Am I the jerk in this situation?

[AMFV]

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.

Mostly it's because usually in my experience, in social groups featuring both people who are so religiously extreme that they might refuse to play in a game with a gay dwarf and people who are wont to play a gay dwarf, it's unlikely that either would be unaware of the other person's feelings on the subject. It's possible that that would be the case, but it seems really unlikely. And bringing that up first thing, first session when that knowledge is likely possible seems to be at the very least an attempt to get under the person's skin and at the worst an attempt to get the person kicked out of the group.

Again, only the DM knows how well these two know each other. So they are the only person with any standing to actually recognize or discuss what's going on. But if it was an attempt to aggravate the other player, that also needs to be shut-down. Particularly on the off chance that it was intended to get that player out of the group. Because that's not at all an appropriate way to do that.

[Erloas]

And bringing that up first thing, first session when that knowledge is likely possible seems to be at the very least an attempt to get under the person's skin and at the worst an attempt to get the person kicked out of the group.

It would seem more like baiting if the game *had* been going a while before it came up. Giving a brief character background at the start of the first session seems like a pretty standard thing. Now if he were the only one telling the group anything about their backstory and the backstory consisted of nothing else, then I could see that as likely. That is clearly not the case though, as it was described as everyone giving background info about their character and this seemed to only be a part of the dwarf's background.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If all it takes to bait someone is saying that your character has a husband, then they are not a person you should be associating with anyway.

[Pauly]

If all it takes to bait someone is saying that your character has a husband, then they are not a person you should be associating with anyway.

Thank you for illustrating perfectly the point.

It is possible:
Larry decides that his character will be (fill in the blank’. If he knows Sally is morally opposed to (fill in the blank), which we should assume he knows given that it has been a social hot topic of conversation in recent years.

Larry decides that because she has a different morality than him. She therefore is a bad person and must be shown to be a bad person. He suddenly makes his character have (fill in the blank) quality. He does this because he wants everyone to know Sally is a bad person because she has wrongthink.

Sally tries to avoid direct conflict by talking to the DM. The DM does not understand the core reason for Sally’s distress because she fails to communicate it properly. Sally blows up.

Larry gets to play the poor innocent marty and Sally is shunned for being an unperson with wrongthink

It is possible that Larry was using his character to attack Sally the player’s social position in real life. Your comment demonstrates how and why this scenario might have played out.

[zlefin]

Mostly it's because usually in my experience, in social groups featuring both people who are so religiously extreme that they might refuse to play in a game with a gay dwarf and people who are wont to play a gay dwarf, it's unlikely that either would be unaware of the other person's feelings on the subject. It's possible that that would be the case, but it seems really unlikely. And bringing that up first thing, first session when that knowledge is likely possible seems to be at the very least an attempt to get under the person's skin and at the worst an attempt to get the person kicked out of the group.

Again, only the DM knows how well these two know each other. So they are the only person with any standing to actually recognize or discuss what's going on. But if it was an attempt to aggravate the other player, that also needs to be shut-down. Particularly on the off chance that it was intended to get that player out of the group. Because that's not at all an appropriate way to do that.

or, far more likely: because it's session 0, where expectations are being set and plans made. so people go over what they're doing to look for problems.

if the group has fundamental incompatibilities, figuring them out in session 0 is important and worthwhile, far better to do so then than to have a long-running campaign derailed when they come out later.
the notion that it's an intentional plot to get another person kicked out rather than simply looking to address an issue that may well come up seems quite sketchy. It, once again, seems like an attempt to deflect blame on another side rather than admit one's own problems. (admittedly issues like that go on an endlessly nested rabbit's hole, so it gets hard to tell).

and re: pauly's above
what if sally's viewpoint is in fact terrible? the word choices you use seem to exclude the possibility of an actual reprehensible viewpoint existing.
and it remains the case really, that some people have viewpoints that are quite incompatible; figuring that out in session 0 is a good thing. better then than later.
while it remains theoretically possible, why choose to ascribe such a malicious motivation to larry rather than something more neutral?

[Koo Rehtorb]

Thank you for illustrating perfectly the point.

What is the point? That seems like a perfectly reasonable chain of events to me, if phrased in a less biased manner. If Sally is the sort of person who blows up over gay marriage then it doesn't particularly matter whether someone was intentionally highlighting it or not. She's still not someone I care to play with. I'm not going to walk on eggshells to mollify homophobes.

[AMFV]

What is the point? That seems like a perfectly reasonable chain of events to me, if phrased in a less biased manner. If Sally is the sort of person who blows up over gay marriage then it doesn't particularly matter whether someone was intentionally highlighting it or not. She's still not someone I care to play with. I'm not going to walk on eggshells to mollify homophobes.

The issue is that if a player is willing to intentionally cause a blowup to eject another player (supposing that is what happened) then it might not always be issues like homophobia that cause it, what if next it's political affiliation or religious affiliation, or any number of things. If a player has issues like that with another player they should bring that up with the DM in private before a game session, not goad the other player with them.

Of course, it is possible that the player wasn't attempting to goad the other player, but if they were in the same social circle I find that extremely unlikely.

[Friv]

Sally tries to avoid direct conflict by talking to the DM. The DM does not understand the core reason for Sally’s distress because she fails to communicate it properly. Sally blows up.

Sally did not try to avoid direct conflict. She tried to blackmail the DM into compliance with her worldview. She is the one who stated that the other guy playing a gay character was, and I quote, in violation of the PG rating of the campaign.

The issue is that if a player is willing to intentionally cause a blowup to eject another player (supposing that is what happened) then it might not always be issues like homophobia that cause it, what if next it's political affiliation or religious affiliation, or any number of things. If a player has issues like that with another player they should bring that up with the DM in private before a game session, not goad the other player with them.

Of course, it is possible that the player wasn't attempting to goad the other player, but if they were in the same social circle I find that extremely unlikely.

With all due respect, this argument is garbage. Context matters. Context always matters, and you absolutely cannot remove the context of this argument.

Existing is not provocation. The other player did not try to force Sally's character to be involved in queerness He did not try to force Sally's player out of the game. He did not "goad" her except so much as the very existence of gay people goaded her to be a terrible person.

[AMFV]

Sally did not try to avoid direct conflict. She tried to blackmail the DM into compliance with her worldview. She is the one who stated that the other guy playing a gay character was, and I quote, in violation of the PG rating of the campaign.

Well Sally might have a different viewpoint as to what constitutes PG. The compromise position would likely have been to remove all relationships of that sort from the game, hetero or homosexual. But nope moral indignation made that impossible. And again, if the character knew that she was so inclined and chose to this to goad here.

With all due respect, this argument is garbage. Context matters. Context always matters, and you absolutely cannot remove the context of this argument.

Existing is not provocation. The other player did not try to force Sally's character to be involved in queerness He did not try to force Sally's player out of the game. He did not "goad" her except so much as the very existence of gay people goaded her to be a terrible person.

But coming into a game where you know somebody is going to be bothered by something and shoving that thing into their face in the very first session is not a great start. No matter how much you agree that homophobes should be banned from playing D&D, this sort of behavior is a bad precedent to set. Because one day it'll be you who is holding the socially unpopular position. The right thing to do again is to discuss these issues with the DM if you know the other player is going to have issues with that. At that time even refusing to play with them is fine. But provided that the gay dwarf player knew that this was going to be an issue for Sally then he should have discussed this with the DM first before springing it, even if only to give a heads-up.

[Friv]

Because one day it'll be you who is holding the socially unpopular position.

I'm trying to find a polite way to say this.

Existence is not provocation.

You cannot have a group at which queer people and homophobes are both comfortable. You cannot have a group in which anti-semites and Jewish people are both comfortable. You cannot have a group in which racists and black people are both comfortable. It is a fallacy to believe that you can just paper over that and keep going happily. It is not merely a "socially unpopular opinion". It is not politics. It is not taste. It is someone having an opinion about whether or not other people are allowed to exist, and feeling strongly enough about that opinion to attempt to police her group about it. It is hatred.

If I have to choose between a gaming group that is safe for my friends who are not straight, and a group in which a homophobe feels comfortable because we're pretending that gay people aren't real, that homophobe can go right to hell.

It's nice that you live somewhere where you can consider people telling you that you don't deserve to exist something that's just socially unpopular. We don't all have that luxury.

*EDIT* And quite frankly, it's pretty rude of you to think that just having a character be gay is a provocative action that's deliberately designed to kick someone out. You shouldn't have to walk on eggshells around hateful people out of fear of drawing their ire.

[Erloas]

Well Sally might have a different viewpoint as to what constitutes PG. The compromise position would likely have been to remove all relationships of that sort from the game, hetero or homosexual. But nope moral indignation made that impossible. And again, if the character knew that she was so inclined and chose to this to goad here.

There is nothing even kind of "PG" about marriage. There are many G rated movies with families, marriage, and "romance." Considering the game hadn't even started yet it wasn't even like any sort of details of any relationship would have been laid out there. If he had wanted to pick up someone in a bar and go through any sort of details in that, that very well could be a legitimate issue for the table, regardless of the genders involved. But simply being married, or just having a relationship, is nothing.

It doesn't define the tone of the game, it doesn't dictate what anyone else can or can't do. There is no legitimate complaint to be had.

[Durandu Ran]

Thank you for illustrating perfectly the point.

It is possible:
Larry decides that his character will be (fill in the blank’. If he knows Sally is morally opposed to (fill in the blank), which we should assume he knows given that it has been a social hot topic of conversation in recent years.

I've played tabletop games with a number of people who started out as friends of friends, and who I didn't see much of away from the table, and the topic of homosexuality didn't really come up super frequently or in great detail. Plus, there are a lot of people out there who deliberately avoid talking about politics with people who are mostly just acquaintances. It's not really that hard to picture a scenario where Larry honestly didn't know Sally's beliefs, and just made his character gay for his own reasons. In the D&D podcast The Adventure Zone, Taako, an elven wizard, doesn't mention anything about his sexuality for the first couple dozen episodes, but at some point, he flirted with a male NPC, later asking him out on a date. I remember the player, Justin McElroy, saying that one of the reasons he made Taako gay was that he liked to give his characters qualities that were different from himself, which is a pretty simple and understandable reason to me. Makes more sense to me than immediately deducing that this guy Larry must have had a nefarious plot to smoke out social conservatives.

Larry decides that because she has a different morality than him. She therefore is a bad person and must be shown to be a bad person. He suddenly makes his character have (fill in the blank) quality. He does this because he wants everyone to know Sally is a bad person because she has wrongthink.

Sally tries to avoid direct conflict by talking to the DM. The DM does not understand the core reason for Sally’s distress because she fails to communicate it properly. Sally blows up.

You are literally just making up motivations that directly contradict the OP's story. Sally is the one who asked the DM to interfere because another player's morality differed from hers.

(I think saying that a character in a same-sex relationship described by the DM as "not explicit or overbearing" is inappropriate for a PG rating is implicitly a moral judgement. Perhaps you disagree, but then again, you seem to have also come to the conclusion in your post that Sally's objection was moral in nature. You just also came to the conclusions that Larry was both aware of Sally's moral position, and deliberately made his character gay to provoke her, neither of which seems obvious to me, and which Sally herself does not seem to have accused Larry of, according to what we've heard from the OP).

Larry gets to play the poor innocent marty and Sally is shunned for being an up person with wrongthink

It is possible that Larry was using his character to attack Sally the player’s social position in real life. Your comment demonstrates how and why this scenario might have played out.

Or maybe Larry had his own reasons for making his character gay, and it wasn't at all about Sally until she made it about her, because she is the one who complained to the DM that another player did not agree with her morality. The OP is probably better suited to judge that than you.

[JNAProductions]

To the OP-you did absolutely fine. There are, theoretically, better ways to handle it, but none that I can think of, and for the situation you were presented, you did the best you could.

To the rest-remember the forum rules.

[Mutazoia]

Without knowing any of the backstories of the players.

Wait for it.....

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.

Soooooo.....have you considered the possibility that "Larry" is gay himself, and was using this as an opportunity to sound out his group of friends before "coming out"? That is never an easy thing to do, no matter how long you've known some one, even if you know that they are not "homophobic". His line of reasoning could have simply been "if they accept my gay, married Dwarf, there's a good chance they will accept me." And he found the one person in the group who wouldn't accept his gay Dwarf....

Of course, all of that could be completely off base. But the thing is, I'm pretty sure your "baiting the homophobe to get attention" angle is so off base, it's not even on the ball field...it's out in the parking lot, scalping tickets.

Said Dwarf's sexuality had never come up before, and would probably never come up again. But "Sally" wanted to push her personal morality on the issue. Not fair to "Larry", and not fair to the OP by trying to strong arm him into strong arming "Larry" into changing something that would probably never even be mentioned again. Since the game has a PG setting, there is never going to be an instance where "Larry's" character (or anybody else's character, for that matter) is going to be hopping in the sack with anybody. It was a non-issue from the start. The only "attention seeker" here, is "Sally".

"I made an unreasonable demand, for no good reason, was told no, and now I'm the victim."

Sorry "Sally", that's not how this works...that's now how any of this works.

But coming into a game where you know somebody is going to be bothered by something and shoving that thing into their face in the very first session is not a great start. No matter how much you agree that homophobes should be banned from playing D&D, this sort of behavior is a bad precedent to set. Because one day it'll be you who is holding the socially unpopular position. The right thing to do again is to discuss these issues with the DM if you know the other player is going to have issues with that. At that time even refusing to play with them is fine. But provided that the gay dwarf player knew that this was going to be an issue for Sally then he should have discussed this with the DM first before springing it, even if only to give a heads-up.

You assume that "Larry" had foreknowledge of "Sally's" opinions on human sex and sexuality. Last time I checked, that kind of information was not something that people have tattooed on their foreheads, and it is generally not a topic for light conversation. There are people I've know for 30+ years, whom I consider good friends, and I have no idea what their opinion on homosexuality is, nor am I really all that interested in finding out. Unless they want to tell me, it's really none of my business. Unless they start acting the fool and attempting to force that opinion on others, or worse, try to get me to do it for them.

[Lake Huron]

I am reluctant to provide clarifying details at this point for fear it will exacerbate this argument.

Just know that I'm aware my thread is in flames.

[Mutazoia]

I am reluctant to provide clarifying details at this point for fear it will exacerbate this argument.

Just know that I'm aware my thread is in flames.

lol

Oh, trust me, it's not in flames. It may be belching a little smoke, but it hasn't quite gone all orange and hot yet.

[Lake Huron]

Well in the interest of keeping it from being orange and hot I think I'll withhold the clarifying details a bit.

This is all getting somewhat out of hand. I came here to avoid drama, y'see.

[DaOldeWolf]

As long as the conversation was calm and you remained level headed, (there is a difference between being firm and being angry) I would say that you did well. It is your campaign and you should get to decide what is and what isnt allowed. It is a shame that things got to the point where they got but not everyone can be reasoned with.

[Stormageddon]

It's seems due to the nature of the conflict the OP was damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If OP had asked Larry to change he would have been blasted as homophobic.

Removing the controversial nature of the conflict of the conflict. It's not the DM's job to sort out real world political correctness. If Sally had a problem with larry. Or Larry had a problem with Sally. I assume they are adults and should have handled it among themselves in stead of dragging the game into it.

[Mr Beer]

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

Yeah it has a 'the stars aligned' feel to it when the Darth starts being all reasonable about something.

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.

Yep basically this.

[Mr Beer]

Well in the interest of keeping it from being orange and hot I think I'll withhold the clarifying details a bit.

This is all getting somewhat out of hand. I came here to avoid drama, y'see.

Wrong place sir. It's rare to get a topic that everyone agrees on and we love to chew over an argument, even when it requires inventing some background details in order to support our position.

[Pauly]

Wait for it.....



Soooooo.....have you considered the possibility that "Larry" is gay himself, and was using this as an opportunity to sound out his group of friends before "coming out"? That is never an easy thing to do, no matter how long you've known some one, even if you know that they are not "homophobic". His line of reasoning could have simply been "if they accept my gay, married Dwarf, there's a good chance they will accept me." And he found the one person in the group who wouldn't accept his gay Dwarf....

Of course, all of that could be completely off base. But the thing is, I'm pretty sure your "baiting the homophobe to get attention" angle is so off base, it's not even on the ball field...it's out in the parking lot, scalping tickets.

Said Dwarf's sexuality had never come up before, and would probably never come up again. But "Sally" wanted to push her personal morality on the issue. Not fair to "Larry", and not fair to the OP by trying to strong arm him into strong arming "Larry" into changing something that would probably never even be mentioned again. Since the game has a PG setting, there is never going to be an instance where "Larry's" character (or anybody else's character, for that matter) is going to be hopping in the sack with anybody. It was a non-issue from the start. The only "attention seeker" here, is "Sally".
.

To restate for Captain Obvious, I was putting an alternate hypothesis out, other than the “Sally’s a homophobe, let’s burn her at the stake” comments. There is a possibility, based on the limited information available that “Larry” was deliberately yanking “Sally’s” chain. If that’s the case then it becomes a different situation to what most people had assumed. At no point did I side with either “Larry” or “Sally”. Nor did I express any opinion about homosexual marriage. I generally would advise gamers to avoid hot topic social issues in fantasy games.

Lake Huron has deliberately kept the details vague, and doesn’t want to provide extra details. Which is perfectly fair.

[Neknoh]

The thing that your opponents is saying is not that Larry may or may not have known, but rather that a character's background having "is married to a man" should not be considered "yanking chain" or "shoving into face" since that is simply a matter of existence. If Larry had gone to either make gay-coded passes at Sally's character, or actively gone out of his way to flirt with NPC's and try to bed them, trying to push for more detail, then this could well be considered "yanking chain" or "shoving into face."

Also, if Larry knew, as you say, then his actions are not necessarily to goad Sally into leaving the group, but rather to play a gay character "in spite of" remarks that Sally may have made, rather than targeted at her "because of" previous remarks.

[Aneurin]

I am reluctant to provide clarifying details at this point for fear it will exacerbate this argument.

Just know that I'm aware my thread is in flames.

That's fair. I wouldn't say the thread's in flames, but it does seem to be getting unproductive for your purposes.


If you're worried you were being a jerk, here's a few things to ask yourself about the situation - and maybe to ask Sally and Larry about, too. You don't need to tell them to us if you don't want, just think about them a little.

• What exactly is Sally's problem with the gay marriage? Was it that it's gay, or was it that it's a marriage/relationship at all? How sure are you that she wasn't using the wrong words to talk about her actual issue? I'm sure there are quite a few players out there who aren't comfortable with in character relationships, even with NPCs. Different people have different levels of comfort, and people do get squicked out by in character romance being played out even if there's nothing explicit about it.
• Who was it who issued the ultimatum? Was it you or Sally who first said 'my way or the highway' as it were?
• How hard did you really try to understand everyone's side of the problem?
• Has a problem like this come up before with anyone involved this time around?
• Why did Larry announce this now - or was it always there, and just got overlooked? I know it's a minor background detail and all, and probably irrelevant, but it's caused a problem which maybe means it's worth asking 'why'? There's also the question of what he was going to do with this detail, which could loop back to point one; if he's unfaithful, or a flirt, or bothers everyone the character considers attractive... then maybe the issue isn't about being gay.
• What relationship do Larry and Sally have outside of the game? Could the problem come from there?
• Where does Nancy come into this, and could she be egging Sally on into making this a bigger problem OOC than it already is?

[AMFV]

You assume that "Larry" had foreknowledge of "Sally's" opinions on human sex and sexuality. Last time I checked, that kind of information was not something that people have tattooed on their foreheads, and it is generally not a topic for light conversation. There are people I've know for 30+ years, whom I consider good friends, and I have no idea what their opinion on homosexuality is, nor am I really all that interested in finding out. Unless they want to tell me, it's really none of my business. Unless they start acting the fool and attempting to force that opinion on others, or worse, try to get me to do it for them.

That's why I specific that only the DM knows about this particular subject. Most people who are my age and in a social group have at the very least discussed this in their friend groups in the past three or four years for obvious reasons. Now this may not be the case, or they may not be part of the same consistent social group. It is entirely possible that the dwarf player had no idea this would happen (a thing which I have mentioned in very nearly single post in this thread). But if this is a preexisting thing, and I'd bet it was, then this is a problem from both sides, because regardless of the views the player had, that is not an appropriate way to handle it.

The thing that your opponents is saying is not that Larry may or may not have known, but rather that a character's background having "is married to a man" should not be considered "yanking chain" or "shoving into face" since that is simply a matter of existence. If Larry had gone to either make gay-coded passes at Sally's character, or actively gone out of his way to flirt with NPC's and try to bed them, trying to push for more detail, then this could well be considered "yanking chain" or "shoving into face."

Also, if Larry knew, as you say, then his actions are not necessarily to goad Sally into leaving the group, but rather to play a gay character "in spite of" remarks that Sally may have made, rather than targeted at her "because of" previous remarks.

It depends on the relationship the people had outside of the game. If the character knew that Sally didn't consider gay marriage to be a topic that she wanted to discuss with her friends (because they disagree on it) and he knew that. He was in the wrong to even bring it up in a game where she was present. If he didn't know that or what-not, then it's fine. But it's like having a game about a "refugee crisis" in a group that's politically divided and has decided not to talk about that sort of thing out of game, it's not appropriate to bring it into a game world if you're already not outside it. And I've seen a lot of smug people who brag about "cutting people out of their lives"

Edit: Also as far as the "right to exist" goes. The Dwarf character does not, unless the player is of the same orientation (in which case Sally is much more in the wrong, or at the very least it's likely unsalvageable).

[Mutazoia]

Basically, the situation boils down to this:

Was "Larry's" character being gay ever going to be brought up legitimately in game again. (i.e. were they going to have a "Gay Dwarf goes home to spend time with his husband" episode.)?


If not, then "Sally's" reaction was unreasonable, as was her attempt to get the OP to talk Larry into changing a bit of unimportant background fluff. That she went to the DM, rather than Larry to begin with could be construed as a bit passive-aggressive, but then, if she's so uncomfortable with the idea of a pretend person having a same sex relationship with another pretend person in the same pretend world has her pretend person, I'm sure raising her concern to the creator or the offending pretend person, in person, would be a bit too personal.

Edit: Also as far as the "right to exist" goes. The Dwarf character does not, unless the player is of the same orientation (in which case Sally is much more in the wrong, or at the very least it's likely unsalvageable).

I would counter with the argument that neither you, nor anybody else, has a right to tell somebody what kind of character they want to play. Unless said Gay Dwarf was being played in such a way as to be demeaning and derogatory to homosexuals, I see no reason why a straight person could not play a gay character. How many times have you played a female character, despite not being female yourself?

To the OP:

I think you handled that about as well as it could be. You got put in a position that you shouldn't have: Having to mediate a social issue that was far above and beyond your scope as a DM. It was not right for "Sally" to force you to pick a side on this issue. Gaming is suppose to be a past time where people can leave all of that real world bantha poo-doo behind for a few hours.

In the future, I would suggest making a table rule that disallows any mention of such real-world social and/or political issues (such as validity or non-validity of non-binary romantic/sexual relationships) by requiring all PC's and NPC's to be confirmed bachelors with no greater love than being little murder-hobo's.

[AMFV]

Basically, the situation boils down to this:

Was "Larry's" character being gay ever going to be brought up legitimately in game again. (i.e. were they going to have a "Gay Dwarf goes home to spend time with his husband" episode.)?


If not, then "Sally's" reaction was unreasonable, as was her attempt to get the OP to talk Larry into changing a bit of unimportant background fluff. That she went to the DM, rather than Larry to begin with could be construed as a bit passive-aggressive, but then, if she's so uncomfortable with the idea of a pretend person having a same sex relationship with another pretend person in the same pretend world has her pretend person, I'm sure raising her concern to the creator or the offending pretend person, in person, would be a bit too personal.

It's also a little bit unreasonable to expect that somebody shouldn't be willing to alter a small piece of background fluff if it irritates another player or causes a real world problem. I don't know that they should have too, but at the same time it's an issue that shows both players (if the Dwarf player was aware) are not looking to have a good time.

I would counter with the argument that neither you, nor anybody else, has a right to tell somebody what kind of character they want to play. Unless said Gay Dwarf was being played in such a way as to be demeaning and derogatory to homosexuals, I see no reason why a straight person could not play a gay character. How many times have you played a female character, despite not being female yourself?

Quite often, I generally DM. But if one of the players had a huge issue with women, and asked that I tone down certain behaviors, I would consider doing so. Even though that stance isn't morally upright, because sometimes people who hold reprehensible stances can be otherwise good people. Now if he were asking a woman in that hypothetical game to behave differently that would be outright unacceptable. Do you see?

To the OP:

I think you handled that about as well as it could be. You got put in a position that you shouldn't have: Having to mediate a social issue that was far above and beyond your scope as a DM. It was not right for "Sally" to force you to pick a side on this issue. Gaming is suppose to be a past time where people can leave all of that real world bantha poo-doo behind for a few hours.

In the future, I would suggest making a table rule that disallows any mention of such real-world social and/or political issues (such as validity or non-validity of non-binary romantic/sexual relationships) by requiring all PC's and NPC's to be confirmed bachelors with no greater love than being little murder-hobo's.

Excellent advice! If the party cannot handle talk about grown-up relationships (for whatever reason) the fairest thing is to cut them out of the game.

[Friv]

Quite often, I generally DM. But if one of the players had a huge issue with women, and asked that I tone down certain behaviors, I would consider doing so. Even though that stance isn't morally upright, because sometimes people who hold reprehensible stances can be otherwise good people. Now if he were asking a woman in that hypothetical game to behave differently that would be outright unacceptable. Do you see?

I do see, and I disagree.

Here's the thing. If you say, "someone with a reprehensible stance can otherwise be a good person, so I'm going to bow to their prejudices," you are telling that person that their reprehensible stance is okay - that if they raise a stink, they will get their way. That they don't have to try to change. That as long as they don't hurt people in front of you, they can hurt people elsewhere.

That is the attitude that allows reprehensible people who are not interested in changing or moderating their behaviour to drive the people they dislike out of their social sphere.

If you know someone who holds reprehensible beliefs, and they're otherwise good, you have a responsibility to say so. You have a responsibility to say, "Look, friend, I am your friend and I will support you but you cannot do that. Please, if you care about me, don't do that." And if they backslide or slip up, you can be gentle. You can let little things slide as long as they're trying. But you absolutely cannot just let them have their way, and doing so is not being a good friend, it's being an enabler.

And if your friend is more interested in being reprehensible than in not hurting you, you might learn something about how good they actually are.

[Friv]

In the future, I would suggest making a table rule that disallows any mention of such real-world social and/or political issues (such as validity or non-validity of non-binary romantic/sexual relationships) by requiring all PC's and NPC's to be confirmed bachelors with no greater love than being little murder-hobo's.

Keep in mind that all PCs and NPCs will also have to have no more than one living parent, and all deceased parents must be forbidden from being mentioned.

[Jay R]

I will never say, "You did nothing wrong" based only on your description of what happened. I could believe that on another thread somewhere, people are assuring Sally that she did nothing wrong, based on her description of the situation, which might be very different from yours.

But one thing is clear -- Sally and Larry can't play in the same game.

His fault? Her fault? Your fault?

The questions themselves are based on the often mistaken notion that somebody must be at fault, which is based on the false belief that any group of people should be able to enjoy any activity together. I see no evidence of this belief, and much evidence in our world that it isn't true. Sally and Larry can't play together right now, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There are D&D players I don't want to play with. So I don't play with them.

I wish Sally would take responsibility for her own unwillingness to play in a game with this particular PC.
I wish Larry would consider how his character decisions would affect other people.
I wish you had the counseling skills to help people get through this.

But I won't blame anybody -- you, Sally, or Larry -- just because what two different people want out of a game aren't the same things.