.

Recent studies show that up to 20% of the population are attracted to their own gender. So 1 in 5.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 67/?no-ist

Now.. if you had 5 people does that mean ONE of them HAS TO BE? No. You might not have one in your first 5 people. or your first 10. Or firrst 20.... but chances are they're going to pop up before then. You surely don't get 100s of books over 30 years with out that 1 in 5 number coming up.

30+ years of books. 100s of books. 100s or 1000s of characters and not --one-- has shown up?

I'm sorry but that's not a coincidence. That's not 'accidentally'. That's a purposeful choice.

Over 100 Books. 1000s of pages. 100s to 1000s of Characters, not one is LGBT. They may not be 'saying' it, but they surely seem to be showing it.

Again, there's a difference between not going out of their way to include, and actually excluding.

One book? Sure. Maybe. Two? Sure. Three? Ehh sure. 5? .. Pushing it. 10.... 20... 30.. 50.... 75 books? 100s of characters? 100 books and never once showing up. No Goli. That's not just a coincidence. That's a choice.

This could ALSO simply being a case of "well damn, never thought about it". Because honestly, in something as trivial as an RPG, there are actual REAL concerns on the LGBT radar...

Nevert once thought about it in over 30 years?? With it in the news all the time? None of the writers ever met a gay person? Had gay friends?

Gimme a break.

Exclusion is something to some people. It hurts them. They feel attacked. The lack of representation makes them feel robbed of their very lifestyle. Surely taken advantage of.

You are not being excluded, so you don't 'feel' it. Others may.

I guess we need to go back and apologize to every kid that didn't get invited to the high school parties? Because he wasn't being represented?

One's sexuality and life style isn't a party. Your response here is degrading to those you are not empathizing with. You're degrading them as if they're kids whining about not being invited to a party. They didn't choose their sexuality.

It's not a party. It's their life.

Seriously, this act (and yes, I say ACT) of using "feelings" to justify anything and everything has gone beyond the bend.

It's who they are. You are trying to say that their sexuality is an act. That is offensive.

You know what? I "feel" that someone being called out for not going out of their way to make someone else feel included is rude, disrespectful, and just plain offensive. There's some feeling for you.

Yes, and your feelings are valid. They're yours. They're not up to 20% of the population. You're one guy that by your own admission doesn't fit in anywhere he is at any point in his life. Again, not trying to be mean, but if you're the common denominator..... ? Maybe it's just you?

It's not an issue... --to you--. You're not LGBT. I assure you it's an issue to some. You may not agree, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. The results of the pole show that it does indeed matter to some. Which makes it an issue. The size of the issue is defined personally.

Actually, the results of the poll do NOT indicate that it "matters" to some. It could also indicate:
1) People are choosing the PC vote.
2) People are thinking "yeah, sure, why not, I don't really care either way"
3) People are thinking "uhh... the top one" (and yes, studies actually show that on polls, the order choices are listed DOES matter, and that people are inclined to think that the first option is the "right" option)

Or any number of other things. All that IS indicated is that it matters to ONE. ONE is not a demographic.

So your responce to the poll is. "People are lieing". And all the people in these pages of responce that have vocalized their 'yes' votes. (As to the majority of "no"s who have NOT spoken up) Are all lieing?

Good luck trying to get that one to fly.

Mmmmmmmmm. Naa. I don't think so. "Oh you're making an issue so I'm going to come down on the other side of it"? Naaaa. I think we know what drives someone away from supporting the LGBT community. It's not that giving them equal representation is annoying on it's face.

Actually, I can think of about a dozen people I know who were quite vocal supporters of the LGBT fight for rights, but were so tired of being screamed at to support it, and having it shoved in their faces on anything and everything, they got sick of it, and just want the fight to be over... and I've heard of many more beyond that.

I'm sorry, but you're previous posts here make it impossible for me to believe that you had a dozen friends that were supporters of the LGBT community. I just don't buy it. Your views are expressly counter to their own. In short, they wouldn't hang out with some one so vocal against their very lives.

It's an issue all over the county. Look at the news. Can't go a day with out it popping up in international news. Look how many states now allow same sex marriage/unions. Look at how many more are considering it. Look at how many more are inacting laws against it.

You mean laws where people are actually being affected? Where there is an actual affect? And again, you're trying to compare ACTUAL EXCLUSION with neglecting to include.... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

You're saying it's not an issue. I'm pointing out it is an issue. Across the country and across the planet. My point is made.

There's LGBT characters in video games. It even made the news today, well technically yesterday because it's 4 in the morning, but it made the news today, the public outcry that Nintendo said it would not put LGBT char's in their new games. Made CNN. NBC CBS.. I'm going to assume the others too but those are the channels I saw it on today.(yesterday). Public outcry at Nintendo coming out and saying they would NOT do it.

Ironically, all the way back in SMB2, it was there. And again, you're using ACTUAL EXCLUSION to try to equate to not purposely including.

I've addressed this. 30+ years of published works, with out any LGBT in there is purposeful exclusion. It doesn't have to be hostile, but it's not a blind coincidence either.

You see my point? This isn't an act of EXCLUSION. It's not an act of hindering, targeting, or purposely excluding anyone or anything. It's NOT an issue.

It is an exclusion. if you have 100s of books 1000s of characters and it's not INCLUDED with that wide swath of representations.. then yes it's an Exclusion. If there's that many characters, and none of them have popped up LGBT. It's not by accident.

Actually, knowing Kevin, it's probably by neglect. He just never thought about it.

No. One doesn't live in the US, in modern society, with out ever thinking about it for 30 years. Now.. not everyone thinks about it every day. Or.. even every week, but over 10950 days in a row? Don't be absurd. It IS in the news every week (If not every day depending on what news you read/watch)

Probably the same with the other authors. Because, honestly, how many of them actually have ever dealt, knowingly, with someone of the LGBT community?

Um... ALL OF THEM. lol. If you're over the age of.. 8 or so, you've delt with someone of the LGBT community. If you're gone to high school you've knowingly done so. If you're an adult you've delt with them. lol You're acting like they're Sasquatches.

They're not. Numbers indicate between 10 and 20%. One in ten to one in five. I don't have the exact numbers. But unless you live on the side of a mountain and never go into town and only know your momma and poppa... Yeah.

They've all dealt, knowingly with someone of the LGBT community. LOL

Seriously man. Unless you're a hermit, you deal with them most every day.

These things matter a great deal to some people. Not at all to others. Still just because it might not matter to one. And one person blows it off because it doesn't matter to them. It doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to anyone.

It matters a great deal to some people and is a very big issue to them.

That's because some people want to pick fights that have no genuine victim

No.. some people care because it's who they are and the lifestyle they live.

You are disregarding them because you don't value them. You're hand-waving the entire LGBT community and their supporters as simple rabblerousers. That says enormous things about you. Not about them.

(not even in our fictional worlds!), while others are actually worried about LGBT marriage rights, or their not getting raped repeatedly and beheaded in some countries, or their rights to adopt, etc.... But no, this, here, in a rpg company books, is a made-up issue to play the victim.

Again, you try and disregard the issue because you don't value it. You're not everyone. The poll proves it matters to some people. Many people posting in this thread show's it matters to them.

You (Figuratively) looking people in the face and telling them they're rabblerousers and just making it up to have something to fight about, is offensive. Would you say the same thing to a person of color, if every single person in every single palladium book was white? or to a woman if every single char over 30 years of books was male?

No. Of course not. That'd be absurd and racist or sexist.

Now.... think about that a minute.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Straw man. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
****Edit to fix all the quote blocks... THIS is why I don't like long posts....

In case you forgot, we're talking specifically about the current invisibility of GBLT people in cannon PB literature. We are not talking about you. No assumptions were made. I directly addressed your claim that "it's not an issue".

Actually, you said

It's easy to say "it's not an issue" when you have the luxury of having your demographic be socially-accepted.

my demographic. I was pointing out MY demographics, and how many are NOT socially accepted. As such, NOT straw men arguments.

1) Straw Man.
2) Straw Man.
3) Straw Man.
4) Straw Man.
5) Straw Man.

1-5, not socially accepted. As such, VALID points, as I'm establishing credibility as someone who DOES fall under the "not socially accepted" umbrella. You can't call them straw man arguments when they actually directly reply what you tried to claim about me.

Which fallacy do you feel I am using?

Explained this pretty well, but if you need me to add more...

I asked you directly to name the fallacy. Can you?

In all of those examples you use, not a SINGLE ONE was actually about the issue that was brought up. In ALL of those examples, ALL OF THEM, someone was actually being hindered. That is not the case here.

I did. There. If you can't see the fallacy that I'm pointing out, it's not my fault that you need to improve your reading comprehension skills. But, I'll break it down by the numbers for you.
1) You list several instances where people were being beaten, threatened, murdered, robbed, taxed unjustly, prevented from doing things, etc etc etc.
2) That's NOT the case here.
3) The case here is that someone didn't go out of their way to include a minority group, and now you're upset and offended.
4) the world isn't fair. Nobody owes you anything. Deal with it.
5) The list you provided does NOT equate with the argument you're trying to make.

I argued that disenfranchising an entire demographic constitues "being hindered". You cannot simply dismiss it because you say so, or else you are guilty of Circular reasoning.

1) What are they being disenfranchised of? To be disenfranchised you have to be deprived of a right. What right are they being deprived of?
2) Disenfranchisement constitutes being hindered. Nobody here is being disenfranchised. This is a case of "WAAA, they didn't go the extra mile to make me feel special".


You're trying to say that not purposely INCLUDING is the same as purposely EXCLUDING. They're NOT the same issue.

No, that's the argument that you're trying to force me into (which is effectively another Straw Man). The thread is about whether or not Palladium should include GBLT characters in future books. I have never argued that Palladium was intentionally exclusive.

You used examples of people that were being beaten, ripped off, murdered, imprisoned, tortured, and plenty more- none of which is the same as "not purposely including" someone. No one, not even fictional characters, are purposely being excluded.

Nor did I argue that; that is your false analogy. What I did argue is that your claim that "it's not an issue" is untrue. If it's not an issue, as you claim, I must wonder why there are so many people, including yourself, have felt the need to come forward and the voice their opposition to it? If "it's not an issue", then why oppose it?

I didn't say I oppose it. I said that in this, it's a non issue. If I opposed it, I would have voted no. I didn't vote, because there was no option that coincided with my point of view.

In another post, I responded about the poll results. You can go read that comment. Also, plenty of people really just don't care. It's not about EXCLUDING. It's that nobody went out of their way to INCLUDE. And yes, that IS what you're arguing. Who's been actively excluded? Who's been hindered? Who's been disenfranchised? NOBODY.

So you're arguing that the historic US cultural trend toward disenfranchising those outside the status quo does not exist and has never existed?

Ah, nice attempt to twist my words. No, that is NOT what I said.

I made an argument that there was a historic US cultural trend toward disenfranchising those outside the status quo. You dismissed it without saying why. So, naturally, I asked you why you felt that way; I didn't twist your words - I asked you to refute my argument (which you dismissed). Can't do it? Fine, but just admit it rather than resort to sophistry.

Actually, that's NOT what you did. You attempted to claim that I was arguing AGAINST that, when I never did. I never even suggested it. You brought it up out of the clear blue sky. And it has NOTHING to do with the case at hand.

I said it was not the case HERE. I'd like to further add that in SOME cases, people try to make an issue, to make themselves feel more the victim when you don't agree, or when they're not winning.

You said it was not the case here. Ok. Why? Please do not simply dismiss the argument.

No one is being hurt? Are you claiming that disenfranchising a significant element of a population doesn't "hurt" them? If so, how?

How are they being disenfranchised?

If they are excluded from further books, then they are being disenfranchised.

Go look up the word. I explain earlier in this post, they're not being deprived of a right, they're not being disenfranchised. They might FEEL that way, but feeling that way doesn't make it so.

Because other people aren't going out of their way to try to include them? Where's the RIFTER submissions with LGBT characters? If the LGBT community is so disenfranchised, why aren't they trying to slip in there?

Wow. When someone (you) argues that a demographic has no right to be included in something, then obviously they are being disenfranchised.

That's not my argument. I didn't say they had no right to be included. Obviously, you're reading words that aren't there.

And please, tell me ONE PERSON who's been disenfranchised from this? Who's gone through all of the books and said "What?! They don't have an LGBT NPC! Obviously, they don't want LGBT persons playing their games!"

Could you argue your point without all the dramatics? That would be nice. To answer your question, I personally know many people who have wondered why Palladium hasn't embraced the GBLT demographic in their writing. Also, there have been arguments in this thread by GBLT people and people associated with GBLT people to the effect that they'd like to see such inclusion.

Wondering about, and wanting inclusion is, would like to see.... none of that even is remotely close to disenfranchisement.

On what evidence to you base this claim?

See above.

I love when I ask you a direct question in response to something you said and you do not answer direcly. Though this is off-topic, may I say that I have and did respond directly to every single comment you left. If you're going to make arguments and expect to retain credibility, you might consider returning the favor. [/quote]

I'm not going to type the same things over and over. I don't work for the Department of Redundancy Department.

Funny: that's the same argument that has been used to justify racism and sexism.

Actually, NO, it's not. The arguments to justify racism and sexism are more along the lines of inferior/superior arguments, often with pseudo-scientific claims in an attempt to justify the line of reasoning.

Again, you've ducked the original argument. You're great at quoting me directly when it suits you, but when it doesn't, you don't.[/quote]

Actually, I quoted you directly, and responded directly. You accused me of using something, and I corrected you. Just because you don't like the fact you were corrected doesn't mean I'm in the wrong. If you'll note, I typically only quote the actual bit I'm replying to, so the posts won't be five miles long.

What is an issue to someone is relative to the group they identify with. It may not be an issue to you - if you don't fall into the same group, but I think you'll have a difficult time presenting coherent, logical arguments that state that a disenfranchised group doesn't have a right to feel disenfranchised.

Please explain why you feel they are unjustified. (Note: DO NOT accuse me of "twisting your words". I am quoting you directly).

Well, first, as I've addressed, nobody here is actually being disenfranchised. Just because they FEEL that way doesn't mean it's true. Anyone can FEEL anything they want- doesn't how they feel is backed up by fact. Feeling disenfranchised, when nothing even close to disenfranchisement is going on is not justified.

A false analogy from you: The difference here is GBLT people (and all the other groups I mentioned) did not sign up for it.

That's not what you had bet money on.

I'd be willing to bet $100 that if your rights and identity were suddenly taken away from you (or if they never existed) you'd have a very different perspective.

I was explaining you'd lose that bet, because I've HAD those rights taken away from me. I've BEEN that guy who was threatened to be tossed into a fire because of my religious beliefs, and then was told "well, he didn't physically try, so we're going to just talk to him about not making those comments". Directly applies to what you had said.

Furthermore, I'd like you to tell me who's rights and identity are being taken away in this case? Honestly, whose? Not even fictional characters are having anything taken from them.

I asked a rhetorical question. Look it up.

Actually, it's what your entire argument is based upon. Disenfranchisement.

Nor is that what I argued; you've got a real gift for making Straw Man rebuttals. Somewhere there is a cornfield beset with a plague of crows that desperately needs your help.

For the Straw Man comment, see my opening line of this post.

And yes, that IS effectively what you're arguing. You're being all upset because someone didn't go out of their way to make a group feel included. They didn't say "we won't have you", or "we won't allow this" "we don't want", or anything else. they just didn't bother to come knocking on your door and say "hey, we want to include you in this".

[Goliath Strongarm]

Sigh, these individual posts are getting too darned long. OK, this last one, then I'm going to bed for the night, and will be back on tomorrow at some point...

You don't know that. All we know is that they don't show up in the 100s of Palladium books over 30 years. If it wasn't on purpose, explain the reason that they've never shown up among all the 100s or 1000s of characters.

I actually have already posted a possible explanation- nobody writing the books actually thought about it. There's a difference between something passing by your head, and actually taking the time to stop and think about it, and going through the effort of including it. And with how busy Kevin supposedly (after all, we don't KNOW he does all the writing work he says he does), I bet he really hasn't stopped to think about it.

Recent studies show that up to 20% of the population are attracted to their own gender. So 1 in 5.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-new ... 67/?no-ist

1) Up to. Not at, up to.
2) That included the "same sex experiment", which doesn't mean a person is actually bi-sexual or gay (plenty of people have reportedly experimented and decided that it wasn't for them)
3) That also went into "same sex attraction", which is not the same as sexual desire. Psychologically speaking, it's "same sex attraction" if you can admit someone of the same gender is a good looking person. If I say LL Cool J is good looking (based upon my own opinion, and not someone else's) then it qualifies as same sex attraction. (And for the record, yes, I think he is a good looking man)

Exclusion is something to some people. It hurts them. They feel attacked. The lack of representation makes them feel robbed of their very lifestyle. Surely taken advantage of.

You are not being excluded, so you don't 'feel' it. Others may.

Again, this isn't about going out of their way to exclude- this is about someone not going out of their way to include. How is this robbing them of their lifestyle? HOW are they being taken advantage of?

One's sexuality and life style isn't a party. Your response here is degrading to those you are not empathizing with. You're degrading them as if they're kids whining about not being invited to a party. They didn't choose their sexuality.

It's not a party. It's their life.

Actually, that IS how it's being presented. Kevin did not go out of his way to make sure they felt like special little butterflies, so someone got upset. Hrmm.. I can't think of an NPC named Joshua, so I guess everyone with that name is being purposely excluded by Kevin!

It's who they are. You are trying to say that their sexuality is an act. That is offensive.

No, I'm saying that being overly emotional about something and that some people (not a group, but individuals) have a need to feel like they're the victims, and will play up their feelings as being the most important thing in the world.

Yes, and your feelings are valid. They're yours. They're not up to 20% of the population. You're one guy that by your own admission doesn't fit in anywhere he is at any point in his life. Again, not trying to be mean, but if you're the common denominator..... ? Maybe it's just you?

Actually, I was pointing out ways that I fit his "demographic" that weren't socially acceptable. I have my places to fit in, and my places to stand out- I don't let "socially acceptable" run my life. I don't let what other people think about my demographic, or what they include it in or not be included in, be a matter of importance in my life. You know, one of those grown up things.

It's not an issue... --to you--. You're not LGBT. I assure you it's an issue to some. You may not agree, but that doesn't automatically invalidate them. The results of the pole show that it does indeed matter to some. Which makes it an issue. The size of the issue is defined personally.

So your responce to the poll is. "People are lieing". And all the people in these pages of responce that have vocalized their 'yes' votes. (As to the majority of "no"s who have NOT spoken up) Are all lieing?

No, I was stating that there are plenty of reasons for polls to go a certain way, and that the results aren't always accurate. That's why good study groups have a variance percentage, and are shying away from the "check a box" polling methods

I'm sorry, but you're previous posts here make it impossible for me to believe that you had a dozen friends that were supporters of the LGBT community. I just don't buy it. Your views are expressly counter to their own. In short, they wouldn't hang out with some one so vocal against their very lives.

1) I didn't say friends. I said people I've known. Big difference.
2) I'm actually a supporter of LGBT rights, and the community in general. The argument here is that I don't see it as an issue at PB.
3) I didn't say they were members of the community, simply supporters. So, why would I be so vocal against their very lives?

You're saying it's not an issue. I'm pointing out it is an issue. Across the country and across the planet. My point is made.

Yep, across the country, across the planet. RIGHTS are an issue. I'm saying someone not going out of their way to include an LGBT NPC is not an issue.

It is an exclusion. if you have 100s of books 1000s of characters and it's not INCLUDED with that wide swath of representations.. then yes it's an Exclusion. If there's that many characters, and none of them have popped up LGBT. It's not by accident.

Actually, knowing Kevin, it's probably by neglect. He just never thought about it.

No. One doesn't live in the US, in modern society, with out ever thinking about it for 30 years. Now.. not everyone thinks about it every day. Or.. even every week, but over 10950 days in a row? Don't be absurd. It IS in the news every week (If not every day depending on what news you read/watch)

Um... ALL OF THEM. lol. If you're over the age of.. 8 or so, you've delt with someone of the LGBT community. If you're gone to high school you've knowingly done so. If you're an adult you've delt with them. lol You're acting like they're Sasquatches.

Numbers indicate between 10 and 20%. One in ten to one in five. I don't have the exact numbers.

Seriously man. Unless you're a hermit, you deal with them most every day.

I said knowingly- and you'd actually be surprised, depending on the environment, about NOT knowing. I actually had a friend for 4 years who finally came out to me and said he was bisexual. I shrugged, and told him that his admitting it wasn't going to get him out of buying the next round. He was trying to hide it because a) military (DADT was still in effect), b) his father was a minister, c) he wasn't sure how people would react

I've addressed the numbers part earlier

You are disregarding them because you don't value them. You're hand-waving the entire LGBT community and their supporters as simple rabblerousers. That says enormous things about you. Not about them.

Not the entire LGBT community. INDIVIDUALS within that community. Just as there are individuals in ANY community that go looking for the role of victim, because it garners their side sympathy.

The poll proves it matters to some people.

Again, no, the poll doesn't PROVE anything. Now, many people commented on their views, but, that's not the poll, AND, the topic has spread well beyond "in PB" and into the general argument of LGBT rights.

Would you say the same thing to a person of color, if every single person in every single palladium book was white? or to a woman if every single char over 30 years of books was male?

As many FAMILIES and fathers/sons are included in PB, if there were no female NPCs, I'd be asking how these noble families are reproducing....

As far as skin color- honestly, how often does it actually go into someone's skin color? It's how the artist draws the character, or how that particular one is written up based on background. And since it's actually RARELY said, yes, I'd probably tell someone of any ethnic background "dude, they probably just never thought about it".

And, it's not a matter of them saying every person is straight. They don't. How many hundreds of NPCs does it NOT say?

Now.... think about that a minute.

Yes, you should.


****Edited to fix quote blocks....ughs

[Goliath Strongarm]

And, ok, I lied.... ONE more post tonight...

Changelings, the ultimate hermaphrodites. Male, female, go back and forth.

And, at least in PF, even their backstory of being a heavily persecuted race (group) that has been accused of all manner of vile deeds, and has had the acts of a few branded on the whole group...

Can anyone say Kevin has NOT included the LGBT community?

[Jorel]

say it isn't so. I have yet to read it all, but it was a decent discussion when I went to bed. Maybe you guys can just try and play nice...

[Jorel]

and I could tell by how it was almost 50% negative before I posted the link on Facebook, that this was going to be an uphill battle for Nightfactory to try making people understand you actually need to include people and not just ignore them if you want them to feel included. If you don't want then to feel included then it is right to not mention them. Nobody should be sayin Bob and Bill own the weapon shop and have been happily married for 30 yrs and because of that I'm not gonna play Palladium. I'm pretty sure that is the kind of reference the OP would like to see instead of it always being Bob and his wife Barb. I think there shouldn't really be anyone in the 21st century that can make a valid argument why that would really be a problem. It is a factor of life today and it should be represented alongside the other hetero stuff. So that there is anything there, not to put a spotlight on it.

[Jorel]

Let's play the demographic game for a minute. I'm a 30+year old heterosexual, protestant, white male from the midwest that primarily votes along conservative republican lines. I make less than $30,000 annually. I don't own any firearms, don't smoke, rarely ever drink, I do not use any type of recreational drug, nor do I abuse any prescription drugs or other controlled substances. I enjoy many genre's of music (mostly country because it's easiest to sing along with.), television, film, and literature.

After you posted this it is obvious to me why you don't see the harm being done. You are on the side of the ones doing it every time. Why would you see issue when you are the top dog keeping them down? Sounds like you have it pretty good. Hetero, so don't see the hurt in not having LGBT represented at all. White, so segregation and lesser treatment for those of color doesn't affect you. Male, so sexism doesn't affect you. Christian, so oppressing other religions doesn't affect you. Why should you care? I guess you shouldn't, but most of the rest of us do.

[Hendrik]

This has, indeed, gone off topic quite a bit. Notwithstanding, I think it is a necessary and, by and large, good discussion.

1. Original Topic
The original topic, if I got it right now, was whether or not LGBT characters should appear in Palladium books. I had the feeling there was some consensus by quite a few people that this could or should be done. I like that. Colour, creed, sexuality, etc. should be non-discriminating.

I think the best way LGBT characters could be "put in the books" is not as political flags but naturally. What all people deserve is to be treated normally, you know, like it does not matter with whom they choose to live their life, what colour their skin, etc. To introduce LGBT characters en passant would be appropriate, then. I think there was a majority for this as well.

2. Development
That original topic is very different from what the discussion has turned to. The topic "developed" into a general as well as personal discussion of wider, political, issues, such as inclusion, LGBT rights, etc. Again, a valuable and necessary discussion, and I think it has a place here, although I think it could be a good bit less personal (I do not mean what people say about themselves but attacking each other).

I don't think roleplaying games should be used as a platform for political agendas, no matter how right. I think that Palladium has been quite right in the past to avoid using their books politically.

Introducing LGBT characters without fanfare, as normal, as part of society, as outlined under (1) is great and I see no problem with that.

Cheers
Hendrik

[Jorel]

Well stated Hendrik.

[Giant2005]

Crazies gonna crazy.

Plus, let's face it, any publicity is likely good publicity here. Look at how many shows and sites drum up controversy just for the sake of getting eyes on them.

If nothing else, it comes down to whether or not they'd be more likely to lose sales than gain them. Having looked at the fairly hard 'conservative' bent that the "political arena" subforum has, I can't say that it wouldn't be without any risk at all, but at the same time, their primary game totally supports being a psychic werewolf from another dimension that pilots magical living power armour, wields rune weapons in both hands and can cast magic from across the galaxy.

Him or her also happening to have a same sex spouse is kinda low key at that point.

I agree 100% and I've never found Palladium to be anti LGBT. I just think it's a question that needs to keep being asked until it really is irrelevant.

A question that need to keep being asked until it really is irrelevant.....

That sounds an awful lot like, "I'm going to keep bugging you about it until you do what I want just to shut me up"

I could be wrong though. Not saying the tactic doesn't work, just that might not be your intent.

I am speaking of the issue of LGBT equality as a whole not just in Rpg's in general or in Palladium specifically.

Kind of like civil rights in the 1960's.

EDIT: So yeah I'm really not going to shut up about equal rights for LGBT people and I couldn't care less who it bothers.

2nd EDIT: And I will keep reiterating as a former Palladium Associate I have never experienced anything which would make me suspect there as an ounce of anti LGBT sentiment in the company.

This is the issue that bothers me. LGBT people can get married in many places now and that number is growing pretty quickly. They already have the same rights as everyone else - the battle has been won. Congratulations.
Now they seem focused on trying to take rights away from other people just like in this thread. Demands are being made of the writers and the publishers to instead print what they want to and have been printing but instead print what the LGBT community wants them to print. They are trying to take away the right of free speech to suit their own needs.
The time to shut up has come and passed already and everything post victory just seems to be counterproductive - tampering with the rights of others or trying to get more rights after equality has been achieved can only result in inequality.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

Let's play the demographic game for a minute. I'm a 30+year old heterosexual, protestant, white male from the midwest that primarily votes along conservative republican lines. I make less than $30,000 annually. I don't own any firearms, don't smoke, rarely ever drink, I do not use any type of recreational drug, nor do I abuse any prescription drugs or other controlled substances. I enjoy many genre's of music (mostly country because it's easiest to sing along with.), television, film, and literature.

After you posted this it is obvious to me why you don't see the harm being done. You are on the side of the ones doing it every time. Why would you see issue when you are the top dog keeping them down? Sounds like you have it pretty good. Hetero, so don't see the hurt in not having LGBT represented at all. White, so segregation and lesser treatment for those of color doesn't affect you. Male, so sexism doesn't affect you. Christian, so oppressing other religions doesn't affect you. Why should you care? I guess you shouldn't, but most of the rest of us do.

In the interest of keeping things civil...

There's a difference between identifying his demographics for the purpose of discussion and identifying himself as opposed to the demographics he doesn't belong to. He didn't do the latter so let's not get accusatory.

Thank you Kiraya. I appreciate you keeping my comment in context while others chose to edit out parts of it in order to make their point.

[Daniel Stoker]

This is the issue that bothers me. LGBT people can get married in many places now and that number is growing pretty quickly. They already have the same rights as everyone else - the battle has been won. Congratulations.
Now they seem focused on trying to take rights away from other people just like in this thread. Demands are being made of the writers and the publishers to instead print what they want to and have been printing but instead print what the LGBT community wants them to print. They are trying to take away the right of free speech to suit their own needs.
The time to shut up has come and passed already and everything post victory just seems to be counterproductive - tampering with the rights of others or trying to get more rights after equality has been achieved can only result in inequality.

I want them to also publish more books about psioincs... am I taking away their rights there? There's a vast difference between wanting people to publish something and taking away their rights, and trying to influence someone to include something isn't taking away their 1st Amendment rights.


Daniel Stoker

[Giant2005]

Over 100 Books. 1000s of pages. 100s to 1000s of Characters, not one is LGBT. They may not be 'saying' it, but they surely seem to be showing it.

That isn't true at all.
Someone already posted a bunch of races that are within that community (Can't remember them all but among them were Changelings and Pleasure Bunnies). As for NPCs there are Apollo, Dionysus, Heracles, Hermes, Poseidon, Zeus, Agni, Soma, Set and a whole bunch of other Gods.

[Giant2005]

This is the issue that bothers me. LGBT people can get married in many places now and that number is growing pretty quickly. They already have the same rights as everyone else - the battle has been won. Congratulations.
Now they seem focused on trying to take rights away from other people just like in this thread. Demands are being made of the writers and the publishers to instead print what they want to and have been printing but instead print what the LGBT community wants them to print. They are trying to take away the right of free speech to suit their own needs.
The time to shut up has come and passed already and everything post victory just seems to be counterproductive - tampering with the rights of others or trying to get more rights after equality has been achieved can only result in inequality.

I want them to also publish more books about psioincs... am I taking away their rights there? There's a vast difference between wanting people to publish something and taking away their rights, and trying to influence someone to include something isn't taking away their 1st Amendment rights.


Daniel Stoker

You are if you initiate a crusade against them and invoke the power of political correctness in an attempt to get them to publish a book about psionics.

[Jorel]

The time to shut up has come and passed already and everything post victory just seems to be counterproductive - tampering with the rights of others or trying to get more rights after equality has been achieved can only result in inequality.

They have a few small victories, they have won nothing and they have thousands of miles to cross before they see anything near equal treatment. I few states have passed laws and congress has passed laws, but there are still plenty of places in the US as well as around the world were LGBT people do not have the same rights. That battle is far from won and it if far from the time when anyone who feels persecuted or shoved aside should "shut up". They really should speak up more and louder until things are equal and fair and only then after the fact of everything being equal on all fronts should they really be asked to stand down as they will have the rights they are fighting for.

[Jorel]

On the point of shapechanging races that can alter their gender being representative of LGBTQ individuals...they aren't.

Pretty sure no one LGBT can change their physical sex and appearance back and forth at will. Transgender may do it once, but they aren't just switching back and forth to play both sides of the field. That is a pretty offensive take on equating that race to LGBT people.

[Giant2005]

On the point of shapechanging races that can alter their gender being representative of LGBTQ individuals...they aren't.

Isn't that what the "T" stands for in LGBT? Just because they are the most minor part of the minority doesn't mean they should be excluded.

[The Galactus Kid]

Let's play the demographic game for a minute. I'm a 30+year old heterosexual, protestant, white male from the midwest that primarily votes along conservative republican lines. I make less than $30,000 annually. I don't own any firearms, don't smoke, rarely ever drink, I do not use any type of recreational drug, nor do I abuse any prescription drugs or other controlled substances. I enjoy many genre's of music (mostly country because it's easiest to sing along with.), television, film, and literature.

After you posted this it is obvious to me why you don't see the harm being done. You are on the side of the ones doing it every time. Why would you see issue when you are the top dog keeping them down? Sounds like you have it pretty good. Hetero, so don't see the hurt in not having LGBT represented at all. White, so segregation and lesser treatment for those of color doesn't affect you. Male, so sexism doesn't affect you. Christian, so oppressing other religions doesn't affect you. Why should you care? I guess you shouldn't, but most of the rest of us do.

In the interest of keeping things civil...

There's a difference between identifying his demographics for the purpose of discussion and identifying himself as opposed to the demographics he doesn't belong to. He didn't do the latter so let's not get accusatory.

Thank you Kiraya. I appreciate you keeping my comment in context while others chose to edit out parts of it in order to make their point.

From a purely demographic standpoint...
I'm a 30+year old heterosexual, protestant, white male from the midwest that primarily votes along liberal democrat lines (though registered republican). I make a solidly middle-class income. I don't own any firearms, don't smoke, regularly enjoy a drink, I do not use any type of recreational drug (but used to and believe in legalization), nor do I abuse any prescription drugs or other controlled substances. I enjoy many genre's of music (mostly classical because it's easiest to sing along with.), television, film, and literature.

There are many similarities that I have with Nate, and fall into many of the same demographics, but just falling into those demographics does not dictate what his (or my) opinion would be. We are on different sides of the spectrum on this, and presumably many issues, but just because I would be included in a group of privelege doesn't dictate my moral decisions. Thanks Nate and Kiraya.

[The Galactus Kid]

On the point of shapechanging races that can alter their gender being representative of LGBTQ individuals...they aren't.

Isn't that what the "T" stands for in LGBT? Just because they are the most minor part of the minority doesn't mean they should be excluded.

Jorel answered this very well in the post immediately above yours.

[The Galactus Kid]

The time to shut up has come and passed already and everything post victory just seems to be counterproductive - tampering with the rights of others or trying to get more rights after equality has been achieved can only result in inequality.

They have a few small victories, they have won nothing and they have thousands of miles to cross before they see anything near equal treatment. I few states have passed laws and congress has passed laws, but there are still plenty of places in the US as well as around the world were LGBT people do not have the same rights. That battle is far from won and it if far from the time when anyone who feels persecuted or shoved aside should "shut up". They really should speak up more and louder until things are equal and fair and only then after the fact of everything being equal on all fronts should they really be asked to stand down as they will have the rights they are fighting for.

Agreed 100%.

[Cybermancer]

It is worth noting that Palladium has addressed GBLT issues in the distant past though they didn't do a good job of it. It was addressed in the sexual deviation tables of the original Palladium Fantasy RPG. Later printings of the book got rid of the table and Palladium has publicly acknowledged it was a mistake and that they regret it. Apparently an actual psychiatrist helped them make the table.

The reason I include this is to show how much things have changed in thirty years. There are decent people who believed falsehoods simply because they did not know any better. It is only through exposure to the issue and proliferation of the truth that it becomes familiar, understood and accepted. And that is what has gradually been happening over the last thirty years.

I don't beleive that Kevin Siembieda has any malicious feelings towards the GBLT community. I don't know the man personally but everything I've seen would lead me to beleive that he's generally nice, kind and accepting of others. Waaay back in the 80's he may not have fully understood the issue. Many, many, many people didn't and many still do not. If he hasn't addressed it in any books I would suspect two reasons. The first is that it is outside his personal experience and therefore outside his comfort zone as a writer. It is also possible that he does not wish to cause offense to anyone so he avoids the issue. A bad representation risks alienating members of the GBLT community. A good representation might also do so, despite good intentions. Of course as has already been mentioned, it might be that he simply has not thought to do so.

There have been calls for Rifter writers to include the issue (hopefully with sensativity and care) in articles that they write. I for one support that idea. I also tend to think that it should be done organically and not to make a big deal out of it. It would be a challenge but one that can be tackled. Ideally it should be handled by someone with experience in the subject matter. I think if Palladium is given a submission that is of good quality that just happens to have a GBLT character in it, it'll get published.

[Jorel]

Very well stated Cybermancer.

[Jorel]

In a RPG that includes magic and/or advanced technology, a transgender individual would best be represented by an individual who has used magic or advanced tech to permanently alter their gender.

That is a perfect example and I hope we see similar things come up to better represent it. Hmmm possession? You are in someone else's skin, but at least it could be a better fit for the sex. Hmmmm. I guess possession isn't usually permanent.

[The Galactus Kid]

On the point of shapechanging races that can alter their gender being representative of LGBTQ individuals...they aren't.

Isn't that what the "T" stands for in LGBT? Just because they are the most minor part of the minority doesn't mean they should be excluded.

As a transgender individual...

A magical being able to change its gender at-will does not represent me in the slightest. Such a being would mostly match what we call genderfluid in the real world, a person whose gender identity does not conform to the societal binary of male and female, but expresses aspects of both.

Transgender characters are only now starting to be represented in popular entertainment, with the character of Sophia Burset (played by transgender actress Laverne Cox) on Orange is the New Black. Historically, transgender characters have been portrayed by cisgender actors and are usually portrayed in a comical manner or as dangerous deviants.

In a RPG that includes magic and/or advanced technology, a transgender individual would best be represented by an individual who has used magic or advanced tech to permanently alter their gender.

Well said.

[Jorel]

As a flesh and blood human man I never felt quite right, but now with this female robot body I feel complete....

[Malleable]

I'd be offended if they didn't.

Mal

[Hendrik]

I did not want to say anything political, but ...

There is no "victory".

Equality will be reached when it will no longer be worth mentioning. It will no longer be worth mentioning when nobody cares what colour your skin is or with whom you have sex, etc. but when everyone will have equal rights and be treated with equal respect and tolerance no matter what his or her sexual orientation, religion or choice of psionics, etc. is.

This discussion shows that we are not there yet.

It is not about a law here or a law there. It is IMO not even about whether there are countries that mistreat those "different". Our standard as a society cannot be human rights violations, or in what degree they are present or whether it is merely nuissance, but should be to enact human rights in our own minds, hearts, actions, and backyard. I only see human beings. That, at least, is my standard for my own behaviour, and I try to "change the world" by educating my children to do the same.

I hold this very dear as one of the greatest scriptures of enlightenment:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

In their times "men" meant only white males of a certain age and income. These great men put a blind eye to the fact that women are "Men", too, and that all coloured are "Men", too. We have moved since then. I want everyone to be equal in the eyes of "Men", no matter what their gender, race, religion, sexual preference, unless you harm others. And even then everyone is to be accorded due process, fair trial, and non-discrimination. We are all equal in the eyes of [God(s) of your choice]. We should be equal in the eyes of "Men" and discriminate only on merit and action.

Peace.

[Jorel]

Again well stated. Remove the creator part and I'd mostly agree with that statement. I think we evolved, and not equally, but in the end we are all part of one thing and that is humanity and we should get past the differences.

[Daniel Stoker]

You are if you initiate a crusade against them and invoke the power of political correctness in an attempt to get them to publish a book about psionics.

So what no one is suggesting they actually do here? And what is 'the power of political correctness' exactly anyway?


Daniel Stoker

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

should GBLT be added to RPGs? Yes. Should PB do it? Probably not.

Romance subplots aren't their thing, kicking monsters in the teeth while wearing power armor is. I'd hate to see what they would do with such a thing.

[Hendrik]

Again well stated. Remove the creator part and I'd mostly agree with that statement. I think we evolved, and not equally, but in the end we are all part of one thing and that is humanity and we should get past the differences.

Thank you. This is why I put [God(s) of your choice] - including not to have a faith - there as well.

[Daniel Stoker]

should GBLT be added to RPGs? Yes. Should PB do it? Probably not.

Romance subplots aren't their thing, kicking monsters in the teeth while wearing power armor is. I'd hate to see what they would do with such a thing.

They already have romance 'subplots' as you've got a number of NPC's that have spouse and loved ones so if they do what they already have but with LGBT characters I don't see why that would be any worse.


Daniel Stoker

[The Galactus Kid]

should GBLT be added to RPGs? Yes. Should PB do it? Probably not.

Romance subplots aren't their thing, kicking monsters in the teeth while wearing power armor is. I'd hate to see what they would do with such a thing.

I think this is one reason why so many have stated it should only be mentionedin passing and not a full plot or sub-plot.

[Cybermancer]

An example of including a gay character without romance as anything other than a brief mention.

Heroes Unlimited Vigilante Origin Story

Vincent Warner is invincible...at least physically. When his power first manifested, he did what many teens with powers do and tried to use his power for good, thwarting crimes, saving lives, and, in the process, acquiring a nemesis...Doctor Vortex.

Doctor Vortex tormented Vincent for months until finally the villain found Vincent's boyfriend and kidnapped him, presenting Vincent with the impossible choice - save the person he valued most in this world or save a bus-full of children.

"Save one or the other but you don't have time for both. Either way, we will dance our little dance again because you certainly don't have time to catch me and save them. I bid thee adieu."

Doctor Vortex's look of shock when Vincent's fist closed around his throat was quite brief. Vincent snapped that day, letting the victims die and killing for the first time.

Now Vincent takes justice into his own hands, seeking out criminals and super villains and killing them without remorse.

The only difference between this character and what we usually see in superhero comics and RPGs is one word - boyfriend instead of girlfriend.

This is exactly how it should be done.

[Jorel]

Exactly. A small difference without drawing a spotlight to it makes all the difference to the readers.

[Josh Hilden]

17 States have legalized same sex marriage... 33 have not.

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for being homosexual.


Yeah we we won, it's time to shut up and stop trying to take rights away from other people.

Where are the parades and and cheerleaders?

SARCASM COMPLETELY INTENTIONAL

[Giant2005]

You are if you initiate a crusade against them and invoke the power of political correctness in an attempt to get them to publish a book about psionics.

So what no one is suggesting they actually do here? And what is 'the power of political correctness' exactly anyway?


Daniel Stoker

Political Correctness is an invocation that instills a Horror Factor of 16. Anyone that fails that Save vs Horror is compelled to submit to the will of the invoker through fear of being persecuted as a bigot or an unenlightened being by the masses.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

should GBLT be added to RPGs? Yes. Should PB do it? Probably not.

Romance subplots aren't their thing, kicking monsters in the teeth while wearing power armor is. I'd hate to see what they would do with such a thing.

They already have romance 'subplots' as you've got a number of NPC's that have spouse and loved ones so if they do what they already have but with LGBT characters I don't see why that would be any worse.


Daniel Stoker

I would consider that merely a description, which is fine to a point*. I'm talking fully fleshed-out subplots and story arcs. Stories of that nature should probably be left to a more apt game line, like White Wolf for instance.

*My only sticking point is that just adding hetero/homosexual to a character seems to be only playing lip service to the issue, which on one hand I don't even need. I don't need to know that the Jotun Merc I just killed liked guys or gals, I just need to know how much stuff he has on him. But if you listed that, it now somehow defines that person in some fashion, which seems wrong. I don't create my identity based on what sex I like, so why add it? If it is for some part of a story, that is one thing (which brings us back to my issue with PB handling ANY romantic plot), but just for general NPC info? No I don't need that, if it becomes an issue in game, I'll decide which way they go.

I mean, how does that look on a typical PB character description?

Lord Murderous
This powerful demon lord rules several layers of Hades with an iron fist, using his immense magical powers to subjugate all before him. In his off time he enjoys cuddling with Steve his on-again-off-again boyfriend of several millennia and practicing to further his command of the dark arts. Recently Lord Murderous domain has come under attack by a nation of sub-demons "hell-bent" on wiping the demon lord from existence.

or

Illyan Vaskonicksz
This errant knight from the steppes of Russia is a valiant and courageous fighter and protector of the people, always willing to thrust herself into danger for the sake of others. Gifted with the holy blade Vljahorn, Illyan has fought some of the most dangerous denizens the mysterious Russian lands have to offer. Illyan also likes girls.

even if I made those examples a little more realistic (which I'm not going to do because I find my examples funny, so ), what does it add or take away from the characters? One's a demon lord with a boyfriend, the other is a noble knight that digs on the ladies, I don't see either of those things as being character-defining.

On the other hand, I don't mind if they are in there as well, I just don't particularly see the need for them.

[The Galactus Kid]

Lord Murderous
This powerful demon lord rules several layers of Hades with an iron fist, using his immense magical powers to subjugate all before him. In his off time he enjoys cuddling with Steve his on-again-off-again boyfriend of several millennia and practicing to further his command of the dark arts. Recently Lord Murderous domain has come under attack by a nation of sub-demons "hell-bent" on wiping the demon lord from existence.

or

Illyan Vaskonicksz
This errant knight from the steppes of Russia is a valiant and courageous fighter and protector of the people, always willing to thrust herself into danger for the sake of others. Gifted with the holy blade Vljahorn, Illyan has fought some of the most dangerous denizens the mysterious Russian lands have to offer. Illyan also likes girls.

hahahaha.

You, sir, have won the internet this day.

[Jorel]

...In his off time he enjoys cuddling with Steve his on-again-off-again boyfriend of several millennia and practicing to further his command of the dark arts....
or
... Illyan also likes girls.

Palladium doesn't put scenes like this of hetero couples... you are missing the point entirely. It isn't about the sex, it is about the fact these people have relationships.

[Jorel]

all you have to say is "Lord Murderous has a boyfriend/husband/significant other named Steve", and that would be enough to acknowledge the existence of LGBT in PB books.