LGBT characters?

[Myyrä]

19 hours ago, DocSchlock said:

Are the Ten Thunders and the Ortegas enough that you think the "Diversity" box gets checked for everyone?

Wyrd are the best at tabletop minis game diversity - but that doesn't mean they can't do even better (as they've already shown they can in TOS).

More diversity isn't automatically better for at least two reasons:

1. Wyrd's main customer base is almost certainly white males. If being able to relate to the characters is as important as some people here seem to think, it makes sense to produce models that a large portion of their customer base can relate to to increase the sales. That doesn't speak for zero diversity but it does speak against equal representation. Wyrd is in the business of selling miniatures after all.
2. There is such a thing as too much diversity. Wyrd is nowhere near there yet, though. The game doesn't need a genderqueer homosexual pedophile of an African descent just for the sake of inclusion, even though people like that definitely exist as well.

As for me personally, I don't give a rat's ass about being able to relate to the models. I'm also a moral nihilist, so I don't really care about social justice or lack of thereof either. As long as Wyrd keeps producing interesting minis, I'm cool.

[Math Mathonwy]

21 hours ago, DocSchlock said:

Wyrd are the best at tabletop minis game diversity

Are they better than Infinity or Guild Ball or Eden (to name three)? I think that that is a bold claim to make. I mean, I do think that they might be but it seems that people are taking this as a simple fact.

[DocSchlock]

50 minutes ago, Math Mathonwy said:

Are they better than Infinity or Guild Ball or Eden (to name three)? I think that that is a bold claim to make. I mean, I do think that they might be but it seems that people are taking this as a simple fact.

They are better than Guild Ball. Infinity is a tough one - I actually forgot about that game completely. Thanks for calling me out on that one, but I'd still give it to Wyrd. Corvus Belli really likes their supermodels / 14-year-old bait which diminishes a bit from their progressiveness. Wyrd's new Monster Hunter models easily whomp Infinity's battle vixens.

Big kudos to CB though for making an Islamic faction that isn't a joke.

Never even heard of Eden. I was referring more to popular games.

[Math Mathonwy]

40 minutes ago, DocSchlock said:

They are better than Guild Ball.

You say that like it's a proven fact. Guild Ball has, percentage-wise, more black people and more gay people than Malifaux. Women is probably about equal? Far fewer native Americans, Indians, and Asians. What does that mean? I've no idea! I mean, my point wasn't to make a mini-by-mini comparison or anything like that (and that would be very pointless all in all), just to note that I don't think that things are as clear-cut as people seem to posit.

But I wish to stress that I really do think that Wyrd are good and progressive when it comes to stuff like this by minis company standards.

40 minutes ago, DocSchlock said:

Never even heard of Eden. I was referring more to popular games.

It has been around for over eight years now and has well over 200 profiles/unique miniatures released for it. It is highly francophony-centric, though. But if the competition is between Game Workshop, Wyrd, Corvus Belli, and PP (and maybe somewhat randomly Steamforged Games as I think that they are an order of magnitude smaller than the other four - though note that this impression isn't based on any hard data), fair enough, I suppose. I understand the reasoning.

[DocSchlock]

Quote

You say that like it's a proven fact

It's my opinion, as a player of both games. Sorry to rile you up on that. I never claimed it was a fact, and you'll notice nobody else joined me. I love Guild Ball, but they keep things very Anglo-centric (I think due to how they make the Guilds), although they have been getting better (aside from the Farmer's and Blacksmith's being super-white). Massive kudos to them though for having the balls to cleverly make being gay into a fun rule instead of beating around the bush. They also feature a transgender character without their player base losing their minds.

Quote

Game Workshop, Wyrd, Corvus Belli, and PP 

Yeah, those are definitely the parties which I was comparing. I know nothing really about Eden, so apologies if it sounded like I was dissing it. Eden may be long and storied, but so is Dark Ages and I'd never use that game in comparison to anything, because the market for it is so tiny at least where I am in America.

[DocSchlock]

5 hours ago, Myyrä said:

There is such a thing as too much diversity. Wyrd is nowhere near there yet, though. The game doesn't need a genderqueer homosexual pedophile of an African descent just for the sake of inclusion, even though people like that definitely exist as well.

The "gay people being pedos" thing really needs to stop. Not sure if you were intending that or even aware of it (or just using it as hyperbole in your slippery slope argument), but traditionally, that's been one of the major propaganda campaigns against homosexuality (see modern Russia).

So the worst part about being too diverse is getting more interesting characters with viewpoints nobody is normally exposed to? Sign me up.

[Myyrä]

32 minutes ago, DocSchlock said:

The "gay people being pedos" thing really needs to stop. Not sure if you were intending that or even aware of it (or just using it as hyperbole in your slippery slope argument), but traditionally, that's been one of the major propaganda campaigns against homosexuality (see modern Russia).

Some are, most aren't. You are reading too much between the lines. There is nothing there.

[Wolfpact]

Biig thread, but has anyone mentioned Emeline Bellerose yet? She's very explicitly lesbian, or at least bisexual - and she's obviously the model for new alt-Sybelle.

[Astrella]

Oh is Eden the one with the post-apocalyptic Penguins?

[Astrella]

10 hours ago, Wolfpact said:

Biig thread, but has anyone mentioned Emeline Bellerose yet? She's very explicitly lesbian, or at least bisexual - and she's obviously the model for new alt-Sybelle.

She's been mentioned before; I'd honestly like some more info about her. I hadn't heard of her cause I don't own any of the RPG books.

[Da Git]

In the latest Chronicles, the Death Marshals have killed a pretty, female resser, Lady J asks Judge if she were pretty, he says yes, she tells him to round up all the males for questioning, then I quote:

Quote

The Judge stood up and brushed the dirt from his knees with gloved hands. “Just the men?” he asked, his voice questioning.
She set the beaker down and sighed. “All the employees, then. Just in case.”

Pretty much confirms the existence, or at least suspicion of LGBT people in Malifaux.  Not sure if this thread caused the addition of this throw away line, kinda cool if it did.  It would be pretty last minute though.

It also pretty much explicitly says the Judge has a thing for Lady J.

[Nathan Caroland]

55 minutes ago, Da Git said:

Pretty much confirms the existence, or at least suspicion of LGBT people in Malifaux.  Not sure if this thread caused the addition of this throw away line, kinda cool if it did.  It would be pretty last minute though.

It did not - that story has been written for a bit before y'alls thread now. 

Again, it's around, we just don't feel the need to slap people in the face with it. Hell, I'm still surprised y'all haven't pointed out the bits in the last book.

[Da Git]

7 minutes ago, Nathan Caroland said:

It did not - that story has been written for a bit before y'alls thread now. 

Again, it's around, we just don't feel the need to slap people in the face with it. Hell, I'm still surprised y'all haven't pointed out the bits in the last book.

TBH, I'm very oblivious to most of the hints and even more honestly, don't tend to look very hard (mostly due to lack of exposure, I guess).  I never thought of Tara & Karina as being an item till this thread, for example.  And even now, they could easily be seen as batty old sisters/friends than a batty old couple!  The fact that Tara calls everyone Hun or Darling kinda means it loses its emphasis when she says it to Karina.  Maybe I'm just blind though, I have been completely oblivious when a girl has thrown her affection my way, which hasn't happened often (to my knowledge at least!).

Can't remember any hints from the last book off hand...  Other than maybe Nellie seems like she could definitely fancy females.  Anything else?

[Nathan Caroland]

Nah, we like to keep it subtle, and like I said before, better when y'all get to fill in the blanks and make them your own. 

[Ryökäle]

2 hours ago, Da Git said:

Not sure if this thread caused the addition of this throw away line, kinda cool if it did.  It would be pretty last minute though.

I disagree.

I like the idea that writers, artists and other creative people can freely express themselves. I find it annoying that we consumers come poking to their work with our sticky little fingers: "You should do more this, or you are racist homophobe who contributes to heteronormative patriarchy." (This was obviously hyperbole)

It must be very uninspiring to add something to story, because you are essentially guilt tripped to do it.

[Mason]

3 minutes ago, Ryökäle said:

I disagree.

I like the idea that writers, artists and other creative people can freely express themselves. I find it annoying that we consumers come poking to their work with our sticky little fingers: "You should do more this, or you are racist homophobe who contributes to heteronormative patriarchy." (This was obviously hyperbole)

It must be very uninspiring to add something to story, because you are essentially guilt tripped to do it.

The story was finished and done with final edits long before this threat started. I should know, because I wrote it.  ^__^

I also picked Emeline Bellerose as the narrator of the TTB bestiary chapters and wrote those sections in Into the Steam, Under Quarantine, and Into the Bayou, so it's not like it's an abrupt change to my writing style.

 

Oh, and just for the record, The Other Side core book and Broken Promises stories were also finished long before this thread started. 

[MetaphoricDragn]

3 hours ago, Da Git said:

 

It also pretty much explicitly says the Judge has a thing for Lady J.

Well it confirms he has a thing for red heads, maybe he has a crush on Pandora? or Lilith? McMourning?

[Gnomezilla]

2 minutes ago, MetaphoricDragn said:

Well it confirms he has a thing for red heads, maybe he has a crush on Pandora? or Lilith? McMourning?

*resounding ringing noises of Gnomezilla trying to beat herself unconscious by banging her head against a peacekeeper shell, so she can forget she ever read that*

[Dogmantra]

32 minutes ago, Ryökäle said:

I like the idea that writers, artists and other creative people can freely express themselves.

No story exists in a vacuum, there are thousands of different contexts that inform the shape of a story, from an author's individual preferences (which are shaped by the society they grew up in) to the current sociopolitical landscape, to the history of paper manufacturing in the industrial revolution. Consumers have always been one of these contexts because works are made for an audience, but in a more pragmatic sense creatives need money and consumers give them the money. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that art is solely the free expression of the artist rather than a culmination of contexts of which the artist is one part.

I also think that the free expression defense is not as airtight as it seems at first glance. Generally as a society we all agree that entirely unrestricted expression is wrong, for example I hope that we would agree it would be inappropriate to publish a story where halfway through there is a page-long bigoted diatribe, despite the fact that is still an example of the artist's free expression at work. I'm not trying to conflate the harm of saying actively awful things with simply leaving out a marginalised group here, but I am pointing out that everyone has limits to how free they believe expression should be.

And remember that just as an artist can have freedom of expression, so can the audience. Criticising a story for going beyond the limits of what you consider acceptable is not trying to take away freedom of expression, it is freedom of expression, and it's a good idea for artists to at least listen to and consider feedback because there are often some good ideas in there. I mean, that's why we have playtests here.

[Ryökäle]

40 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

No story exists in a vacuum, there are thousands of different contexts that inform the shape of a story, from an author's individual preferences (which are shaped by the society they grew up in) to the current sociopolitical landscape, to the history of paper manufacturing in the industrial revolution. Consumers have always been one of these contexts because works are made for an audience, but in a more pragmatic sense creatives need money and consumers give them the money. I think it's disingenuous to suggest that art is solely the free expression of the artist rather than a culmination of contexts of which the artist is one part.

It's often also other way around: author makes his thing and audience that likes it gathers around it. But yes, obviously many authors probably tailor their work based on factors you described. But often that has been more subtle, where nowdays with political correctness it becomes more blatant and aggressive. Creators are more frequently straight up confronted and demanded inclusion of minorities.

40 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Generally as a society we all agree that entirely unrestricted expression is wrong, for example I hope that we would agree it would be inappropriate to publish a story where halfway through there is a page-long bigoted diatribe, despite the fact that is still an example of the artist's free expression at work.

Inappropriate by majority's moral compas? Yes. Should it be illegal or otherwise actively silenced? No. I do think it's best that everyone can express themselves, because if I see "page-long bigoted diatribe" at least I can see where that person stands and can denounce him for it. Silencing people rarely works and good ideas eventually end up winning more often than not.

40 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

And remember that just as an artist can have freedom of expression, so can the audience. Criticising a story for going beyond the limits of what you consider acceptable is not trying to take away freedom of expression, it is freedom of expression, and it's a good idea for artists to at least listen to and consider feedback because there are often some good ideas in there. I mean, that's why we have playtests here.

Criticizing someone's work is different than trying to mold his future work to fit your political agenda. And playtesting is about game balance, not comparable to fiction, but whatever.

All in all, I have no issues with LGBT characters and I don't even have issues with consumer feedback in general. My problem is that some people feel entitled to pressure creators to cater their political agenda.

[Wolfpact]

@Dogmantra I utterly disagree. One does not get to tell others what they can or cannot create, based on your prejudices, sensibilities, or beliefs. Maybe your society does, but that is not universal.

No one forces you to read any given creators' work, and if that creator relies on that work for a living eventually they will choose between belief or payday.

Is that diatribe "in-character"? If so, the author is not speaking, the character is, and just because some folks are too fragile to even read a very real viewpoint because they find t troubling or disagree with it -even when it deserves to be disagreed with -  does not mean an author is at all obliged to humor their delicate sensibilities.

 

All expression is free and absolute, or none is.

And those arguing for the latter in any form? Historically, not great people.

[Astrella]

Nowhere has Dogmantra said anything can't be created, there's a difference between can and should.

And I think it's a bit ironic considering LGBT+ media has a wide history of being censored.

----

I did like the Nellie story in Ripples of Fate a lot, with the whole escorting Fiona and such, definitely got a dapper lady-loving vibe from it.

[Pyrflamme]

I think people are keying in on Dog's comments about publishing, but it ignores the right of the publisher (assuming we're talking a private publisher and nothing that muddies the waters by being government-funded). As a whole, I don't regard his post as calling for 100% censorship. 

Succinctly put, people do have the right to free expression to a point (calling for the killing of an individual, for example, can carry legal punishment), but even below that point where people can speak and write their minds, they still have to acknowledge that others can judge them for their views and subsequently moderate their associations with them. People really shouldn't be surprised if they become a social pariah after expressing bigoted views, yet they always seem to kvetch about it when it happens.

[Broken Clock]

Yes, let us jam homosexuality into Malifaux. "Progressiveness" has worked wonders for Marvel! Their sales are record breaking! 

I'm sorry, but the sexuality of a character largely isn't important, both in terms of mechanics and lore. If your primary attribute that you feel makes you interesting is what genitals you're attracted to, you're a boring person. The VAST majority of characters in this game do not have any indication of their sexuality. Homosexuals make up 4 percent (if not less) of the population. How many models actually have lore that give a clear indication that their exclusively heterosexual? Five? Six? Adding explicitly gay characters would result in an over-representation and for what? I hear about how inclusiveness is somehow good but the arguments largely rests on moral platitudes and virtue signaling. I don't give a crap if my gender or race or age is represented in a bloody miniatures game. It's meaningless. And, to be perfectly honest, when a white person demands my race be represented in a given cultural artifact I find it insidiously racist.

You're free to make whatever character you want gay for whatever reason. Pretend Big Jake is gay. He's got sex appeal and he's native! Very progressive!

[Dogmantra]

You'll note I actually never said that anyone should be prevented from saying what they want. I was demonstrating that using the fact that people have freedom of speech is a poor defense when being criticised because freedom of expression does not render one immune from the consequences of expression. As I said above, criticising someone for something they said is not taking away freedom of speech, it is exercising your own free speech. I also find it kind of interesting that it's a defense that essentially boils down to defending their right to say it (which imo was never in question) rather than on any particular merit.

(the diatribe example was a poor choice, I was attempting to make it as light on specifics as possible because I didn't want to skirt the boundaries of taste, but I assumed it was not in character)

6 minutes ago, Wolfpact said:

One does not get to tell others what they can or cannot create, based on your prejudices, sensibilities, or beliefs. Maybe your society does, but that is not universal.

This is such a baffling point of view. All society influences people's ideas and actions both consciously and unconsciously. That is the most basic level social science. Consciously, for a microcosm let's look at this forum. You can certainly disagree with the moderators on something but there are loads of ways to have your speech censored here, and absolutely not in a negative way. Occasionally you see a spambot, but they are deleted because that free expression is not welcome here. Spambot advertising is not an acceptable type of expression on these forums because we all agree it harms the overall experience of using the website, and no one is arguing that freedom of expression is being compromised. And that's an example of direct censorship. What is happening here is simply criticism.

 

The other side of the coin - the unconscious influences that society has - was kind of my main point. Suggesting that an aspect of a story is because of an author's personal choice and that alone is close-minded. Whether they like it or not, an author's decision to include, say, LGBT characters and how they portray those characters will on some level be influenced by the general discourse around LGBT characters. Whether the author ultimately chooses to agree with or deny that discourse, or offer a third option will rely on their own opinion, which will have been formed through who they are, their friends, what they've read, what they've watched, their life experience, the language they speak, and so on, and it's impossible to be aware of every single little bias and possible influence. But what might be the case is that someone has only been exposed to one discourse (i.e. the dominant one) because of their particular circumstance. There's nothing wrong with that, everyone has only experienced the dominant discourse in certain areas and has a more nuanced understanding in others, and no one has experienced all the contexts.

The issue seems to be when a discourse is explicitly flagged up to an author as something to be aware of. The narrative presented when one argues in response to e.g. calls for more LGBT representation that authors should be free to write whatever they like is that the author is currently not being influenced by outside sources, and those calling for LGBT representation are an outside source who want to be co-authors in a way. My argument is that there are already lots of outside sources influencing the author and that calls for representation are treated differently because they are explicit in their influence.

You even agree with me here:

48 minutes ago, Wolfpact said:

if that creator relies on that work for a living eventually they will choose between belief or payday.

Capitalism is an outside force that influences freedom of expression far more than any one person saying an author should change things. The fact a work usually needs to be profitable so that the author can eat or have a place to live hugely influences its shape and content. You can be explicit and say "can we have more LGBT characters" to the author, or another way to influence them would be to boycott their product until they start including them, which in my opinion must necessarily be accompanied by the former otherwise it's far more cruel - suddenly the author is losing sales and they don't know why. At least with a call for representation, the author is made explicitly aware of why their work might not be so successful.

 

And to end I guess I should just say that I don't believe that anyone here saying it would be nice to have more LGBT characters is going to actually change the content of the stories. No one is going to break into the publishing house and quickly switch all the words around. The stories will still get written how the stories get written. And if they end up having more LGBT characters as a result of calls like this, then that's not the authors compromising on their freedom of expression, that's the authors using their freedom of expression to say "hey, they had a good point". You're allowed to change your mind.