How do you handle homosexuality in your campaigns?

[Delthyn]

Scott Betts wrote:

Then they don't oppose discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

This is tantamount to saying, "All of them are Christian. All of them are good people who oppose discrimination based upon skin color (one of them is on a school board opposing such things), but none of them believe that inter-racial marriage should be condoned."

The only difference is that we're talking about sexual orientation instead of skin color. You and your friends have deluded yourselves into believing that you are proponents of equal rights, but the reality is that your closely-held religious beliefs prohibit you from being actual proponents of equal rights.

Skin color is pigmentation. Pigmentation does not define who you are, nor is it important. Skin color is as important as eye color or hair color. I believe in what Martin Luther King Jr. said, that we be judged not by our skin, but by the content of our character. In addition, it might interest you that the Ku Klux Klan persecuted Catholics and Jews as well as blacks.

You see, we believe that marriage is a sacrament, a holy bond consecrated by God, not by man. We support equal rights, but not redefining marriage. Too many LGBT supporters see things in black and white; you are either wholly devoted to every aspect, or are fully against their right to even live. Not surprisingly, there are people who treat homosexuals as equal human beings, with a handful of reserves based upon their personal beliefs.

@Big Lemon: I would be willing to have a conversation about it, but I will tell you that I am Catholic, so if you are familiar with the Catechism or the true beliefs of the Catholic Church, then you can see where I'm coming from. We are devoted to helping our homosexual brothers and sisters, and giving them equality, and treating them with respect, compassion and sensitivity, but view the act itself as intrinsically disordered, and oppose gay marriage. (Catechism 2357-2359 for those interested)

I have work and school tomorrow, and I feel that this thread will be locked sooner or later. It was enjoyable debating this issue, and I'm glad we could discuss it peaceably and politely. It's rare that that happens. Have a good week everyone!

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

That all sounds fine to me. I'd probably find such games more restricting than I'm comfortable with, at least as a regular thing. I assume, along with homosexuals, women are kept in their proper place? For the time and culture, of course. And that you abide by the various class limitations of the culture?

With the significant caveat that one, in a fantasy setting, tends to lean towards emphasizing the exceptional and the extraordinary. In other words, a player who chooses to run a female character will no doubt transcend the normal limitations of her society in many ways. There's always a method to, if not necessarily rewrite history, then append or amend it in interesting fashion—one that allows for enjoyable role-play yet preserves verisimilitude. At least, that's my experience. I'm more interested in Joan of Arc, Cleopatra and Eleanor of Aquitaine than I am the common drudge—unless, of course, a player wishes to play a common drudge who rises to become something entirely uncommon ... or we focus on a particular common drudge to learn she's anything but, as so often happens once we get to know anyone.

Quote:

I'm generally not comfortable playing what I would consider a sexist, bigoted jerk, which even enlightened folk of the time would be by modern standards. It's not an attitude I like to internalize.

Does that prevent you from reading period fiction, biographies or historical accounts which contain such injustice? Are not player characters usually considered paragons of enlightenment (if not necessarily virtue)?

Actors, even superlative ones, do not necessarily "internalize" their roles. I've portrayed Mephistopheles in Dr. Faustus. Yet no one (other than my ex-wife) would assert I'm one of Hell's middle managers.

Frankly, I've always found the lack of certain bigotries in modern PC fantasy somewhat unrealistic. The gods of evil would have worked overtime to introduce such hatred into Golarion, and I don't buy for a nanosecond that their sowing would have lacked a harvest.

Quote:

It could be interesting, but not for long periods.

It's been interesting off and on for 30+ years.

Quote:

But I don't have a problem with it in theory.

As always, to each their own. If I decide to run an online game, I'll recall to offer you an invitation to participate.

[Scott Betts]

Kthulhu wrote:

Except nobody in this thread has said "Keep the homosexuality out of Pathfinder".

We had a thread that literally had that as the content of its opening post a couple weeks ago. And most (if not all) of the people who are saying things like, "Keep sexuality out of Pathfinder," are really just saying, "Keep any references to elements of homosexuality out of Pathfinder, but ubiquitous references toelements of heterosexuality are totally fine."

[RadiantSophia]

Delthyn wrote:

we see it [marriage] as a bond between a man and a woman

I'm very fortunate in this regard. I'm a genderqueer asexual, but I was assigned the "female" category at birth. My partner is agendered but was assigned the "male" category at birth. We are contemplating marriage for the benefits. Why should other people not get the same benefits?

Unless you mean, perhaps, that a marriage is only for a sexual relationship, or only for raising children?

[Scott Betts]

Delthyn wrote:

You see, we believe that marriage is a sacrament, a holy bond consecrated by God, not by man. We support equal rights, but not redefining marriage.

You don't get to define marriage to begin with. You sure as hell don't get to decide whether or not we can redefine it.

Quote:

Too many LGBT supporters see things in black and white; you are either wholly devoted to every aspect, or are fully against their right to even live.

When you say you support "equal rights", what you really mean is that you support "sort of equal rights".

Quote:

@Big Lemon: I would be willing to have a conversation about it, but I will tell you that I am Catholic, so if you are familiar with the Catechism or the true beliefs of the Catholic Church, then you can see where I'm coming from.

Speaking as a confirmed Catholic, I wouldn't even dream of telling someone that they couldn't get married because they were gay. If you let the catechism get in the way of that, it's on you.

[Jessica Price]

Tirisfal wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

That said, as far as references to homosexuality being "left to the GM or the players," Paizo has, since the very first adventure path, included same-sex relationships and LGBTQ characters alongside straight relationships and characters in our materials. Not doing so would be a form of discrimination we're not interested in practicing.

However, my original post in this thread was in response to one person telling another poster that if they weren't comfortable with exploring homosexual themes in their games, then Pathfinder isn't the game for them. Please note that there was no mention of whether The Golarion setting was suitable, they jumped full ahead to the entire Pathfinder system being unsuitable. Which is utter crap, as absolutely nothing in the rulebook line has even the hint of being either pro- or anti-homosexual. Not everybody that plays Pathfinder uses the Golarion setting.

I believe that Jessica is speaking for a company's interests, not hers or your's. Read what you quoted again.

Well, to be clear, in case the syntax doesn't make it clear, I usually say "I think that" or "I personally feel that" when I outline my personal opinion, and "Paizo/we support" or "Paizo/we do X" when I'm outlining a company position.

It is a company position to be actively inclusive with regard to race, gender, orientation, etc., and that we have no plans to stop being actively inclusive in response to criticism from people who don't want gay people/black people/women in positions of authority/etc. in their games.

It's my personal opinion that not doing so contributes to a harmful societal narrative that normalizes straight people (and, for that matter, white, cisgendered, and male people) and treats people who aren't in those categories as other.

[thejeff]

Jaelithe wrote:

thejeff wrote:

That all sounds fine to me. I'd probably find such games more restricting than I'm comfortable with, at least as a regular thing. I assume, along with homosexuals, women are kept in their proper place? For the time and culture, of course. And that you abide by the various class limitations of the culture?

With the significant caveat that one, in a fantasy setting, tends to lean towards emphasizing the exceptional and the extraordinary. In other words, a player who chooses to run a female character will no doubt transcend the normal limitations of her society in many ways. There's always a method to, if not necessarily rewrite history, then append or amend it in interesting fashion—one that allows for enjoyable role-play yet preserves verisimilitude. At least, that's my experience. I'm more interested in Joan of Arc, Cleopatra and Eleanor of Aquitaine than I am the common drudge—unless, of course, a player wishes to play a common drudge who rises to become something entirely uncommon.

Quote:

I'm generally not comfortable playing what I would consider a sexist, bigoted jerk, which even enlightened folk of the time would be by modern standards. It's not an attitude I like to internalize.

Does that prevent you from reading period fiction, biographies or historical accounts which contain such injustice? Are not player characters usually considered paragons of enlightenment (if not necessarily virtue)?

Actors, even superlative ones, do not necessarily "internalize" their roles. I've portrayed Mephistopheles in Dr. Faustus. Yet no one (other than my ex-wife) would assert I'm one of Hell's middle managers.

When acting, one recites lines that have been written. One does not attempt to figure out what the character would do. For me a large part of the goal of roleplaying is to immerse myself in the character. To the extent possible, to think like he would and base his actions on that.

Reading fiction does not ask me to put myself in the role in the same way.

Do you play out and emphasize how those exceptional and extraordinary characters are put down, discouraged and ignored, discriminated against, while the more conforming characters in the group are not? Especially when they haven't yet attained the level of power and notoriety that buys them some immunity.

[Shifty]

Delthyn wrote:

we see it [marriage] as a bond between a man and a woman

See and I'm fine with that, we are all entitled to our beliefs.

Your club, your rules.

What I don't like is when that club steps outside the bounds of itself to tell the wider community what they can and can't do. Marriage is and always should be an issue of State, and the various Churches have no place in that conversation except when its within their walls.

[thejeff]

Shifty wrote:

Delthyn wrote:

we see it [marriage] as a bond between a man and a woman

See and I'm fine with that, we are all entitled to our beliefs.

Your club, your rules.

What I don't like is when that club steps outside the bounds of itself to tell the wider community what they can and can't do. Marriage is and always should be an issue of State, and the various Churches have no place in that conversation except when its within their walls.

And just to add to the amusement, it's some Churches doing so to other Churches. Even the Churches that have no problem with gay marriage would not be allowed to do so, if the "protect marriage" ones had their way.

[Kirth Gersen]

Tirisfal wrote:

I think that throwing "...bricks, flares, Molotov cocktails and bottles..." makes Belgrade a place where people "...live in constant fear that you are going to be attacked or killed for not conforming to societies gender standard".

You're destroying my illusions! I was in Beograde for a short time in 2010 and found it one of the most vibrant, optimistic cities I've ever been in. If that kind of things still goes on, I was sadly misled during my stay there.

[Scott Betts]

Shifty wrote:

Delthyn wrote:

we see it [marriage] as a bond between a man and a woman

See and I'm fine with that, we are all entitled to our beliefs.

Your club, your rules.

What I don't like is when that club steps outside the bounds of itself to tell the wider community what they can and can't do. Marriage is and always should be an issue of State, and the various Churches have no place in that conversation except when its within their walls.

Bingo.

When you start telling people who aren't part of your religion that your religious beliefs dictate how they get to live their lives, we no longer listen to you. You don't deserve the attention. Your religious beliefs don't get to make laws. If you think they do, there are other countries out there for you.

[Jessica Price]

Let's take the discussion of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to get married, etc. to an appropriate thread.

The topic of this one is how you handle homosexuality in your campaign. Thanks!

In addition, please tone down the sarcasm/animosity level. We can all disagree without getting into personal attacks.

[Shifty]

I suppose it all comes down to 'what makes you comfortable' at the table. Most people play these games to chill out and to have fun with friends, have a few good jokes, consume 'beer and pretzels' (or cheetos and mountain dew or whatever your pleasure) and by and large its a social and fun activity.

Different things will slant the social interaction certain ways, we can make saucy jokes and adult comments at the table, but hey if there's kids there we tone it right down.

If certain themes and mores are going to make people uncomfortable then we have withoin our grasp the ability to handwave them away. If you have a Gay guy (gal, QUILTBAG, whatever) at your table and homophobic NPC are going to upset them then why not just give it a miss, they probably have enough of that junk mon-fri in the real world and seeing it in their leisure time is really not something they will be looking forward to. So why not just ditch the topic?

Similarly, if heavy sexual content makes you feel uncomfortable, or any other particular hot button issue makes you uncomfortable, then let the guys know and it can be organised around.

Gaming is a fairly broad activity full of interesting people with interesting minds that are interested in a range of different topics, I would like to think that people can be able to say how they feel without things being all judgmental, and similarly, just because something is a hot issue for me, I shouldn't expect it to be the centre of attention for everybody else. Single issue game hijacks are rarely fun...unless we are all on board with it.

Play nice :)

[DeathQuaker]

To the OP: Players can choose whatever sexuality for their characters they like. I choose a variety of sexualities for my NPCs. Largely it's just a matter of flavor and personal preference, as the game tends to focus on adventuring and not romance.

In terms of romance itself, regardless of who is involved with whom, any intimacy is considered handwaved as an off-scene event. Flirtation and whatnot as fine.

In my campaign world, the god of community feels the reason there are some people inclined to partner with members of the same sex is to provide a basis for families who can take in orphans and abandoned children; since they would not procreate naturally on their own, they are an excellent choice to provide a loving family for parentless children. Therefore, some pious folk believe same sex couples should be strongly encouraged to marry and adopt children should the opportunity arise. :)

As to RL matters, I'd prefer to chat about it in the TLGB gamers thread. But if a GM tells me that I as a queer person am not welcome or gives me a hard time because I say a character of mine is queer, then I will not play with that GM. I certainly, in line with my religious community's beliefs, will pray for him/her and hope she/he can some day open her heart to be more tolerant and compassionate, but there's no point in trying to force anyone to change what they believe or who they are--just as there is no point in my trying to foster a relationship (even if it's just that of GM/player) with someone I know in some respect is hateful/intolerant of something that is a part of me, something that I know God made part of me on purpose.

[Big Lemon]

I've taken the liberty of making a thread I hope will avoid a degradation into personal attacks over here.

[RadiantSophia]

DeathQuaker wrote:

I certainly, in line with my religious community's beliefs, will pray for him/her and hope she/he can some day open her heart to be more tolerant and compassionate, but there's no point in trying to force anyone to change what they believe or who they are--just as there is no point in my trying to foster a relationship (even if it's just that of GM/player) with someone I know in some respect is hateful/intolerant of something that is a part of me, something that I know God made part of me on purpose.

Leave it to a Friend to shame me with acceptance. Thank you.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

When acting, one recites lines that have been written. One does not attempt to figure out what the character would do. For me a large part of the goal of role-playing is to immerse myself in the character. To the extent possible, to think like he would and base his actions on that.

If you hold that acting is simply about memorization and recitation as opposed to attempting a significant grasp of the character portrayed— his or her motivation—well ... we're students from different schools of thought on the matter.

Quote:

Reading fiction does not ask me to put myself in the role in the same way.

Any analogy is imperfect, thejeff. The similarities, though, are fairly obvious.

I find it interesting, and ironic, though, that players (and I'm not referring to you, here, as relates to my second reference below, as I know nothing about your role-playing habits) might refuse as objectionable on principle to portray a bigoted character whose issues are largely a by-product of residing in his or her time, yet not bat an eyelash at immersing him or herself in the motivations of a character whose alignment is chaotic evil and worships a god of destruction. Why "internalize" that, either? Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.

Quote:

Do you play out and emphasize how those exceptional and extraordinary characters are put down, discouraged and ignored, discriminated against, while the more conforming characters in the group are not? Especially when they haven't yet attained the level of power and notoriety that buys them some immunity.

If such adds to the profundity and depth of the story the players and GM are cooperating to tell, certainly. The rewards of role-playing a character who overcomes prejudice, changes hearts and minds, and rises to become a significant power, are substantial.

[Jessica Price]

Removed a post that continued the personal sniping after I asked for it to stop. Please don't continue it.

[Jessica Price]

Removed some more. This is not the place for arguments about Christianity and politics that have nothing to do with playing the game.

[xn0o0cl3]

Everyone needs to just enjoy a good read of Foucault's History of Sexuality and realize that gender and sexual orientation aren't even real and that no one should want to get married in the first place.

[_Cobalt_]

Jessica Price wrote:

Removed some more. This is not the place for arguments about Christianity and politics that have nothing to do with playing the game.

A separate thread has been created. Continue that conversation there.

[Detect Magic]

Jessica Price wrote:

Just because my fantasy setting vaguely resembles medieval Europe, why should I include elements of medieval Europe I consider wrong?

Because it is fun to play in settings which feel authentic. Bigotry exists in the real world, so it makes sense for it to exist in a fantasy setting. Also, it gives the players an opportunity to stand up for the oppressed minority and to champion human rights. If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!

Jessica Price wrote:

It's a fantasy setting -- it can be anything I want it to be. Why is a lack of sexual or gender bigotry harder to believe than magic? Or elves? Or treants?

I can understand the appeal of a lighter setting, especially if you face real world bigotry on a daily basis. Gaming is an escape, so I can understand wanting to check that sort of stuff at the door. Still, you should understand why including those elements can provide a fun gaming experience for others.

As a straight male, I've not faced the sort of hatred and bigotry many gay and bisexual folks have, but I do enjoy exploring those themes in my RPG, on occasion.

My point is that I can appreciate both sort of settings. They both have their appeal; neither is superior to the other. They're both enjoyable, but obviously not for everyone.

[_Cobalt_]

Detect Magic wrote:

They're both enjoyable, but obviously not for everyone.

This. A million times this.

[Detect Magic]

Oh, and when I said "human rights", I obviously wasn't excluding elves, or dwarves, or any other fantasy race :P

I just caught that. Made me chuckle.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Sexuality hasn't come up at my table yet. I don't generally discuss it either way--there's not much romance in the game. More than one player at my table is homosexual, though, so it probably will come up sooner or later. I don't plan on it being much of an issue. If a player wants to romance an NPC, they'll be the right orientation. Otherwise, I'll leave it ambiguous.

One of the players played a sort of "Sassy Gay Friend" character in a campaign I played in. That game wasn't at all serious, and it was all in good fun, so it never really came to anything.

[MrSin]

Detect Magic wrote:

If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!

Its can also be painting a target and possibly dehumanizing your villain. It can also create a stigma that all people who think that way are bad guys, which is far from true. I try not to support bashing either side myself.

[Detect Magic]

You're sticking up for bigotry? Alright...

[MrSin]

Detect Magic wrote:

You're sticking up for bigotry? Alright...

Nah, just not a fan of starting a war or spreading hate. Bigotry on bigotry is bigotry too. Bad karma all around. When you paint a target and create those stigmas its still not very healthy I don't think. YMMV.

[Alice Margatroid]

uhhhhhh what.

I don't think it's bigotry at all to say "Hey, Pol Pot was a pretty bad dude for killing all those people" or "Members of the Klu Klux Klan are objectively bad people".

Both of those examples are pretty much RL examples of BBEGs in a game, i.e. the evil dictator who makes his nation suffer, and the bigoted and hateful religious cult that attacks people.

Then again I'm in the camp that equates extreme bigotry to the evil alignment, so, yeah.

[Detect Magic]

I'm sorry, MrSin, but I'm not going to take a neutral stance on issues of human rights. I'm going to actively voice my dissent, because bigotry is detrimental to the progress of humanity. I cannot, therefor, tolerate intolerance, and I'm not a bigot for saying so. It would be cowardly to ignore the problem (it's not going away unless we do something about it).

[Stereofm]

Detect Magic wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Just because my fantasy setting vaguely resembles medieval Europe, why should I include elements of medieval Europe I consider wrong?

Because it is fun to play in settings which feel authentic. Bigotry exists in the real world, so it makes sense for it to exist in a fantasy setting. Also, it gives the players an opportunity to stand up for the oppressed minority and to champion human rights. If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!

My point is that I can appreciate both sort of settings. They both have their appeal; neither is superior to the other. They're both enjoyable, but obviously not for everyone.

This exactly. You don't have to focus every game on sensitive issues, but it is all the best to at least once in a while show the problem you don't like exists in the game world. And, now, you have a chance to act against it.

Having "generic evil" people does not work. They need motives to make good villains. It can be racism, classism, sexism, homophobism, heterophobism, just plain old greed taken to extreme, or whatever else, but just "destroy the world, mwahaha" gets old fast.

And it is more rewarding if the players start hating your villains too, when they finally catch up with them.

[MrSin]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

uhhhhhh what.

I don't think it's bigotry at all to say "Hey, Pol Pot was a pretty bad dude for killing all those people" or "Members of the Klu Klux Klan are objectively bad people".

Both of those examples are pretty much RL examples of BBEGs in a game, i.e. the evil dictator who makes his nation suffer, and the bigoted and hateful religious cult that attacks people.

Then again I'm in the camp that equates extreme bigotry to the evil alignment, so, yeah.

Was that directed towards me? Those people were bad for more than just bigotry. I wouldn't start comparing Rune lords to real life figures or anything.

Added in edit:

Detect Magic wrote:

I'm sorry, MrSin, but I'm not going to take a neutral stance on issues of human rights. I'm going to actively voice my dissent, because bigotry is detrimental to the progress of humanity. I cannot, therefor, tolerate intolerance, and I'm not a bigot for saying so. It would be cowardly to ignore the problem (it's not going away unless we do something about it).

I understand you and many others take a strong stance and that's why I mostly haven't posted in this particular thread. Its not welcoming at all and I didn't want to start anything. We all have our opinions and its important to respect them.

[kmal2t]

Don't have any real world ugliness in your game. Everything should be clean black hat/white hat just like our own historical figures have been.

Andrew Jackson and Abe Lincoln were SWELL guys in every aspect.

[Detect Magic]

MrSin wrote:

Alice Margatroid wrote:

uhhhhhh what.

I don't think it's bigotry at all to say "Hey, Pol Pot was a pretty bad dude for killing all those people" or "Members of the Klu Klux Klan are objectively bad people".

Both of those examples are pretty much RL examples of BBEGs in a game, i.e. the evil dictator who makes his nation suffer, and the bigoted and hateful religious cult that attacks people.

Then again I'm in the camp that equates extreme bigotry to the evil alignment, so, yeah.

Was that directed towards me? Those people were bad for more than just bigotry. I wouldn't start comparing Rune lords to real life figures or anything.

Really? The KKK is explicitly motivated by their bigoted hatred of non-whites. I'm sure they are bad people for more reasons than that, but suffice to say I need not hear anymore (they're already bad for killing, or wanting to kill, black folks)!

The idea that bigotry is somehow harmless is unwise (and itself a dangerous proposition). Bigots are likely to act on their beliefs, which cause them to do terrible things, like lynching people who look differently than they do.

Seriously man...

[MrSin]

Stereofm wrote:

Having "generic evil" people does not work. They need motives to make good villains. It can be racism, classism, sexism, homophobism, heterophobism, just plain old greed taken to extreme, or whatever else, but just "destroy the world, mwahaha" gets old fast.

And it is more rewarding if the players start hating your villains too, when they finally catch up with them.

Personally my favorite villains are the ones with good intentions gone wrong. "I was only trying to protect you all..." type thing. Road to evil is paved with good intentions and whatnot. It can create a character who's really in depth and you feel a connection with, which makes fighting him so much more interesting. YMMV of course.

Detect Magic wrote:

Seriously man...

I'm not interested in chasing or debating this subject. Its both personal and not likely to lead anywhere good.

[Icyshadow]

How I'd handle homosexuality in a campaign depends on the group in question.

Really, I can't go and say that there's "one true way" to go about it, for obvious reasons.

[Nefreet]

Kthulhu wrote:

Maybe you can correct me, but I can't think of any examples of NPCs that their homosexuality is such a basic part of their character that they would be ruined if they were changed to be heterosexual.

Miss Feathers?

[Cammyfan67]

I know I haven't said anything in awhile, but I do appreciate all of the posts! I never thought it'd get to have almost 300 posts! Sorry if I've personally instigated any bigotry or animosity between you folks, I was only trying to start a discussion that stemmed from my own curiosity. I've read almost all of the posts, and I do like to soak in the opinions you have all presented to me, whether I agree with them or not. I really do appreciate it, I cannot express that enough! To everyone I say "Thank you for posting (and everyone who posts AFTER I post this)!"

[thejeff]

Detect Magic wrote:

Jessica Price wrote:

Just because my fantasy setting vaguely resembles medieval Europe, why should I include elements of medieval Europe I consider wrong?

Because it is fun to play in settings which feel authentic. Bigotry exists in the real world, so it makes sense for it to exist in a fantasy setting. Also, it gives the players an opportunity to stand up for the oppressed minority and to champion human rights. If the villain is a bigot, the players will hate him all the more. That's just good story-telling!

There's a difference between a setting where the villain is a bigot and a setting in bigotry is the norm. One lets you highlight his villainy, the other doesn't.

How much fun would it be to play a black character in the pre-Civil War South, or even the Jim Crow South? Or apartheid South Africa? Or a women in modern Saudi Arabia, for that matter? It might work, if the entire game is focused around fighting the bigotry, but that should probably be beyond the scope of the typical RPG. Otherwise you're just playing someone with huge limitations on their actions, who has to constantly humiliate themselves to their "betters", or risk being lynched out of hand.

And if you don't include the discriminated against caste in the party and the party members are all enlightened folk even by modern standards you risk trivializing the trivializing the bigotry in the setting, especially if that isn't what the game's conflict is centered on.

[Drejk]

That's it. I am adding a more prominent homosexual NPC couple or two to my game. A pair of middle-aged wizards or wizard and druid perhaps? We'll see.

Barbarian and wizard?

[Berik]

Personally the games in my group, regardless of GM, tend to have extremely little in the way of romance. The few times it comes up I think pretty much all characters have been as per the preferences of the player, which has mostly been straight and mostly been male.

That being said I think we're pretty much all of the opinion that homosexuality wouldn't be generally frowned upon when it turns up, and would be especially expected in elves and maybe some other races. It seems to me that when your human daughter could come home with all sorts of other intelligent members of other races as a partner that the average person would find it a relief when she partnered up with a nice neighbourhood girl of the same race!

I think some of the comments are worth thinking about though. The fact that a group doesn't see anything wrong with homosexuality is one thing, but that's not the same as necessarily thinking about it as normal. I think that I'm personally guilty of that at times. I support same sex couples as much as I can (and was delighted when they recently earned the right to marry here). But I don't actually have any close gay friends and that probably serves to keep it from feeling quite 'normal' to me. I certainly don't feel it's wrong in any way, but I'm aware I don't think of it as being as normal as I could which I think is a further step that would be good to take.

[JonGarrett]

Bigotry of this type also doesn't work well in a lot of fantasy settings. "I'm OK with elves sleeping with haflings, and dragons having it off with gnomes is fine, but two people of the same gender? NO!" It's even worse in Golarion. "No, I don't like women having sex with women. What do you mean, Sarenrae, Desna and Shelyn are involved? I, uh...crud."

Hence why I default NPC's to bisexual. It makes more sense for a game world like this. Obviously, it doesn't work that way in 1920's Call of Cthulhu - but they also don't have other races interacting with them, obvious magic and deities that get jiggy with each other (or at least I hope not...)

[Detect Magic]

thejeff wrote:

And if you don't include the discriminated against caste in the party and the party members are all enlightened folk even by modern standards you risk trivializing the trivializing the bigotry in the setting, especially if that isn't what the game's conflict is centered on.

The player characters get to be exception, though. They challenge societal norms that are abject or harmful. If there's bigotry in the setting, they can stand in opposition to it. As a storyteller, the DM should actively look for ways to challenge the values of his or her players. I wouldn't play a paladin unless I expected to be tested, for example. If I roll up a cleric of Cayden Cailean that opposes slavery, I'm going to expect that the DM will include opportunities for my character to interact with cultures that are pro-slavery (or perhaps just a villain or two).

If the group determines ahead of time that they would like to explore themes of prejudice, whether race-based, gender-based, or whatever, then the DM is going to have to provide them with bigoted adversaries.

There's nothing trivial about that (or perhaps I'm just not understanding you correctly).

[Rynjin]

JonGarrett wrote:

Bigotry of this type also doesn't work well in a lot of fantasy settings. "I'm OK with elves sleeping with haflings, and dragons having it off with gnomes is fine, but two people of the same gender? NO!" It's even worse in Golarion. "No, I don't like women having sex with women. What do you mean, Sarenrae, Desna and Shelyn are involved? I, uh...crud."

Hence why I default NPC's to bisexual. It makes more sense for a game world like this. Obviously, it doesn't work that way in 1920's Call of Cthulhu - but they also don't have other races interacting with them, obvious magic and deities that get jiggy with each other (or at least I hope not...)

Isn't "everyone's a bisexual in my fantasy land" just as bad in the opposite extreme as "nobody's bi/homosexual in my fantasy land"?

[Detect Magic]

Drejk wrote:

That's it. I am adding a more prominent homosexual NPC couple or two to my game. A pair of middle-aged wizards or wizard and druid perhaps? We'll see.

Barbarian and wizard?

A pair of Ulfen shield-brothers (or maidens) might be interesting. Class-wise, I'd go fighter or barbarian.