In the Age of worms game a player decided to be a female paladin that was a lesbian ,I allowed it but I am wondering if paladins would or are allowed to with their strong morals?
In my opinion, that would depend upon the beliefs of the society and religion the paladin comes from/belongs to.
Same sex relationships are not necessarily taboo in all cultures. A church to a goddess or god of love, may allow such relationships. A god or goddess of fertility may not allow same sex relationships (Because they would beget no children, counter to the beliefs of the church, perhaps)
I'm really drawing a blank on this, but I believe that in some cultures in reality, such relationships are not taboo. But I really cannot remember where... Brain not working all that well at the moment, but I'm sure somebody else will chime in.
Certain Real-World religions believe that homo-sexuality is immoral. What is the belief of the religions in your gaming world? If this paladin follows a god/goddess of love, and it is the belief of this diety that all forms of love are beautiful, then a lesbian palidin does not have to justify her morality. This question is relative to your gaming world and to your game and players. Do not let Real-World religions dictate what is moral and/or immoral in your game unless you, or your players, have strong reglious beliefs for one side and it would disrupt the game. If you already allowed the PC, then it sounds like you are running a more liberal game. And there is nothing wrong with that.
In the Age of worms game a player decided to be a female paladin that was a lesbian ,I allowed it but I am wondering if paladins would or are allowed to with their strong morals?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, here, and assume your question was asked without realizing how offensive your wording can be to some people.
Your statement equates heterosexual with moral and homosexual with immoral. Which, unfortunately, tends to be a very vocal view in our society.
But your group isn't gaming in our society, it's gaming in a world you've created and the social norms in that society are up to you as well.
If you choose not to allow it... I would suggest you have a VERY good reason for it. You can easily offend your players on a very personal level, whether they are hetero or not, with a statement like the one you just made.
Kordeth, I do not believe it was the intention of the original poster to offend anyone with their statement. Merely as previous poster on this thread mentioned many real world religions do consider it taboo. The question wasn't whether it was right or wrong in the real world, an issue I would say for another site, but whether a paladin could have same-sex relationships without violating religious codes. With a real-world analogy, the ancient Greeks considered homosexuality between men a good thing as it was an intimate relationship between equals. This stemmed from their backwards belief that women were subservient to men, and should not then enjoy sex or be treated wholly as equals. Ironically, the word lesbian, comes from the inhabitants of the Greek isle of Lesbos, where the poetess Sapho wrote love poems about women. To the original poster, I would say it depends on how your paladin' religion views same-sex relations, some ancient cultures had no problem with it, medeval european cultures believed it was evil, but we're all pretty passed that now. Consider how egalitarian your culture and religion are for your campaign and go with it. As a side note, I often encourage players to take up a different view point, for good role-playing opportunities. In my current game we have a homosexual halfling monk, played by a young woman. Who decided that the character is attracted to the same sex, but due to religious constraints cannot practice this interest. On the other end, we have a homosexual player, who's character is unquestioningly heterosexual. I hope this message does not offend anyone, it was not my intention.
In the Age of worms game a player decided to be a female paladin that was a lesbian ,I allowed it but I am wondering if paladins would or are allowed to with their strong morals?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, here, and assume your question was asked without realizing how offensive your wording can be to some people.
Your statement equates heterosexual with moral and homosexual with immoral. Which, unfortunately, tends to be a very vocal view in our society.
But your group isn't gaming in our society, it's gaming in a world you've created and the social norms in that society are up to you as well.
If you choose not to allow it... I would suggest you have a VERY good reason for it. You can easily offend your players on a very personal level, whether they are hetero or not, with a statement like the one you just made.
I vote that they just play a bisexual Paladin, that way everyone wins!
On a more serious note, something else that should be thought of in the views of paladins and religion, as well as society: Wedlock and relationships outside of it. Also, same sex marriages?
Sexual orientation is as big a can of worms as religion itself. Come to think of it, I don't believe I have as of yet seen a D&D (or most other games) perspective on sexual orientation or marriage. Does a religion condone casual sex, or only that between married couples. Does a religion, or culture only recognize monogomy, or are multiple partner relationships commonplace? For many players, in many games, the subject will never come up. But it can, depending on players. I've never really seen it addressed in the books, that's just something we've had to work out on the fly.
If this looks to be cropping up in your campaign, that is an aspect of society that should be addessed. My suggestion would be this: Break down the world into two categories, religious and social. Then go through the various religions and cultures, laying out the general outlook on relationships between the sexes.
It is very easy to offend people when speaking about religion, morals and sexuality. I think people are way too oversensetive about such things, but then many have a lot of justification for sensetivity. Just something to keep in mind.
As an added irony, some Greeks believed that while fostering an intimate same-sex relationship was good, consumating that relationship in the standard physical matter, was bad. As it made one partner submissive, and therefore lesser, than the other. And though I do not know of a real world religion that condones homosexuality, the Spartans (also Ancient greeks) had military units entirely composed of same-sex partners. The idea was that each would fight more bravely to protect their love. Sorry, forgot to include this in the original post.
As an added irony, some Greeks believed that while fostering an intimate same-sex relationship was good, consumating that relationship in the standard physical matter, was bad. As it made one partner submissive, and therefore lesser, than the other. And though I do not know of a real world religion that condones homosexuality, the Spartans (also Ancient greeks) had military units entirely composed of same-sex partners. The idea was that each would fight more bravely to protect their love. Sorry, forgot to include this in the original post.
I KNEW somebody would come up with references I was lacking.
I believe the original comment that was refered to as potentially offensive was whether or not the Paladin could be homosexual due to strong morality. Going on the assumption that the standard D&D setting is distinctly medieval that comment is relevant. The default outlook of a medieval culture is that same sex relationships are 'evil' or 'unclean'. Unless the setting specifically states otherwise, then it's an easy assumption to make.
So far I haven't seen anything that I would find offensive in this thread, though I am admittedly an insensetive bastich.
Well, as previously stated, how homosexuality is viewed in a world is up to that world's DM. If you're basing it off medieval Europe, it's a definate no-no. Or, since most good-aligned D&D cultures are more liberal, have it be okay in those cultures. You may make it legal, but still have many people opposed to it, or it could be completely accepted. This would probably vary by regions.
I would think that most LG deities would condone marriage to one partner and consider adultery a serious offense. CG deities might allow more promiscuity. NG might support monogomy, but not worry TOO much about polygomy either. However, in almost every adventure I've ever heard of, the culture was vert monogomous, simply because that is our culture, too, and would rarley cross our minds to change that.
In LN cultures, homosexuality might not be permissable, and CN cultures may support unchecked hedonism. Most evil societies would likely try to supress it, unless the hierarchy was largely homosexual, and then they might attack hederosexuals.
It's all in one's interpretation. Even the suggestions listed above are coming from the modern views and those based off the medieval European style that D&D seems to be centered around.
Something else to be considered would be the far more liberal view towards women that the standard D&D fantasy world takes as opposed to the historical mideval (sp?) view. As I stated with the Greeks, most old world, and ancient world cultures did not hold the sexes as equal, whereas in D&D men and women hold important roles through all levels of society regardless of their gender. If you take this liberal anachronism, and apply it further, you could consider cultures with similar modern view points in a fantasy setting. One real world point is the Episcapol church which allows both male and female clergy as well as homosexual clergy. However the party line is that those members of the clergy that are homosexual abstain from sex. A bit hypocritical as they do not ask their heterosexual clergy to abstain, it is even encouraged to be married as it gives balance and perspective. But in recent news in New Hampshire, I believe, a gay Bishop was elected by his community. This has caused all sorts of uproar because he has a life partner, and is divorced from a previous heterosexual marriage with children. I am not sure whether they claim to be abstinant or not. Their is more to this, but once again, this is a subject for another board.
... Going on the assumption that the standard D&D setting is distinctly medieval that comment is relevant. The default outlook of a medieval culture is that same sex relationships are 'evil' or 'unclean'.
My point is simply this: Whether there is a historical / logical context for it or not... You DON'T take the battles and issues your players have to fight every day in the real world, which touch them in a very deep and personal way... and plop them down in the game world. You just don't.
In the Age of worms game a player decided to be a female paladin that was a lesbian ,I allowed it but I am wondering if paladins would or are allowed to with their strong morals?
This is my first post. I’ve been reading over my wife’s shoulder for about six months, and this one has hit a nerve with me.
Morality is all about perspective. Up until about 500 AD Homosexuality was simply a part of society. It was an integral part of Greek and Roman society and was not viewed as a taboo. Alexander the Great, Nero, and Tiberious were all know to have homosexual lovers. In their society sexuality was not viewed as a part of morality. The view that homosexuality is immoral is based on Christian tenants and Judaic teaching that were formed by the two groups (Christians and Jews) who were enslaved and tortured under Roman occupation. Many of the tenants of both religions are based on the whole idea of being every thing that the Romans are NOT. It was a way to demonize the behavior of your captors and in your own mind give yourself the moral high ground. During the rise of Anglo-Saxon society in Europe please remember that during this time of moral clarity Humanity suffered the Crusades and the Inquisition. Women were viewed as property, and that Rape was part of the tactic of war.Now my goal isn’t to bash the Christians. My point is that the view that homosexuality is immoral comes from a very Christian mind set. D&D is a FANTASY setting. If you truly were going to be basing your setting off of Medieval Europe, You Mages would all be tortured and burned at the stakes, all clerics other than the religion in power would be put to death and their religious text would be burned, and committing acts of genocide would be sanctioned by the church for no other reason than the High Priest has branded them Heretics.
The point of this game is to have fun. If your player feels comfortable playing a Lesbian character, fine. If you feel uncomfortable with her playing a lesbian character, that is your problem based on your bias, and no one else. A paladin is NOT a crusade knight for the Catholic church. They are a Holy warrior for a fictional Deity that may or may not hold the same moral standards as you yourself do. The mark of a good DM (and Player for that matter) is the ability to put yourself into a mindset/ character class/ species that is not their own and see things from that perspective. In reality all too often that doesn’t happen and everyone is looking at the character through 21st century human eyes. In my world, I have had Straight Players play homosexual Characters, and Homosexual Players play Straight Characters. I also have a Bisexual Player who rolls Percentile dice at the creation of every new character that she makes to determine the characters sexuality (50/50).For that matter we have characters (not players) involved in polyamorous relationships. It shouldn’t be an issue. And as far as those of you who don’t know of any modern religions that condone homosexuality, those of us in many of the Pagan religions don’t tend to have a problem with it.
"My point is simply this: Whether there is a historical / logical context for it or not... You DON'T take the battles and issues your players have to fight every day in the real world, which touch them in a very deep and personal way... and plop them down in the game world. You just don't. " -TigerLilly
I think it depends on whether this is a hot-button issue for the players or GM and that's something that could be discussed outside of the game before it ever becomes an issue. I have players who have different views from my own and wish to portray those in a game, as long as they are not directly attacking the views of another one of my players I'm cool with it. I myself live in an area with a large homosexual community, and it's never been an issue to the public. Those that don't embrace that lifestyle at least find a way to live peacefully with it. In the end it comes down to the comfort of the group. If everybody is cool with it, find a way to work it into the game. If the players or GM are not comfortable with it, maybe talk to your player and ask them why they chose that orientation. If it is merely exploitative, or meant to bother someone else, perhaps making sexual orientation a non-issue in the game would be more tactful, rather than telling them they can't. Obviously if the player wishes to portray such a character, they are asking to include some facet of that point of view in the game, and would like the issue to be addressed in one manner or another. Perhaps introduce a love interest NPC, this will not only provide good role-playing experiences for you and the players, but allows the GM to use the NPC for further adventure hooks. Kidnapping loved ones is a classic adventure hook, especially if the kidnappers are a religious sect of your paladin's church who disagrees with her orientation. Then you have the problem of how to handle the "bad guys" who may not be evil in the strictest sense.
Also to BlackDragon, you are correct, the pagan religions have been overlooked, as they unfortunately often are when modern religions are discussed. I appologize for my personal lapse in mentioning them.
To BlackDragon: Excellent Post!
I can see the newspaper headlines now: "Age of Worms opens can of worms!" hehe Sorry, but I thought we might need a little bit of levity in this post.
In my last campaign, I just asked the players to avoid all issues of sexuality and relationships. They were all pretty young (14-15) and I wasn't sure if they were all mature enough to handle the consequences of their players' actions.
My point is simply this: Whether there is a historical / logical context for it or not... You DON'T take the battles and issues your players have to fight every day in the real world, which touch them in a very deep and personal way... and plop them down in the game world. You just don't.
... Going on the assumption that the standard D&D setting is distinctly medieval that comment is relevant. The default outlook of a medieval culture is that same sex relationships are 'evil' or 'unclean'.
Actually, I have done just that, but as I said, I can be an insensetive bastich. I don't reccomend that to most people, I happen to be able to get away with it due to the personalities of myself and the people with whom I game (Which actually consists of more bisexuals and homosexuals than heterosexuals). Something like this issue of sexuality vs morality, or whatever... is very much a trigger for emotional response with many people. But to me, words are simply words. The only real meaning they have is what you give them. It's not a popular viewpoint, but one that works for myself and many of my friends. I do make an effort to keep my more vocal tendencies in check when I'm dealing with people who's opinions and hot buttons I'm not familiar with.
I would not plop something like that down in a game where I felt that it would cause problems. I'm fortunate that my gaming group tends to be open to virtually anything.
Sorry for going off on a random rant, but I'm not the only person out there who tends to speak without taking all viewpoints into consideration. Something that gets to me, though I can see why people react that way, is when an comment with no malicious intent upsets someone. I find it very difficult to understand why the words cause the offense, not the intent behind them.
No offense intended by this statement, subtlety and tact are not my strong suits but I still at times feel the need to speak.
|
Love is love. Taking BlackDragon's excellent prose to heart, a DM comfortable with the topic of same-sex love should just lump it into the general catagory of love. Then the question becomes "Does the tenants of the paladin's faith allow for them to love another?" If the answer is "yes", then the question of gender-mix should be irrelevant.
It comes down to what the DM and the players are comfortable with. If a player presents this idea to the DM, the DM should subtly bring it up with other players. The DM should also make it clear that the player is allowed to pursue this character element as long as they do not "cheapen" the element. Falling to social stereotypes of a particular sexual orientation, race, religion will degrade the game to a D&D version of The Phantom Menace.
My point is simply this: Whether there is a historical / logical context for it or not... You DON'T take the battles and issues your players have to fight every day in the real world, which touch them in a very deep and personal way... and plop them down in the game world. You just don't.
Why not? Some people enjoy those sorts of games - I know I do. Others play to escape. Everyone has to decide for themselves. Don't scare people out of putting "real stuff" in their games, because sometimes it can lead to a great campaign.
-Amber
My point is simply this: Whether there is a historical / logical context for it or not... You DON'T take the battles and issues your players have to fight every day in the real world, which touch them in a very deep and personal way... and plop them down in the game world. You just don't.Why not? Some people enjoy those sorts of games - I know I do. Others play to escape. Everyone has to decide for themselves. Don't scare people out of putting "real stuff" in their games, because sometimes it can lead to a great campaign.
-Amber
Yay! I'm not alone.
It comes down to a matter of knowing the people with which you play. There are certain people I would not use such subject matter with.I think that one of the reasons we (Myself and my friends) have a tendency to deal with touchy subject matter in games, is that it helps us to deal with it in reality. At least that is the case for me.
Well that was alot to take in and I did not ask the question as someone who's against gays I simply ment it in game terms and understand now how sensitive this subject is and am sorry to those who took offense to my question after all my country (Canada)has basicly allowed same sex unions and to me it does not matter if two men/women want to get married.
It's almost as if the whole issue has a trigger in most peoples minds that just sets them off cause like it or not both sides have their opinions though i agree with those that support it and hope someday the issue rid,s itself of the nasty aura that surrounds it.
Kordeth -
I would talk to the player out of game. If you envisioned this as a problem for the religion as you saw it, I would present it to the player in that way. Give her a chance to present her viewpoint... perhaps she sees a role in the religion that you didn't, but would be amenable to. You might suggest that her paladin choose a diety that might be accepting of such relationships, or even that her character chose to become a paladin to prove that people in gay and lesbian relationships could do good works.
Perhaps she is not a paladin of a good diety, but rather a paladin dedicated to good as a concept...
There are a lot of ways through this issue, but a lot depends on the age of your players, and how "adult" of a campaign you run. In a hack and slash campaign, the sexual orientation of the players doesn't matter much, but in a game filled with NPCs and political intrigue it can become much more important
- Ashavan
Yay! I'm not alone.
It comes down to a matter of knowing the people with which you play. There are certain people I would not use such subject matter with.I think that one of the reasons we (Myself and my friends) have a tendency to deal with touchy subject matter in games, is that it helps us to deal with it in reality. At least that is the case for me.
:-)
For me, it's all about the story. I love having really deep characters with rich, developed personalities. The best way to illustrate a person's character is by what she goes through. If my DM considered "real stuff" off limits, I'd wind up playing in a cartoon. Sometimes that's fun, but not usually, not for me.
-Amber
Yay! I'm not alone.
It comes down to a matter of knowing the people with which you play. There are certain people I would not use such subject matter with.I think that one of the reasons we (Myself and my friends) have a tendency to deal with touchy subject matter in games, is that it helps us to deal with it in reality. At least that is the case for me.
:-)
For me, it's all about the story. I love having really deep characters with rich, developed personalities. The best way to illustrate a person's character is by what she goes through. If my DM considered "real stuff" off limits, I'd wind up playing in a cartoon. Sometimes that's fun, but not usually, not for me.
-Amber
The story is a big factor, but not my only motivation. Since I'm mostly a misanthropic introvert by nature, I owe a good bit to the theraputic value of gaming. It has helped me to be more social and to more easily handle various situations life throws up at me.
Sometimes I enjoy playing the cartoony characters, other times the deep, elaborate characters.
In response to others, who gave very good advice on how to handle the issue from the side of dealing with players, I thank you. That is probably more along the lines of what the original question was asking. I got somewhat distracted by the whole sexuality issue. It is good to see people putting that much thought into dealing witht he players themselves in ways that have minimal disruption of the game.
Come to think of it, I don't believe I have as of yet seen a D&D (or most other games) perspective on sexual orientation or marriage.
There's this: The Book of Erotic Fantasy, by Gwendolyn F.M. Kestrel and Duncan Scott, for Valar Project, Inc. It discusses many issues reguarding sex, taboos, and morality, and provides quite a bit of d20 rules for use in a *very* mature game. Or maybe some laughs in a somewhat immature game... but it should be clear that this book is not meant for kids.
As for the original question about a paladin's code and morality, I agree that you need to focus on the deity that is worshiped, and how that deity views such things. If you don't have a deity that fits what your player wants, then make a new one.
As a DM, I do my best to let my players play the characters that they envision. I draw the line when their character concept breaks established rules for game balance, not game flavor.
"Never punish creativity." Someone used this as a sig line, and I fall back on this statement as often as I can.
|
Contributor
|
Yay! I'm not alone.
It comes down to a matter of knowing the people with which you play. There are certain people I would not use such subject matter with.I think that one of the reasons we (Myself and my friends) have a tendency to deal with touchy subject matter in games, is that it helps us to deal with it in reality. At least that is the case for me.
:-)
For me, it's all about the story. I love having really deep characters with rich, developed personalities. The best way to illustrate a person's character is by what she goes through. If my DM considered "real stuff" off limits, I'd wind up playing in a cartoon. Sometimes that's fun, but not usually, not for me.
-Amber
I'm more with Blubbernaught on this one, you have to know your players. While I like real-life stuff, some people just cannot take it.
For example: I used to commute to work with most of the players in one of my games, and a whole bunch of us were in the twin towers (myself included) on 9/11. While I'm sure I could run a collapsing building scenario now, all of them requested a no collapsing building clause which I've so far upheld.
I've also gamed (and continue to game) with some people who have a tough time telling fiction from fact and can take game incidents as personal slights. There's nothing like the guy who gets mad and quits the game because he feels someone is picking
on him (especially if he demands his experience points and 500 imaginary gold pieces before he leaves, and you're not running an RPGA event).
So, umm... know your players. If something is going to cause an issue with them, don't do it (its a game after all, and its supposed be fun). If your lucky enough to have a mentally stable
(or even somewhat stable) group of players like Amber, then by all means push those buttons.
*reads Blubbernaught's post and nods* I'm probably getting a bit off-topic here, but yeah, I know a few folks who find gaming very theraputic.
I suppose I was misleading when I said it's all about the story for me. It's mostly about the story, but a good deal of it is getting together with friends and having fun. I've had some games where I left at the end of the night with a stomachache from laughing so much. That's a big part of gaming for me too.
Ok, no more derailing from me, honest. Maybe I'll start a new thread...
Well I allowed the player to play the paladin with no problem I just wanted to get input from a rules perspective but it appears to have blown up and formend into something that is now out of my hands.
Sorry about that.
I think the rules side of it is simple enough. It's fine, if it follows along with the dieties policies.
If God likes it, have fun with it.
I'm more with Blubbernaught on this one, you have to know your players. While I like real-life stuff, some people just cannot take it.
Oh, absolutely. That's why I said in my earlier post, "Everyone has to decide for themselves." Grammatically incorrect as the sentence is, I stand by it. TigerLily said "You just don't do that" and I was challenging that statement. It's just as silly to assume no-one minds real-life stuff in their games as it is to assume everyone is bothered by it.
-Amber S.
There's also a d20 book by the name of Nymphology that deals with interesting items, spells, feats, and prestige classes dealing with sex and lust. Very useful with an NPC I created that ran a S&M club.
This topic does bring up an interesting topic - what do the various religious sects feel about sexual relationships? Although I think that such a topic would perhaps be inappropriate in this particular forum, I would be curious to see if someone could come up with an intelligently written article about this subject.
Bringing up sexual relationships in a game should be wholly dictated by you & your players - if nobody's comfortable with it, it should probably be nixed.
And well done to everybody that's brought up historical examples of how different societies felt about sexuality - well done! (I love to see historical references!)
Going on the assumption that the standard D&D setting is distinctly medieval that comment is relevant. The default outlook of a medieval culture is that same sex relationships are 'evil' or 'unclean'. Unless the setting specifically states otherwise, then it's an easy assumption to make.
Actually not until about the 14th Century, which would be after most medival campaigns. Prior to that it was frowned upon but not rigerously campaigned against. References opposing homosexuality in the bible are hardly front and centre of the tenents it proscribes and in a society were law and order are weak, often arbitrary and lousy at actually catching criminals proscriptions against harming ones fellow man take on more importance as do proscriptions against something as horrifying as gluttony in a society where the poorer members routinly starve to death.
The church was to busy worrying about the 7 deadly sins, converting pagans and defending its flock against advancing infidels as well as rooting out witches and heresys to really devote much effort to homosexuality. Plus many of the societys they were dealing with already had some kind of stance on homosexuality either positivly or negitivly. usually the church tried to stay out of such core beliefs and values of a society concerning trivial matters such as this.
In the Age of worms game a player decided to be a female paladin that was a lesbian ,I allowed it but I am wondering if paladins would or are allowed to with their strong morals?
The short and quick answer would be, to me, that it depends on what conflicts and interesting interactions the Paladin player wishes to role-play and the level of comfort of the rest of your players and the DM.
My gaming groups have always held a wide array of gender and orientation in their players (and thereby, their characters): I've had groups where every combination of gender and sexuality has been present (and let me tell you, it was a blast to describe the big strong hunk type warrior NPC and have some of the ladies turn to some of the men and say, "Do you think he raises his sails in my ocean, or yours?")
Currently, in the Shackled City Adventure path, the player and character of the Druid is a gay male, and the bisexual player of the Rogue/Diviner is playing a straight female. All is good fun.
I do, however, see your point in the original question: many religions hold their priestly followers to a higher level of taboo (just think of the unmarried priest who is supposed to be the spiritual advisor to every marriage he performs). If the church or god/dess to which the paladin is devoted is of the notion that either (a) love = childbearing, or (b) proper paladin devotion = solitude and no marriage (no distraction), then the answer would likely be no. If the god/dess is a tad more understanding or has different philosophical thoughts (ie: Lastai from the Book of Exalted Deeds, who is all about the love and joy of love with no real reference to childbearing), then the opposite holds true.
Boy, this thread sure is a hot spot for debate! It is amusing (in a sad sort of way) to me that so many people have gotten so fired up over what, for all intents and purposes, was an innocent and valid question. I think some of the posters on this thread should consider their own biases while presenting themselves as so liberal, open-minded, and politically correct. Where do you get off automatically assuming the original poster was male or that he/she was referring to a female player or that any of the players in his/her group were anything but heterosexual (or that any of them including the player of the paladin might be offended if the DM nixed the idea)? There are alot of assumptions flying around here - for starters, the assumption that the original poster HAD some problem with this character (moral or otherwise) which was in no way indicated by his/her post. Why are so many so quick to assume that because a poster mentions a historical reference that he/she supports or shares that specific belief/philosophy? And why, among you so-called open-minded masses, is it "wrong" if a DM DID decide to run a campaign where non-heterosexuals are persecuted and/or discriminated against? Or a campaign that includes gender biases or racial discrimination,etc? The worst of all, IMO, is those of you making statements against the original poster that included things like "if you don't like it, that's your own problem" or "lump it". That's totally out of line. Why is it okay for you to make such statements to the DM while viciously defending against such attitudes toward players? Some of you are slamming the original poster as judgemental while being pretty judgemental (albeit in the opposite way) against the poster. Ultimately the DM's world is his/her own. Rather than walking on eggshells and trying to second guess player reaction, a DM's responsibility is only to create the kind of campaign world he/she likes best (some sensitivity to player preferences is always appreciated). Players who are offended or unhappy with campaign style/tone are the ones with the responsibility to discuss such issues with the DM; not necessarily the other way around. Neither side can or should take the moral high-ground. One of the positive opinions expressed on this thread is an important one ... it's just a game! We all should beware of assumptions made and too much of a self-righteous, superior attitude - demonstrated in shocking amount on this thread. Some of you posted well-thought out, constructive opinions (hooray for you) but others should be ashamed of yourselves for being incapable of having a productive discussion about a delicate subject.
frankly, i'd let them play it. if they play it as some sort of joke in a chainmail bikini, i'd kill her off. if not, you have a good roleplayer.
Boy, this thread sure is a hot spot for debate!...
Well spoken, Sir. I disagree slightly with your opinion of what a DM's responsability and role is - I think of D&D as a team game, where everyone gets an equal say in how the game is run and how the world works. But that's just me. Otherwise I completely agree with you.
-Amber S.
i know that this doesn't add much to the debate but i just thought, as it was somewhat appropo, someone might like to know.
did you know that the christian church used to SUPPORT the idea of homosexual marriage, believing it to be more pure than heterosexual marriage, as homosexual partners did not inherit each others wealth and/or property, making it more about love than money.
in fact, there are still Greek Orthodox Clerics (LG i suppose...sorry) that carry out such marriages between men or women, under the guise of a "brother or sisterhood" ceremony, and it is considered to be a more powerful bond than that of either blood or conventional marriage
anyway, thats all. maybe not relevant, but, i feel, certainly interesting.
This thought may be a little left field, but ...
The CDC reported this week that there are more occurances of young women, notably those in college, who are experimenting with same-sex or bisexuality.
The article said these women are known as LUGs -- or lesbians until graduation.
Now we have a seeming increase of players who want lesbian characters. Shall we call them LIDs? As in lesbians in dungeons?
The world needs more abbreviations.
Hail fellow adventurers! ^.^ Listen to this:
I am a DM and have been for quite some time, and I have come across quite an array of bi-gay-les-straight-it players, and you know what?!? I play the games for them! That's what D&D is all about; getting together and creating a world where they feel safe and can act as nutty as they want!
Personally, in my group, I recently had Vielyth, Drow Sorceress stride out of the smoky shadows, and into the party. She is a lesbian (in character), but wishes to pro-create with another male Drow. Now, my friends and I think (oh god not again) every game Vielyth meets another Drow (male), but its what she wants, and no one else has a problem with it. Most of the dieties in my game don't care what sexual pref. you have, or what alignment you are, so long as you worship them for a good good reason. My group has even encountered AND BEFRIENDED the Sons of Gruumsh Orcs (this was BEFORE WIZARDS spied on me and stole my idea).
My point is, that we all play as we want to play, regardless of taboos in reality. DnD IS our reality, and comming from a skitzo, it's a big world. ^.o;
P.S. Tiger Lily? I'm feelin a little hostility towards our original post-er buddy from you...^.^;
I see the original question as "Can my paladin be black?" or "Can my paladin have only one arm?". My answer is simply... Why not?
Ultradan
As an added irony, some Greeks believed that while fostering an intimate same-sex relationship was good, consumating that relationship in the standard physical matter, was bad. As it made one partner submissive, and therefore lesser, than the other. And though I do not know of a real world religion that condones homosexuality, the Spartans (also Ancient greeks) had military units entirely composed of same-sex partners. The idea was that each would fight more bravely to protect their love. Sorry, forgot to include this in the original post.
I don't know if this adds to the irony, but that is where the term "right-hand man" comes from. In hoplite formations, you had to depend on the shield of the guy to the right of you for protection, so you wanted him to has much a vested interest in your survivial as possible.
paladins usually have something taboo in regards to relations with other people. in many cases, they must remain chaste and celibate, so being is irrelevant since she would have to repress her sexuality to better devote herself to her god.
in many cases, paladins must be celibate but can have non-sexual relations with others (REALLY good friends). some must be unmarried but allowed to have relations with others.
some could be allowed to have only heterosexual relations, some could be allowed to have relations with anyone, and with certain gods they might be *encouraged* to have relations, or at least be married.
all of this, of course, depends on what your campaign standards are. :)
Last time I checked, the Paladins of the Carolingian romances were anything but chaste. Chastened, perhaps, but never chaste.
There's also a d20 book by the name of Nymphology that deals with interesting items, spells, feats, and prestige classes dealing with sex and lust.
If I recall correctly, The Book of Erotic Fantasy—despite all its needless infamy—actually has a pretty thorough discussion of this topic. In fact, two of the main characters in its fiction segments are a female paladin-bard couple. It’s well worth the permission slip you need to check it out.
Personally though, my feelings are summed up by the most favorite PC I've ever played: a bisexual water genasi cleric of Persana.
I think of D&D as a team game, where everyone gets an equal say in how the game is run and how the world works.-Amber S.
I would have to disagree with you on this one. The Dm is a referee whos decisions are final because they are the one ultimatly responsible for the continuity of the storyline and enforcing the rules. If everyone gets equal say on par with the Dm then the game suffers and is watered down. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be discussion, but in the end, the Dm makes all of the calls.
In fact, two of the main characters in its fiction segments are a female paladin-bard couple.
Forget their sexual preference ... the alignment conflicts inherent in that pairing boggle the mind. One wants to pay their credit card bills on time, and the other says: "What bills?"
Personally though, my feelings are summed up by the most favorite PC I've ever played: a bisexual water genasi cleric of Persana.
Splish, splash, the genasi was takin' a bath, all on a Saturday night ....
I personaly don't care what people do behind closed doors in the real world or in a fantasy world. As a DM here is a good qestion thought. Out of only the standard races presented in the Players handbook wich ones would have the bigest taboo on same sex couples. For me personaly I think the race to have a hard time wraping there head around it would be the Dawrfs in my oppinion but I would like to hear some other oppinions.
I personaly don't care what people do behind closed doors in the real world or in a fantasy world. As a DM here is a good qestion thought. Out of only the standard races presented in the Players handbook wich ones would have the bigest taboo on same sex couples. For me personaly I think the race to have a hard time wraping there head around it would be the Dawrfs in my oppinion but I would like to hear some other oppinions.
Or maybe dwarves would have the easiest time of it, if you hold to the old male to female ratio of 3:1.
Wow, this is a heated topic. I can see no reason why a religious sect would frown upon same sex relations, especially in a fantasy setting. As DM you can say that it could not happen, though if you did that you would have a very unhappy player (or may lose one).
The only thing that is even remotely close to this issue that I can think of is if the Paladin's religion denoted that he/she couldn't have physical relations at all. But even then it has nothing to do with home-/heterosexuality.
Like I said, in the end it is up to you, the DM to decide if this is suitable for your campaign.
actually, i'd say it's almost guaranteed that religions would have an opinion on homosexual relations. some hostile, some disapproving, some ambivalent, some accepting, some encouraging. :)