LGBTitp - Part Six

[Asta Kask]

If the setting has a problem with homosexuals, then that can provide some interesting roleplay opportunities. Much like real-life homosexuals, homosexual characters do not go around with "GAY" on their foreheads. If they do, and it doesn't reflect a DM's real-life issues, then that, too, can make for interesting roleplay.

This has been my point since the beginning. We need then only ask - is it OK for a player to conceal something which may have a major affect on the campaign from the GM? I say the answer is no.

If the players have a problem with homosexuals/ity, then the game "problem" pales into insignificance against the real-life problems - which are theirs, not yours, even if it does effect you.

Again you leap to conclusions. They may just prefer not have it mix with their fantasy, even if they don't think bad of homosexuals in RL.

The presence of an LGBT thread and other LGBT support and the like reflects the unfortunately persistent - but fading - persecution and problems effecting that extremely broad group. However, it is also true that sexuality does not matter in any meaningful way, certainly not in any way relevant to a D&D game. If a player has a problem with a homosexual character, then that is the problem, not the character.

Agreed. I only pointed to the existence of this thread to make a point - that sexualityis not the non-issue you seemed to believe. That it's not only a matter of whether you hit on the waiter or the waitress. (And of course, not all people play D&D...)

[Delta]

This has been my point since the beginning. We need then only ask - is it OK for a player to conceal something which may have a major affect on the campaign from the GM? I say the answer is no.

Well, it really depends. Usually, I try to give the GM the information he needs to know, and not flood him with useless background information unless he specifically asks for it. So if from my experience, said GM doesn't really bring romance into his game, I might not say anything about the topic in the character background. Because, honestly, if I need to think of everything that MIGHT ever be important, it would be pretty much impossible to make a new character with less than 30-50 pages of background.

If he asks for it, of course I'll tell him, that should be obvious. And I'd expect my GM to ask me in advance "Would you mind if I insert a love interest in your character's background?" before actually doing it.

[Asta Kask]

Well, it really depends. Usually, I try to give the GM the information he needs to know, and not flood him with useless background information unless he specifically asks for it. So if from my experience, said GM doesn't really bring romance into his game, I might not say anything about the topic in the character background. Because, honestly, if I need to think of everything that MIGHT ever be important, it would be pretty much impossible to make a new character with less than 30-50 pages of background.

If he asks for it, of course I'll tell him, that should be obvious. And I'd expect my GM to ask me in advance "Would you mind if I insert a love interest in your character's background?" before actually doing it.

Yeah, that's pretty much my position too. Note: I spend a couple of hours with the player, going over the background of the character before I'm satisfied. Even then, I sometimes change my mind later.

[Serpentine]

This has been my point since the beginning. We need then only ask - is it OK for a player to conceal something which may have a major affect on the campaign from the GM? I say the answer is no.

And it is extremely unlikely that a character's mate preference would have a "major affect" on most campaigns - and players should probably be warned in advance if it is that sort of a campaign. It might be useful for the DM to know for plothook purposes and the like, but I would be extremely suspect of any DM for whom a gay character is a big deal - probably wouldn't continue playing with them, unless they had a very good reason for said big deal.
In what possible situation would someone who genuinely has no problem with homosexuality object to having it in their fantasy? Note my use of genuinely there. Because it smacks of "I'm not racist, but I'd rather keep black people out of my campaign world."

[Delta]

In what possible situation would someone who genuinely has no problem with homosexuality object to having it in their fantasy? Note my use of genuinely there. Because it smacks of "I'm not racist, but I'd rather keep black people out of my campaign world."

That's a good question IMHO, especially since we're talking about a situation here where the character's sexuality is neither obvious nor central to the concept or plot.

[Asta Kask]

And it is extremely unlikely that a character's mate preference would have a "major affect" on most campaigns - and players should probably be warned in advance if it is that sort of a campaign. It might be useful for the DM to know for plothook purposes and the like, but I would be extremely suspect of any DM for whom a gay character is a big deal - probably wouldn't continue playing with them, unless they had a very good reason for said big deal.

You're making assumptions again. I prefer to play in pseudo-historical settings (I am running a pseudo-Classical Greece campaign, where it obviously wouldn't be a problem*; and I am thinking about a pseudo-14th century German campaign, where it obviously would.) If you play in a Dark Heresy or a Warhammer campaign then homosexuality would be a gateway practice for Slaanesh worship.

In what possible situation would someone who genuinely has no problem with homosexuality object to having it in their fantasy? Note my use of genuinely there. Because it smacks of "I'm not racist, but I'd rather keep black people out of my campaign world."

Perhaps they want to recreate the stories of Thomas Mallory, Walter Scott or R.E. Howard, where homosexuality was altogether absent. Perhaps they realize that one player will play a flamboyant gay, and rather not have Liberace in their gritty Gothic fantasy. Perhaps they realize that the player will use it as a vehicle for developing their political ideas, and rather not have Harvey Milk in their light-hearted, romantic fantasy. And if I can come up with 3 ideas after five minutes of thinking, I can assure you that players can come up with more. And please, let's keep True Scotsmen out of this.

*in this campaign, however, the player who decided to play a woman (against my warning) is beginning to rue his choice.

[Serpentine]

Seriously? You're going to use those arguments... here?
If you think homosexuality was "entirely absent" in 14th century Germany, you're kidding yourself. If the setting means the character has to hide their homosexuality, then that is both historically sound and an interesting motivation for roleplay.
I really, really hope that your reference to Dark Heresy and Warhammer is based on their rules, but even if it is... that is some seriously suspect ruling right there. That's worrying for reasons beyond the current discussion.
I don't know those stories, but did every single character hook up with a member of the opposite sex and live happily ever after? If not, it's entirely possible that there were, in fact, homosexual characters - it just didn't come up. And no, in this context the author's intent is not relevant. Meyer wrote Edward as straight, and we know how that's gone.*
That last bunch is seriously stretching it. You could replace "gay" in each of those for, respectively, unicorn-riding princess, or Che Guevera. The problem there is genre awareness and communication, not the character's sexual preference.

*I went there

[Asta Kask]

Seriously? You're going to use those arguments... here?
If you think homosexuality was "entirely absent" in 14th century Germany, you're kidding yourself.

Read what I said again, please. I didn't say it was absent in 14th century Germany - obviously it wasn't. I said it would be a major point. Edit: My bad. I said it wasn't appropriate, what I meant was that it would be controversial and a major point in the campaign. In which case I as a GM want to know about it. If they want to live with it openly, then that will cause problems with the authorities. If they want to 'live the lie', then that will cause logistical problems.

I really, really hope that your reference to Dark Heresy and Warhammer is based on their rules, but even if it is... that is some seriously suspect ruling right there.

For some reason, they do not say that homosexuality is a gateway to Chaos (maybe because they would get accused of hate speech). But it's not an uncommon interpretation, given Slaanesh's nature.

I don't know those stories, but did every single character hook up with a member of the opposite sex and live happily ever after? If not, it's entirely possible that there were, in fact, homosexual characters - it just didn't come up.

Sir Thomas Malory wrote Le Morte d'Arthur - is he familiar? Do you think there were many happy homosexuals in 15th century England (although King Arthur is set in a fictional 5th century England. Still, probably not a gay-friendly place.)

Sir Walter Scott wrote Ivanhoe and Rob Roy. If you haven't read them, do. Again, 13th century England was not a gay-friendly country. Look up Edward II and his death if you don't believe me (although that was during 14th century.)

Robert E. Howard wrote the Conan stories. You may have heard of Conan. There's little to indicate whether homosexuality was a major factor, but we know that REH believed very strongly in the 'barbarian healthy lifestyle' vs. 'decadent civilization' issue. Given the time in which he live, it would not be a stretch to say that homosexuality belonged in decadent civilization.

But you're missing my point. The point was not that there weren't homosexuals in these worlds, but that they don't appear in the stories. And if you want to maintain the feel of the stories, then they should not appear 'openly' in the world. And if that is the case, then having an 'out' character swears against feel of the stories.

That last bunch is seriously stretching it. You could replace "gay" in each of those for, respectively, unicorn-riding princess, or Che Guevera. The problem there is genre awareness and communication, not the character's sexual preference.

If a PC in my Classical Greece Campaign, one of the PCs outed herself as a unicorn-riding princess or himself as Che Guevara, I'd be pretty miffed too.

Anyway, I spent 5 minutes on the problem. I'll now come with a stronger rebuttal. "You can't imagine it, so therefore it cannot be" is not a valid argument. My imagination is not the golden standard by what all arguments should be measured. It is enough that this can be a problem for my argument to be valid. Which is again, not that homosexual characters should be barred, but that if it could be a major issue* in the campaign I as a GM will want to know about it in advance. Why is this such a difficult proposition to swallow?

*which is not the same as 'there are no homosexuals in the campaign world'. I didn't think I would have to add that last segment, but apparently I do.

[Serpentine]

All the possible situations, leaving aside real-life homophobia, in which having a gay character could be a problem are such a serious stretch I cannot imagine it being a serious concern, much less a valid reason to tell someone off for having a character who happens to be homosexual, especially as the specific character was stated as been, if not actually "in the closet", then not particularly open about it - certainly no Liberace. Like I said, unless you can demonstrate that every character in those stories had long and fulfilling heterosexual relationships, you cannot definitively say that there were no characters that could be homosexual in them and therefore you cannot ban homosexual characters on that basis. More to the point, a character can be gay without poncing about and hitting on every member of the same sex that passes by. Seriously, do you honestly expect every gay character to be a Liberace or Harvey Milk? The progenitor of this discussion even stated that it "will come out eventually" - pretty definitely indicating that the character is not exactly flaunting it, and may even be hiding it, in a manner that would render invalid almost every scenario you've put forward.

No, I can't imagine it, and that does not, indeed, mean that they don't exist, but they are so incredibly rare and situation-specific that they are almost certainly by far exceptions to the rule. Your blanket statement that a character's sexuality is, as a matter of fact, a "big deal" or likely to "have a major effect on the campaign", is absolute rubbish. Every example you've given is incredibly niche, or just plain wrong. With some minor exceptions that a player would almost certainly know about ahead of times, a character's sexuality is simply not "that major". If it is, it's almost certainly an attitude problem that ought to be fixed anyway.

Summary: all your examples are exceptions, not norms. Any setting or that has to go to so much effort to exclude even the possibility of a privately gay character is suspect from the outset.
[/rant]

[Asta Kask]

More to the point, a character can be gay without poncing about and hitting on every member of the same sex that passes by. Seriously, do you honestly expect every gay character to be a Liberace or Harvey Milk?

No, so it's a good thing I never said that. I said... oh, what's the point, you've already read it once. Reading it once again won't change your mind.

The progenitor of this discussion even stated that it "will come out eventually" - pretty definitely indicating that the character is not exactly flaunting it, and may even be hiding it, in a manner that would render invalid almost every scenario you've put forward.

I guess I read that differently. I read the 'no one knows, not even the DM' as indicating more of a 'big reveal'. Which would indicate a major change and role in the character.

No, I can't imagine it, and that does not, indeed, mean that they don't exist, but they are so incredibly rare and situation-specific that they are almost certainly by far exceptions to the rule.

This I must see. What evidence do you have to support this? If you've been sitting on hard data all along, why did you ask me?

Your blanket statement that a character's sexuality is, as a matter of fact, a "big deal" or likely to "have a major effect on the campaign", is absolute rubbish. Every example you've given is incredibly niche, or just plain wrong. With some minor exceptions that a player would almost certainly know about ahead of times, a character's sexuality is simply not "that major". If it is, it's almost certainly an attitude problem that ought to be fixed anyway.
[/rant]

In the campaigns you're playing. Here's an important thing to consider: "You are not the Golden Standard for the world's role-players." You may be shocked to find out that there are people out there who do not even play d20 campaigns! You make these assumptions all the time.

I prefer pseudo-historical settings, and there it is important. I spoke about my campaigns, and that I would like to know about this beforehand. Because in my campaigns, it matters. If it doesn't matter in your campaigns - well, those are your campaigns and I wouldn't tell you how to run them. I would appreciate it if this courtesy would be returned. And if you wish to draw the conclusion that I harbor "an attitude problem that ought to be fixed anyway" because sexuality matters in them - well, let's just say you may want to register in World Championship for Long Jump (Conclusions)...

[Serpentine]

If having a character's preferred love interest change gender pronouns so profoundly impacts the tone of your game, then I think you... are seriously inflating the significance of sexuality. How is
"Kronag is a barbarian from the South. His boyfriend was slaughtered by invading pirates. He quests to seek revenge for the death of his mate."
so incredibly and condemningly different to
"Kronag is a barbarian from the South. His girlfriend was slaughtered by invading pirates. He quests to seek revenge for the death of his mate."?

If I have to produce hard evidence that character sexuality is irrelevant to the majority of games, then you also have to produce hard evidence that it has "major" impact on most of them. So far, you haven't given any convincing examples. Your criticism of me in this circumstance applies exactly as much to you, especially as you're the one criticising someone else on your own preferred games.

The fact is, a homosexual character is in no way incompatible with a historic-themed campaign. A total flamer who hits on every member of their sex in public, maybe (but see: dandies and the like), but that isn't what we're talking about. I would question seriously my participation in any game in which a gay character was viewed with such suspicion out of game.

By the by, regarding

For some reason, they do not say that homosexuality is a gateway to Chaos (maybe because they would get accused of hate speech). But it's not an uncommon interpretation, given Slaanesh's nature.

With good reason! I'm very uninterested in Warhammer to start with, but as far as I'm concerned this is one more nail in its coffin.

edit: Starting an argument in a thread not meant for me, again. Sorry, LGBTers

[Rappy]

Bah. I may be relatively new to actually posting in these threads openly, but I've been reading them for a while, and you seem to definitely be a straight but not narrow type, Serps. There's no need to kick you out of here when we like your presence.

[Serpentine]

You haven't seen all my arguments

[golentan]

You haven't seen all my arguments

Bah, humbug. You will stay here until we give you permission to leave!

LGBTitp, Assemble! We go to kidnap the vipermorph! No funny business while we have her tied up. You know who you are.

Seriously, it's nice to have you around.

[Asta Kask]

If having a character's preferred love interest change gender pronouns so profoundly impacts the tone of your game, then I think you... are seriously inflating the significance of sexuality. How is
"Kronag is a barbarian from the South. His boyfriend was slaughtered by invading pirates. He quests to seek revenge for the death of his mate."
so incredibly and condemningly different to
"Kronag is a barbarian from the South. His girlfriend was slaughtered by invading pirates. He quests to seek revenge for the death of his mate."?

That depends on the setting. We know zilch about Kronag, but I do know that homosexuals were not treated kindly in the major 'barbarian' cultures in Europe. If Kronag had to flee his homeland because he was homosexual, wouldn't this have a major impact on his character? It would mitigate his disgust for civilization. If he finds that the one's who killed his beloved are also the ones who are willing to accept him for what he is, isn't this a major point? Won't the conflicting emotions - lust for vengeance, relief at being accepted, guilt for finding a new home among the people who killed his boyfriend - add an entirely new layer to the character that a skilled roleplayer can pick up and run with?

Three possible reason to make sexuality a major issue in some of the RPG world's cultures:
A) historical verisimilitude. We've been through this.
B) dramatic/illustrating purposes. I may make the evil empire violently homophobic for the same reason I make them racists and slavers - as an illustration of evil.
C) storytelling purposes. An adventure may involve a noble who wants to keep his secret from coming out.

If I have to produce hard evidence that character sexuality is irrelevant to the majority of games, then you also have to produce hard evidence that it has "major" impact on most of them.

Nope. My claim was that it was important in my games. Your claim was about all games across the globe. Big difference. I can prove that it's important in my games.

The fact is, a homosexual character is in no way incompatible with a historic-themed campaign. A total flamer who hits on every member of their sex in public, maybe (but see: dandies and the like), but that isn't what we're talking about. I would question seriously my participation in any game in which a gay character was viewed with such suspicion out of game.

It's not a matter of suspecting the character, it's a matter of knowing the player. And if you suggest that I kick him out I suggest you find me another one.

edit: Starting an argument in a thread not meant for me, again. Sorry, LGBTers

At last something we can agree on. Should we call it a day or should we start a new thread in the RPG system.

[Serpentine]

Golly: Quick, tell me I'm right

That depends on the setting. We know zilch about Kronag, but I do know that homosexuals were not treated kindly in the major 'barbarian' cultures in Europe.

1. I'm not entirely sure about that. As far as I know, we don't really know all that much about them, either way. 2. Who says it's gotta be that way in this campaign in order to maintain the genre?

If Kronag had to flee his homeland because he was homosexual, wouldn't this have a major impact on his character?

1. Who says anyone in his homeland knew about his homosexuality? 2. Who says that's why he fled? In my example, I even said his reason for adventuring was revenge, not flight. 3. Why would that be a bad thing?

It would mitigate his disgust for civilization. If he finds that the one's who killed his beloved are also the ones who are willing to accept him for what he is, isn't this a major point? Won't the conflicting emotions - lust for vengeance, relief at being accepted, guilt for finding a new home among the people who killed his boyfriend - add an entirely new layer to the character that a skilled roleplayer can pick up and run with?

...why are you making this a negative point? Sounds great, to me.

Three possible reason to make sexuality a major issue in some of the RPG world's cultures:
A) historical verisimilitude. We've been through this.

Yes, and it's irrelevant or very easily gotten around, by no means necessarily a negative or major issue as you imply (or, rather, outright state).

B) dramatic/illustrating purposes. I may make the evil empire violently homophobic for the same reason I make them racists and slavers - as an illustration of evil.

You could, and won't that make it interesting for the character as they come out? I concede that in this sort of situation it's probably best for the DM to know in advance, but that doesn't make it a "major issue", just something that would make it easier for the DM - like knowing a character was adopted, or a noble.

C) storytelling purposes. An adventure may involve a noble who wants to keep his secret from coming out.

As above. A reason to inform the DM (not, actually, something I disagree with), but definitely not a "big deal".

Nope. My claim was that it was important in my games. Your claim was about all games across the globe. Big difference. I can prove that it's important in my games.

You said that you, as a DM, you would not be pleased with having that information withheld. Fair enough. Then you state that it is "major" as a statement of universal fact. It is that universal importance that I am protesting, and of which you have yet to give any convincing evidence.

It's not a matter of suspecting the character, it's a matter of knowing the player. And if you suggest that I kick him out I suggest you find me another one.

I suggest that if you can't "trust" a character to play a homosexual, there's a good chance they shouldn't be playing one. Or there's something up with your expectations of homosexual characters, but that's neither here nor there. The same thing goes for any other player, and any other type of character. Not sure why you're expecting me to suggest kicking them out

[Asta Kask]

Here's something to look at while I put together my answer.

[Worira]

With good reason! I'm very uninterested in Warhammer to start with, but as far as I'm concerned this is one more nail in its coffin.

It bothers you that an oppressive, xenophobic theocracy, with an absolute intolerance of anything regarded as even slightly out of the norm, is homophobic?

[Asta Kask]

It bothers you that an oppressive, xenophobic theocracy, with an absolute intolerance of anything regarded as even slightly out of the norm, is homophobic?

No, but it means that she doesn't want to play as agents of that Empire...

What's so horrible is that the Empire may be right. Even if atypical behavior - of any kind! - may be innocuous in and of itself, it increases the risk of a Chaos Incursion and those are very bad. Do you kill a 100 innocent but misguided people, or do you risk an incursion that may mean the entire planet has to be sterilized. It's the problem of the misguided atheist in Plato's Laws. Plato took collectivism to it's utmost and declared that anyone who harms the state's the interest - even if completely benevolent - must be rooted out. The Emperor seems to take a similar stance. Do the players dare to do the same?

[Murdim]

That depends on the setting. We know zilch about Kronag, but I do know that homosexuals were not treated kindly in the major 'barbarian' cultures in Europe. If Kronag had to flee his homeland because he was homosexual, wouldn't this have a major impact on his character? It would mitigate his disgust for civilization. If he finds that the one's who killed his beloved are also the ones who are willing to accept him for what he is, isn't this a major point? Won't the conflicting emotions - lust for vengeance, relief at being accepted, guilt for finding a new home among the people who killed his boyfriend - add an entirely new layer to the character that a skilled roleplayer can pick up and run with?

Well, you're right. If there's a major event in your character's backstory that is directly linked to his sexuality, it would be a good idea to inform the DM of this event, and consequently of the character's homosexuality. Duh. That doesn't make sexual orientation important by itself, but rather, the way it might emerge before or during the adventure. Even then, when it emerges in game, your players aren't supposed to be aware that you don't want to have to deal with the consequences of their character's sexuality. Sure, there's nothing wrong with asking them not to do this if you don't want to, but I don't think you're justified in putting the blame on the player for not having asked your permission before making a gay character.

[golentan]

Vipermorph: I think you're right.

DnD (and most other fantasy settings) aren't actually historically accurate. You can play a female character, who goes out and about without the permission of her husband and is considered an equal member of society. With property rights and everything. Oh my god, how immoral!

I think that the fear of including gay characters is stupid. The reflexive "But they might do X" is a ridiculous reason to ban them. If X is bad, then say "Don't do X." Problem solved. It's like claiming "I don't want a gay person in the same apartment building, they might try to seduce me." If you're that homophobic, we have better prospects. And why are you so obsessed with gay people seducing you?

It really, really shouldn't be a plot point, and if it is it says more about the other people's issues than anything else. Most gay characters will never play out any romantic entanglement, any more than most straight players. Most gay characters won't be as gay as the 14th century tradition of kissing a friend when you meet them. If it comes up, you can deal with it as a RP incident when that happens, but it's probably not something that needs to be disclosed before the game. And don't get me started on what medieval sailors did. I'll leave it at "They were so desperate for company they called Manatees mermaids. Manatees. Looked feminine enough to consider going a couple rounds with."

As for the existence of this thread indicating it is an issue, we're more of a support group for people coming out (at least in theory) and a collective resource than a "Band together against the straight people" or "straight people in this forum won't let us take part."

As for Warhammer 40k's stance on homosexuality... Well... *cough* Magot and Grifen *cough.* There seems to be canon that people don't particularly care, or if they do it's a regional/planetary thing rather than the sort of stuff that makes inquisitors shout "HERETIC!". There seems to be canon that it ties to Slaanesh. But I mean, come on. So does normal sex. So does "true love." And everything the Imperium's military has ever done ever helps Khorne, at least tangentially. For crying out loud, every time someone sets a goal or tries to improve themselves Tzeentch gets a power boost. And when you give up on something, hell, every time you get the sniffles, Papa Nurgle smiles and pats your soul on the back (metaphorically speaking). There's nothing that people do that doesn't tempt chaos. The only way to avoid it is to sit in a sensory deprivation tank, preferably in a coma.

[albis]

Just popping in after a lot of time spent just lurking but...
I have not read the entirety of the discussion, but... where's the big deal?

In the last campaign I was in, I had a gay character and it wasn't a problem in any way...
I'd say, none of the players nor the DM had any problems with homexuals-homosexuality... but still, it only was fun...
The fact that it was gay also just came up in the story at some point, because, as an elf, he was pretty androgynous and the other players had to roll 2d10 to see if their characters would see him as male or female XD
after a while of not knowing what gender my character actually was, our group's warrior (the only one who rolled a perfect 50%) started randomly hitting on my elf... and some time after that, our DM asked me: "So, how you plan to react to him? Is your character gay?"
I just answered "Yeah, but he won't fall for the warrior -though he will have tons of fun messing with him until it's found out that he's male."
..and that was the end of it.
The character was discovered male, though the warrior kept sort-of hitting on him out of habit and their banter of sorts stayed like that more or less until the end.


...um, so... the real problem is how to fit a gay character in a campaign, or what would the other players and the DM think of you if you say you have a gay character? I seriously don't understand the problem if it's not that...

[Asta Kask]

1. I'm not entirely sure about that. As far as I know, we don't really know all that much about them, either way. 2. Who says it's gotta be that way in this campaign in order to maintain the genre?

1. The Celts, for instance, sacrificed homosexuals to one of their gods (Essus, I think). It doesn't get worse than the death penalty. And if you read the Edda, you'll find that male homosexuality and men doing womenly duties was not looked upon favorably (See Lokasenna).

...why are you making this a negative point? Sounds great, to me.

It is great. But if you set "Sexuality Important" to OFF, you kill all such possibilities. See what you lose?

Yes, and it's irrelevant or very easily gotten around, by no means necessarily a negative or major issue as you imply (or, rather, outright state).

You think coming out or living as a homosexual was a minor thing in medieval Germany? Or 2nd-century (B.C.) Rome? It's not a minor thing for many of the people in this thread, and the 21st century is comparatively enlightened. If you have information of Pride Parades in 15th century Germany, 13th century England or 2nd century (B.C.) Rome, please give them.

You could, and won't that make it interesting for the character as they come out? I concede that in this sort of situation it's probably best for the DM to know in advance, but that doesn't make it a "major issue", just something that would make it easier for the DM - like knowing a character was adopted, or a noble.

I want to know in advance if the character is a noble. I want to know in advance if a character is adopted. I'm not treating homosexuality any different, and I'm beginning to suspect we have radically different thresholds for what is 'important'.

You said that you, as a DM, you would not be pleased with having that information withheld. Fair enough. Then you state that it is "major" as a statement of universal fact. It is that universal importance that I am protesting, and of which you have yet to give any convincing evidence.

That was not my intention. If I have given that impression then I take it back. It's a major issue in some of my games.

I suggest that if you can't "trust" a character to play a homosexual, there's a good chance they shouldn't be playing one.

And if that person 'comes out' mid-campaign, do I have the right to feel miffed?

DnD (and most other fantasy settings) aren't actually historically accurate.

However, I don't play in most fantasy settings. I play in mine (or, more accurately, I GM in them.) So why should I care about how the rest do it?

[Lix Lorn]

If I were GMing, I probably wouldn't care, but I'd want extensive backgrounds, so. XD

[Danne]

I'm actually going to side with Asta Kask on this one, not because I think homosexuality in roleplay is a big deal but because it's something that is an important part of the character's background and that the GM should know ahead of time.

If my character is adopted, or has children, or is avenging the murder of his or her boy/girlfriend, I would tell this to the GM because it is important backstory that affects how I play the character and may (or may not) have an effect on the game itself. If I, as a white gamer, were to decide to play a black character, I would tell this to the GM ahead of time because the GM would assume my character was white (the same way she would assume that my African-American friend's character is black) and I would want to clear that up beforehand. I specify the gender of my character beforehand (or I say, "I'm playing a character who is gender ambiguous!") because all of these points can have an effect (from minor to crucially important, depending on the campaign) on the gameplay.

If my sci-fi character was raised on a spaceship, I would tell the GM this because then the GM knows that I'd be familiar with spaceship-related activities (how 0G feels, how to pilot a spaceship), and this may or may not ever come up in the campaign itself, but it does mean the GM won't ever make the mistake of saying something like, "You make it to the spaceship safely, but you don't know how pilot one, so the evil aliens capture you anyway," and I won't need to tell her, "Dude, I was raised on a spaceship. Of course I know how to pilot one." If my fantasy character grew up on a horse ranch, then he or she clearly knows a lot about horses, and this may not ever be important, but if, say, someone needs to deliver an important message by sunset so that the goodly king knows that the evil army is marching on his castle, then the GM knows that I'm the logical one to send instead of the kid from the mining town who couldn't ride a horse to save his life. Maybe the other characters don't know those details yet because I'm a secretive character, but it prevents the GM from inadvertantly digging us into a hole.

In the same way, if my character is gay, I would let the GM know, even if I don't tell the other players because my character isn't "out." There may not be any romance planned for the campaign, but it gives the GM more details about the character that might be useful, even in a minor way, at some point in the game. Whether those details are minor ("I flirt with the waiter, hoping that he knows something about my missing friend." "Cool, he's gay, too, so that's a bonus to your gather information check.") or major ("The dystopian government your character is trying to overthrow is homophobic and has used your character's homosexuality as an excuse to arrest a suspected rebel leader. Now your friends need to rescue you.") is up to the GM, but it's a good thing for him or her to know.

Of course, I come from the "More data!" and the "Backstory is the best thing ever!" schools of thought, so others might play differently.

[Coidzor]

In what possible situation would someone who genuinely has no problem with homosexuality object to having it in their fantasy? Note my use of genuinely there. Because it smacks of "I'm not racist, but I'd rather keep black people out of my campaign world."

Oh, great, we were going to be fighting the Hobgoblin Military-Industrial Complex, but because we had to go and make the campaign about homosexuality due to Edgar's actions in the tavern attracting the thought police's attention, we're having to deal with the Paladins' Inquisition.

Now, if it's just a part of the character and hasn't come up in play then I have no idea how it could be an issue.

So, depending upon the setting, it can lead to a major plot derail. Which for some reason people really don't like or can't roll with very well, if the things DMs and players complain about on the boards are any indication. That seems to be the biggest potential problem that could be had with the addition of that spice to a game. And the only one I can think of.

And please, let's keep True Scotsmen out of this.

Bu-...Bu-... *hangs head and leaves the thread*

[Beelzebub1111]

Perhaps I should elaborate on my gay/bi (still undecided) bard. He is traveling the flaness and beyond to search for the lost works of bardic knowledge in order to compile them into "The Hero's Enchiridion" A handbook for heroes regardless of race or alignment.

Right now he tries to be the classical "Monster-slaying, speech-giving, damsel-saving" type of hero. He'll always save a damsel in distress (no matter how obvious a trap it is) not because he's gullible or naive or even because he's attracted to her, it's because it's what Heroes do. So if called upon to rescue a noble's daughter from the castle of evil, he'll do it because it's simply his nature.

Now how does the gay fit into that? It doesn't. not that aspect of his personality, anyways. It'll probably come up off-hand. I recall one time when we were in the elven kingdom of Seline when somebody else's character (male) with a high comeliness (alternate rules from Unearthed Arcana) attracted a male restaurant owner which we exploited for information and a free night at the inn. If something similar happened to this character (the bard wasn't around when that happened) It would go down more like this:
"You find an invitation to a dinner from that fancy restaurant owner"
"Was he hot?"
rather than the other player's reaction:
"You find an invitation to a dinner from that fancy restaurant owner"
"Hahah! what?"

a very slight difference.

[Asta Kask]

Now how does the gay fit into that? It doesn't. not that aspect of his personality, anyways. It'll probably come up off-hand. I recall one time when we were in the elven kingdom of Seline when somebody else's character (male) with a high comeliness (alternate rules from Unearthed Arcana) attracted a male restaurant owner which we exploited for information and a free night at the inn. If something similar happened to this character (the bard wasn't around when that happened) It would go down more like this:
"You find an invitation to a dinner from that fancy restaurant owner"
"Was he hot?"
rather than the other player's reaction:
"You find an invitation to a dinner from that fancy restaurant owner"
"Hahah! what?"

a very slight difference.

I thought it was going to be a big reveal.

The point I' trying to make is that a) if you don't make it a big deal, you may miss a lot of good roleplaying opportunities; b) that, since sexuality is a major force in history, having all cultures have a blanket "we don't care" attitude ruptures my suspension of disbelief; c) if it is a big deal in the campaign world, I as a DM want to be told.

And with that, I think I'll close my participation in this debate.

[Lix Lorn]

I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding, and our differences in opinion are very minor. Let's move on?

[Asta Kask]

Highly probable. An Internet forum isn't the best place for a discussion (as opposed to a debate). And I could probably make my point better in Swedish...