| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am firmly against ginger lefty halflings in any campaign.
I suppose it is fair enough to say that I have no use for homosexuality in my games, it is out there in the world but not something that is common and will usually not play a major part in any adventures, I don't feel especially bad about not including homo sexuality in my games, I just don't feel the need.
This.
Common enough that several of my friends are gay. And more casual acquaintances. Common enough that I've hit on a girl only to find out she was a lesbian. (And not just lying to turn me down either)I wouldn't expect it to play a major part in adventures very often. Unless one of the PCs was gay. Assuming the fantasy society wasn't prejudiced against homosexuals, I'd expect to see the occasional gay couple. In pretty much the same places and with the same emphasis you'd have straight couples. Maybe running the bar. Or a store. Or the town.
Then your experiences differ from mine. I can count my gay friends one one hand, and there aren't many more casual acquaintances (well there could be I suppose, I generally don't ask).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In medieval pseudo-Europe it should be handled as it was in medieval Europe. in feudal pseudo-Japan it should be handled as it was in feudal Japan. In pseudo-Moslem pseudo-Africa it should handled as it was in Moslem Africa.
If you can't run a game without postmodern sexual mores you probably should be running something in a postmodern setting.
I'm with the others - I don't really want to play in a medieval European setting - I want to play in a fantasy setting. My fantasy setting is a place for me to escape the people I want to punch in the face, namely racists and misogynists. Does racial aggression exist in the setting? Certainly. Do misogynists exist in the setting? Yes. But do I want to allow the systemic machine that exists in our world? Hell no.
To have the male NPCs belittle the female PCs every chance they got in order to "make things more realistic" wouldn't be fun to anyone involved.
And to suggest that Pathfinder is a "medieval European" setting hasn't actually been paying attention to the campaign setting in the least.
I can't believe so many people don't have sex in their games. What do you people do--just run around killing monsters all the time? How boring.
Oh no! My players are all different kinds of sexual, as are their characters (I believe they have all *been with* each other irl at various points in time) I have no idea why they chose the asexual (me) to be the GM. Needless to say anything sexual that happens in campaign is almost always instigated by a player.
The class stuff is wicked hard to get right, unless the party is all nobility. 'Cuz really, what party of 8th-level peasants is going to put up with the Marquis de Snobbypants?
On the other hand, we did have a (problem) player who did go by the name Tramora III Peasantsbane....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing about evolution. It's driven by selection pressures. Magic doesn't change the fact that societies that expand tend to destroy or subsume societies that fail to expand. It always surprises me how many presumably atheist (because religions tend to not tolerate homosexuality) homosexuals never seem to consider how they match the fitness function implied by Darwinian evolution, or rather how they fail to match the fitness function. Homosexuals, by being unfit to reproduce, reduce the aggregate fitness of their society compared to a society that pressures them into heterosexual relationships.There's a reason that Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan and Moslem Africa and indeed the vast majority of traditional societies have been intolerant of homosexuals. It's not because of religion or because they didn't believe in faeries or magic. It's because societies either evolve towards forms that allow them to persist or they don't persist and homosexuals don't contribute to the persistence of society. Except, I suppose, by becoming liches or reaching level 20 as wizards and selecting the immortality discovery. Not really a common enough feat to effect social mores.
Magic could allow homosexuals to reproduce, but the only spells printed that can do so are Miracle, Wish, and Polymorph Any Object. The first two are pretty much out of reach of all but the very richest people and the latter works by making the couple heterosexual. Actually, with the Pathfinder versions of Miracle and Wish they may only be able to do the job by emulating PAO anyways.
That is a mind-numbingly simplistic version of how people act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic could allow homosexuals to reproduce, but the only spells printed that can do so are Miracle, Wish, and Polymorph Any Object.
I don't know. I'm pretty sure homosexualists can reproduce without magic. You know, just not with each other...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It definitely require the right group of players. And probably a system that isn't D&D. The power curve does screw things up.
It's hard to keep the inherent superiority of the nobility going when any peasant who survives a couple of weeks of adventuring is going to be force to be reckoned with in the kingdom.
Hmm, that's interesting. I hadn't considered non D&D rules.
Anyway, I'm no medievalist, and it's derailing quickly from hawt homosexuality, but, I wonder if the free English yeoman as opposed to the (I think) more typical European serf is more of an influence on D&Desque stuff. 'Cuz, really, if you're the Marquis de Snobbypants, you don't let your peasants go advnenturing. Or have weapons. (Gun control derail...)
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing about evolution. It's driven by selection pressures. Magic doesn't change the fact that societies that expand tend to destroy or subsume societies that fail to expand. It always surprises me how many presumably atheist (because religions tend to not tolerate homosexuality) homosexuals never seem to consider how they match the fitness function implied by Darwinian evolution, or rather how they fail to match the fitness function. Homosexuals, by being unfit to reproduce, reduce the aggregate fitness of their society compared to a society that pressures them into heterosexual relationships.
There's a reason that Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan and Moslem Africa and indeed the vast majority of traditional societies have been intolerant of homosexuals. It's not because of religion or because they didn't believe in faeries or magic. It's because societies either evolve towards forms that allow them to persist or they don't persist and homosexuals don't contribute to the persistence of society. Except, I suppose, by becoming liches or reaching level 20 as wizards...
uhhhhhhhh
I don't want to make this Homosexuality in Golarion mk.II, but I suggest you actually read the literature on homosexuality/evolution before trying to claim this sort of nonsense...
I can't believe so many people don't have sex in their games. What do you people do--just run around killing monsters all the time? How boring.
Is that the only thing your characters do when they're not having sex?
Well you see they kill things and it makes them horny, but then they need to kill things to get it up again.
It's a vicious cycle.
Sex would make most players in my group uncomfortable, I think. We've had romance before, but all the details are strictly off-screen. Sexual orientation crops up from time to time in passing (my Golarion's societies are reasonably altruistic/progressive by default and stuff like homophobia is unknown*) but it gets skipped over without comment or focus.
Legitimate feudal stuff I'll have to remember to include once my current party gets out of the concentration camp.
Responding directly to the title of the thread:
I'll let you know when it come up.
In the few (3 or 4, can't quite remember), romantic relations has only come up once, and it was a heterosexual relationship between an elf PC and a human NPC.
My group and I have never played through a character romance, so sexuality is largely ignored.
This is my group's experience as well. My players try to kill the bad NPCs and get rewards from the good NPCs.
Every attempt at seduction has always been a trick; to get a bonus on a bluff or diplomacy roll, or to get a bad NPC to lower their guard (immediately followed by violence).| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When my party was given a quest to purge a certain fortifications of undeads a young female generic cleric NPC joined the party as support. The party female bard (already noted for her interest in both genders) and a party male halfling thief asked if the cleric is attractive. Someone laughed and jokingly asked me to roll the NPCs orientation (or maybe joked that if she is homosexual the halfling wastes his time) so I said "ok", picked the d20 and rolled (1-10 pure heterosexual, 11-14 heterosexual but open to experimentation, 15-17 bisexual, 18-19 homosexual, 20 asexual or something else). Die said "homosexual". After a moment of thought I decided that she is homosexual but yet unaware of her own sexuality, being young and raised in temple as an orphan. The bard started to flirt with her and much later finally bedded her and started a relationship developing generic NPC into recurring character. The bard plans on getting Leadership feat to have her as her cohort now.
Funny thing about evolution. It's driven by selection pressures. Magic doesn't change the fact that societies that expand tend to destroy or subsume societies that fail to expand. It always surprises me how many presumably atheist (because religions tend to not tolerate homosexuality) homosexuals never seem to consider how they match the fitness function implied by Darwinian evolution, or rather how they fail to match the fitness function. Homosexuals, by being unfit to reproduce, reduce the aggregate fitness of their society compared to a society that pressures them into heterosexual relationships.
There's a reason that Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan and Moslem Africa and indeed the vast majority of traditional societies have been intolerant of homosexuals. It's not because of religion or because they didn't believe in faeries or magic. It's because societies either evolve towards forms that allow them to persist or they don't persist and homosexuals don't contribute to the persistence of society. Except, I suppose, by becoming liches or reaching level 20 as wizards...
Yeah...I don't have the patience for this one.
|
Leaving aside all the old arguments that fantasy settings somehow have to be bound to the worst cherry picked aspects of real world history for the moment and getting back to the OP:
Different forms of sexuality can come up in my games. Its not played for laughs or exploitation. Homosexuals, bisexuals, transgendered folks, asexuals, and everyone else get portrayed as people first and foremost. And it's possible for someone to play such characters without being subjected to constant misery porn.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, for those claiming, "oh, we don't have sex in my game so the question of homosexuality just doesn't come up!":
Have you ever portrayed a character as married? In love with someone? A parent?
The idea that because you don't have explicit sex in your game, you don't have sexuality in your game is pretty inaccurate. Same-sex relationships aren't any more inherently sexual or nonsexual than straight relationships. Having a gay couple in your game is no different than having a husband-and-wife innkeeper couple, as far as whether it constitutes "sex." So the idea that by not including any gay characters in your game, you're neutrally declining to take a position on homosexuality is pretty inaccurate as well.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny thing about evolution. It's driven by selection pressures. Magic doesn't change the fact that societies that expand tend to destroy or subsume societies that fail to expand. It always surprises me how many presumably atheist (because religions tend to not tolerate homosexuality) homosexuals never seem to consider how they match the fitness function implied by Darwinian evolution, or rather how they fail to match the fitness function. Homosexuals, by being unfit to reproduce, reduce the aggregate fitness of their society compared to a society that pressures them into heterosexual relationships.There's a reason that Feudal Europe and Feudal Japan and Moslem Africa and indeed the vast majority of traditional societies have been intolerant of homosexuals. It's not because of religion or because they didn't believe in faeries or magic. It's because societies either evolve towards forms that allow them to persist or they don't persist and homosexuals don't contribute to the persistence of society. Except, I suppose, by becoming liches or reaching level 20 as wizards...
....what a crock of crap. For a start, Japan has only had a brief stint of homosexuality being illegal, forced upon it by Western morality, and it lasted a whole seven years. There are plenty of records of homosexuality among even the Samurai class. Hell, they even drew illustrated examples of the Kami engaging in anal sex as part of the religious scholarship. So you've managed to get at least one fact pretty massively wrong already.
Then we have the fact that there are plenty of species out there that also practice homosexuality - google suggests it's over 1500 - that haven't gone extinct.
Then you have the teensy problem that, historically, we seem to have accepted bisexuality and homosexuality. There are mentions of homosexuality among the Egyptian Gods, and it's relatively well known that the Greeks and Romans were pretty comfortable with it. It's not until after 150 bce that we see anti-gay laws in Roman legislature, although Emperor Nero was happy to marry two guys a 150 years later so maybe that didn't last. Several other Emperors do the same.
It's not until Constantinus the Second, and the Roman Empire's conversion to Christanity, that we see anti gay legislation returning full force.
So, since we've only had a significant area (most of the Eastern areas such as Japan, China and a to a lesser extent India, where it was punishable as a minor crime) with active anti homosexuality issues for the last, oh, 1500 years or so (with some exceptions) and yet we haven't imploded does rather suggest that you may be horribly, horribly wrong. it certainly seems unlikely that having 10-15% of your population not actively procreating would be less of an issue than, say, loosing 50% or more of your men to armed conflicts. And we seem to manage that one with depressing regularity.
If you can't run a game without postmodern sexual mores you probably should be running something in a postmodern setting.
May I suggest that if you are uncomfortable with homosexuality then Pathfinder, a game with a strong pro LBGT slant and NPC's actively engaged in such relationships, and with a heavily pro (and actively) LBGT staff, may not be a comfortable fit for you?
So, for those claiming, "oh, we don't have sex in my game so the question of homosexuality just doesn't come up!":
Have you ever portrayed a character as married? In love with someone? A parent?
The idea that because you don't have explicit sex in your game, you don't have sexuality in your game is pretty inaccurate. Same-sex relationships aren't any more inherently sexual or nonsexual than straight relationships. Having a gay couple in your game is no different than having a husband-and-wife innkeeper couple, as far as whether it constitutes "sex." So the idea that by not including any gay characters in your game, you're neutrally declining to take a position on homosexuality is pretty inaccurate as well.
Yeah, we don't have sex in our games but we do have same sex couples from time to time. Romance is just not a focus of the story usually (and would make people uncomfortable if it were, I suspect).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even better, JonGarret, not only have we not gone extinct, we're actually somewhat overpopulated, or slated to be so anyway.
Sex would make most players in my group uncomfortable, I think. We've had romance before, but all the details are strictly off-screen. Sexual orientation crops up from time to time in passing (my Golarion's societies are reasonably altruistic/progressive by default and stuff like homophobia is unknown*) but it gets skipped over without comment or focus.
Pretty much this. I don't want to roleplay a sexual encounter. That's just not my cup of tea. Thus, all sex-stuff is assumed to occur off-screen. If a player expresses interest in carousing for a date or visiting a brothel or some such, he or she is successful. Depending upon circumstances, spend the coin and roll the Fort check versus disease!
@ Jessica Price: We include gay/bi characters, but the fact that they're gay/bi is secondary to other other aspects of their character. For example, when writing an NPC, I don't set out to create the gay innkeeper, but rather an innkeeper that happens to be gay. The character's sexuality just isn't very relevant to the story I want to tell. Then again, in some cases it is relevant. Characters are going to vary regardless of their sexual preferences.
Oh no! My players are all different kinds of sexual, as are their characters (I believe they have all *been with* each other irl at various points in time) I have no idea why they chose the asexual (me) to be the GM. Needless to say anything sexual that happens in campaign is almost always instigated by a player.
Maybe they picked you because you won't date any of the players. You might be the only one to run the game without the problem of GM's boyfriend/girlfriend.
As to the OP: I have all kinds of different types of realtionships and sexuality show up. I treat them as people. Does it matter if you go rescueing the damsel/ (the male version of damsel whatever that is?) in distress if they rather kiss the woman/male who rescued them?
If you go rescueing a kid you got kidnapped...does it matter that his/her parents happen to be the same sex? I don't think one sexuality plays into how much you care for the ones you love.
The only thing I think you have to know is the maturity of the group you are playing with. If your group goes all Butthead and Beavis at any mention of any kind of sex...than you might run into problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not merely a question of maturity, though. There's also context. I play with family members more often than not. We just aren't comfortable with roleplaying our characters' sexual preferences. It's awkward.
Whenever seduction or flirting occurs in-game, it's delegated to a roll. I'm not about to roleplay through that one, not with another grown man (my brother, no less).
That said, the characters are human. They have human desires. Occasionally they wish to engage in romance or sex, but again, that's done mostly off-screen. I might want to endanger their loved ones on occasion to motivate them, but failing that, sexuality is largely unimportant to the story. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it's not really relevant to dragonslaying and what not.
It's a different strokes type of things. In a highly character driven story, sexuality will play a greater roll - it is one of the big things that makes us who we are, after all. In a dungeon crawling murder hobo game it'll be much less of an issue - it doesn't matter if you like the same gender as yourself when you only see them for twenty minutes to sell the pile of plunder you've acquired.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Hama, in my IRL games, usually none of my players are straight, but we still often have mostly straight characters! :)
It's got nothing to do with the players themselves* and more to do with the fact that a reasonably realistic world is likely to have some non-heterosexual people around. Although I don't begrudge your players for not playing one - it might be a bit awkward for some - then again, they're kind of borderline doing so when they play a character of the opposite gender to themselves...
I dunno. I'd be pretty unhappy in a game that had no time for relationships of any kind whatsoever. I like my characters to make friendships and fall in love. Even if it's just in those spare moments when we're outside of the dungeon.
* Although if your players are uncomfortable with homosexuality that's a different problem...
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.
I get this. It's just like how none of my players are halflings, so they don't exist. There is no need for them. (<-- really?)
I'm sure you're fine. It's like spiders... generally, unless you live in arctic conditions, you're within 3 feet of at least one spider your entire life. Normally, this never comes up, but that doesn't mean the spiders aren't there, just that in the context of the game no one thinks about it. So no one is saying you're in denial about spiders, or that you're spiderphobic.
There's probably a half dozen spiders watching you right now.
Quietly.
Patiently.
Hungrily.
I'm very scared now. Being arachnophobic as I am... *cringes*
As to the topic at hand, I've been in games, both as player and as GM, where sexual things were done in detail... Though, that was more when I was younger. Now, while we still have sex in our games, usually the actual sex is fade to black. As for homosexuality etc., while I am hetero, the group that I played with that did the most sexual stuff in games was with a Bi male (the GM) and a Transgender female (the other player, and by female, I mean identified as female) and so to me it's as some others have said. I don't have to be a lesbian or such IRL to play one just as I don't have to be a gnome IRL to play a gnome. As for how often I do, I just make characters and they kind of "write themselves" so to speak.
It generally only comes up in passing as existing relationships (not much interest in romance/sex at my game table). If it comes up, I tend to roll a d4
This character (gender irrelevant):
1. prefers males
2. prefers females
3. No preference (likes all)
4. No preference (not interested)
It's a bit rough and ready, but it works for us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.I get this. It's just like how none of my players are halflings, so they don't exist. There is no need for them. (<-- really?)
Does it really particularly matter?
Are we heading back around to that "Every possible everything must be represented at all times or you're a filthy sub-human racist/sexist/ageist/panglobalf!!+allthereisicist" b%+$**~+ again?
Is it such a freakin' travesty that he doesn't feel like addressing it since it frankly doesn't matter?
I'm sure there are Scotch/Korean/Australian Transsexual Dwarf Hippies somewhere in the world but he doesn't have to represent them, does he? Just because homosexuals are more common doesn't mean he's excluding them and feeding into the "Heterosexual Agenda" or whatever you want to call it by not adding them to the game.
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.I get this. It's just like how none of my players are halflings, so they don't exist. There is no need for them. (<-- really?)Does it really particularly matter?
Are we heading back around to that "Every possible everything must be represented at all times or you're a filthy sub-human racist/sexist/ageist/panglobalf!~@allthereisicist" b#@&*@#& again?
Is it such a freakin' travesty that he doesn't feel like addressing it since it frankly doesn't matter?
I'm sure there are Scotch/Korean/Australian Transsexual Dwarf Hippies somewhere in the world but he doesn't have to represent them, does he? Just because homosexuals are more common doesn't mean he's excluding them and feeding into the "Heterosexual Agenda" or whatever you want to call it by not adding them to the game.
Yes, saying "it just doesn't exist" is homophobic. And yes, I will call someone out on that.
By that same logic I would say that heterosexuals don't exist, because none of my players are straight.
Do you like it when someone tells you that you don't exist? Are you one of the people who think gaming was better when all people in the game world were straight, white males?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not saying they don't exist he's saying they don't currently exist in-game because there's no need for them to. None of the players are gay. None of the PCs are gay. None of the players cares one way or another whether there is a gay person in the game.
So why do they need to be represented? So the PC Police has a reason not to tell them they're a homophobe for not including them?
Since none of my players are gay, it just doesn't exist. There is no need for it.
What does that have anything to do with it? None of my players or GMs are gay that I know of. Yet I like includingly all sexuality in my games. Because it adds just a little bit of reality to the game to make the fantasy thing seem more fantastic.
I also like to play with the sexuality of non-human races...elves are generaly bi in the games I run or when I play a elf they are typicaly bi. Drow I take the old greek( or was it roman?) line of 'men are for love, women are for babies' and flip it around. It is not only our nature the determines our sexuality but our culture as well.
So I am not doing this to make a person feel better because 'hey there is a homosexual just like me' thinking (though it is a bonus if it does make somebody I play with feel better). I am doing it because it adds color and gives depth to the setting.
He's not saying they don't exist he's saying they don't currently exist in-game because there's no need for them to. None of the players are gay. None of the PCs are gay. None of the players cares one way or another whether there is a gay person in the game.
He did not actualy use the word 'currently' in what he said. True he might have mispoke...and such. A I don't think people should jump all over him. But pointing out what he said might be wrong...
So why do they need to be represented? So the PC Police has a reason not to tell them they're a homophobe for not including them?
I answeared why in the post above.
He's not saying they don't exist he's saying they don't currently exist in-game because there's no need for them to. None of the players are gay. None of the PCs are gay. None of the players cares one way or another whether there is a gay person in the game.
So why do they need to be represented? So the PC Police has a reason not to tell them they're a homophobe for not including them?
err... "it just doesn't exist" means, exactly "it doesn't exist". They didn't say "it doesn't currently exist".
If your game is a beer and pretzels friday night dungeon bash it probably doesn't come up.
If your game isn't a beer and pretzels friday night dungeon bash it just might.
In either setting, what difference does homosexuality make?
It's not like your gaming session is going to LARP out the nookie right there on the table, or even engage in a while lot of steamy smut talk, but hey if it does you have probably left the gaming session behind and you now have an impromptu swingers party unfolding, and perhaps the tequila slammers pre session weren't such a hot idea.
TL;DR - How is 'Gay' still even a hot topic worthy of a raised eyebrow?