What to Watch Out for in Your Players

[Koo Rehtorb]

How DARE people care about things and then discuss them on the internet? Don't they know that expressing themselves is painfully uncool and they should slouch in a corner saying "Whatever, dude" instead?

[War_lord]

Cus as we all know, the parts of the internet were everyone covers themselves in a shield of apathy and "ironic memes" are the height of discussion.

[Delta]

See, I'm not seriously involved with any discussion in this thread anymore... because I know full well that trying to debate with people online is utterly pointless.

I can only speak for myself of course, but in the last two decades, discussions very much like these have changed a lot about the way I play and approach problems that come up during play. So I think calling it utterly pointless is taking it a bit too far.

I mean, if having debates is pointless, what's the point of a forum like this?

[MrSandman]

Spoiler: Breaking up the debate with a dank meme (and getting it in before this thread is locked)

Show

Personally, I find it funny and rather pertinent. You guys will fire at me because I'm frivolous and I don't tackle a delicate issue with all the care it needs, but there is a huge point behind that meme.

Here, several people have been accusing each other of being red flags (on several of the topics that have been brought up). This kinda points that the problem is not so much particular people but the intolerance of both sides on an issue, which kinda leads us back to what someone said earlier about the only real red flags being unwillingness to talk and compromise.

So, in sum? You get a red flag, I get a red flag, and my neighbour gets a red flag.

[Knaight]

Here, several people have been accusing each other of being red flags (on several of the topics that have been brought up). This kinda points that the problem is not so much particular people but the intolerance of both sides on an issue, which kinda leads us back to what someone said earlier about the only real red flags being unwillingness to talk and compromise.

This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.

[MrSandman]

This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.

I don't know what you boil it with, but that's not it. I never said or implied that both sides on any conflict must be responsible.

Or, sorry, sorry. Let me change my answer. This boils down to "you're a red flag," which kinda proves my point. Yes, I think I'm getting the knack of arguing on the Internet.

[Delta]

I don't know what you boil it with, but that's not it. I never said or implied that both sides on any conflict must be responsible.

The problem is, "everyone should always be willing to compromise" effectively boils down to the same thing, it legitimizes every position on every issue, and that is both dangerous and wrong in my experience. On some things, you should not be willing to compromise.

To make a very simple example to illustrate the issue: If one player steals stuff (real life stuff, to make that clear) from other players around the table, no, I do not have to compromise with that player. He needs to stop stealing stuff, it's that simple, I think we can all agree on that?

[War_lord]

The center point between any two positions is not inherently the sensible one. That's false equivalence.

[WindStruck]

Yes.. everyone should be able to express themselves on the forums!

...except me, and my memes, trying to make a joke....

carry on

This boils down to "a conflict exists, therefore both sides must be responsible", which is abject nonsense.

More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

[Delta]

More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.

[Knaight]

More like, a conflict exists, and most people involved either happen to be or are accusing each other of being responsible for it. And if you try to "boil" that statement down further, you'll inevitably lose pertinent information, so of course whatever you come up with after will be "nonsense".

Assuming that any conflict where both sides blame the other must also be the fault of both sides is also ridiculous. That restriction doesn't help at all. If anything it hurts it - conflicts with an actual distinct aggressor are going to lean towards the recipient blaming the aggressor for their aggression, and the aggressor blaming the recipient so that they don't have to take responsibility.

[Elanasaurus]

But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.

Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.

[Delta]

Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.

Okay, now we're down to semantics, but you're of course right, technically. But the point I was trying to make is still valid, there are conflicts where one party is simply in the wrong, and the other is in the right.

To get back to the topic that started it all and trying to put it into constructive terms: Asking "I'm not comfortable handling sexual or romantic topics around the table, can we leave those out?" is completely legitimate. But saying "I don't want to roleplay with gay characters!" simply is not. In the first case, yes, it's valid to ask for everyone around the table to be willing to compromise. But in the second case, it's just as valid for the other players to say "No." and leave it at that.

[2D8HP]

Moving away from serious stuff with real world resonance...

...besides how someone smells, most "red flags" for me are related to play style:

Do they want gunslingers?

Do they like Naruto or The Seven Samurai more?

Ars Magica or Pendragon?

Hide, sneak, and/or ambush or a conga-line of melee with whatever?

More murder or more hobo?

World savin' or survivin'?

Demi-gods or rat-catchers?

Champions or Call of Cthullu?

Do they even know who Errol Flynn was?

The main 'red flag' is: "No Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotations at the table", and if "Ni", "a shrubbery", "use the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch", "Please, this is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker about who killed who", "Look, let me go back in there and face the peril, it's my duty as a knight to sample as much peril as I can", and "Oh, let me have just a little bit of peril?", are all right out then I'm going:

"By Grabthar's hammer, by the suns of Worvan, you shall be avenged!"

"Demon Dogs!"

"What is best in life?

"This goes to eleven".

"What about you centurion, do you think there's anything funny?"

"When do we get there?" "Real soon!"

Otherwise, where's the sport?

[Delta]

Moving away from serious stuff with real world resonance...

...besides how someone smells, most "red flags" for me are related to play style:

Do they want gunslingers?

Do they like Naruto or The Seven Samurai more?

Ars Magica or Pendragon?

Hide, sneak, and/or ambush or a conga-line of melee with whatever?

More murder or more hobo?

World savin' or survivin'?

Demi-gods or rat-catchers?

Champions or Call of Cthullu?

Do they even know who Errol Flynn was?

Those are some good questions, although I think neither answer is a "red flag" by itself, it only becomes a red flag if the player looks at me as if I'm crazy for even asking the question because the answer is self-evident.

[Arbane]

The main 'red flag' is: "No Monty Python and the Holy Grail quotations at the table"

This is why my group has 'the imaginary reference jar'. Whenever anyone quotes Python (or pretty much any pop-culture quote), they have to mime putting a dollar in the jar.

Oddly, it does seem to help keep the quoting down.

[WindStruck]

But doesn't the same I said above apply here? Sometimes, only one side is responsible for a conflict. It happens. In some conflicts, not every side needs to be willing to compromise.

No, it doesn't apply. I am not talking conflicts in general. I am talking about this conflict.

It's not an argument along the lines of, there is a conflict, and therefore X. I am flat out stating, regarding this particular conflict, that many people are being very trigger happy, and this judgmental passing out of red flags based on what other people would throw a red flag for is ironic and getting a little ridiculous.

[Calthropstu]

Both sides are always responsible for the conflict, even if all one side did was to refuse to lie down and shut up. Conflict's often good.

To be fair, aren't these games generally all based on conflict?

[Delta]

To be fair, aren't these games generally all based on conflict?

Not on social conflicts between players, no.

[VincentTakeda]

If my player wants to play a gelatinous cube... Is the character's gender 'fluid'?

[Segev]

I mean if someone tells you that your right to existence is questionable due to your sexuality, or for whatever reason really...it's not surprising that's not a person you want to associate with. I'd feel much the same way, as would most people I think.

I have seen this used as an accusation many times. I've been accused of it many times. But I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody who is not a supporter of militant gay and "gender spectrum" politics (which I differentiate from merely happening to identify as something that would fall under the umbrella) use the phrasing that gay/trans/etc. people "don't have a right to exist."

It seems a popular thing to accuse those who don't agree with the politics of believing, but I haven't actually seen it spouted by any real people. It seems a straw man, to me. And I'm sure you can find an example or two, if only because there are people who will always advocate for extermination of whatever they dislike. But to hold it up as if it were some sort of majority opinion, even amongst those who simply oppose the militant agenda, is ridiculous and either the result of successful fear-mongering, or deliberately insulting.

It's as ludicrous as if I claimed that environmentalists told me I had no right to exist because I happen to like having a car. No environmentalist that anybody takes seriously - at least to my knowledge - has advocated for the murder/extermination of people who drive cars.

Speaking as a Christian of the Mormon denomination, our Prophet has never advocated anything but love and understanding towards those who fall into the discussed categories. No, we don't agree with their conclusions, even about themselves. But that doesn't mean we want to hurt them, deny their personhood, or in any way even interfere in their lives if they don't wish us to.

Those who use slurs and who spout nastiness are mean people.

Those who simply do not agree that a particular belief about human nature is true are not mean. They just think you're factually wrong.

I can be friends with people who think I'm factually wrong on a number of issues. I can be friends with people I think are factually wrong on a number of issues. As long as neither of us are trying to force the other to live their lives the way we want them to, rather than the way they wish to, there's no need to be hostile over it. Maybe concerned; I mean, if you saw a friend doing something you thought was dangerous or foolish and which you felt would lead them to misery (perhaps dating a man or woman who you are certain is just using him, or who has more issues than National Geographic and will tear his or her life apart with them), you'd be worried and probably advise against it, but there also would likely come a point where you'd just try to be there for them, even if you didn't feel you could support the marriage he or she was talking about having with this person.

But that's not hateful. That's disagreement about reality and concern that the choices being made and the beliefs your friend has are harmful to your friend.



Honestly, bringing this back around to the topic, a red flag is anybody who wants to highlight their personal politics, sexual identity, or religious beliefs in a game where it isn't welcome. You can be gay or trans without it being a character-defining trait for your character, let alone it being a major theme of a game. You can be conservative and Christian without it being something that your character has to preach to every passing peasant. The Christian God probably doesn't even exist in the campaign setting.

Tolerance is good. So is temperance. IF you know there's a hot button issue, don't press the button. This goes both ways, because there are some things where simply saying, "Don't bring it up," is basically asking one side to cede to the other entirely. The red flag is when somebody is unwilling to tolerate things just coming up, or if somebody tries to force it inappropriately.

And, honestly, there is nothing wrong with people who have incompatible game desires not playing together. The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) asking that romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!).

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous territory.

And even if there's a double standard, that's fine. If the table really doesn't like homosexuality but is fine with heterosexual romance, then part in peace if you want the former. IF a table likes having a lot of homosexual relationships (I've seen more than a few fictional stories and web comics - and even Marvel comics - where the gay couples vastly outnumbered the hetero- ones, and the hetero- couple was dysfunctional), and you want a heterosexual romance that they're uncomfortable with, part ways amicably and go find a table more to your liking.

Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

If you use "TOLERANCE!" as a bludgeon to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.

[Knaight]

It's not an argument along the lines of, there is a conflict, and therefore X. I am flat out stating, regarding this particular conflict, that many people are being very trigger happy, and this judgmental passing out of red flags based on what other people would throw a red flag for is ironic and getting a little ridiculous.

Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

[Calthropstu]

I have seen this used as an accusation many times. I've been accused of it many times. But I can honestly say that I have never heard anybody who is not a supporter of militant gay and "gender spectrum" politics (which I differentiate from merely happening to identify as something that would fall under the umbrella) use the phrasing that gay/trans/etc. people "don't have a right to exist."

It seems a popular thing to accuse those who don't agree with the politics of believing, but I haven't actually seen it spouted by any real people. It seems a straw man, to me. And I'm sure you can find an example or two, if only because there are people who will always advocate for extermination of whatever they dislike. But to hold it up as if it were some sort of majority opinion, even amongst those who simply oppose the militant agenda, is ridiculous and either the result of successful fear-mongering, or deliberately insulting.

It's as ludicrous as if I claimed that environmentalists told me I had no right to exist because I happen to like having a car. No environmentalist that anybody takes seriously - at least to my knowledge - has advocated for the murder/extermination of people who drive cars.

Speaking as a Christian of the Mormon denomination, our Prophet has never advocated anything but love and understanding towards those who fall into the discussed categories. No, we don't agree with their conclusions, even about themselves. But that doesn't mean we want to hurt them, deny their personhood, or in any way even interfere in their lives if they don't wish us to.

Those who use slurs and who spout nastiness are mean people.

Those who simply do not agree that a particular belief about human nature is true are not mean. They just think you're factually wrong.

I can be friends with people who think I'm factually wrong on a number of issues. I can be friends with people I think are factually wrong on a number of issues. As long as neither of us are trying to force the other to live their lives the way we want them to, rather than the way they wish to, there's no need to be hostile over it. Maybe concerned; I mean, if you saw a friend doing something you thought was dangerous or foolish and which you felt would lead them to misery (perhaps dating a man or woman who you are certain is just using him, or who has more issues than National Geographic and will tear his or her life apart with them), you'd be worried and probably advise against it, but there also would likely come a point where you'd just try to be there for them, even if you didn't feel you could support the marriage he or she was talking about having with this person.

But that's not hateful. That's disagreement about reality and concern that the choices being made and the beliefs your friend has are harmful to your friend.



Honestly, bringing this back around to the topic, a red flag is anybody who wants to highlight their personal politics, sexual identity, or religious beliefs in a game where it isn't welcome. You can be gay or trans without it being a character-defining trait for your character, let alone it being a major theme of a game. You can be conservative and Christian without it being something that your character has to preach to every passing peasant. The Christian God probably doesn't even exist in the campaign setting.

Tolerance is good. So is temperance. IF you know there's a hot button issue, don't press the button. This goes both ways, because there are some things where simply saying, "Don't bring it up," is basically asking one side to cede to the other entirely. The red flag is when somebody is unwilling to tolerate things just coming up, or if somebody tries to force it inappropriately.

And, honestly, there is nothing wrong with people who have incompatible game desires not playing together. The ultra-religious girl who doesn't want sex at the table (especially not gay sex) asking that romance not be played out in any graphic detail is not being evil or intolerant. She's expressing her comfort zones. That may be a red flag if your table likes playing things a bit more hot and steamy (including - gasp - KISSING between CHARACTERS happening on screen!).

Likewise, the girl who wants to play a gay boy in a table full of people who generally leave sex as something mentioned briefly along the lines of, "And then Barbarian Ben spent his evening ale-ing and whore-ing," might be a red flag when she wants her gay boy to flirt with everything in pants and describes lovingly his seduction techniques. Even if they never get explicit, the table may not be comfortable with it getting into that kind of amorous territory.

And even if there's a double standard, that's fine. If the table really doesn't like homosexuality but is fine with heterosexual romance, then part in peace if you want the former. IF a table likes having a lot of homosexual relationships (I've seen more than a few fictional stories and web comics - and even Marvel comics - where the gay couples vastly outnumbered the hetero- ones, and the hetero- couple was dysfunctional), and you want a heterosexual romance that they're uncomfortable with, part ways amicably and go find a table more to your liking.

Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

If you use "TOLERANCE!" as a bludgeon to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.

The point I was trying to make but better worded. Thanks for that.

[2D8HP]

...to demand that I open my club up to your Wookie-cosplaying contest, lest I be a bigot, you're not really advocating tolerance. That is the point at which YOU become the intolerant one.

This doesn't give me the right to take my Star Trek club and move it out into the middle of public space and then yell about Star Trek while shouting down Star Wars, either. It's about who's intruding and who's retreating to have something of their own.

I don't know man, Trek is awesome!, and Wookies are cool, but Ewoks?

Just say no to teddy bear Viet Cong!

[Nifft]

Just say no to teddy bear Viet Cong!

They're basically a sci-fi answer to Tucker's Kobold, and as such they're great -- on the DM's side of the screen.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Tolerance is great. But it isn't a bludgeon. If people want to have private clubs catering to their interests and excluding things not to their interest, that's fine. It doesn't even mean they're hateful. My Star Trek club that has a "NO STAR WARS!" sign on it does indicate that I don't want to discuss Star Wars in my Star Trek Club Time, and may even indicate that Star Wars annoys me if it's brought up too much, but that doesn't mean I can't tolerate it. I just happen to have carved out a space for my interest, and I'd like to keep it from being tainted by that other thing that disinterests/annoys me.

Sexuality is not a club or an "interest". This is a bad analogy that's being used to try to make unacceptable behaviour seem more reasonable. "No homosexuality" is exactly as reasonable as "no black people" would be.

[Segev]

Sexuality is not a club or an "interest". This is a bad analogy that's being used to try to make unacceptable behaviour seem more reasonable. "No homosexuality" is exactly as reasonable as "no black people" would be.

So, then, your open and tolerant table is fine with the super-religious girl playing the prude who is constantly preaching about the evils of extramarital sex, right?

Or is religious belief a "choice?" They can just "choose" to believe differently, and be acceptable to you?

Spoiler: Beliefs are not choices

Show

I will argue that it isn't a choice, unless it isn't actually a belief. Beliefs are what you - tautologically - believe to be true. You don't choose to believe that it takes 30 minutes to get to work; you believe it because you've seen evidence of it. You don't choose to believe that socialism is the fairest form of economics; you believe it because it makes sense to you and you can't see how anything else could be fairer. You don't believe in wicca because you chose to join a faddish club; you believe in it because something in its teachings makes sense to you, and you've seen evidence that convinces you its magic works.

If a "belief" is something you can just discard because it makes you unpopular, because others tell you you're evil for believing it, without any actual evidence you find stronger than that which convinced you of your faith in the first place, you don't really believe it.

Beliefs are not choices. They're the result of your experiences.

They can, of course, be wrong, but they're not a choice. The only choice is in whether you're willing to examine them. To challenge them, yourself, by looking at supposedly contrary evidence and hearing arguments against and seeing how well your beliefs hold up to them.

Would you be okay with a game table that said, "All characters must be gay?"

I wouldn't want to play at such a table, but I wouldn't call them "bigots" for wanting to play that way.

Note: there's a difference between, "No gay people may play at this table," and, "No gay relationships may be played between PCs and/or NPCs at this table."


And, yes, "I am going to play my gay character" can very much be a bludgeon. "I am going to play this, and you will like it. I will make sure you can't ignore it; your tolerance will be tested constantly and I will expect you to acknowledge that it's fine, dandy, and that you are willing to voice that you have no problem with it," can be done with any personality trait that others might find displeasing.

It's just as obnoxious, at that point, as the teenaged boy playing the high-cha bard who insists that his bard is STRAIGHT and LUSTY and that if there are any girls at the bar, he wants to DO them. Did we mention he's hypersexualized and totally hot and that all the babes love him? Because you'd better not forget that, and if you dare ask him to tone it back, you're a PRUDE and a BIGOT and just trying to REPRESS him.

Especially if said teen boy is doing that to the religious girl at the table who would just as soon fade to black before the kiss gets too hot and heavy and just wanted to play her paladin on a quest for a unicorn mount and to stop Lord Evilton of the Evil Empire, not watch the horny teen boy fantasize about how much sex his bard is having.

The religious guy who doesn't particularly want to think about two guys kissing, but isn't going to tell them they can't (he'll just ignore it) has a right to be annoyed if the guys kissing plant themselves in front of him and keep trying to get his attention, until he is forced to acknowledge it and either pretend not to be bothered or ask them to cut it out (at which point they pounce and call him a bigot). And lest you say, "That never happens! that's just you homophobes accusing normal relationship behavior with which you'd have no problem between a man and a woman of being 'in your face' because you're bigots!" let me remind you of a certain bakery which recently was vindicated in the Supreme Court. It is hopefully a vocal minority, but there ARE militant activists who don't just want tolerance; they want to beat up as "intolerant" those who just want to live and let live, but don't actively approve.

So, yes. It can be used as a bludgeon. I've seen it done in person in games. Heck, hetero promiscuity's been used like that on me at one point, when my (male) PC was decidedly trying to be chaste and another (female) PC literally rolled grapple checks to climb into his lap and grope him. I was called a "prude" for being annoyed by this behavior. And I won't deny it, I am a bit of a prude. But I don't think it unreasonable to not like having the contrary position shoved at me and then be the "bad guy" when I don't drop my position and enthusiastically support the contrary one.


But tolerance goes both ways, or it isn't tolerance, but rather bullying. And if people don't want to game with you, why should you want to game with them? Why is it necessary for you to label them as "evil" in order to justify your choice not to play with them? Can't they just have different likes and dislikes from your own, which makes their group incompatible? Unless they're advocating actually attacking you, what business is it of yours?

Or are Christians justified in demanding atheist groups stop mocking their belief in God by calling Him an "invisible sky wizard," and in calling such groups hateful and bigoted and otherwise smearing them as bad people, rather than just acknowledging that they find the Christian faith silly?

I'm all for "live and let live." I'm for genuine tolerance. But genuine tolerance requires that you allow people to dislike things, too.

"Tolerance" doesn't mean "approval."

You can tolerate a lot of things you don't like.

[Scripten]

It's particularly insulting that you are presuming that all homosexual conduct is promiscuous.

Segev, you are making a comparison between a (heterosexual) character played by a more prudish player and a (homosexual) character played by a less prudish player. There is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT+ people. While yes, it is a definition of their sexuality, that does not mean that they are any more inappropriate at the gaming table than those of heteronormative identities.

But tolerance goes both ways, or it isn't tolerance, but rather bullying. And if people don't want to game with you, why should you want to game with them? Why is it necessary for you to label them as "evil" in order to justify your choice not to play with them? Can't they just have different likes and dislikes from your own, which makes their group incompatible? Unless they're advocating actually attacking you, what business is it of yours?

"I disagree with your sexuality/identity" is a rhetorical attack.

You're falling victim due to not recognizing the paradox of tolerance. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[WindStruck]

Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

Direct hostility? Please. If that accusation was even remotely close, this thread would have been flagged and locked down before you could say crumdiddlyumptious.


@Segev: very well said. You are a gentleman and a scholar.

[Calthropstu]

Yes, it's funny how people's response to direct hostility towards groups they're in isn't "I'd love to have you in my game".

There is a difference between hostility and not wanting something brought up.

There is a HUGE gap between "gays shouldn't exist" and "everyone should accept gays and gay activities in their daily lives."

Most fall in between. There are people who genuinely support gay rights but don't want it in their lives, others who publicly support it but hate it, others who vehemently oppose it, others who actively support it... The spectrum is very broad.

I am pretty laid back and accepting of a huge array of viewpoints. Being agnostic means I am pretty much open to people believing anything they want. If someone wants to proclaim from rooftops that anyone who supports eating bread is damned to hell, I don't care. In D&D, I feel the game comes first. If someone feels uncomfortable with gay activities in thr game, I see no reason not to accomodate.

In the case of a conflict of that sort at my table where neither will back down, it becomes a matter of who will fit the group more.

I don't believe in letting yourself be limited by allowing politics, religion or other such factors to dictate friendships or gaming partners.