Just some thoughts. No intent to offend.
For myself, it seems off-putting to force developers to insert our real world's social problems, constraints, deficiencies, and attitudes into a fictitious, fantasy driven virtual world.
The assumption, I think incorrect unless specifically defined by the developers, that Terminus must be similar in all ways to our own lived experience here on earth is just strange and limiting. I want to escape, not submerse.
As a player in these fabricated worlds, my own characters perspective and focus, via Maslow's heirarchy (if you will), has far more to do about not getting slaughtered by demons, dragons, bandits and orcs rather than worry if my character is socially appropriate, or safe, in regards to their tastes, preference, bias, etc.
Players, especially and particularly RPers, have more freedom to delve into thematic social interactions, exploring all the tropes, passions, comedy, and tragedies we humans fret over (or none at all if they choose). And I love them for that. They bring flavor and color of their own stories into the game. Sometimes it's odd, sometimes it leads to marraige and family, but I don't think it's the responsibility of the developers to solve, or correct, for our imperfection as people. That's our own responsibility as individuals in our communities (both small and the larger).
As a gay man, I thought it was odd suddenly realizing in GW2 that there were very openly gay characters. I also found it somewhat condescending with all the repeated "My husband this..." or "My wife that ..." dialogue that took place during questing. Constantly reminding me that these pixels were gay. I appreciated the sentiment, but felt it was too much. One disclosure would have been enough. If I was slightly irked, I bet the homophobes were livid. Totally not necessary to my enjoyment of the game, or lore overall.
Chimerical mentioned there are strong female roles in the lore. I approve. I mean duh...heroes come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. As long as VR does not create a game that eschews outright bigotry I'm all good. That doesn't mean they must be apologetic (overly or otherwise) either.
I feel diversity is important and makes for a better game and more believable world and a more welcoming experience for more gamers. I want it to be done in a way that is logically consistant with the game world to avoid it feeling jarringly out of place or like tokenism. The other issue is whether we will have some species* more tolerant of various diversity and others intolerant. The lore is more realistic with this, but it can be upsetting and come across as unwelcoming. It can also be used as a way to harass other players if it's not set-up well. Perhaps a safer way to do this is to have the most bigoted in-game cultures all a sub-set and outliers from the playable species* cultures. That way it's known that this behaviour isn't acceptable but it can still be used for narrative purposes (like a quest to rescue someone and return them to their true love).
We do have hints that there will be a more realistic lore. Dark Myr have been described as having disdain for others. That plus their anger and shame over being changed to bipedal is basically writing them as Nationalists.
Racial / Ethnic diversity:
* = I"m using "species" instead of "races" in this post for disambiguation ("race" will refer to the human concept of race and "species" will refer to the various different humanoid species like Myr, Archai, etc).
Obviously a very emotive subject that can raise people's hackles quite easily. I think the sentiment here is the main thing here, not the words chosen by individuals.
If a story line warrants or requires the race or gender or sexual orientation of a character to be made clear, then I believe Kilson said that it would. If the story doesnt gain anything from such a disclosure, then there is no need specifically label a character one way or another.
I do not greet someone and say "Hi my name is (insert name) and I am (insert race/gender/orientation)", I dont believe it isnecessary for story characters to do this either. If the story line naturally leads to the disclosure of such information, so be it. If is doesnt, so be it. The game (and it is a game), in my view should be a loose representation of our world at best.
Characters from myth and legend have always reflected the make up of the people that created those stories and represented the general population there in. In the mixed and virbant world we have today, then the characters portrayed should also be mixed and vibrant. It should feel as diverse as possible in a fluent way but not for the sole purpose of advertising itself as inclusive. Inclusivity should just occur as part of the overall story.
At the end of the day, Pantheon is a game and not a political or social mouthpiece. In the same way that is doesnt go out of its way to make statements about inequalities of wealth in the real world, it should not do the same about race, religion, creed or sexual orientation. This does not preclude it from creating storylines based on such things (and it should pursue stories based on such things), but it should not become an advocate for any specific group over any other specific group. All people should have representation in the game, but I dont see the need to implement things differently for any single group.
My wife, mother in law and I all watch TV together nightly for an hour or so. The other day we were watching 911.
In one firehouse and a small subset of one police department, there are two lesbian characters, six gay characters, two bisexual characters, one transgender character,multiple same sex couples, and one multi-racial couple.
I have absolutely no moral or cultural issues with any of these identities or relationships. None. Zero. I respect the actors, their skills, and the struggles and successes that any one of their characters have portrayed. However.... I find it entirely unbelievable that this quantity of diversity exists within such a small subset of people. Additionaly I find that the story becomes more about thier diversity rather than of the dangers and dynamics of first responders. I just cant watch it because I can't relate to the overwhelmingly (and unrealistically) diversity-heavy content. If feels like they are as focused on checking identity boxes as they are in creating a believable world and telling a compelling story. Often more so.
If the intent of this particular show is to be compelling for an audience that can relate, great. More power to em. But it's not for me. I dont fall into the right category. Nothing wrong with that on either front.
But I fear the same personal disconnect in all entertainment I engage in, and my ability to connect is more and more often damaged by heavy handed implimentation of a particular viewpoint. If diversity were to exist in Pantheon in a manner that is logical, great. If it were to show any number of aspects of diversity, cool. If it devolves into a scoresheet of what is included, what's not, what's incorrect, what's under-represented, what should be added.... No. At that point it's not about the story or the game. It's about projecting an image or promoting a particular way of thinking to the detriment of the story.
chenzeme said:If a story line warrants or requires the race or gender or sexual orientation of a character to be made clear, then I believe Kilson said that it would. If the story doesnt gain anything from such a disclosure, then there is no need specifically label a character one way or another.
It depends on how this is handled. I don't want all characterisation to only exist if required by plot, since that feels artificial and keeps the world from feeling real. Plus, it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing. That doesn't mean that every character should overtly display their sexuality--that feels forced and artificial.
A real-feeling world will have characters display their personal traits with a widely varying amount of visibility. And these aspects of their characterisation should be only part of their identity, and not their one identifying characterisation. Compelling NPCs need to feel real and complex, not like a caricature.
Counterfleche said:Plus, it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing.
To me the only thing that it implies is that most people don't feel a need to broadcast their personal preferences or beliefs to everyone they meet. Sure. some do. The irony is that some of those people come across as a bit cliche and even accused of perpetuating a stereotype.
chenzeme: If a story line warrants or requires the race or gender or sexual orientation of a character to be made clear, then I believe Kilson said that it would. If the story doesnt gain anything from such a disclosure, then there is no need specifically label a character one way or another.
Counterfleche: it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing
It certainly does not imply anything of the kind. Nowhere did I single out the LGBTQ community, my statement is aimed at all orientations and there is no implication or bias whatsoever!
I take my dogs for walks around my village. I meet and greet people doing the same. We pass the time of day and talk about dogs or the weather. Not once has a person's orientation been raised at these interactions. I have not offered mine and the people I have met have not offered theirs. It is simply not required.
My neighbour is not straight, and it was not obvious when we first met. She did not share this detail with me then and it only became apparent through every day interactions well after our initial meeting. This detail is totally irrelevant to our good relationship.
The lack of leading with sexual orientations does not suggest that something is inherently wrong, most of the time it is just not required. Yes there are flamboyant characters of all persuasions, and I expect this to be reflected in game but I do not think it is necessary to have all characters specify their orientations. For most story lines, it is just unimportant. What is important is that all people are represented fairly and that stories make sense. It is important that character motivations are explained in a natural way. Orientation expression should be a part of the game yes, but it does not need to be a component of every npc, mob and quest out there. Such details should be used when it makes sense to do so.
Some more rambling thoughts. It's an interesting topic. I don't mean to labour the point(s) for any particular reason, just to discuss.
RPGs are a special case
For good reasons 'minority groups' have found a more comfortable home in fantasy worlds than perhaps in their real lives. I'm thinking especially of pen and paper RPG sessions and groups, but it applies to online games too, to an even greater extent, because not being 'present' can be pivotal.
I am talking about people with anxiety and social issues that find, when 'playing' a character, they are more able to overcome it.
I am talking people with disabilities that, vicariously through there character, can do all the things they have perhaps long wanted to.
I am also talking people with more unusual gender orientations that have felt free to express themselves more in a game than in real life.
Etc.
And - the important part - they have done that in a social group that tends to be more accepting and welcoming than most. It is this kind of acceptance that become a virtuous circle where people realise, we all 'have something'. We all are in a 'minority group' of some sort. And this atitude spreads through and beyond gaming communities.
Yes, certain aspects are politicised, these days especially, but some have always been 'a thing'. Whereas tabletop RPGs used to be known as a haven for shy geeky types, when it gained more mainstream popularity it became a phenomenon for members of all kinds of marginalised folks.
Whilst I struggle with the recent politicising and the tribalism around some of those folks' differences - I don't think it's helpful - that doesn't make RPGs having a welcoming reputation a bad thing - far from it. This is something 'special' about RPGs and I hope this is another 'old school' thing taken forward in Pantheon.
Related to the OP and people's comments, yes, unfortunately, this can *become* political, but that doesn't mean the underlying thing isn't a good and healthy social benefit.
When people start having 'agendas' and pushing those into areas like gaming, there is understandable and justified push back.
I believe what Kilsin said was only expressing that VR have a healthy respect and enjoyment of diversity, but have no specific agenda to 'force' through the game. The word Kilsin used was 'equality' actually, which is subtly different, in that, when applied to 'diversity', equality implies *no* group is treated differently, even in an overly positive way, which I think is actually a good thing.
They could easily have jumped on any number of popular bandwagons that are kareening through the media, but, much like their game design choices to buck modern trends, they are not going to take a 'popularised' approach here either.
This is not to say, of course, that their game design decisions around minority groups will not *be* popular, but it is saying they will not be making a special artificial effort just to *make themselves* popular.
Fantasy isn't always Escapism
A related aspect, but subtly different, is people using RPGs for escapism. In my experience, the kind of folks I mention above would often play a character very different from their real-life character. They are not looking for representation - quite the opposite.
They might play a strictly noble knight, perhaps to escape what felt like a real life with too much chaos and too many choices.
They might play a manic barbarian, perhaps to escape what felt like an overly rigid and controlled real life.
They might crave magic if their life felt mundane or was perhaps very science oriented. Crave nature (druids and rangers) if their life was very urban.
But, for some, it was an excuse to play a version of 'themselves' that they daren't show, through lack of acceptance or discomfort or whatever, in real life.
This is no less valid, of course. In some ways, it's a more natural fit to fantasy and was certainly, at the very least, acceptable. I can't remember it being anything other than encouraged.
Yes, this might be a gender or culture thing, but it also might mean someone who has mean impulses exorcising those by playing an evil character *shrug* it doesn't always have to be a 'political' issue.
Diversity isn't just about you
But of course, diversity isn't just about what *you* can do, it's about what is around you.
Whether or not you have much sympathy/empathy for it, we know that any aspect of life is effectively 'restricted' if you don't feel welcome there and, if you feel there is no one there 'like you' - whatever that is - you will tend not to feel welcome.
Yes, you can say it's up to 'them' if they don't feel welcome, but being realistic, we know it's a statistical fact as well as an obvious factor, that respresentation in things like particular sports and jobs has a direct impact on the types of new folks getting into them.
To pick one that's perhaps less contraversial and more accepted; there are fewer women taking up scientific jobs because there fewer women *in* scientific jobs. It's a bit of a Catch 22 situation, but in an RPG game there is no such issue.
So, whilst we if we try and 'force' some kind of 'pro' sexism/racism/genderism/whateverism diversity it could end up feeling ridiculous, it shouldn't feel 'forced' to include 'a repesentative' amount of diversity.
It shouldn't matter
And the point *for me*, but I would think for many others too, is it shouldn't matter, in a couple of ways.
Firstly, it shouldn't matter if every one of the PCs and NPCs has black, brown or green skin. It shouldn't matter if every one of the PCs and NPCs is gay, straight or 'likes' only dragons. It shouldn't matter, *especially* in a fantasy world that is not The Earth, because skin colour and gender or sexual orientation are going to, hopefully, be irrelevent to the game, or if they are relevent, will have no relation to real life.
If we find ourselves encouraged 'playing out' real world gender or cultural issues in a fantasy world, then surely that game has failed in one of it's primary functions.
Secondly, it shouldn't matter if others do wish to play out *whatever* thing they desire. Like any social issue, if you don't like it, you aren't forced to endure it. If you come across someone you 'don't like' for whatever reason, you can choose not to play with them.
The question is, how much do games like Pantheon limit or enable, ignore or encourage 'diverse' aspects?
I believe there are easy things for VR to do that will have a neutral effect for most and a positive effect for many.
Don't have a male/female option for characters, as it is unimportant in game, simply have helpful cosmetic pre-sets and sliders that allow a good degree of freedom.
Have a good variety of skin colours for PC options especially, even if non-human NPCs tend to have a certain palette preference, artistically.
Even though it maybe tricky to explain for adventurers, have some disabled, or differently enabled, NPCs.
The point is, Terminus is a fantasy world no doubt with more diverse flora and forna than The Earth, so there is *more* good reason for interesting diversity than there is in the real world. This doesn't mean it should be thrown in there willy-nilly without reason, but it does mean it should perhaps be kept in mind and not avoided either.
As a final thought, let's talk breasts. Breast size can be a ridiculous issue in video games. It is a clear and obvious grab for the large adolescent male segment of the market and is at the least, faintly embarrassing, and quite often it is offensive to the rest of us. Pantheon made statements up front many years ago that that kind of 'art style' will not be in Pantheon. Brad said something to encapsulate it like "I want Pantheon to be a game I would be proud and unembarrassed to play with my daughter".
For the sake of diversity, I hope there are some large breasts in Pantheon, but, since breasts are hopefully, as a mechanic or feature, unimportant to the game, it will be largely unimportant and I'm not that bothered.
It only becomes an issue if large breasts are disproportionately over-represented and, perhaps less so, but also if small breasts are the only option.
I can imagine some large breasted folks perhaps being quite miffed if they aren't represented in game and that is begins to look odd when *all* the characters in game are, for want of a better word, 'boyish'.
Hopefully you understand the reason I give this last example is to highlight that diversity is important to keep in mind, in all aspects, but is only 'an issue' if overtly overdone or utterly ignored.
Again, to refer back to Kilsin's comment, I believe what is basically said was VR won't be over-doing or under-doing it.
Feyshtey said:Counterfleche said:Plus, it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing.
To me the only thing that it implies is that most people don't feel a need to broadcast their personal preferences or beliefs to everyone they meet. Sure. some do. The irony is that some of those people come across as a bit cliche and even accused of perpetuating a stereotype.
Something I should have put in that last rambling post related to this. Or maybe I did and it was so long I already forgot...
An NPC's sexuality and even their cultural background won't always be apparent and probably isn't relevent. Same with a PC too, really.
When you see/hear visuals and voice acting, mannerisms and background lore, you can have a stab at working some things out, but mostly that is the player making assumptions about stuff that is, in the game, irrelevent. Also very often you would simply get it wrong - voice actors or graphics used aren't always great choices.
Sure, use of pronouns can be a 'giveaway' if you want to be technical, but that's more of an unsophisticated interface issue than 'gendering' an NPC. If a character is referred to as 'she' in the text, does that really mean they are definitely 'a woman'? (especially in a fantasy world) and, again, if gender, for example, is not relevent to the story, why jump to a conclusion?
If the recent plethora of pronoun preferences has taught me anything, it is not that one must be careful to use the 'correct' ones, but that you are doomed to regularly get it wrong if you try, so one simply must not 'assume' gender from pronouns or otherwise. Have an informed guess, if it's relevent. Ask if it's relevent. You'll get corrected if it's important. If it's not, it's not. Not only don't assume a gender, but don't assume it is important or relevent.
I suppose for a game writers should use "they/them" - it would actually be simpler than trying to replace she/he in text where characters are referred to - but it would perhaps come off like an office health and safety manual? *shrug* I don't know. Good luck JN!
I guess my point is, a fantasy world could be *full* of LGBTQ+ people of varying cultures and you would not know and why should you? And even if an NPC looks/sounds/acts like any particular thing, it's you, the player, that is assuming that and you could easily be getting it wrong. Or if you can definitely tell by looking/hearing, then the developers have probably picked a potentially offensive stereotypical representation...
chenzeme said:Counterfleche: it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing
It certainly does not imply anything of the kind. Nowhere did I single out the LGBTQ community, my statement is aimed at all orientations and there is no implication or bias whatsoever!
To be clear. I didn't mean you were implying there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ, I meant the game itself would be implying this if it's only represented when necessary and not also sometimes mentioned/implied as part of characterization for some NPCs. My concern is that 'when necessary' means 'only when necessary for a specific plotline'. I want there to be some LGBTQ characters who just are, and not for any reason beyond characterization.
I want most characters to not give us any specific information on their sexuality at all, but a few should, and portion of those should be LGBTQ. No flag waving and no conspicuous absence, just a world that feels real.
chenzeme said:chenzeme: If a story line warrants or requires the race or gender or sexual orientation of a character to be made clear, then I believe Kilson said that it would. If the story doesnt gain anything from such a disclosure, then there is no need specifically label a character one way or another.
Counterfleche: it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing
It certainly does not imply anything of the kind.
It does when you attach a qualifier of requirement.
For example, there is a quest in the Human starting area of World of Warcraft centered around two lovers from rival farms whose families won't let them be together. Eventually the player ends up giving the female in the quest an invisibility potion so she can escape and be with her lover. What about that plot line requires the characters to be heterosexual? What would have to change for them to be required to be gay, lesbian, or transgender? By saying that there has to be some kind of requirement to justify non-traditional characters and storylines, you are essentially saying that their existence is only necessitated by special or abnormal circumstance.
That's also not really what Kilsin said. He said that if VR sees the opportunity to add them, that they would. Opportunity is not dictated by requirement.
This makes me think about the quest in wow with Qadarin and Thiernax. I interpretted it as a story about how love transcends the mortal realm and them being soulmates only to find out half the community was all up in arms about how they put a gay couple on display in the main storyline. I mean they weren't even "human" and just spirit animals. It was kinda sad to see how a lot of people reacted, but at the same time wow is a game that is not very inclusive. So when you put it in a main covenant story line there were inevitably going to be a lot of pearls being clutched.
In terms of inclusivity, Blizzard made a very black and white game and added a splash of color front and center. It got a big reaction because of the stark contrast. I want Visionary Realms to make a game from the ground up with a full range of colors so that nothing feels forced or like a side show to prove they are just "woke" enough.
It just requires some common sense. Some people will always be upset, whatever you do, on both or multiple sides, especially in a 'sensitive' area. Best to ignore them and do what is reasonable.
Some more related thinking (oh my gods, Dispo, MORE?!)
Quickly Googling some stats gives a figure of about 3% LGBTQ+. That's probably by census taking, so if we assume that is low due to there being reticence to identify, and it's say double that at 6% that still means, to be something like representative, it would (should?...) be a relatively 'low' amount of the population of Terminus. That's hundreds of creatures and people amongst the thousands of NPCs, though, right?
Now, as I said in earlier posts, I am not suggesting Terminus *should* be reflecting the real world at all, *but* if devs do want to keep in mind a proportion that wouldn't seem unusual to its players - so no one has any particular justification to be upset about - then that 6% is perhaps something like it.
But - and it's a big but - there is no reason that anything like a large proportion *of* those representative NPCs would or should *exhibit* their LGBTQ+ness. If we are saying the game should in any way be representative, then it should also take account that people's gender and sexuality (not the same thing, but intermingled here) are usually personal, private and rarely obvious.
And another but - and another pretty big one - most NPCs won't have a distinctive quest or story, or even have particularly distinctive looks or vocabulary. Of those that do, the probability that the story will even involve their gender or sexuality, never mind make it obvious, is further unlikely or rare, unless Terminus is to be a new virtual dating app.
So... to *again* refer to poor Kilsin's early comment: When Kilsin talks about not wanting to 'force' equality and when others here are concerned about it, they are probably thinking that to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ (and all the other minority categories - diversity isn't just about gender) people is great, but are worried about just how you show that without making it feel ridiculously artificial and... well... forced.
I agree with @Nexira that VR need "to make a game from the ground up with a full range of colors so that nothing feels forced or like a side show to prove they are just 'woke' enough", but I would caution that a general over-representation of genders, colours, cultures, body types, disabilities, religeons, ideologies, etc would constitute 'a full range' but would be a glaring, clashing, headache-inducing disco of colours no one will be happy with.
Sure, nothing wrong with being *a little* over-representative where there has perhaps been an historic imbalance, but don't go bananas.
A little example: -
For Battlefield 5 there was a pro-mo video. A main character was an ass-kicking, behind-the-lines, resistance fighter. It was exciting stuff and very well done. It was cinematic, but showcased lots of the new features, like soldier avatars firing weapons while crawling backwards. The problem was, it was completely overshadowed by controversy because that main character 1) Appeared (was) female 2) Had a prosthetic arm 3) Wielded a barbed-wire-wrapped cricket bat 4) Had berserker-esque facepaint.
Now... all those things do have a background in WW2. Yes, there were female operatives behind the lines, though they saw little active warfare. Yes, you can operate a gun with a prosthetic, though no soldiers had them on active duty. Yes, there is at least one archived case of a barbed-wire cricket bat used in a war (I think it was WW1, but, whatever). Yes, intimidating facepaint was probably (though very rarely) used.
The point was, though, that cramming all those unusual things into one character made it absurd and some folks apparently like thier war to feel gritty and 'realistic'. Personally, I had a chuckle, rolled my eyes, went with it and enjoyed it for what it was. I also chuckled at the history buffs that got all hot-under-the-collar. Not so funny was the misogynistic backlash.
The secondary point was, it was all so unecessary. They could have included all those things, individually, in the cosmetic options that were added later in the game. It would have been nicely inclusive. They could have even had all those things in the trailer, just not crammed together so ridiculously.
The third point was the devs doubled down and actually said things like "if you don't like it, don't buy it". I admired them for that. I agreed. They also accused the most vocal 'fans' of misogyny and weirdnesses. They weren't wrong about some of that, either. But it didn't have to come to that - it could have been handled better and it could have been done in a positive way no one would have objected to, most would have been fine with and some would have revelled in. The controversy and the way it was handled was a large part of why that game did much worse than the previous one, which was an amazing, awesome, gritty, realistic and quite dignified portrayal of WW1 warfare. It was so well done I almost felt ashamed to 'enjoy' 'playing' at WW1.
And we come back to *again* (sorry Kilsin!) to that word 'forced'. Have all the inclusion and diversity you desire, just don't force it. There's no need. It even backfires in its intention.
Use all the colours, but make it a subtle blending.
Counterfleche: it implies that there's something inherently wrong with LGBTQ characters just existing...
chenzeme: It certainly does not imply anything of the kind...
eunichron: It does when you attach a qualifier of requirement.
Misrepresentation does not add worth to an argument. The "requirement" is whether it makes sense to the story, quest, or situation. So let me be clear. It is NOT my belief that any orientation is inherently wrong. Is that plain enough?
What I am saying is that the orientation of any individual is irrelevant upon meeting someone. I do not approach a stranger and say "Hi, my name is Chenzeme and I am a heterosexual male. I do not expect that information to be divulged to me by anyone I meet either. At that point in time, orientation is inappropriate, irrelevant and immaterial. Later, down the line, I might offer up that information at an appropriate time as my relationship evolves with the individual. Why should an NPC be any different?
eunichron: What about that plot line requires the characters to be heterosexual?
On the subject of your example; first I would point out that you are the one actually suggesting that the characters are "required" to be heterosexual, not me. It is a huge and incorrect assumption to make to suggest I would think in such an old fashioned manner and I certainly do not.
If the characters involved are both male, or both female or mixed, or whatever, it is irrelevant to the quest. You are helping a character to escape with a lover; their orientation is extraneous. If it transpires that the couple are "non-traditional" as you put, it really doesnt affect the story line in any way what so ever. It is two people, presumably in love, wanting to run away together. The oreintation details should be presented to the player as the quest unfolds but ultimately it is irrelevant. Personally, I would approach the quest in exactly the same manner regardless of orientation. If I believe the couple need to get away from their families, then I would help. That is the pertinent detail, not orientation.
eunichron: you are essentially saying that their existence is only necessitated by special or abnormal circumstance
NO! I am not esentially saying anything of the kind. I am speciflcally saying that categorising character orientation at the outset is nothing more than a labelling exercise and adds nothing to gender/orientation equality. Treating characters sympathetically through character models, motivations and story lines adds much more value than conning a NPC and being told they are gay.
eunichron: That's also not really what Kilsin said. He said that if VR sees the opportunity to add them, that they would. Opportunity is not dictated by requirement.
You are comparing two nouns used in different contexts to make some kind of point. Kilson (opportunity) was referring to the general equality, I (requirement) was referring to quest lines.
"adds much more value than conning a NPC and being told they are gay."
What a terrible idea - I hope no one is suggesting that (shudders visibly). Apart from it being far too "in your face" how would anyone *know* just by looking at someone.
As I understand it the OP's point, at least in part, is that if sexual orientation is relevant to what NPCs say and do they shouldn't all be straight. For every 10 man-woman romances that VR chooses to share with us there should be at least one or two romances that are man-man or woman-woman. This summary may be more "binary" than some would prefer but it has the advantage of being simple and (pun very much intended) straightforward.
disposalist said:But - and it's a big but - there is no reason that anything like a large proportion *of* those representative NPCs would or should *exhibit* their LGBTQ+ness. If we are saying the game should in any way be representative, then it should also take account that people's gender and sexuality (not the same thing, but intermingled here) are usually personal, private and rarely obvious.
I think this is a very important point, and seems to be central to most of the debate in this thread. If the game dialogue is believably written, then in the vast majority of cases, just as in real life, an NPC's orientation won't be apparent to the player at all...and that goes for all orientations, including heterosexual. A player can certainly imagine a character to have a certain orientation if they want, but in most cases it will be irrelevant to the game world, so doesn't need to exist outside the player's mind. However, in those relatively rare cases where something in the writing directly references a relationship (quests about husbands, wives, star-crossed lovers, etc.), that would more or less identify the character's orientation based on the type of character model (male or female) that is doing the talking.
I don't think anyone is having a problem with an appropriate number of these (again, pretty rare) game situations depicting non-hetero relationships by way of the character models used (a male talking about his husband, a female talking about her wife, etc.). I think some people would be more concerned about the immersion-wrecking effect of injecting LGBTQ dialogue into places where one would not even encounter it in real life. The occasional male NPC who asks for help finding his lost husband seems perfectly reasonable. The city guard who lets you know that he is gay just for the heck of it the moment you talk to him...maybe not.
I'm pretty sure that this is all people are saying when using words like "artificial" or "forced." To include examples of LGBTQ characters where it makes sense in the context of a realistic world is a good thing, but to do it in illogical ways and places, merely to show that characters are LGBTQ, would surely hurt the believability of the game world -- something that I'm sure none of us want. While it will never be possible to make everyone happy, I have faith that VR will handle this in a fair and balanced way that is inclusive while also remaining true to the values of the game.
@Chenzeme, it sounds like our views are not that different. I didn't interpret anything you said to mean you ever personally felt these kinds of relationships were wrong, but it's easy for nuanced / specific comments to be misinterpreted over broadly. I think our main disagreement is that I want some characters to express/ imply their sexuality even if it's unrelated to a specific story / quest while you seem to want it only coming up when relevant. Would you say that's a fair interpretation?
dorotea said:"adds much more value than conning a NPC and being told they are gay."
What a terrible idea - I hope no one is suggesting that (shudders visibly). Apart from it being far too "in your face" how would anyone *know* just by looking at someone.
As I understand it the OP's point, at least in part, is that if sexual orientation is relevant to what NPCs say and do they shouldn't all be straight. For every 10 man-woman romances that VR chooses to share with us there should be at least one or two romances that are man-man or woman-woman. This summary may be more "binary" than some would prefer but it has the advantage of being simple and (pun very much intended) straightforward.
Whilst I agree, to have one or two examples in ten be LGBTQ+ might be over-representing by a factor of x3 to x6.
Personally, I have no problem with that. It doesn't matter to me. It's a fantasy world and hardly needs to represent the real world, but it may begin to feel 'forced' when it over-represents to such a degree.
The problem is, though when you over-represent it may please one sector, it may also upset another, so what is the 'right' thing to do, unless you want to look like you are virtue signalling for the sake of it?
The further problem is, if you attempt anything near 'reality' then you need to have something like 25 to 30 'romance' storylines for an LGBTQ+ to be statistically representative and 'justified'.
So many obviously 'romantic' interests would then, in itself, seem to be a weird 'forced' over-represented thing. It would feel like Pantheon were a dating sim.
The dilemma is: are you pro-diversity, with what might feel like a forced number of romantic storylines in order to have a what might feel like a forced number of LGBTQ+ examples or are you pro-equality and representative, which would seem natural and unforced, but basically mean you have no romantic storylines, because even having two and having one LGBTQ+ is a wild over-representation.
Neither option is good and I think carefully having *no* romantic issues would be sensible.
Again, as I say, I don't mind. I'm probably even a little pro-diversity to a certain degree, because it would help to redress an historical imbalance and, as far as I'm concerned, does no harm, but there is definitely a point where it will begin to feel oddly forced and even those with no significant pro- or anti- LGBTQ+ feelings will raise their eyebrows and wrinkle their noses at the unusual creative tendencies VR might show with their story writing.
And remember these issues should surely apply to *all* minority groups and their in-game repesentation. Colour, disability, body type, culture, religeon, politics, etc all have a right to be represented, or at least not under-represented unless they want to feel excluded. I can't imagine the efforts VR would have to go to just to adequately give it all fair consideration. There are big companies that have done just that and perhaps that work could be 'copied', but then to implement it as they develop would be an even bigger effort than to come up with it in the first place.
I think VR need to be inclusive - at the very least to not be excluding or limiting any particular group, but to be pro-diversity is a minefield that, on top of all the other challenging game-related design choices they are making, they might be very wise to avoid.
One thing I hope this thread has done is make sure VR have the issue in mind.
As more of a warning of butchering Pantheon's interesting lore so far you can look at the long running world of Faerun. Due to new player expectations of everyone being peacefully accepted in a Star Trek like utopia they are retconning their own world. Rather than building a utopia world from the ground up to have everyone welcomed they are trying to shift by burning the lore written over the years.
The hated slavers and cannibals are now just your neighbors. The massive wars and raids are downplayed because it is a time of peace, there are no feuds. You can just travel anywhere and be accepted as a normal person. You could be the only member of your alien race on the planet and they won't even take a second look. The closed off racial cities are no longer welcome in the world, better leave the city doors open to everyone nomatter what.
There will be loud voices calling for the end of fantasy racism and in turn the race factions. I hope VR is prepared for it. I imagine the Skar will be the first on the lore chopping block. "Skar are torn between hereditary bloodlust and cultural advancement." There will be people unhappy with that simple racial view and demand they can just start out anywhere in the world as a happy go lucky traveling Skar.
Good luck VR, please put the story first.
Jobeson said:As more of a warning of butchering Pantheon's interesting lore so far you can look at the long running world of Faerun. Due to new player expectations of everyone being peacefully accepted in a Star Trek like utopia they are retconning their own world. Rather than building a utopia world from the ground up to have everyone welcomed they are trying to shift by burning the lore written over the years.
The hated slavers and cannibals are now just your neighbors. The massive wars and raids are downplayed because it is a time of peace, there are no feuds. You can just travel anywhere and be accepted as a normal person. You could be the only member of your alien race on the planet and they won't even take a second look. The closed off racial cities are no longer welcome in the world, better leave the city doors open to everyone nomatter what.
There will be loud voices calling for the end of fantasy racism and in turn the race factions. I hope VR is prepared for it. I imagine the Skar will be the first on the lore chopping block. "Skar are torn between hereditary bloodlust and cultural advancement." There will be people unhappy with that simple racial view and demand they can just start out anywhere in the world as a happy go lucky traveling Skar.
Good luck VR, please put the story first.
Indeed.
For me, part of what made games like Dungeons and Dragons so great was that 'monsters' and 'evil' were easily identified (quite literally, with magic spells if you wanted) and, thus, you could happily kill and loot with no guilt or weirdness. It was a wholly fun and cathartic experience.
Yes, often enough there was up a 'good' goblin and a 'misunderstood' minotaur, even a whole book series about a good dark elf, but those were the clear exceptions and did not lead to feeling bad for every 'monster' or 'evil' you killed.
Now, sure, that might make for a lack of sophistication in storylines, but that can be more than made up for by other complexities and challenges.
I neither want nor need to feel morally challenged in a fantasy game. I want to feel like I am the good guy by knowing with fair certainty the moral standing of the NPCs. Of course, if there is no ambiguity I can also knowingly be 'the bad guy' or remain neutral, but I won't be torturing myself with "should I" or "shouldn't I" or "what am I?" stuff.
Faction, of course, is an added sophistication. But let's just leave it as that, and not make it too much of a moral dilemma. I've nothing against 'picking a team' and then being able to slaughter 'the opposition' because this is a fantasy game. I could always point out that in the real world so-called civilised and progressive nations do the same for reasons of simple resource control, so applying moral standards to gaming factions is absurd as well as unwanted. Following a faction in a video game should be no more morally 'unhealthy' than sports almost always being about winners and losers and of 'beating' others.
If Skar, Ogres and Dark Myr are not 'evil' in Pantheon lore, that's fine. That is a practical choice about allowing players to mix and not effectively have two separate communities when there isn't even PvP to support the need for that, so I'm all for it, but there's also no need to overly sanitise their lore to make it somehow 'acceptible' to a modern player. I can live with suspension of disbelief and overlooking some conflicting lore more than I'd want their racial lore sanitised.
Please let's not attempt to impose modern real world utopian ideologies on the lore of NPC or PC 'races' or whatever. Stories don't have to have a moral, especially a complex challenging one, they can just be escapism. Or perhaps more correctly, stories don't have to *push* any particular moral. They can *have* moral implications in them, let's not sanitise that stuff likea disease we shouldn't be exposed to, but let's not push the players in any direction so they feel judged if they want to go another or to ignore it.
To reflect back on the OP, let's not 'force' any real world moralising on the game by only representing certain aspects or by representing some in particular ways. Let's be inclusive without pushing in any particular direction.
I know I've suggested that avoiding the issue is better than getting it wrong, but that's not 'retconning' the lore into blandness or weirdness in order to avoid problems, that's just not making contentious choices unnecessarily.
If my opinions are a little incongruous or inconsistent, please forgive me. It's a complex issue, but it's about a game, so we don't really have to have 'solutions' to them, do we? I think it's good we talk about them though.
Yes, I am commenting lots about this issue! I find it a good combo of interesting, important, controversial, relevent to the game in some ways, but should be held seperate in others.
P.S. I had to look it up. RetCon apparently stands for Retroactive Continuity which is a literary device where new lore is written that may contradict or undo old lore. I believe this originally referred to the intention of undoing storyline inconsistencies or paradoxes, but more recently this is often viewed in a negative light as precious lore of loved franchises like Lord of the Rings or the Marvel Universe is overwritten to accomodate modern ideals where historical material might be deemed, in hindsight, morally 'dodgy'.
Counterfleche: ...while you seem to want it only coming up when relevant...
I believe I said the opposite of what you are pushing on me:
chenzeme: Yes there are flamboyant characters of all persuasions, and I expect this to be reflected in game but I do not think it is necessary to have all characters specify their orientations.
Explicitly: I expect some characters to show their orientations via story, modelling and/or action; I do not expect to be told of every character's orientation. For the vast majority of NPCs it is superflous information to the game. But when and where it makes sense to do so, so be it. I do not expect lots of characters to display their orientations, but some yes. This is not sweeping anything under the carpet or hiding anything or suggesting anything is wrong. Generally, in the living world, most people's orientation is not advertised openly, it is divulged when the relationship shows some trust between all parties. A few do show what they are openly, but most do not. I expect Pantheon to reflect this. That is all.
Donler said:Pantheon is undenyably more of a sandbox MMORPG than a storyline-based MMO it feels easy to overlook diversity & inclusivity
Why does everything need to be filtered through the lens of "diversity and inclusivity"? Are the people who push "diversity and inclusivity" really for what they want people to think they're for? Or is that a label that they've given themselves to cover up the stench of their propaganda? A truly diverse and inclusive game would not only have opinions and characters that are kind to the homosexual lifestyle, but would also have opinions and characters that are unkind to the homosexual lifestyle.
What steps are JN and the rest of Visionary Realms taking to include include strong, well-written women, BIPOC, and/or LGBTQ NPCs?
Hopefully, none. There's already enough of that kind of propaganda in all forms of media. How much more fiction needs to be ruined? There are entire months dedicated to the propaganda.
chenzeme said:Explicitly: I expect some characters to show their orientations via story, modelling and/or action; I do not expect to be told of every character's orientation.
Why do you expect any of this? Most people don’t care about this sort of thing. It’s boring. It’s overdone. It’s propaganda. Most people are sick and tired of hearing about it. Many of the people who you think you're representing are sick and tired of hearing about it, too. Children are going to be playing this game. Don't they get enough so-called diversity and inclusivity from public schools, TV, music, and movies? Do we need a Drag Queen Story Hour in Pantheon?
The only time I’d be interested in hearing about "orientation" in a video game is if it were done in an honest manner that showed both sides of the issue. The game would need to show the positive and the negative. One example of a negative consequence of homosexual behavior is an increased chance of contracting STDs. Showing the pros and cons and the arguments for and against homosexual behavior is much more interesting than a cookie-cutter sterilized advertisement for homosexuality and other atypical behavior. If we must go down this beaten path, then let's be honest about it. Let's have NPCs and stories that encourage and argue for homosexuality while having other NPCs and stories that discourage and argue against homosexuality.
PS: I used homosexual behavior as one example, but feel free to swap it with the other tenants of "diversity and inclusivity."
manofyesterday said:...stench of their propaganda... the homosexual lifestyle...enough of that kind of propaganda in all forms of media...There are entire months dedicated to the propaganda... Most people don’t care about this... It’s boring. It’s overdone. It’s propaganda... Most people are sick and tired of hearing about it... Don't they get enough so-called diversity and inclusivity from public schools... a cookie-cutter sterilized advertisement for homosexuality and other atypical behavior... Let's have NPCs and stories that encourage and argue for homosexuality while having other NPCs and stories that discourage and argue against homosexuality.
That's a hard post to follow-up, but I honestly hope from the bottom of my heart that the Pantheon community is able to attract people from all perspectives in life...except bigotry. Any individual who feels comfortable publically espousing a distaste for any particular group of people, I would instead encourage them to spend their free time reading up on the history of those they dislike. My questions amount to whether NPC skin-tone would vary, or if we would find two female NPCs running a shop together, and if that kind of thing would vary across Termious. There's no propaganda. there's no agenda. I only asked to know if people like my IRL friends would be represented in a game I hope to one-day play with them (even if that representation is silent in nature).
Somehow I situationally *agree* with one point manofyesterday made toward the end. I do think there is [limited] room for complex moral dillemmas, where players can choose to side with a group of individuals during a quest, knowing that both groups would be considered by many to be in the wrong. Granted it would be much more about the complexity of the situation rather than pitting steriotypes against one-another, but I know it's at least possible to do it tactfully, as games like The Witcher and Elder Scrolls have proven that such situations can make a world even more rich and complex than it would be without.
Donler said:That's a hard post to follow-up, but I honestly hope from the bottom of my heart that the Pantheon community is able to attract people from all perspectives in life...except bigotry.
Bigotry is an oversimplification.
I believe men and women are equally valuable because both are made in the image of God; a person’s value doesn’t come from how intelligent, knowledgeable, wealthy, or powerful they are.
That being said, men and women are biologically different. They’re intrinsically different both physically and psychologically. Therefore, they’re intrinsically better suited for certain roles. There are always exceptions to the rule, but that doesn’t change the fact that there’s a rule. To use another example, human beings have two arms and two legs, but some human beings have lost their arms or legs while some others are born without arms or legs. These are the exceptions to the rule.
On the physical side of things, men are taller and physically stronger than women. Are there exceptions? Of course. On the psychological side of things, men are less agreeable and are better leaders than women. Are there exceptions? Of course. I could go on, but I won’t for fear of getting people too riled up, blinding them to my point.
What advocates like yourself call “diversity and inclusion” is an affront to reality. When I see a 5’4’’ 110 lbs woman bodyslam a 6’2’’ 200 lbs man in an action movie, I cringe, while some others cheer. It takes me out of the movie for two reasons. One, it’s grossly unrealistic, and two, I know that the intention behind including something like that in a movie is to alter the audience’s perception of reality. Please note that it’s the perception of reality that is being attacked and not reality itself.
Is the aforementioned bigotry? If that’s your definition of bigotry, then I’m guilty as charged.
Is there room for strong, brave, and independent women in fiction? Sure, but it needs to be done sparingly, tactfully, and it shouldn’t be done to push an agenda. I’d be interested in a female character whose limitations are acknowledged by herself, the characters around her, and by the story. Imagine a female warrior who isn’t strong enough to competently use plated armor and long swords designed for men, so she modifies her armor to eliminate excess bulk and concentrates her efforts on mastering fencing and poisons. That’s much more interesting than completely throwing reality out the window for an agenda.
As for homosexual behavior and transgenderism, these involve moral questions like is homosexual behavior or transgenderism morally wrong? Should these things be encouraged or discouraged? If the developers do decide to include homosexuals and transgenders in the game, then they should include the good as well as the bad. Otherwise, it becomes propaganda designed to normalize homosexual behavior and transgenderism. They should also be cognizant of the fact that, contrary to what the media would have you believe, homosexuals only make up around 3% of the world population while transgenders make up only around .1% of the world population.
Not everyone believes homosexual behavior and transgenderism is normal, healthy, or good. If the goal is representation, then those who believe homosexual behavior and transgenderism is abnormal, unhealthy, or evil should be represented.