Am I the jerk in this situation?

[Lake Huron]

Hello, lads. I hope this is the right place to put this. If not I do apologise.

So I'm embroiled in a bit of player vs. DM controversy and I'm hearing two sides, I wanted your opinion on this. Was I the bad person here?

Long story short, we resumed a campaign after a long hiatus, the last time we played these characters I believe it was 2017. In any case we're getting reacquainted with each other and our PCs and Larry (we'll call him Larry) during a summary of his male Dwarf fighter reveals that said male Dwarf fighter is married to another fella. We talk about that for a minute until the conversation abruptly draws to a close when Sally (we'll call her Sally) takes me aside and expresses she's uncomfortable with this. When asked she explains that she feels it contradicts the PG tone of the campaign to have an openly gay character. I'm a little confused because it isn't as though Larry was being sexually explicit or overbearing about this one character trait. So I explain to her that I don't think that's adequate grounds to ask Larry to change his character and that there's nothing inherent to homosexuality that's sexually explicit, to which she responds that I'm not being conscious of her feelings and her sense of comfort. The conversation becomes somewhat circular and progressively heated until I decide to call her ultimatum. So I say to her that between her remaining in the campaign and Larry's decision to play the character he wants I choose the latter. She leaves, and I hastily cobble together a reason our Druid has gone missing.

She's claiming now that I unfairly and despotically kicked her out. Opinion on this issue is divided. On the one hand, many people felt I was being unfair and heavy-handed and that it's not my place to dictate to other people how they're supposed to feel about certain things and that, as a DM, it's my job to come to concessions and reach compromises with players rather than unfairly favour one player over another. The other side (the side I agree with, at least until I hear something more compelling) is that I'm well within my rights to dictate who is and who isn't in my game and that if I feel someone is making unreasonable demands of other players that compromises the integrity of their creative vision then they need to leave. Some people are accusing her of being homophobic, others are claiming that's too harsh, some people are saying it's not relevant, others emphatically disagree. It's a big ol' mess I don't have to tell you. It's getting a bit too personal now for me to get any useful feedback out of that dialogue, so here I am.

I need the opinions of folks who don't have a personal investment in these players and won't be biased or swayed any one way or the other. If I've acted out of line I'd sincerely like to know. I don't think I have but, as stated, I'm much too close to myself to possibly have an unbiased perspective. If I've been an ogre I can try to patch things up. If not then, well, I need some suggestions about where to go from here.

Thanks for your help.

[Koo Rehtorb]

So, first of all, it's not your job to mediate between the players at all. It's your job to play the NPCs and the rest of the world, nothing more. If she had a problem with a gay dwarf PC then she should have talked to the player about it. Unless you're the only adult in a group of children, I suppose.

But no, I don't think you're the jerk. You might have been the jerk if you said "Nope. Get out and don't come back." but any variation of "I'm not asking him to change, leave if you can't deal with that." is not only fine, but practically required. She's way out of line.

[The Cats]

Well, according to your story you didn't kick her out. She asked you to force another player to change his character and when you got tired of arguing why you weren't going to do that told her to deal or leave, and she left.

I'll say this a million times and it'll never be less true: Players control their characters. The DM controls everything else. They shouldn't limit the player's character choices, even at the behest of another player.

If she was complaining that his dwarf had being a serial rapist or something in his backstory then yeah the argument would hold water and the group as a whole should've asked him to change. But her being uncomfortable because he made a legitimate character choice doesn't justify imposing her will on the other player. I mean, if she had brought this issue to this forum she would've been inundated with advice telling her to do exactly what happened: if you're uncomfortable in the game, leave the game.

[gkathellar]

You were entirely within your rights. You may have been a bit hasty, and it may have been possible to deescalate the situation (it may still be possible), but your behavior doesn't strike me as unreasonable by any means.

[mucat]

If it all played out as you describe, then obviously you did nothing wrong. A player who is "not comfortable" with some group that exists in real life is asking their gaming friends to validate their real-world biases. They're the ones who are abusing the friendship, and they're the ones who should leave.

(Unless, of course, the trait she's uncomfortable with is an actual despicable one. I wouldn't like it if someone at the gaming table made a white supremacist character, and expected the other PCs to cooperate with this character. But if a player tried to claim that a gay character belonged in that same category, then they'd just be confirming their bigotry.)

The only thing that gives me pause here is...the answer seems really, open-and-shut obvious. Why are you asking us this question in the first place, and why are some of your group disagreeing with you? If there's more to the situation than you've described -- if the character or his player are actually doing something potentially objectionable, and not just "dwarfing while gay" -- then I might reconsider the woman's argument.

[Lake Huron]

The only thing that gives me pause here is...the answer seems really, open-and-shut obvious. Why are you asking us this question in the first place, and why are some of your group disagreeing with you?

I answer that in the OP. There's an potential element of tone policing, favouritism towards one player over another and a failure on my part to reach any sort of concession or compromise. I'm wondering if that's true or not.

Your insinuation that it's one-and-done black-and-white seems to fall pretty hard on the side of "not true", but there's definitely a point to my asking, I feel.

[The Cats]

Grizzled veteran: "Uhhh dispatch we're gonna need some backup here. We got a 472."

Wide-eyed Rookie: "472?"

Grizzled Veteran, looking at his new partner super-serious over his cool cop sunglasses:

"dwarfing while gay"

Wide-eyed Rookie is shook.

[An Enemy Spy]

There's nothing un-PG about a gay character, anymore than there's anything un-PG about heterosexual characters, so long as you aren't roleplaying explicit sex scenes. Her reasoning is a pretty transparent mask to rationalize her homophobia in a group where saying she doesn't like gay people might not fly. My advice is to tell her to either deal with it or leave. You don't need that kind of negative energy at your table. I wouldn't tolerate a player who gets angry that another player has a human character that isn't white, and this is no different.

[zlefin]

it sounds to me like you did nothing wrong. There may've been slightly more optimal ways to handle it.
would she have had a problem with heterosexual marriage? it sounds like she would not have, but pointedly asking the question of them might've clarified.

the basic problem is that some people's sense of comfort is violated by things that are viewed as necessarily acceptable by others. Sometimes people are just too far apart. you can't satisfy one's comfort without seriously violating anothers comfort by forbidding something that should be accepted. (I'm assuming typical Western standards, cultural standards do vary quite a bit by location of course).
it's not unfair of you to make a choice when one is forced upon you, and it sounds like in this case you were forced to make a choice between the two players.

[mucat]

I answer that in the OP. There's an potential element of tone policing, favouritism towards one player over another and a failure on my part to reach any sort of concession or compromise. I'm wondering if that's true or not.

Naw. If there's no more to the story, then you didn't play favorites or miss any chance to forge a sane compromise. The druid player's demands were absolutely out of line, and giving in to them would only sow the seeds of more problems.

[Thrawn4]

You were entirely within your rights. You may have been a bit hasty, and it may have been possible to deescalate the situation (it may still be possible), but your behavior doesn't strike me as unreasonable by any means.

I agree, and would like to add that deescalation is still on the table. Sally might be somewhat homophobic and you might be able to ease her into it by establishing some ground rules. Or maybe the dwarf player does not really care about the gay thing.
Did everyone in the group get a chance to utter their voice? They might have some ideas.

[Lake Huron]

Did everyone in the group get a chance to utter their voice? They might have some ideas.

They didn't during the initial argument right before the session but they have now on social media. Opinions range from moderate to pretty staunchly in favour of barring her from ever joining back up again. The most pro-Sally is her friend who is still in the group (we'll call her Nancy, I hope I remember all these fake names and don't get confused). Nancy agrees that the demand was a bit much but thinks I didn't do enough to smooth things over or open up a dialogue.

Larry has said that while it's not an integral part of his character he won't change it out of principle.

[Erloas]

Given the assumption that nothing big is missing from the OP story as presented, I'm saying you did exactly the right thing. It seems like a clear case of homophobia and nothing else. The standard "I don't want to say I hate X but I'm going to do everything that someone that hates X would do" line of reasoning that happens so much these days.

[zlefin]

They didn't during the initial argument right before the session but they have now on social media. Opinions range from moderate to pretty staunchly in favour of barring her from ever joining back up again. The most pro-Sally is her friend who is still in the group (we'll call her Nancy, I hope I remember all these fake names and don't get confused). Nancy agrees that the demand was a bit much but thinks I didn't do enough to smooth things over or open up a dialogue.

Larry has said that while it's not an integral part of his character he won't change it out of principle.

ask nancy what she thinks could/should have been done to smooth things over; and/or what sort of dialog she would seek to have. There's still plenty of time to have a dialog after all.

[Darth Ultron]

I'd say you are not a jerk.

Even if your game was dead set on being Disney PG....well you might note that 2019 Disney PG is a lot more inclusive then say, oh, 1980.

[Celestia]

You handled the situation better than I likely would have. I think you're fine. Introspection is fine, but don't let it get to the point where you second guess all your decisions. You did nothing wrong.

[Pauly]

Without knowing any of the backstories of the players.

Why did “Larry” declare his character to be (a) homosexual and (b) married to another male?
If in 2017 “Larry”’s character’s sexuality wasn’t discussed then springing these two revaltions is a pretty big reveal.

You mention no campaign related teason ad to why this player decided to announce this. So I assume that previously it has never been mentioned or discussed. I am deeply curious as to Larry’s motivations.

To me it seems like a classic passive-aggressive way of making Sally upset and angry because she has a different world view on homosexual marriage than he does. One interpretation of events is he was deliberately trying to bait her, and when she went ballistic, he gets to play the poor innocent victim while she appears unreasonable.

[Mr Beer]

"I don't like gays"
"Deal or leave"
"K bye"

Is that right? Seems like her problem not yours if as stated.

[Neknoh]

Beauty and the Beast is Pg

Also, you repeatedly kill things in gruesome ways.

You did nothing wrong and despite her saying you kicked her out, you did not, she left.

You should absolutely welcome her back in, but only if she deals with it. Make sure to police the other players so that they do not shower her with gay jokes or innuendos however. (Personally I'm on the "she deserves it tho" side of that second part, but to keep a good tone and possibly show her that a character being gay isn't actually that big of a deal, holding back on the "bother the homophobe" might be a good idea).

Have any of you brought up with her or her friend that the reaction she had is just as unacceptable as if it was toward a revelation that the dwarf was black or Jewish?

Also, again, what were you meant to mediate? She escalated, you told her to deal or leave, you cannot make a safe space for uncomfortable bigots.

[DeTess]

I'm going to agree with the rest here that you didn't really do anything wrong. Maybe ask Nancy for her suggestions, and based on that you might want to consider reopening communication with Sally about rejoining, provided she doesn't kick up a fuss over LGBT rights and accepts that being LGBT is normal and acceptable in your world.

[AMFV]

I don't think that you are the jerk in this situation.

I do think that the Dwarf Player's declaration does seem to be a little odd and out of the blue though. I would be very careful about that. There are lot of people who try to "prune" their friend and drive off people who don't have similar views on that sort of issue. I'm not saying that the player who left didn't act badly, but I am saying that if the Dwarf player had had previous interactions with her on this topic and knew that she was uncomfortable with that and the very first thing they do is something that's designed to instigate a problem, that to me is a worse problem than homophobia would be. That's somebody being willing to completely derail the game and deliberately try to drive people out who don't agree with them.

Now if they didn't have prior interaction, or that wasn't the player's intention, obviously that's not a big issue, but I would imagine that they had prior interaction about this and this was a deliberate attempt to start something with the other player. I would sit both players down and let them know that regardless of their views your game is not a place for that sort of bickering and if it becomes a problem for Dwarf player, that romance of any kind will be banned in your game, and then let the other player know that her being uncomfortable doesn't mean that she gets to control other people's experience.

[Aneurin]

The conversation becomes somewhat circular and progressively heated until I decide to call her ultimatum. So I say to her that between her remaining in the campaign and Larry's decision to play the character he wants I choose the latter. She leaves, and I hastily cobble together a reason our Druid has gone missing.

When you say "call her ultimatum", do you mean that Sally was threatening to leave at this point? Or do you mean you issued her an ultimatum; deal with it or leave?

Because if it's the latter I can sort of see where this has come from, since you kind of did kick her out while she was (apparently) still willing to talk. I don't agree with her by any means, and do think you were perfectly right, but I do see that this could ruffle a few feathers and could have been handled better if you were the one to throw down an ultimatum.

[Cluedrew]

Unless she wanted everyone in the campaign to be asexual...

I doubt that was the case. No you did not handle the situation in the best way possible, maybe laying out some rules about what is PG and applying them equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples (which I think covers all of them because equal to or not equal to should cover everything).

But if she is demanding a double standard for certain types of couples, I think you are not the issue.

[some guy]

You didn't do anything wrong. If you didn't talk to the player before she left, the "unfairly and despotic" claim might hold the teensiest amount of ground, but you did talk to her. You gave her the chance to explain her stance. No jerkiness was performed by you.

[PrismCat21]

I don't think that you are the jerk in this situation.

I do think that the Dwarf Player's declaration does seem to be a little odd and out of the blue though. I would be very careful about that. There are lot of people who try to "prune" their friend and drive off people who don't have similar views on that sort of issue. I'm not saying that the player who left didn't act badly, but I am saying that if the Dwarf player had had previous interactions with her on this topic and knew that she was uncomfortable with that and the very first thing they do is something that's designed to instigate a problem, that to me is a worse problem than homophobia would be. That's somebody being willing to completely derail the game and deliberately try to drive people out who don't agree with them.

Now if they didn't have prior interaction, or that wasn't the player's intention, obviously that's not a big issue, but I would imagine that they had prior interaction about this and this was a deliberate attempt to start something with the other player. I would sit both players down and let them know that regardless of their views your game is not a place for that sort of bickering and if it becomes a problem for Dwarf player, that romance of any kind will be banned in your game, and then let the other player know that her being uncomfortable doesn't mean that she gets to control other people's experience.

Without knowing any of the backstories of the players.

Why did “Larry” declare his character to be (a) homosexual and (b) married to another male?
If in 2017 “Larry”’s character’s sexuality wasn’t discussed then springing these two revelations is a pretty big reveal.

You mention no campaign related tension ad to why this player decided to announce this. So I assume that previously it has never been mentioned or discussed. I am deeply curious as to Larry’s motivations.

To me it seems like a classic passive-aggressive way of making Sally upset and angry because she has a different world view on homosexual marriage than he does. One interpretation of events is he was deliberately trying to bait her, and when she went ballistic, he gets to play the poor innocent victim while she appears unreasonable.

This is what I thought of when I read the OP.
I see similar stuff happen all the time and often is the one having to deal with it. People go out of their way to screw with someone else indirectly. Their intention is to screw with them, but try and do it where it seems their hands are clean or they get to play the victim.
I assume these Player's are at least familiar with each other. If so, Larry likely knew about Sally's issues, or suspected something along those lines. Him suddenly deciding his character was homosexual when supposedly the history of the character gave no indication, seems like a problem. It may have been intentional, it may not have. In my experience, it usually is.
Sally seemed to believe this game had an established expectation on what was and was not supposed to be in it. Apparently not everyone agreed on what that expectation was.

You as the DM may not have handled this situation wrong, but it could have been handled better. For any game in the future, make sure everyone is well aware of the sorts of things that will and will not be allowed. If you or anyone else suspects that someone is intentionally trying to screw with someone else, handle it right then and there before it escalates.

[Velaryon]

One more vote to the "you did nothing wrong, and Sally should get over it or find another gaming group" tally.

This is what I thought of when I read the OP.
I see similar stuff happen all the time and often is the one having to deal with it. People go out of their way to screw with someone else indirectly. Their intention is to screw with them, but try and do it where it seems their hands are clean or they get to play the victim.
I assume these Player's are at least familiar with each other. If so, Larry likely knew about Sally's issues, or suspected something along those lines. Him suddenly deciding his character was homosexual when supposedly the history of the character gave no indication, seems like a problem. It may have been intentional, it may not have. In my experience, it usually is.
Sally seemed to believe this game had an established expectation on what was and was not supposed to be in it. Apparently not everyone agreed on what that expectation was.

You as the DM may not have handled this situation wrong, but it could have been handled better. For any game in the future, make sure everyone is well aware of the sorts of things that will and will not be allowed. If you or anyone else suspects that someone is intentionally trying to screw with someone else, handle it right then and there before it escalates.

Even if Larry made the character gay specifically to bait Sally (which is something for OP to look into if they think it's a possibility), this sounds like very minimal bait. The mere presence of a gay marriage in a character's backstory is in no way reasonable grounds for Sally to declare "make him change it or I quit." If one of the other PCs was the husband, or Larry was trying to roleplay the relationship in great detail during the game, that would perhaps be unacceptable (to say nothing of derailing the game). But "my character has a husband back home who will probably never enter the game for more than 5 minutes" is the kind of detail that a reasonable person, even one who is personally opposed to that kind of lifestyle, should be able to overlook if they have any respect or friendship with the others at the table at all.

[Friv]

I'd say you are not a jerk.

Even if your game was dead set on being Disney PG....well you might note that 2019 Disney PG is a lot more inclusive then say, oh, 1980.

Darth Ultron and I are in full agreement on a subject. This is rare enough that you know it means we're right.

To me it seems like a classic passive-aggressive way of making Sally upset and angry because she has a different world view on homosexual marriage than he does. One interpretation of events is he was deliberately trying to bait her, and when she went ballistic, he gets to play the poor innocent victim while she appears unreasonable.

Frankly, if Sally is so homophobic that the mere presence of a happily married gay man as a character in a story she is playing is enough for her to demand it be removed or else she walks, she is unreasonable, and it doesn't matter if she's being passive-aggressively prodded about it.

I don't want to have a player at my table who is going to go ballistic about something like that. Honestly, OP, I think you were extremely reasonable not to boot her on the spot for making that kind of a demand; it would be friendship-damaging at the very least if it happened to me.

[Deophaun]

The only thing you did "wrong" was not telling Sally that you aren't interested in policing the campaign for her and if she has a problem with it she should politely take it up with Larry. But then, even that could blow up. Really, you're running the Kobiashi Maru here.

As for what is and is not PG, I would be seriously circumspect about allowing anyone in that industry to determine what is and is not appropriate for anyone. There are several prison populations I would consult on morality before going to Hollywood. But that is a much broader topic.

[AMFV]

Even if Larry made the character gay specifically to bait Sally (which is something for OP to look into if they think it's a possibility), this sounds like very minimal bait. The mere presence of a gay marriage in a character's backstory is in no way reasonable grounds for Sally to declare "make him change it or I quit." If one of the other PCs was the husband, or Larry was trying to roleplay the relationship in great detail during the game, that would perhaps be unacceptable (to say nothing of derailing the game). But "my character has a husband back home who will probably never enter the game for more than 5 minutes" is the kind of detail that a reasonable person, even one who is personally opposed to that kind of lifestyle, should be able to overlook if they have any respect or friendship with the others at the table at all.

It's certainly minimal bait, BUT the fact that he did it at all is a bad sign, because next time it might not be so minimal, at the very least, if it is bait (and the DM should know better than we) he should be told that being a jerk is not acceptable for him either, just because he holds a view that's more in-line with what is socially acceptable to hold.

[zlefin]

It's certainly minimal bait, BUT the fact that he did it at all is a bad sign, because next time it might not be so minimal, at the very least, if it is bait (and the DM should know better than we) he should be told that being a jerk is not acceptable for him either, just because he holds a view that's more in-line with what is socially acceptable to hold.

I see little reason to suspect that it would be bait in the first place.
also seems doubtful it would even qualify as "bait" in any event.

that bait line of inquiry; while theoretically possible; seems more like an excuse/rationalization to try to shift blame than anything else; in the absence of more pointed evidence.