Should Palladium include GBLT characters in future books?

[Josh Hilden]

People like to see characters they can identify with.

[say652]

Frack yeah. And how about different ethnicity humans. I think since different races are a staple how can you not have different lufe styles. I'm no writer but I include it iny game. Jussayin

[BuzzardB]

I wouldn't care if they did and I won't care if they don't honestly.

Paizo has done a lot in their books with it and I am sure it's appreciated by some. It does get poked fun at on occasion for feeling forced, however.

[Akashic Soldier]

Rifts® Conversion Book 2: Pantheons of the Megaverse.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

It's already been done
LGBT are already represented. While not OVERTLY stated as an NPC, (I agree with others that it doesn't need to be spelled out, let the GM make it however they want) they are alluded to/hinted at with the Changeling and Dwarvling (in PF) and the Pleasure Bunny (in AtB2). All 3 of those are able to swap gender at will, which lends perfectly to the possibility of a same sex coupling (Bob the changeling becomes Mira the saloon girl to seduce Sheriff Tja'akir to find out where his brother is being held prisoner).

Stating it out right (in my opinion) isn't promoting equality, it's calling attention. Which do they want, Equality or Special Attention???

[Jorel]

they can change their sex has nothing to do with sexuality, or sexual preference. There are animals in nature than can do that and that is not an indication they may be into homosexuality, even if it is an option. Somebody really does not understand.

[palladiumjunkie]

And people tend to fear what they don't understand.

Citation: ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY

-Chris

[Jefffar]

Just a reminder, while we discuss inclusiveness it is important not to exclude anyone from this discussion. Suggesting that those who disagree with your stance may be bigoted in someway is exclusionary language.

It is also, per forum rules, a form of trolling. So don't do it. Only warning.

[Ysabiau]

i don't have an issue with it.
Mention it in passing and don't write an article about it.

Such and such npc "Robert and his husband run a business at the end of town"

That should be all you need. no fluff, no history it is a clear statement without making it a big deal.

This. Exactly this.

I voted yes. People are people - we exist along a spectrum of gender identifications and sexual preferences, so why not acknowledge the existence of more than one point on the spectrum?

[Daniel Stoker]

Stating it out right (in my opinion) isn't promoting equality, it's calling attention. Which do they want, Equality or Special Attention???

Honest question, what does the stating it out right with heterosexual characters mean then because we have that with a number of NPC's in the game already?

[edit]Edited to be in English


Daniel Stoker

[Giant2005]

How many NPCs in Rifts are even described as having a hetero relationship?
There can't be many...
Rifts doesn't really exclude LGBT relationships so much as it doesn't bother writing about relationships at all - mainly because it isn't a teen drama show and doesn't need that level of detail. If there are such relationships described in Rifts (and I am sure there is at least a couple) it is because it is there to help establish plot.

[Josh Hilden]

LGBT relationships = Teen Drama?

[Daniel Stoker]

How many NPCs in Rifts are even described as having a hetero relationship?
There can't be many...
Rifts doesn't really exclude LGBT relationships so much as it doesn't bother writing about relationships at all - mainly because it isn't a teen drama show and doesn't need that level of detail. If there are such relationships described in Rifts (and I am sure there is at least a couple) it is because it is there to help establish plot.

I don’t have a number but I know more than a few have had it mentioned that they have a wife, had a wife, were going to get married etc. And if Nate thought mentioning homosexual relationships was special treatment I wanted to know why those were or weren’t special treatment.

And I (probably obviously) think you can have a homosexual relationship in a future book to and be there to establish plot and not be special treatment to mention it.


Daniel Stoker

[Kryptt]

I voted yes. I agree with many of u here about not making it a big deal. Most people know queen Latifa is gay. She doesn't hide it, but she also never mentions it. If she can lead a happy fulfilled life without making her sexuality a big deal then so can PB. Working in the film industry I've been lucky to have worked with gay, bi, lesbian, and transgender folks. You know what I learned? That there people just like me and you and everybody else with hopes and dreams and just trying to survive this crazy world. Does PB have to turn it into a selling point for books, no. Just a simple Joe and Harry have been running their B&B as a couple for years. No need for treating them any better than other npc's.

[Damian Magecraft]

LGBT relationships = Teen Drama?

You are twisting the posters words there...
Pretty sure they meant
Relationships = teen drama

[Damian Magecraft]

That's really all I'm asking for. Dumbledore is a good example of an inclusive but unobtrusive gay character. He's gay, but it isn't a plot point or a focus of the story.

or even mentioned in the books at all. Alluded to but never confirmed in the canon material. We only have a single off hand remark in an interview with author to establish this.

[Damian Magecraft]

I did not vote because my option is not available.

I do not care.

[Giant2005]

That's really all I'm asking for. Dumbledore is a good example of an inclusive but unobtrusive gay character. He's gay, but it isn't a plot point or a focus of the story.

I don't really think Dumbledore is a good example - if it was to mean anything, it would have to be more significant than that. There weren't any allusions to or mentions of Dumbledore being gay in the books, it is just something J. K. Rowling added in an interview after the series were over.
It would be the equivalent of Kevin telling us that Erin Tarn is gay over a murmur but never actually publishing anything to that extent.

[Jorel]

Erin Tarn is Bi. Just wait for the comic coming out...Erin Tarn adventures as a young woman...the college years.

[Jorel]

Couldn't help mah self with the bad joke, but you are exactly right. She never goes around touting she is a woman who is standing up against the CS and the other wrongs of Rifts Earth. She just does it and happens to be a woman and an old one at that. Not very menacing if you ask me, but the CS sees it differently, and again, not because she is a woman, but because she is a serious threat to them. Great example.

[calto40k]

I voted yes as well. As a dude with a bi wife, and a ton of LGBT friends I would love to see palladium and other companies go ahead and do something like this. There is even a group on facebook called inclusive Rpging which is about this subject.

[calto40k]

i don't have an issue with it.
Mention it in passing and don't write an article about it.

Such and such npc "Robert and his husband run a business at the end of town"

That should be all you need. no fluff, no history it is a clear statement without making it a big deal.

Agreed. That's exactly what I was thinking of.

I think that this is how it should be handled as well.

Do I sense a gay couple owning a Robot mechanics shop in Sovietski? That would be a world of difference from the Russia we know today...

There are subtle undertones between two major female players. Nothing concrete and called out, but speculation is there.

TGK you never cease to amaze me with your awesomeness.

[Josh Hilden]

LGBT relationships = Teen Drama?

You are twisting the posters words there...
Pretty sure they meant
Relationships = teen drama

Uhhh no, that's never been my style. Did you notice the question mark, I was asking for clarification. I can see how it can be taken both ways and admit I assumed one over the other and if I was wrong I was wrong.

Are YOU accusing or asking?

[Jefffar]

I voted yes, but I disagree with the phrasing of the question. Really what we are talking about is what level of effort Palladium should make about including LGBT equality themes as compared to the various equality themes they already present in their books.

I think making an effort to include specifically gay characters actually is counter-productive. Token characters like that tend to draw the wrong kind of attention to the issue and often wind up a showcase of stereotypes.

Having characters who have LGBT as a part of their identity rather than as the reason they are in the book is fine. In fact that is the best way to go about it. LGBT characters are simply there. No reason to make a big deal about it. But adding an LGBT element to a character's identity just because there is this perceived need to have some LGBT in the book is insincere and feels tacked on. At that point it is t inclusiveness, its just pandering.

If a character is LGBT, they are LGBT, and that's fine. It's not like LGBT sought out that life, its the one they were born to. Same should happen with the character.

Now to those wanting to see more LGBT in Palladium, here's my suggestion - write 'em in yourself. Send in articles to the Rifter including the elements you feel should be present in characters and adventures you want to write about. Get 'em published there first. From there, its just stepping stones to having such elements appear in an official book.

[Josh Hilden]

So if a writer writes a LGBT character what is the difference between the writer feeling that is right for the character and something interesting to give more depth and adding a "Token Character"?

[Forar]

So if a writer writes a LGBT character what is the difference between the writer feeling that is right for the character and something interesting to give more depth and adding a "Token Character"?

Intent.

And if it's done well, that's probably about it.

If it's a cliche filled stereotype, then they should probably revisit their understanding of the request at hand, but if it's something given no more or less weight than heterosexual relationships have been given in the past, I see no reason why it would be a problem.

I voted yes, and having worked with Gay, Bi and Lesbian people, and consider a lesbian among my closest friends, I think that it's not a bad idea to act in a more inclusionary fashion, which doesn't have to be anything massive or grandiose.

[Josh Hilden]

So if a writer writes a LGBT character what is the difference between the writer feeling that is right for the character and something interesting to give more depth and adding a "Token Character"?

Intent.

And if it's done well, that's probably about it.

If it's a cliche filled stereotype, then they should probably revisit their understanding of the request at hand, but if it's something given no more or less weight than heterosexual relationships have been given in the past, I see no reason why it would be a problem.

I voted yes, and having worked with Gay, Bi and Lesbian people, and consider a lesbian among my closest friends, I think that it's not a bad idea to act in a more inclusionary fashion, which doesn't have to be anything massive or grandiose.

I can get behind that.

But just to play devils advocate for a second. I wrote a novel where I destroyed the world and had children eaten by zombies and other than critiquing the editing (Perfectly understandable) the only major complaint I've received has been aimed at the lesbian relationship between two of my characters. I've found people actually get more upset when it's presented realistically rather than if you "Queer it Up" for the straights.

To be fair that's a small fraction of readers but they are a boisterous segment.

Look at the fuss which was kicked up over Batwoman and her sexuality.

To rip off Joss Whedon for a second.

When people ask why I find it necessary to write LGBT characters in my fiction (and it happens a lot) I respond by telling them I do it because people keep feeling the need to ask me that question.

[Forar]

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.

[Josh Hilden]

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.

[Kryptt]

Agreed!

[keir451]

i don't have an issue with it.
Mention it in passing and don't write an article about it.

Such and such npc "Robert and his husband run a business at the end of town"



That should be all you need. no fluff, no history it is a clear statement without making it a big deal.


I can understand PFRPG mentions because a lot of family mergers go on in settings like that. (and even rifts i guess)

I can agree to this.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

That's really all I'm asking for. Dumbledore is a good example of an inclusive but unobtrusive gay character. He's gay, but it isn't a plot point or a focus of the story.

or even mentioned in the books at all. Alluded to but never confirmed in the canon material. We only have a single off hand remark in an interview with author to establish this.

Yes, Thank you Damien. Dumbledore is only seen as a gay character by those that wish to do so. Nothing in any of the books or supporting materials, dvd's or dvd bonus features makes any hint of it. Dumbledores sexuality is left up entirely for the reader to decide as there is no mention of it made. Like you said, it was an off hand comment made by the author during an interview, not a statement or declaration made during an official press release.

If Dumbledore is gay, then so is Obi-Wan Kenobi, and ESPECIALLY Yoda.
Both took a young inexperienced student under their tutelage.
Both spent excessive amounts of one on one time (especially the Jedi) with their pupil away from prying eyes.
Heck, Yoda made Luke carry him around piggy back. If an old wrinkly man riding around on a young muscular man's back doesn't just... SPAAARRKLE then I don't know what does.

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

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.

[Josh Hilden]

And yet who would it hurt?

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

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.

[Tiree]

I don't see why there should be any issue having the mention that Hank has a husband or that Mary and her girlfriend etc could be thrown in a character description. As to the idea of having gay characters would bring attention on the hobby... as Rallan's pointed out in the past, 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.

I think this here is the best reason to have LGBT characters in the RPG. But to be honest, I feel they are already there. My take on Russ Underhill is of a gay man. But that's just me. I as the GM can make them LGBT as much as I want. But do I really want sexuality in my games? Sometimes. Do I want forced sexuality in my games? Not at all.

Maybe I am a bit old school and think it should be done in the game, not in the RPG.

[Josh Hilden]

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.

[Josh Hilden]

My take on Russ Underhill is of a gay man.

I always got the same vibe as well.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

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.

I applaud you sir for stymieing me. I have at least 4 witty retorts with segregation/civil rights themes (all meant in a smart assed funny sort of way) at the ready. I know better than to share them though. You win this round of witty banter, but we'll meet again.
Dramatic Exit

[Josh Hilden]

LOL!

Okay that made me laugh so I guess we both win.

[Josh Hilden]

And Purple is the preferred color

[Josh Hilden]

Why should it be closed, everyone has been very civil and inoffensive.

[The Oh So Amazing Nate]

And Purple is the preferred color

Well Played Sir, Well Played.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Not trying to fly my Geek Flag too high, but the Dumbledoor thing was stated by JK herself, and has been many times confirmed since then by her. It wasn't just an 'off hand' comment. There was no "Dumbledoor is gay' press release or anything but she did say it and when questioned since then has confirmed it. She's gone as far as to say if she knew how well people would have taken it she'd have said so long before she did.

I know it doesn't directly pertain to the overall conversation all that much, but there's a difference between "Oh it's offhand, but not there' and the author actually saying it and then confirming it over and over for years since.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. This thread was brought to my attention via Facebook, and I said on there I'd respond here later tonight. Well, here I am. I'll start by saying I voted "Undecided." This is partly because I don't personally care one way or the other, but also because I think how it's done is important as well. If a LGBT character is included in passing (as many have suggested in this thread), I'd have no problem with it. However, the initial post suggested Palladium becoming trailblazers in the field by doing this and having LGBT flock to the system because of it. This sounds far more forced. This I disagree with.

For the record, if LGBT do become entrhalled with Palladium, awesome! I'm not opposed to this idea, just opposed to trying to force the issue. When such things are forced, they tend to end up badly. Things like that should happen naturally (imo). As an individual, I've had LGBT (okay, G & B but have yet to do L or T) in my games. Each time, it just ended up making sense for the character, and they usually came out really great characters (imo).

Note: I think overall I agree with Jefffar, who probably said many of my thoughts (and said them better than I).

Now, with that said, I'll add a few other notes. First, a few years ago I actually did submit something to Palladium that discussed homosexuality in PF. Hmm ... actually, I guess I should address my use of "homosexuality." A month or so ago it came to my attention that the term is offensive, and "gay" is now the proper term. Wow ... I had no clue. I could swear back in my day (when I was growing up), the reverse was true (could be a faulty memory). Still not sure why since "heterosexual" and "bi-sexual" are still okay (as far as I know). I've also given up (to some degree) on being politically correct. I'm not trying to be offensive, just that I'm at that point of knowing sometimes you can't win (learned that when the change from "black" to "African American" was going on, and I used the term "African American" and got scolded with "I wasn't born in Africa! I'm black" with a glare ... but I digress). Anyways, no offense meant, I swear.

Anyways, the article was submitted several years ago. The article does NOT focus on the subject, but was focusing on various cultures of the Palladium World (similar to my article on Quorians in Rifter #55, though more diverse). Within it, I addressed about two paragraphs to the subject in an otherwise 80+ page document. This was part of the Rifter 0.1 project that's currently shelved. Last time I talked to Palladium about it, Julius (and possibly Alex) had read some of it and spoke highly of it to Kevin (and talks indicated that it would see print). There's no guarantee when/if this will see print, just to say I did include something on the subject.

Recently on my website, I added about 30+ characters. There's a brief line in one of the character's that reads: "There is a rumor that there is something more between the two than just friendship, but there is no proof to confirm this rumor." This is on the character sheet of Praxlis (Dwarven male) in reference to Lord Malik (Human male). Not exactly official, but the timing is interesting.

As a G.M. of many years, I have included various NPC that fall into some of those categories. Two more memorable ones (for me) was the male potential love interest for a gender ambigious player character. No one knew (not even the player) whether the character was male or female. That led to the male bi-sexual character (which solved the problem nicely), and it fit nicely into the NPC backstory (introducing a former gay partner who the characters met briefly). The other was a female in a sci-fi game (I'd say "bi", but she was more Captain Jack from Doctor Who sexuality and "bi" just doesn't cover it well enough!). She was described as the sexiest character I have ran (not because of looks, but because of personality and actions). Two very fond memorable characters for me, but I also admit not something I run often.

Anyways, I think that should about cover my input on the matter. I've discussed my feelings on the question, what I've submitted on the matter, what I've put on my site on the matter, and some of my personal gaming experiences. Take all of that for what you will. Hopefully you've at least enjoyed. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Goliath Strongarm]

I voted No, not because of any issues with the gay or lesbian communities but because:


1. It is unnecessary to state an individuals sexuality in an RPG. if you would like to introduce Gay and Lesbian characters into your game simply assign NPC's or characters an additional stat and be done with it. You could include nightclubs communities and other facets of the gay community if you like.
2. It generates an unnecessary churn in an already scarce market.
3. What makes a gay character different from any other character generated? Are you looking to perpetuate stereotypes of what "Gay" is or do you just want to be inclusive, I feel gaming is inclusive enough already because you can do absolutely anything.

Agreed, except that I simply didn't vote. There was no "WHY? It's a non-issue" option.

I'm a straight male that's played straight, gay, and everything in-between characters. (I even had a character along the lines of Captain Jack Harkness, that would sleep with anything- I defined him as "multisexual", but never got to play him).

Honestly, this is a non-issue IMO. I honestly don't care either way. At my table, NPCs I want to be gay are gay, those I want to be straight are straight, and those that I want to reproduce by taking Japanese Schoolgirls and filling them with tentacle goo reproduce that way. That's power that every GM has, and every player has the ability to make their character gay, straight, or otherwise.

So, I ask this- why bring it up? Why MAKE it an issue?

[Kryptt]

So, I ask this- why bring it up? Why MAKE it an issue?

Because, outside of the game, there is a real world which consists of real people, some of whom are GBLT - who are not being represented. One of the historical cultural trends in the USA (and elsewhere) has been to pretend that those who are outside the 'accepted' status quo do not exist. Historically, those who fall into this category have been marginalized and disenfranchised as individuals such as Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Atheists/Agnostics, People of Color, GBLT's, the physically-challenged, the mentally-impaired, and others.

"Making an issue" is what America was built on.

If someone hadn't made an issue, the Original Colonies might not have been born.
If someone hadn't made an issue, blacks might still be slaves.
If someone hadn't made an issue, atheists might still be equated with Satanists.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be wheel-chair ramps.
If someone hadn't made an issue, we might not have our First Ammendment rights.
If someone hadn't made an issue, the Nazis might have succeded in exterminating all of the Jews.
If someone hadn't made an issue, women might not have the right to vote.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be any environmental protections.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be any consumer protection laws.
If someone hadn't made an issue, we might not be able to own guns.
If someone hadn't made an issue, child prostitution might be legal.

It's an issue because it's an issue; this is the state of the world today. Choosing to ignore it or sweep it under the rug will not make it go away.

To quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."

That is why I, in the finest American tradition, made an issue out of it.

Very well said sir. I believe you just won the internet.

[Goliath Strongarm]

"Making an issue" is what America was built on.

If someone hadn't made an issue, the Original Colonies might not have been born.
If someone hadn't made an issue, blacks might still be slaves.
If someone hadn't made an issue, atheists might still be equated with Satanists.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be wheel-chair ramps.
If someone hadn't made an issue, we might not have our First Ammendment rights.
If someone hadn't made an issue, the Nazis might have succeded in exterminating all of the Jews.
If someone hadn't made an issue, women might not have the right to vote.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be any environmental protections.
If someone hadn't made an issue, there might not be any consumer protection laws.
If someone hadn't made an issue, we might not be able to own guns.
If someone hadn't made an issue, child prostitution might be legal.

It's an issue because it's an issue; this is the state of the world today. Choosing to ignore it or sweep it under the rug will not make it go away.

To quote Dr. Martin Luther King Jr: "Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals."

That is why I, in the finest American tradition, made an issue out of it.

I was wondering if someone would try this argument. And, it's a fallacious argument.

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.

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

None of your examples work.

What you're seemingly trying to do is make something seem like a big issue, when it's NOT. THAT is what has helped push a lot of the middle-of-the-road people AWAY from supporting the LGBT community- the "in your face" attitude, making it an issue anywhere and everywhere, even when it's NOT an issue.

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! And hey, those games I'm playing on FB don't have LGBT characters... let's start hunting down those companies, and bringing it up on their boards! 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...).

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.

[Josh Hilden]

It is an issue in general but I agree not with Palladium specifically.

[Kryptt]

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.

[Goliath Strongarm]

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".

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.

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.

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

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!

Which fallacy do you feel I am using?

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

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. 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.

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. 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? 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?

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!"

On what evidence to you base this claim?


See above.

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.

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.

Stun me with your logic.

They have a right to FEEL however they want. That doesn't mean that they're JUSTIFIED in feeling that way. My three year old FEELS that I'm being mean when I don't let her have five scoops of ice cream for dinner. Doesn't mean she's JUSTIFIED in feeling that way.

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.

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).

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.


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!"