Should Palladium include GBLT characters in future books?

[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.

So like sensical strength rules in Rifts, not something that really exists?


Daniel Stoker

[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.

Like a Necromancer in love with a dragon who he'll do anything for? I’m spacing on the one, but I swear I remember one NPC where the character’s alignment was being improved because of who they were in love with and if that person died they would backslide. They don’t do things like this a lot but it does make the NPC’s more interesting and gives you ‘ins’ with the NPC’s and give you potential plot hooks based on what happens to them or their partner.


Daniel Stoker

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

...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.

no I think I have it pretty well grasped. I'm demonstrating how absurd it is to add these sort of details to a character in PB games. For the vast majority of players it is a non-issue whether or not he character is straight or gay. I think that the GM should get the call on whether or not to add such a subplot to their game, and it is a safer bet than letting PB do it.

also, you'll have to explain who I didn't describe these people having relationships? I didn't say Lord Murderous likes boning dudes or that Illyana is a major-slut-bucket, in fact I gave Murderous a long lasting committed relationship and I left Illyana purposefully open, showing how just adding a simple "they are gay, or not" line is silly.

Like a Necromancer in love with a dragon who he'll do anything for? I’m spacing on the one, but I swear I remember one NPC where the character’s alignment was being improved because of who they were in love with and if that person died they would backslide. They don’t do things like this a lot but it does make the NPC’s more interesting and gives you ‘ins’ with the NPC’s and give you potential plot hooks based on what happens to them or their partner.


Daniel Stoker

and those details again are fine, and good jumping off points. It's a very fine line I'm making, I know, but I see a difference between a colorful character write-up and a full-blown back-story or plot. The little things I wrote up thread would be the colorful write-ups, a campaign centered around the love of Prince Albert and Duke Morrismo would be a full blown plot for instance. One is just a brief descriptor to give an NPC who may show up for a scene, while the later is the entire backdrop for a game(s) and the later is what I'd prefer PB don't get into.

[Josh Hilden]

What would be the intrinsic issue with having an adventure written with a same sex relationship as part of the plot?

[Jorel]

I still don't understand that fear.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

What would be the intrinsic issue with having an adventure written with a same sex relationship as part of the plot?

there is no issue, I just don't think PB is the company to do that sort of story.

Otherwise, if one is going to make sexuality/romance a part of the game, I think it needs to be a main focal point instead of a blurb in a NPC write-up, hetero or homosexual.

or if the question is why don't I think PB should do it; as I explained, that's not their gig, they are Conan punches Cthulu in the junk while in a 40ft tall robot suit. Nuanced romance plots have no foundation in their products, and given that and that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness in their earliest printings on the insanity table, I shudder to think how they would handle a romance plot, let alone a homosexual romance plot.

[Jorel]

You are still missing the point. Palladium already talks about hetero relationships. Those aren't the only kind and they aren't the only ones that should be taken into consideration when producing media in the 21th century.

[Josh Hilden]

What would be the intrinsic issue with having an adventure written with a same sex relationship as part of the plot?

there is no issue, I just don't think PB is the company to do that sort of story.

Otherwise, if one is going to make sexuality/romance a part of the game, I think it needs to be a main focal point instead of a blurb in a NPC write-up, hetero or homosexual.

or if the question is why don't I think PB should do it; as I explained, that's not their gig, they are Conan punches Cthulu in the junk while in a 40ft tall robot suit. Nuanced romance plots have no foundation in their products, and given that and that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness in their earliest printings on the insanity table, I shudder to think how they would handle a romance plot, let alone a homosexual romance plot.

I can get behind that answer.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

You are still missing the point. Palladium already talks about hetero relationships. Those aren't the only kind and they aren't the only ones that should be taken into consideration when producing media in the 21th century.

no, you are missing my point. It has already been discussed what type of relationship write-ups exist in PB, which are; Character A is married/smitten with Character B. If Character A and Character B are the same sex, I don't think anyone cares, I certainly don't, on the other side of the coin though, I don't necessarily need to know that either way, and unless it is a defining characteristic of the NPC I don't think it especially needed.

What I'm talking about is if say PB decided to do a Helen of Troy meta-story covering all of Rifts, except Helen is a guy and all the guys are guys, that I think would end in tears.

[Jorel]

you're the only one suggesting that

[Josh Hilden]

Considering most Palladium Books are written for 13 year olds I think things are being read a little to deeply. I doubt there is much substance below the obvious intent of the book, which is to more or less harmlessly entertain.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

you're the only one suggesting that

...and I said different where? A poll and a question was asked, I answered.

[Daniel Stoker]

What I'm talking about is if say PB decided to do a Helen of Troy meta-story covering all of Rifts, except Helen is a guy and all the guys are guys, that I think would end in tears.

So basically they should stay away from Meta-story's because they suck at them?


Daniel Stoker

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

What I'm talking about is if say PB decided to do a Helen of Troy meta-story covering all of Rifts, except Helen is a guy and all the guys are guys, that I think would end in tears.

So basically they should stay away from Meta-story's because they suck at them?


Daniel Stoker

I'll have it be noted that I didn't actually say that.

[Dog_O_War]

Some I'm gonna do this thing where I take your opening post and change some words to highlight a point. I just want you to imagine for a moment, if the company had otherwise depicted every relationship with their NPCs as an LGBT one.

So the question is: "Should Palladium include heterosexual characters in future books?"

First, I realize that this is VERY controversial subject. RPGs are still recovering from all the post-80's crud about them being 'satanic' and such a move could very well put them back in the spotlight with conservative religious groups.

Second, the USA has changed significantly since the 1980's. Being heterosexual no longer carries the same stigma it did 20 years ago. Most states and the Federal government have drafted no laws protecting straight people from discrimination to some degree.

Third, as far as I know, there has been no 'official endorsement' of heterosexual rights from the RPG community, though most companies have drafted statements of non-discrimination in their hiring policies.

However, arguably much of the Palladium Megaverse is built on the concept of multiple worlds, multiple dimensions, multiple species, multiple races, and multiple cultures. It seems to me that there is also room in there for multiple conceptions of sexuality, and multiple genders (and/or multiple gender identifications).

One of the, arguably, key themes in Rifts is reactionaries (like the Coalition) vs. pragamatists (like Lazlo). Though it has not been spelled out exactly, there is a definite undercurrent of acceptence of those who are different (ie. D-Bees) both in the cannon writing and in the general, overal concept of the game.

I know for a fact that we (the Palladium family) have members who are heterosexual, not just in the USA, but also in Europe, South America, Asia, and elsewhere. I have played games in many US and European states with players who identified as being heterosexual. It has never been an issue for me or for other player. Nor do I know of any players (though I'm sure they exist) who have ever had an issue with someone's sexual orientation and/or gender identification.

To me, RPGs give us players unlimited freedom: we can be anything we want, we can pick a moralitity/ethical positon that may differ from our own (Alignment), we can be bad-asses or good-asses, we can be a entirely different species from an entirely different culture.

I, personally, think it would be awesome if Palladium at some point made mention of heterosexual NPCs in their writing. By embracing diversity in this manner, Palladium could very well set a new standard for the industry (which has, as far as I know - and I could be wrong - never addressed it) when it comes to publically acknowledging heterosexual rights.

Again, I realize this is a potentially controversial move that could have unexpected reprocussions. And, on the other hand, acknowledging heterosexual rights and identies could earn Palladium a place in history (just as ST:TOS earned a place with it's first black-white kiss). But beyond glory and publicity, I feel that it is the moral and ethical thing to do.

What is your position on this?

Basically, there is a problem here when you have to say, "heterosexual rights".

But that's the point; I don't see a difference between that and "LGBT rights".

They're just "rights", even if not everyone realizes it.

Whether or not Palladium includes "declared" LGBT characters really doesn't hold any relevance to me one way or another. I mean, if all the presupposed relationships the books already contained were LGBT, and they decided to include a heterosexual relationship, I would be thinking, "how irrelevant". Because it really, honestly is irrelevant whether all/some/no relationships are LGBT or heterosexual, because the game isn't about that; such a thing is but a background detail to it.

[Jorel]

another person fails to understand the point.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

then lay it on us Jorel, explain to us what we're missing. In more than one brief sentence if you can manage.

[Jorel]

Suggesting all the referred wife relationships turn to LGBT ones doesn't even make sense. It isn't the same and is a way of not acknowledging the real problem that is being addressed. The person would like to see more realistic relationships in the books. Saying every single relationship in the books are hereto is very unrealistic.

[Tiree]

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

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for not 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

Josh - please tell me which states those 29 are. I need to make sure I move out of them, because I am not homosexual. If I support the LGBTQQIA community can I stay?!?!

[Jorel]

I was wondering if I that wasn't an error in the type there somewhere. I'm not sure that is what he meant.

[Tiree]

I was wondering if I that wasn't an error in the type there somewhere. I'm not sure that is what he meant.

I hope it was an error... or it means that the LGBTQQIA community has made a lot more progress than people really realize.

[Jorel]

Funny.

[Dog_O_War]

Suggesting all the referred wife relationships turn to LGBT ones doesn't even make sense. It isn't the same and is a way of not acknowledging the real problem that is being addressed. The person would like to see more realistic relationships in the books. Saying every single relationship in the books are hereto is very unrealistic.

No, I got the point - what I was getting at, and you seemed to have missed, is that writing in an LGBT relationship accomplishes nothing. I'm not saying, "don't do it", I'm saying, "why are you doing this?" Is it to further an agenda? Is it because of some kind of guilt? Or is it because a group is specifically lobbying you to support them?

And if it is, perhaps your priorities need to be examined. And the same exact reasoning goes for when a writer purposefully writes in a heterosexual relationship.

Basically, if you feel you have to consciously do something because you think you're not being inclusive, or are being coerced, then you're over-thinking it or doing it for the wrong reasons.

[Jorel]

In this day and age we can be open to new perspectives and new experiences and it never hurts to be open to the suggestions of what your fan base would like to see in the games they play. It doesn't mean there are ulterior motives, it means we should be open to the possibility that we aren't writing just for ourselves.

[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.

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.

Ok I'm just saying this here maybe a few battles have been won, but the war is far from over. LGBTQ people have not been given their equal rights yet.

[calto40k]

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.

Hendrik always dropping the knowledge... Once again deserving of a slow clap as well

[Josh Hilden]

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

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for not 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

Josh - please tell me which states those 29 are. I need to make sure I move out of them, because I am not homosexual. If I support the LGBTQQIA community can I stay?!?!

LOL! that's what hapens when I type on the phone, of course I meant FOR being homosexual.

[Tiree]

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

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for not 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

Josh - please tell me which states those 29 are. I need to make sure I move out of them, because I am not homosexual. If I support the LGBTQQIA community can I stay?!?!

LOL! that's what hapens when I type on the phone, of course I meant FOR being homosexual.

Sure - blame the phone! It's better than blaming the wife...

[Josh Hilden]

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

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for not 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

Josh - please tell me which states those 29 are. I need to make sure I move out of them, because I am not homosexual. If I support the LGBTQQIA community can I stay?!?!

LOL! that's what hapens when I type on the phone, of course I meant FOR being homosexual.

Sure - blame the phone! It's better than blaming the wife...

Phone won't hit me!

Also when Gaytopia is established on the bones of an ancient and forgotten civilization you and all like you are welcome... but not Avalanche fans.

[calto40k]

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

In 29 states it's 100% legal to fire a person for not 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

Josh - please tell me which states those 29 are. I need to make sure I move out of them, because I am not homosexual. If I support the LGBTQQIA community can I stay?!?!

LOL! that's what hapens when I type on the phone, of course I meant FOR being homosexual.

Sure - blame the phone! It's better than blaming the wife...

Phone won't hit me!

Also when Gaytopia is established on the bones of an ancient and forgotten civilization you and all like you are welcome... but not Avalanche fans.

As long as the military uniforms are Fab or Fetish I'll move there if not Chrisland will still ally with Gaytopia

[eliakon]

I would say that this should be in the same category as RW Religions. Unless its really necessary don't bring it up. There are few valid reasons I can see to explicitly make an issue of sexual orientation, and most of those would relate to making someone dislike the relationship and seek to scuttle it. Which then creates the issue of making what ever stance is 'the correct' one to solve the plot, the 'morally correct choice' Which is not something that is, in my view, desirable. Palladium so far has avoided discussing inter-religious relationships, inter racial, and inter species relationships, there is no need to wade into one of societies current social hot topics. There is nothing to gain, just things to lose.

[Daniel Stoker]

The main Rifts book has a color picture showing off an inter-racial couple, we have a human necromancer in love with a dragon as just one inter species relationship I can remember off the top of my head, and as has been pointed out they have all kinds of heterosexual relationship so why not have LGBT ones?


Daniel Stoker

[The Beast]

So I noticed that if someone makes an argument strong enough to change other people's mind we can't change our vote...

[Jorel]

bummer. I guess that will teach people to think before voting...I kid. It would be a good option to have.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I'm posting for two main reasons. The latter is the reason I felt compelled to post, but the former I feel is more important so I'll address it first.

Again, I have no issue with including little side blurbs of LGBT in a book without making a big deal of it. I don't think Palladium has intentionally been excluding said group, but more a case of never even really thought about it. Without trying to sound cold, Kevin is old enough to be my father and, as such, grew up in a different age. Without being a major history buff on the subject, fairly sure LGBT weren't as widely accepted and talked about at the time. This isn't to say they're homophobic, but it wasn't a part of every day life like it is now. As such, they're not as likely to include it within a book without conscious thought. Note: This is just my personal belief, and I could be wrong as I have no first hand knowledge on the inner workings of Palladium.

So if we want to see such things included I can think of two good ways:

1: Freelancers (such as hints The Galactus Kid has given us) or Rifter submitters can include them in their work. This increases the chances of something seeing print. Our age group (general, some here I'm sure fall into all categories) are more likely to think about it, and as such it lies on our shoulders to help see it included.

2: Posting here isn't necessarily the best way to get a response/reaction. If you feel strongly about it, and possibly others as well, I recommend organizing a write-in campaign. Palladium has said in the past that they're effective. Even if you personally don't think it is, they do and they're your target audience in this case. Try keeping the request reasonable, and eloquence also helps. Don't try to make it sound like some trailblazing campaign that's going to get them the spotlight, but how as a fan you'd like to be represented as well. A little flattery couldn't hurt either (and MUCH better than coming off hostile).

Dear Kevin and Palladium Books,

My name is [name], and I've been a fan for [#] years. I love you're settings. The rich worlds you create really speak to me. I'm also gay [or other]. I've noticed in your books you've never openly stated any homosexual couples, but you have included male/female relationships in several.

[include brief list here]

I'm not asking for much, but I think it would be really awesome if you included a gay couple in there. It doesn't have to be much, but instead of stating married to a man/wife, include something like: "[simple example, as there have been many in this thread]." You don't have to make a big deal about it, but something simple and yet clear. As a gay man, I think it would be great to see my sexual preference represented within your epic books. I think others in the LGBT community would also really enjoy it."

Sincerely,

[name]

I made that up quickly, so I apologize if it's not perfect. But it's only meant as a rough example. Make it clean, simple, and encouraging. Instead of a guilt trip to be politically correct, let it be a testament from Palladium how much they respect their fans! Organize a letter writing campaign and make it happen. If you can get a big enough group to participate, I think you might even see an actual response. That's just my opinion though, with no direct affiliation to Palladium beyond a fan and occasional submitter of work.

Now onto the second matter ...

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.

Okay, unless I miss something that would be a reference to either The Galactus Kid or myself. Since TGK talked about a Rifts book, that should rule hime out of the Rifter. That leaves me. I didn't include any characters, but I did mention (in this thread) I included a couple of paragraphs discussing homosexuality in PF (only touching on a couple of groups/races really).

Do NOT clip what I said, twist it, and then use it to try and support your personal agenda. I don't appreciate it. I also mentioned this was part of the Rifter 0.1 project. If you don't know what the Rifter 0.1 project is and/or its fate, then do some research or just ask. Statements like the above though don't help the situation, and I also think it's disrespectful to all the other contributers whose work has yet to see the light of day. Note: If this was, by some chance, a response to someone else who mentioned similar and I missed it, then I apologize.

For those curious, the Rifter 0.1 project was a Rifter done by fans (in the same concept as Rifter #0), and then submitted. Palladium has the work, and it's huge. I mentioned mine was 80+ pages (large enough for a small sourcebook), and while the largest it was only one of many. It has been stated many times that the project is just so huge that it would take them a while to go through it all, and as much as they'd like to it's just not a priority for them at this time (an electronic only Rifter project should take a backseat to projects such as Northern Gun, Megaverse in Flames, etc.). We also know how long things often sit on Palladium's desk. Not ideal, but far from uncommon. Rifter 0.1 (my article included) is still slated to be released (eventually), but so far on the backburner that they don't talk about it anymore. Note: This information is taken directly from Palladium's comments on the matter.

Now if the project is finally released, and that article and/or that section is cut, then there's valid grounds for speculation. Insinuating Palladium has lied about their reasons for not releasing it as a cover up for their homophobia though is just in bad taste, especially since at this time it's fairly groundless.

Okay, I think that's all for now. Thanks to everyone for their time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Pepsi Jedi]

[justify]Greetings and Salutations. I'm posting for two main reasons. The latter is the reason I felt compelled to post, but the former I feel is more important so I'll address it first.

Again, I have no issue with including little side blurbs of LGBT in a book without making a big deal of it. I don't think Palladium has intentionally been excluding said group, but more a case of never even really thought about it. Without trying to sound cold, Kevin is old enough to be my father and, as such, grew up in a different age. Without being a major history buff on the subject, fairly sure LGBT weren't as widely accepted and talked about at the time.

Welcome to 2014. it's alot different than 1984. We're different than we were in 1984 or 1950. Not trying to sound quip, but times change. People change with them or they're left behind as relics from a previous age.

This isn't to say they're homophobic, but it wasn't a part of every day life like it is now.

Now it is. Noone's saying go back and change books from 30 years ago. They're saying today it's 2014. Act like it.

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.

Okay, unless I miss something that would be a reference to either The Galactus Kid or myself. Since TGK talked about a Rifts book, that should rule hime out of the Rifter.

Being honest. I don't remember who it was. I was reading though posts at like 4am, and I'll admit when they get too long I skim some of them. Stopping if I catch things that are of interest. Not remembering who it was specificly, I kept my comment general. ANd no I'm not reading the 5 or so pages of giant posts to find it again. lol

That leaves me. I didn't include any characters, but I did mention (in this thread) I included a couple of paragraphs discussing homosexuality in PF (only touching on a couple of groups/races really).

Ok. So I didn't imagine it.

Do NOT clip what I said, twist it, and then use it to try and support your personal agenda.

I did nothing of the sort. I mentioned that writers HAD sent in stuff to the rifter, on the topic being discussed and it didn't see the light of day. People are all saying to do it, I pointed out someone said they had sent some in and it didn't get published. Nothing more.

I don't appreciate it. I also mentioned this was part of the Rifter 0.1 project. If you don't know what the Rifter 0.1 project is and/or its fate, then do some research or just ask.

I know what it is. I don't remember that being part of the previous post. I just remember someone mentioning they'd sent in work that had elements that are being discussed here and it wasn't published. No need to get up at arms.

Statements like the above though don't help the situation, and I also think it's disrespectful to all the other contributers whose work has yet to see the light of day. Note: If this was, by some chance, a response to someone else who mentioned similar and I missed it, then I apologize.

How's it possibly disrespectful to other contributors? If there are Rifters with such published, please let me know. I have every one of them. I have not read every page of every one. I skip a great many articles that I don't think pertain to me.

Now if the project is finally released, and that article and/or that section is cut, then there's valid grounds for speculation.

I've got dozens and dozens and dozens of Rifters. Again I've not read every page, but I don't remember seeing any such in any of them. That's valid grounds for speculation.

Insinuating Palladium has lied about their reasons for not releasing it as a cover up for their homophobia though is just in bad taste, especially since at this time it's fairly groundless.

Noone, especially myself has insinuated ANYTHING remotely close to it. Someone said 'have people that write stuff for the rifter to include it'. I pointed out that someone had written such for the rifter and it's not been published. I was even careful to point out that we don't know that, THAT is the reason it wasn't published. Tons of people write stuff that's not published. Some of what they get, might be crap.

EITHER WAY, we've not seen anything on the LGBT community or people from such community, published. (Not that anyone's been able to find and put forth anyway).

My point is 100s of books. what 66 rifters alone, and no mention of them OTHER than the horrible tables that stated it was a mental disorder that were taken out. That's not accidental. That's not 'We went 30 years and oops just never gave it a thought... for THREE DECADES'. I'm not saying that Palladium is a company of raging Homophobes. I'm really not. I'm saying that 3 decades of exclusion out of 100s of books and 66 Rifters isn't coiencidence. That's a willing choice.

That choice might be "We don't want to anger people" Be it the LGBT community itself, or a bunch of bigots. We don't know the reason. We can only look at the body of work and note the glaring three decade long absence, except for that one horrible thing that we 'can' find, that's been gone for decades itself and seldom mentioned. (For good reason)

[Goliath Strongarm]

except for that one horrible thing that we 'can' find, that's been gone for decades itself and seldom mentioned. (For good reason)

In their defense, at the time that table WAS included, they were considered mental disorders. Homosexuality had been taken out as it's own category, but fell under "sexual orientation disturbance".

And, if we want to split hairs, gender dysphoria, (aka, Gender Identity Disorder) is STILL mental disorder according to the DSM, AND it's also considered a physical disorder, according to the ICD-CM.

So, as "horrible" as we want to call it, it was completely justified by the psychology of the day. Can't blame Kevin and Co. for including a table based on what the quacks doctors were saying.

[Goliath Strongarm]

What is the difference in this and this?

How is one more acceptable than the other?

One is done down in a parade down the middle of a street, while the other is done on a stage show

THAT right there makes one more acceptable than the other. We can also go into the many arguments about the parades, but, that's a sidebar. Actually, no, it's not.

So, why is a gay pride parade socially acceptable, but a straight pride isn't? But, to go with that, I think what was trying to be pointed out is that the "hetero community" doesn't go out of their way to try to shove it in the LGBTQQI community's face "We're straight! Deal with it!", while the LGBTQQI community, in large chunks, does feel the need to do just that to the hetero community. Personally, that's what *I* don't find acceptable. That's not about equality, that's about trying to force others to accept.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Not quite. Actually not by far. When TMNT&OS came out in September of 1985, the AMA had already denounced the usage of Homosexuality as a disorder for a good long time.

The effort to remove it from the DSM-II started in 1972. Far before the publication of said Palladium books. It was December 1973 when the APA voted and formally asserted that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM-II. In 73 the APA also passed a position paper calling on psychiatrists to advocate for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and to work to end the discrimination they endure.

In 1980, the first edition of the DSM-III was published and Homosexuality was no longer a disorder.

You may note that the first formal assertions by the AMA was 12 years prior to the publication of TMNT&OS, and the first DSM-III Was 5 years prior.

They did revise even more in 1986, where in they removed any such designation that linked sexual orientation with psychology.

So... No. Not really. When the the table was included, they were not considered mental disorders. Hadn't been for over a decade. Haven't been since well before I was born.

And for the record. Gender dysphoria is not homosexuality. So don't worry about splitting that hair. Gender Dysphoria is where a person's gender at birth is contrary to the one they identify with. It doesn't actually touch on sexuality in said designation.

To quote from the proposed entry in the DSM-V

"For a person to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, there must be a marked difference between the individual’s expressed/experienced gender and the gender others would assign him or her, and it must continue for at least six months. In children, the desire to be of the other gender must be present and verbalized. This condition causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. Gender dysphoria is manifested in a variety of ways, including strong desires to be treated as the other gender or to be rid of one’s sex characteristics, or a strong conviction that one has feelings and reactions typical of the other gender. "


To put it in short. "Gender" is different from "Sexual orientation" As... well the existence of homosexuals pretty much proves. A person of male gender, may have heterosexual sexual orientation. I.E. a Male may find females sexually attractive. Or a person of Male gender may have homosexual sexual orientation, where in he finds males sexually attractive. Neither of those indicates that the male in either example perceives himself as a woman in a man's body, and is more over traumatized by it.

This is different from a person who is physically male, has male reproductive parts, lacks breasts, etc, who personifies and perceives himself in female gender norms.

It should ALSO be noted that just being homosexual doesn't mean you think you're the 'other' gender. A homosexual male doesn't automatically think he's a woman trapped in a mans body.

ALSO It should be noted that those who would fit the term of 'gender dysphoria' aren't instantly homosexual. A person could be born male, identify as a female gender type, still be male, and find women sexually attractive.

*shrugs*

But yeah, your 'They were still mental disorders in the day' isn't quite right. Off by a number of years.

It was quite a while ago, so it may be a lil blurry unless one looks up dates, but yeah.

[drewkitty ~..~]

The simple answer is "No, don't get involved in this hot button topic." Much like PB has done with religion.

This is more suitable for individual GM's to take care of for their own games.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Not quite. Actually not by far. When TMNT&OS came out in September of 1985, the AMA had already denounced the usage of Homosexuality as a disorder for a good long time.

The effort to remove it from the DSM-II started in 1972. Far before the publication of said Palladium books. It was December 1973 when the APA voted and formally asserted that homosexuality should be removed from the DSM-II. In 73 the APA also passed a position paper calling on psychiatrists to advocate for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and to work to end the discrimination they endure.

In 1980, the first edition of the DSM-III was published and Homosexuality was no longer a disorder.

You may note that the first formal assertions by the AMA was 12 years prior to the publication of TMNT&OS, and the first DSM-III Was 5 years prior.

They did revise even more in 1986, where in they removed any such designation that linked sexual orientation with psychology.

But yeah, your 'They were still mental disorders in the day' isn't quite right. Off by a number of years.

Unfortunately, you're only partially correct.

The DSM III did not include homosexuality as a CATEGORY of mental disorder, it DID include it under sexual orientation disturbance. It was still there. In the DSM IV, while it no longer specifically listed homosexuality, many quacks psychologists pointed to using the "not otherwise specified" portions of sexual disorders when needed. If you'd like, we can also get into the discussion of how those on the panel that made the decisions admitted that it was primarily a political move, because they were getting such pressure from gay rights activist groups....

And yes, I know GID is NOT homosexuality- it IS however, one of the steps COMMON in transgender, which is still part of LGBT.

We can also point out that, at least as recent as the IV-TR, even transvestites are listed (transvestic fetishism). I don't have V here to go and look it up. Although, I do need to order it...

[NMI]

I am leaving this open for now.

[say652]

Being a lil different part time tranny part time badass. Always awesome. I see nothing wrong with lgbt characters. I got fired for being transgender. Funny because other than my pink hair acrylics makeup and skinny jeans I was just as good as every other climber but evidently discrimination is aluve and well in division 46 yea screw you Asplundh. Abc after I floored a few people they kept their hands off my ass but again fired. Lucas tree thats a damn good outfit to work for. Instead of being ***** they just showed me up I grab one log those maine boys would drag a whole tree. But more than once I showed up to a storm call just took of my wig left my cutlets in threw on jeans over my skirt an changed my stilettos for climbing heels. An got it done. My boy Mike and I were the best team in the company they called us the wondertwins.lol.
So if a rough tough outfit like Lucas Tree didnt have a problem with a Tranny treeclimber why should books?

[NMI]

Let's chill on the blanket statements/assumptions about all/some/half the members of this forum.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

My point is 100s of books. what 66 rifters alone, and no mention of them OTHER than the horrible tables that stated it was a mental disorder that were taken out. That's not accidental. That's not 'We went 30 years and oops just never gave it a thought... for THREE DECADES'. I'm not saying that Palladium is a company of raging Homophobes. I'm really not. I'm saying that 3 decades of exclusion out of 100s of books and 66 Rifters isn't coiencidence. That's a willing choice.

That choice might be "We don't want to anger people" Be it the LGBT community itself, or a bunch of bigots. We don't know the reason. We can only look at the body of work and note the glaring three decade long absence, except for that one horrible thing that we 'can' find, that's been gone for decades itself and seldom mentioned. (For good reason)

The above came up in a private conversation that Pepsi Jedi and I had yesterday. I made the point above that it was left out and for good reason and agree with him restating it. I'll make the point again just in case someone doesn't follow what was being said/intended.


In TMNT&OS 1 and other 1st ed. books PB handled sexuality poorly (whether it was psychologically accurate at the time doesn't change things). Their mishandling of this sensitive subject matter (probably) earned them some negative feedback and they have since edited that section out of their work. Since then there has been no mention of any LBGT relationship as a psychological disorder OR as an socially acceptable relationship.

After we (Pepsi Jedi and I) talked about it, I believe that this was done to further avoid upsetting anyone (regardless of orientation).

In short, they didn't handle it well the first time; so they have avoided it all together to keep from screwing it up again. I think that, while not the most inclusive move, may have been the safest/smartest one business-wise. And when you get down to it PB is a business and all that matters is the bottom line, the $$ in the bank, not who feels left out. Your feelings (while completely valid and not to be dismissed) don't put food on Kevin's or any of the other employees tables. Making good business decisions that keep the sales (and money) coming in does.

As far as 'rights' go, the ONLY person who has ANY RIGHTS in regards to PB and what it publishes is Kevin Siembieda himself. To assume otherwise is the first step to disenfranchising him of his rights. As Nightfactory likes to remind us, no one should be disenfranchised (even if they don't hold the same views as you do).

(emphasis added to clarify the point, not to be hostile).

[Daniel Stoker]

In short, they didn't handle it well the first time; so they have avoided it all together to keep from screwing it up again. I think that, while not the most inclusive move, may have been the safest/smartest one business-wise. And when you get down to it PB is a business and all that matters is the bottom line, the $$ in the bank, not who feels left out. Your feelings (while completely valid and not to be dismissed) don't put food on Kevin's or any of the other employees tables. Making good business decisions that keep the sales (and money) coming in does.

As far as 'rights' go, the ONLY person who has ANY RIGHTS in regards to PB and what it publishes is Kevin Siembieda himself. To assume otherwise is the first step to disenfranchising him of his rights. As Nightfactory likes to remind us, no one should be disenfranchised (even if they don't hold the same views as you do).

(emphasis added to clarify the point, not to be hostile).

Honestly, like I said before with the quote from Rallan, this is a game "where terminal drug addicts are really really cool, where demon prostitutes murder their clients during sex, where breasts are hella visibile in some of the illustrations, where a lot of the art is either fetishtastic (Ramon Perez sure did like putting everyone in fishnets and shiny black leather ) or graphically violent, and where Siembieda himself has bent over backwards to try and explain why a genocidal evil empire are actually kinda alright guys who are just misunderstood." I think we can have a gay character here and there without a lot of issues.


Daniel Stoker

[Cybermancer]

In short, they didn't handle it well the first time; so they have avoided it all together to keep from screwing it up again. I think that, while not the most inclusive move, may have been the safest/smartest one business-wise. And when you get down to it PB is a business and all that matters is the bottom line, the $$ in the bank, not who feels left out. Your feelings (while completely valid and not to be dismissed) don't put food on Kevin's or any of the other employees tables. Making good business decisions that keep the sales (and money) coming in does.

As far as 'rights' go, the ONLY person who has ANY RIGHTS in regards to PB and what it publishes is Kevin Siembieda himself. To assume otherwise is the first step to disenfranchising him of his rights. As Nightfactory likes to remind us, no one should be disenfranchised (even if they don't hold the same views as you do).

(emphasis added to clarify the point, not to be hostile).

Honestly, like I said before with the quote from Rallan, this is a game "where terminal drug addicts are really really cool, where demon prostitutes murder their clients during sex, where breasts are hella visibile in some of the illustrations, where a lot of the art is either fetishtastic (Ramon Perez sure did like putting everyone in fishnets and shiny black leather ) or graphically violent, and where Siembieda himself has bent over backwards to try and explain why a genocidal evil empire are actually kinda alright guys who are just misunderstood." I think we can have a gay character here and there without a lot of issues.


Daniel Stoker

Sometimes you have to keep saying something until people get it.

[Pepsi Jedi]

(Ramon Perez sure did like putting everyone in fishnets and shiny black leather
Daniel Stoker

Hey hey hey... Perez put most things in shiny black armor and such too. The fishnets were at a minimum.

[jreece06]

If you "don't care" .... why vote to exclude? If the natural impulse to something you don't care about is to be a dick, that's a problem.

The above isn't directed at anyone in particular, just humanity in general

[say652]

I vote for Steve the Transvestite Crazie to be npcd in a rifter. Lol. Just dont forget the pink Mohawk and snake skin nails. Lmao